Local planning agency recommends Stuart ordinance to allow up to four hens with initial fee and annual license

The Local Planning Agency of the City of Stuart on May 14 recommended an ordinance that would let residents keep up to four hens (roosters prohibited) on occupied single‑family and duplex lots in R1A, R1 and R2 zoning in the East Stuart neighborhood, and approved an amendment to add an initial $65 permit and a $10 annual license.

Development Director Jody Kugler, who introduced the item, said the City Commission directed staff on Feb. 23, 2026 to draft the ordinance "to allow backyard chickens within certain residential districts," describing the proposal as intended to support sustainable living and small‑scale backyard food production. The draft ordinance identifies coop construction standards and nuisance protections and would amend the land development code and the city animal code.

The principal change approved by the planning agency substitutes recurring licensing for a one‑time permit: under the board's amendment the first inspection/permit charge would match the existing zoning permit fee ($65), followed by a $10 annual license fee. Supporters said an annual license gives the city policy tools to adjust fees or limit further permits in neighborhoods that develop problems; opponents said four hens represent a private‑property choice and argued against routine inspections and additional regulation.

Board members discussed practical details in depth: the ordinance as presented would allow a maximum of four hens, ban roosters to avoid noise, and require coops be constructed and maintained to limit pests and weather damage. Members asked staff to clarify technical definitions (for example, the ordinance's 25‑foot setback from a "residential structure" was discussed and board members suggested specifying "principal residential structure" so sheds or pools are treated consistently). A member raised predator concerns, noting coyotes and raccoons in some neighborhoods and asking whether coop standards would reasonably prevent incursions; staff answered that owner maintenance is the primary safeguard and that coyote‑proof commercial coop designs exist.

Several members pushed for a licensing model that could cover responses tied to animal complaints. One board member argued that an annual fee would give the city a way to recover recurring costs if animal control responses increased, saying an initial one‑time fee would not adapt to growing enforcement or wildlife‑response costs. Staff noted that animal control services are currently provided under contract with the county sheriff but that the ordinance contains provisions allowing code action, permit revocation and cost recoupment in cases of violation.

On education and outreach, staff said the department plans to partner with extension programs (IFAS) and local 4‑H clubs to provide templates, classes and guidance for new owners on coop maintenance, feed storage and biosecurity. Staff and members discussed distributing education materials at permitting and linking to local resources.

Procedurally, an initial motion to recommend the ordinance "as is" failed for lack of a second. A later motion to recommend the ordinance with the license amendment — "accept this with a license stipulation in lieu of a permit, initial fee $65 and $10 annual renewal" — was seconded and passed on a roll call of 3–1 (Board member Paul Mary: yes; Board member Grosso: yes; Board member Vogel: no; Vice Chair Gillette: yes).

The planning agency's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission for final consideration; the ordinance as described would add section 2.06.24 to the land development code and amend chapter 8 of the city code of ordinances if adopted.