Danbury zoning hearing on proposal to allow poultry as household pets draws sharp split between public health, enforcement concerns and neighborhood supporters

The Danbury Zoning Commission on July 23 heard a public petition seeking to amend city zoning to allow poultry — described in the proposal as “poultry as household pets” — to be kept as an accessory use across residential zones.

Attorney Neil Marcus, representing property owners Xavier and Alina Gomez, told the commission the petition is intended to resolve an inconsistency in Danbury’s code that treats poultry only as a farm use. "Chickens are not prohibited in Danbury, but you have to raise them on a farm," Marcus said, arguing that a permit or licensing system, similar to ones used in nearby towns, could reduce illegal flocks and make enforcement simpler.

Marcus and the Gomezes emphasized small-scale, noncommercial keeping: Alina Gomez said her family raises a small flock on their 2.2-acre RA‑80 lot and treats the birds as pets. "My chicken keeping is an unlawful act" under current rules, she said, noting the family keeps the birds out of public view and manages coop placement and waste.

Staff and public‑health officials urged caution. Deputy Planning Director Jennifer Emminger read the staff report, noting the proposed subsection "poultry as household pets" conflicts with existing section 4.g.6.a, which permits poultry only as part of a farm and defines farms under a 5‑acre minimum. Emminger raised a list of line‑by‑line concerns — from the petition’s broad use of the term "poultry" to insufficient controls on coop setbacks, run requirements, screening, and manure management — and questioned whether the numeric limits proposed (for example, 12 birds per lot in smaller zones) properly account for undersized lots and nonconforming properties.

Fernanda Carvallo, the city’s director of health, who submitted a written report and attended the hearing, said the department’s review flagged risks tied to septic systems, private wells and stormwater runoff. "Separation distances from septic systems and wells" are important, she said, and the department cited potential foodborne disease risks (Campylobacter, Salmonella) and nuisance issues such as flies, odors and rodent attraction.

Sean Herrity, Danbury’s zoning enforcement officer, described practical enforcement difficulties if the change is adopted without a permit structure. He said mobile coops and free‑ranging birds complicate setback and coop‑location enforcement and that staff already address multiple chicken‑related complaints per month.

The Planning Commission issued a unanimous negative recommendation on July 17, which staff read into the record; planning members cited the amendment’s inconsistency with the Plan of Conservation and Development and the health department’s concerns.

The hearing drew a large public turnout and a lengthly record of written comments on both sides. Supporters — including neighbors, a University extension educator and a medical professional speaking from experience — said small flocks can be managed safely, provide fresh food and offer educational and mental‑health benefits. Dr. Kuba Kupniewski, a microbiologist who identified his clinical work in Poland, told the commission that most human salmonella and campylobacter cases are foodborne and that household biosecurity and basic hygiene reduce direct transmission risk from pet birds.

Opponents warned of noise (particularly from roosters), increased rodents and predators, septic and groundwater vulnerability where lots are small, and the city’s limited capacity to monitor compliance. Several residents and two city council members said Danbury’s largely urban lot pattern — with many properties much smaller than an acre — makes a broad, citywide allowance problematic. "I am opposed to having chickens on less than 5 acres," one resident said, echoing the existing lot‑size threshold that has long been the standard for farms in Danbury.

Multiple council members and commissioners urged the commission to either table the petition or return it to staff so city departments could draft a more narrowly tailored ordinance or licensing regime, and to reconcile city code sections that address manure and henhouse location. Councilman Benjamin Chianese noted a municipal ordinance provision that restricts henhouses and manure accumulations and requires larger separations in some circumstances; he urged staff to harmonize the city code and zoning language before any broad change.

No final decision or vote was taken at the hearing. The Zoning Commission indicated it will consider the record — including written exhibits, the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation, health and enforcement reports and the oral testimony — before deciding whether to draft revised language, limit changes to certain zones or refer the matter to the City Council/ordinance process.

The hearing record will remain part of the public record for commission consideration; the commission expects to take next procedural steps after staff returns recommended, implementable language and legal/health guidance.