Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs a permit-based urban-chicken ordinance amid public comment
Summary
Staff presented a draft permit program to allow backyard chickens under specified lot-size and coop-inspection requirements; council and residents debated lot-size thresholds, permit fees, enforcement, penalties and the city’s process for handling chickens after permit revocation.
Staff introduced a draft urban-chicken ordinance that would allow permitted backyard flocks subject to lot-size thresholds, coop setback requirements, mandatory inspections and a permit-transfer/expiration framework.
The presenter (S3) said the ordinance is modeled on other towns and is intended to balance property-owner interest in backyard poultry with neighborhood nuisance protections. The draft would require an inspection of a completed coop before birds are allowed and would authorize permit revocation for violations; the draft also includes a notification requirement to adjacent property owners when a permit is sought.
Council members focused on several substantive points: whether lot-size thresholds should be 8,712 square feet (one draft figure) or lower to accommodate smaller lots, whether permit fees and penalties should be set in the ordinance or by separate resolution, and what the city should do with birds if owners fail to comply after revocation. One council member asked whether municipal-infraction fines (discussed elsewhere in the meeting) could be recovered as court costs.
Multiple residents testified in favor of a responsible-permit approach. Michael Smith (S4), who said he already keeps chickens, urged denying permits to households with unresolved nuisance violations: “If you can't keep your yard cleaned up, then you shouldn't have chickens.” Cameron Albertson (S9), a resident with an animal-care background, said she supported permitting for responsible owners but worried that the proposed lot-size cutoff might exclude many ordinary properties.
Council members asked staff to refine language about (1) how adjacent-property notification will be evidenced (signatures vs. notice), (2) whether permit denial/revocation processes require court involvement, (3) explicit remedies if owners do not remove birds, and (4) whether fines and enforcement mechanics should be incorporated into the ordinance or left to resolution.
Next steps: staff will revise the draft ordinance to address lot-size, notification mechanics, enforcement steps for birds left after revocation and fee/fine language, then return to council and planning as appropriate.
