Green committee debates proposed backyard-chicken ordinance, HOA exclusion and permit cap

Council member Spate led a lengthy discussion at the Planning, Community and Economic Development committee on May 13 over ordinance 2025-06a, which would amend the city code to allow households on lots of 20,000 square feet (about 0.45 acres) or larger to keep hens under a tiered permit scheme.

The proposal would permit up to six hens on lots at the 20,000-sq-ft threshold, increase allowances on larger parcels, ban roosters on parcels under 5 acres, require coops and runs to be enclosed and regularly cleaned, and set setback rules including a 100-foot buffer from adjacent dwellings and a 20-foot setback from property lines. The ordinance also proposes a cap: the zoning division would limit certificates of use and compliance to 100 per calendar year, with annual inspections and a prohibition on the on-site sale or slaughter of poultry.

Why it matters: the change would make backyard hens accessible to more residents while imposing health and nuisance safeguards. But it also raised practical and equity concerns about homeowners associations (HOAs) and the city’s role in verifying deed restrictions.

Law director Keri Dean said the city does not enforce HOA bylaws or deed restrictions but warned the administration will not knowingly issue permits that violate recorded deed restrictions. “We don’t enforce deed restrictions. That’s not our job,” Dean told the committee, adding that the administration would create a simple applicant certification or require documentation so staff can avoid issuing a permit that would put the city in the middle of neighborhood disputes.

Planning staff (Wayne) said the zoning division already checks certain recorded restrictions and estimates at least 51 of about 113 subdivisions have explicit recorded covenants that prohibit livestock. He recommended a practical approach: require applicants to certify HOA approval or provide a letter from an HOA when one exists, and maintain a list of restricted subdivisions to inform applicants.

Council members split on whether to leave language in the ordinance that exempts properties governed by HOAs unless the lot is 2 acres or greater. Council member Mager said he favors removing automatic exemptions for HOAs and treating all residences the same, but also asked for more data on parcel sizes and clearer definitions (for example, what constitutes an “appropriately sized fenced area” and whether side-yard foraging is permitted). “I’m in favor of removing this language, but I want to make sure there are no surprises,” Mager said.

Council member Spate, a cosponsor, defended keeping the HOA language, saying many HOA residents and board members have voiced strong opposition and that retaining the HOA exception gives clarity and reduces administrative risk. “I just think for the purpose of clarity, we leave it in there, and that way people know,” Spate said.

Several members supported additional outreach and tools if the ordinance passes: a public-facing list of restricted subdivisions, a permit pamphlet with basic care guidance and requirements (setbacks, coop size, inspection rules), and a possible temporary cap or sunset on the 100-per-year limit so the council can revisit numbers after initial implementation.

On enforcement and penalties, the law director and staff said the ordinance uses the city’s existing minor-misdemeanor enforcement mechanism consistent with the property-maintenance code; the committee requested confirmation of whether the penalty mirror existing citations and discussed making the 100-per-year cap temporary so the council can adjust setbacks or permit counts after experience.

No formal vote on the ordinance was taken in committee; a public hearing on the proposal was scheduled for the regular council meeting that evening. Committee members indicated they would withhold detailed edits until after hearing public testimony.