Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outlines permit, coop rules in proposed backyard chicken ordinance
Summary
City staff proposed allowing up to six backyard hens under a $25 permit with coop setbacks, size limits and identification bands; commissioners and residents raised enforceability and nuisance concerns.
City staff presented a draft amendment to the livestock ordinance that would permit limited backyard chicken hens in residential areas, subject to a city permit and conditions designed to address safety, nuisance and zoning concerns.
Under the draft, a “backyard chicken hen” is defined as a domesticated female chicken kept primarily for eggs, companionship or pest control; the proposal would allow one to six hens per property under a $25 permit. Coops and runs must be located in rear yards, be predator‑proof (hardware cloth or similar), meet a combined maximum of 120 square feet for coop plus run, provide at least four square feet per bird and be no taller than seven feet. Coops must be set back from property lines (planning staff suggested five feet as a safety guideline), be regularly cleaned to control dust and odor, and must not interfere with building egress or create a fire hazard (heat lamps were specifically addressed).
Staff also proposed requiring identification bands for hens so animal‑protection staff can return animals found running at large to owners rather than resort to impoundment and disposal. The permit would authorize animal protection and code enforcement officers to enter the property for inspection at reasonable times to determine compliance.
Commissioners and staff discussed enforceability; code enforcement indicated additional staffing (a third code officer is being hired) would help compliance. During public comment a resident said roosters and free‑ranging birds are already present in some neighborhoods and questioned whether enforcement could be made effective. Staff said the ordinance could be revised further and would return with any requested edits before a formal ordinance advertisement and public hearing.
No ordinance vote was taken; the item remains under discussion and staff proposed placing an advertisement for a future hearing once language is final and the commission directs staff to proceed.
