Appeal challenges Kettering decision that chickens are not 'household pets'; council defers ruling

A public hearing before the Kettering City Council on Sept. 9 centered on an appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals case BZA25-00007 over whether chickens qualify as "household pets" under the city zoning code.

Ryan Holmes, representing city staff, told the council that its only role at the hearing is to determine whether the BZA made an error in its written decision based on the evidence presented to the BZA. "What is being decided this evening is whether or not the BZA made an error in their written decision based upon the evidence discussed and presented at those meetings," Holmes said. He cited Kettering zoning code section 1139.04.6 (keeping of pets and animals) and the definitional section 1159.02, and told council that staff interprets the code to treat chickens as animals commonly kept for food production or agricultural value rather than household pets.

Todd Combmes, the appellant, told council he is appealing the BZA's August decision upholding a notice of violation (V251509). "My name is Todd Combmes, and I'm here to appeal the prior decision of case BZA25-007 and the notice of violation B251509," he said, summarizing his packet of exhibits. Combmes argued the ordinance's text explicitly includes "fowl" among household pets and said council must apply the written code rather than relying on graphic captions added during a 2015 code rewrite. He said his birds are kept for companionship, not for food production, provided letters from neighbors and veterinary material, and raised procedural concerns about the BZA hearings — including that he was not questioned and that some evidence was discussed after the record had closed.

Members of the public spoke on both sides. Emily Kine, who said she lives on Peach Orchard Road, testified in support of Combmes: "I am here to voice my support for Mr. Combmes's position that his household chickens are indeed pets," she said, pointing to the plain language in the code that lists fowl among household pets and the ordinance language that disqualifies animals kept for food production. Several neighbors also described Combmes's animals as companion animals rather than livestock. Opponents raised concerns about public health, the city's general offenses code on wild or exotic animals, limits on the number of pets before a kennel is required, and accessory‑building compatibility and zoning implications if the council were to reverse the BZA.

City staff and multiple speakers also discussed procedural and evidentiary points: which specific code sections were included in the BZA packet, whether captions and graphics had been relied on at the BZA, and whether the BZA asked the appellant substantive questions during its hearing. Combmes disputed that staff had inspected his birds and argued the board relied on assumptions rather than evidence that his birds were kept for food production.

After public comment, Mayor Laner closed the hearing and told Combmes the council would take up the appeal at a future meeting and that he would be notified when the item appears on an agenda. No vote was taken that night.

The matter now returns to the council for a formal decision on whether the BZA erred in its written determination; council members and staff signaled they will rely on the BZA record and the written code when they consider next steps.