Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Animals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Harris Township to allow chicken coops on corner lots; board cites state setback limits
Summary
Property owners asked the board to amend rules so chicken coops could be sited on a corner‑lot side yard; township staff said state setback and right‑of‑way rules treat corner side yards as front yards and that enforcement is complaint‑driven, so no immediate change was offered.
At a public meeting Sept. 9, Harris Township residents asked supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance so chicken coops could be located on side yards of corner lots. The request followed complaints and follow‑up enforcement related to a rooster kept at a corner property; staff said the rooster has been removed but a coop remained on the lot.
Township staff told the board that, under current state and local rules, the side yard on a corner lot is considered a front yard for setback purposes and that the township cannot grant a case‑by‑case exception without changing township‑wide setbacks. "We can't touch that Memorial Drive side… there's nothing we can do under the present ordinance," a staff member said.
Residents pressed two lines of argument: that smaller, mobile chicken tractors could offer daytime visibility and overnight storage in backyards, and that some corner‑lot homes (including newer builds) appear to have been constructed close to roads, raising questions about consistency in how setbacks and nonconformities were applied. Township staff and the board noted many structures predate zoning ordinances (zoning entered Harris Township in 1965) and that nonconformities generally run with the property.
Enforcement and practical limits: Staff described enforcement as complaint‑driven: "If nobody complains about something… probably nothing's gonna happen about it." Board members and residents discussed alternative placements on properties and the technical limits created by right‑of‑way and setback requirements, including the combined effect of a 25‑foot right‑of‑way and a typical 20‑foot front setback from the right‑of‑way edge.
Outcome: The board did not amend the ordinance at the meeting. Supervisors said they are willing to accommodate practical options where feasible but concluded they could not permit coops on the Memorial Drive (front) side of the property under current law and that any change would require township‑wide ordinance action and Planning Commission review.
Next steps: Staff said they will review the specific property file and coordinate with the Planning Commission and township solicitor if a broader change is requested. Residents who provided petitions and property sketches were advised they can pursue a formal ordinance amendment through the Planning Commission process.
