Charles City council advances urban-chickens ordinance, sets permit and enforcement rules

The Charles City Council on July 10 advanced a proposed ordinance to allow backyard chickens in the city with a first reading of Ordinance 1202, sending the measure to future hearings and permitting procedures.

Brad, a city staff presenter, told the council the draft ordinance would add a new Chapter 56 to the Unified Development Ordinance to regulate the keeping of chickens within city limits and remove poultry from the definition of livestock. He said enforcement would be available either as a civil infraction or a ticketable simple misdemeanor so a police officer could issue citations instead of staff having to file civil infractions.

The ordinance also includes procedural requirements for applicants: disclosure of deed restrictions, homeowners association covenants or rental agreements that could preclude having chickens on a parcel; notification of adjoining property owners (signatures or an affidavit of attempted notification); and dimensional setback standards the staff described as the primary mechanism for limiting where permits will be viable.

Council members pressed staff on several practical issues. One councilor asked whether inspections authorized by the ordinance would include interior access; Brad and other staff said inspection authority in the chapter is limited to exterior inspections to determine compliance. Another member asked how the city would handle existing residents who already keep chickens. Staff said permit review could deny a permit for applicants with existing nuisance violations and explained the city could pursue court orders to abate and assess costs if occupants did not comply after due process.

A number of members raised concerns about the absence of a minimum lot-size standard in the draft. Staff responded they removed a minimum lot-size provision and instead rely on setback requirements (for example, 25 feet from a residence and 10 feet from any building or side/rear property lines) so some small lots will effectively be ineligible because they cannot meet setbacks.

Councilors and staff also discussed enforcement logistics if chickens must be removed: the city does not have a routine animal-control holding facility for chickens, staff said. Councilor Michael Smith, a resident who spoke during the discussion, said he had identified people outside town willing to accept chickens if the city needed temporary placements, and another councilor offered to contact FFA and 4‑H resources to help place birds temporarily.

Staff referenced the statutory fine framework when describing penalties: a simple misdemeanor carries state-set minimum and maximum fines (the presenter cited a $105 minimum and an $850 maximum) and municipal infraction fines are also set elsewhere in the code. Staff said any specific fine amounts could be requested by the city in court proceedings and that the municipal infraction chapter allows daily fines for repeat violations.

After extended discussion about grandfathering existing owners, inspection and enforcement procedures, and how the city would address stray birds and officer response, the council voted to approve the ordinance’s first reading and to send it through the required public-notice and Planning & Zoning steps before second and third readings.

The ordinance will return to the council for additional readings and public comment before any final adoption. The council did not adopt administrative fee amounts in the ordinance language; staff said permit fees can be set later by resolution.

Next steps: the council approved the first reading and directed staff to proceed with required notices and P&Z review; second and third readings and final adoption will occur at future meetings with opportunities for public comment.