Clinton Council approves new residential chicken rules requiring covered runs, 5‑foot setbacks and $40 permit

The Clinton City Council voted to adopt ordinance 25‑05‑Z on June 24, 2025, revising the city’s zoning code to allow residential poultry with new health, setback and permitting requirements. The council’s changes require that runs be covered (mesh screening), set a 5‑foot setback from property lines for coops and runs, establish a one‑time $40 permit and tie maximum flock size to lot area (up to 12 hens on a 12,000‑square‑foot lot, increasing by one hen per additional 1,000 square feet). The ordinance also clarifies minimum coop and run space standards and prohibits roosters in residential zones.

Council member Marie Doherty, who led the discussion, said she consulted a Utah State University Extension poultry specialist who advised covering runs to reduce disease transmission from migratory birds. “He thought it would be irresponsible for cities not to include a covered‑run provision because of the potential for spreading disease,” Doherty said during the meeting. Staff and the city attorney confirmed that properties already approved under existing permits would generally be grandfathered but that noncompliant setups discovered later would need to be brought into compliance if changes were made to the coop or run.

The council debated numeric limits, lot‑size thresholds and whether to rely on zone designations or setbacks. The ordinance adopts a sliding scale tied to lot area rather than a single minimum lot‑size rule, and keeps the planning commission’s recommendation for a one‑time $40 permit. It also preserves a minimum of 2 square feet of coop space and 8 square feet of run space per bird while retaining staff discretion to enforce more stringent humaneness standards if needed.

On enforcement, council members discussed whether violations should automatically trigger an administrative citation or allow a notice‑and‑cure period. Staff recommended referencing the city’s administrative code enforcement provisions in the ordinance text so violations could be addressed with notices, escalating citations or abatements depending on severity. The ordinance language adopted references administrative enforcement mechanisms and allows for citations and penalties under the city code.

Mayor (unnamed) called for a roll‑call vote after final edits were read into the record; the motion carried and staff will circulate a revised ordinance consolidating the agreed wording, definitions and editorial fixes before publishing the final code language.