Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Poultry Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commissioners recommend against zoning change to allow poultry as household pets
Summary
The Danbury Planning Commission voted unanimously on July 17 to give a negative referral to a petition that would allow poultry as household pets in multiple residential zones, citing health, environmental and enforceability concerns raised by staff and the health director.
The Danbury Planning Commission voted on July 17, 2024 to forward a negative referral to the Zoning Commission for a petition that would add a subsection allowing poultry to be kept as household pets across several residential zoning districts.
Acting planning director Jennifer Aminger told the commission the petitioner, attorney Neil Marcus, proposed language that would permit chickens and other poultry in RA8, RA20, RA40 and RA80 zones. Aminger said the proposal conflicts with existing regulations that limit poultry to farms in RA80 and that the term “poultry” is broad, citing Connecticut General Statutes, USDA and CDC definitions. “For the reasons contained herein, the department does not support the proposed text amendment,” Aminger said.
Staff raised operational and public-health concerns in its report, noting proposed operational limits such as a maximum of 16 chickens per acre in RA40/RA80 and 12 per lot in RA80/RA20, a required chicken-coop setback of 20 feet from side and rear property lines, a maximum coop height of 8 feet and a 96-square-foot maximum coop area, and a minimum of 3 square feet of coop space per bird. The report also flagged vague language on screening, run areas and manure handling and questioned whether small residential lots could accommodate coops, runs and compost areas without nuisance impacts.
The city’s director of health, Fernanda Carvallo, warned in an attached letter of potential zoonotic disease transmission, pest attraction, odor and runoff that could affect private wells and septic systems. Commissioners echoed those concerns. Chair (acting) framed the problem as one of scale and enforceability in a city environment, saying the proposal would require substantial enforcement resources and reading portions of the health director’s letter into the record.
Commissioner Helen moved for a negative referral, citing the comprehensive staff report, the health director’s letter and the petition’s misalignment with the Plan of Conservation and Development. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote; the commission recorded the referral as negative and sent the matter to the Zoning Commission. The agenda lists the zoning hearing on this matter for July 23, 2024.
Next steps: the petition will be considered by the Zoning Commission; staff and the health department have recommended more detailed, site‑suitability and nuisance controls before any change is adopted.
