Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Backyard Poultry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merrimack council declines to advance backyard‑poultry ordinance after packed public hearing
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment and a warning from the state senator that state law limits local regulation, the Merrimack Town Council voted 0‑7‑0 on Dec. 4 not to move a draft backyard‑poultry ordinance to a third reading.
A near‑capacity crowd packed the Matthew Thornton Room on Dec. 4 as the Merrimack Town Council held a public hearing on a proposed Chapter 117, a draft ordinance to regulate backyard poultry including chickens and roosters. After roughly two hours of testimony and council discussion, the council voted 0‑7‑0 not to move the ordinance to a third reading, effectively halting the proposal for now.
The draft — prepared after a council request for research on surrounding towns — would have placed limits such as a 10‑chicken cap and included rules about coops, sales and noise. Council liaison Paul summarized the basis for the draft and told residents it drew heavily from ordinances in neighboring communities.
Councilors reported receiving 35 emails about the proposal: four in favor and 31 opposed. Paul noted five police complaints related to roosters in the past three years and said the town had received other calls and comments as well.
The meeting’s public comment period was dominated by residents who said the draft was overly broad. "This summer is our ninth year of raising chickens," said Laurie Peters, who described keeping hens and said she voluntarily rehomed roosters when necessary. "I oppose even that because Merrimack is a very unique town," she said, adding that blanket bans can have unintended consequences. Several speakers warned that an outright prohibition on roosters or limits on egg sales would prompt animal‑welfare problems, including so‑called "rooster dumping." Belle McLeod told the council that blanket bans have led to overwhelmed sanctuaries in other towns.
Other residents described persistent noise from roosters that disrupted work or sleep. "Rooster 24 from sunup to sundown making noise," Charles Sarcha said, urging a solution that "makes everyone happy." Several speakers urged neighbor‑to‑neighbor communication and complaint‑based enforcement rather than detailed townwide restrictions.
State Senator Tim McGough addressed the council during public comment and cited the state Right to Farm legislation. "We passed the Right to Farm Act," he said, referencing House Bill 252 and RSA 24:21, and warned that the statute "guarantees the right to carry out these activities" and could limit local enforcement of parts of the draft ordinance.
After hearing public comment, a motion to move Chapter 117 to a third reading (worded in the positive for clarity) failed on a 0‑7‑0 roll call. The chair described the item as "dead" for the moment and thanked residents for turning out.
Next steps: the council did not adopt ordinance language and will not advance the current draft. Councilors indicated interest in narrower, less prescriptive solutions that focus on nuisance behavior and complaint‑based enforcement; any future action would return to the council for additional hearings.
