Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Backyard Chickens topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cedar Lake panel hears split public and commissioner views on backyard chicken ordinance
Summary
The Land Commission spent most of its May 6 work session debating a draft backyard‑chicken ordinance, heard public testimony including a petition of 111 signatures in favor, but took no formal action and agreed to form a small committee to refine the draft.
The Town of Cedar Lake Land Commission on May 6 debated whether to revise its animal ordinances to allow backyard hens in more residential areas, but made no decision and asked staff to convene a small working group to refine the draft.
Commissioners opened the discussion by noting the draft under review came from the town council and that the current ordinance limits chickens to agricultural parcels (an eight‑acre threshold cited during discussion). Several commissioners said they were uncomfortable allowing coops in a resort community and raised concerns about noise, health and property values. ‘‘I have asked for years just to get rid of the roosters,’’ said Mary Jo Dickson, a resident providing public comment, describing repeated neighbor complaints early in the morning.
Advocates urged the commission to adopt a limited, enforceable ordinance rather than a ban. Resident Brandalyn Chalmers read a petition of about 111 signatures and told the commission, "Chickens provide a good source of nutrition" and can be managed with clear rules on setbacks, coop maintenance and registration. Chalmers and others cited examples from nearby communities and urged a compromise that would broaden access to locally produced eggs while addressing nuisance and health risks.
Commission debate focused on lot size, the number of hens, roosters and enforcement. Commissioners proposed options ranging from keeping the current eight‑acre rule and using the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) variance process, to setting a reduced minimum (examples discussed included 10,000 square feet or one acre) with registration and annual renewals. Building official Tim said the town had been in a ‘‘limbo’’ where a few residents keep hens without complaints but the ordinance on the books restricts chickens to agricultural zoning.
Legal and enforcement questions also shaped the conversation. When asked whether an ordinance would override private covenants, a town attorney present responded that a municipal ordinance does not nullify private homeowner association covenants; private covenants remain enforceable by property owners. Commissioners asked staff to pull ordinances used by nearby towns (Winfield was specifically requested) and to gather police/building department data on complaint calls.
Rather than vote or send the draft directly to the public agenda, the commission agreed to form a three‑person committee (two planning commissioners plus a resident was suggested) to draft a revised ordinance addressing lot size, permitted number of hens, roosters, setbacks, registration and enforcement. The committee is expected to report back to the commission for further review; no ordinance amendments were approved at the session.
The meeting adjourned after commissioners confirmed the next steps and asked staff to compile comparative ordinances and enforcement data.
