McCandless council’s proposed ordinance on keeping chickens on residential properties won’t be ready to hatch for at least 90 days so that changes discussed during a public hearing can be added to the measure.

Council initially planned to vote on the ordinance at its Oct. 12 meeting, but the changes will have to be approved by the Allegheny County Law Department, which typically takes 30 days, according to the town’s solicitor Gavin Robb. Council would then have to hold a second public hearing and wait at least 15 days before voting on whether or not to approve the measure.

If the ordinance is approved, residents will be allowed to raise chickens if they obtain a permit from the town and the coop in which they are kept meets the requirements. The permit must be renewed each year and the coop will have to be inspected.

Roosters are banned and residents cannot slaughter or butcher the birds on their property or sell any of the chickens or eggs they produce. Residents who violate the ordinance will receive written warnings before the town takes steps to have the chickens removed from the property.

Complaints about noise, odor and other problems with a coop are covered by the town’s nuisance ordinance, which calls for written warnings and fines of up to $500 a day for those who fail to comply.

If chickens must be removed from a property, the town will request that it be done by a local animal rescue agency, which also will be contacted if evidence exists that the birds are not receiving proper care.

“We want to give people the opportunity to make it right,” said RJ Susko, the town’s planning director. “We’ll send a heads up saying, hey, fix your chickens. Then we’ll wait 10 days before taking action.”

Robb said the ordinance is needed because without the rules, residents who raise chickens are breaking the law.

“Currently, chickens are considered a farm animal that can only be kept on existing farms,” he said. “The idea here is that the town was looking to expand the ability to keep chickens and put some parameters and standards in place regarding what the coops need to look like, how animals are cared for and the effect on neighbors.”

The biggest issue raised during the Sept. 28 hearing was a requirement that chicken coops be built at least 100 feet from the owner’s dwelling and be another 100 feet from the property line.

Councilwoman Angela Woods said requiring 200 feet of space to have a coop “is a little excessive.” She noted that the Penn State Extension Service recommends that coops need only be between 25 feet and 50 feet from any building.

She said the agriculture department also calls for coops to be a minimum of 25 feet from the property line in urban areas and 100 feet in rural settings.

“McCandless is a suburban area,” she said. “I’m wondering if we couldn’t just split the difference and say 50 feet is a reasonable setback?

“We’re not experts on keeping chickens. I think council’s best bet is to look to the experts. A lot of this has been defined by the Penn State agricultural extension, which is well respected.”

While councilwoman Carolyn Schweiger didn’t recommend a specific number for what the setback should be, she said reducing it to 50 feet still cuts too many residents out.

She said the side yards of her house and the adjoining properties are 18-feet wide.

“That’s 36 feet,” she said. “My yard is about 10,000 square feet, there’s plenty of space for chickens. The problem is we are making all these restrictions.”

Council president Kim Zachary responded that while she was OK with reducing the distance for a coop to 50 feet from a property line and letting them be closer to the owners’ home, she didn’t want them too close to neighbors.

“Some yards are just not big enough to have chickens,” Zachary said. “I wouldn’t want a chicken coop 20 feet from my house.”

Zachary said residents whose properties don’t meet the minimum distance requirements could seek a variance from the zoning hearing board if they want a coop.

Seeking a variance for a chicken coop would be no different than requesting one to build a deck or an addition on a home that doesn’t meet the town’s requirements, Robb said, adding that to support their request, residents who seek variances often include letters from neighbors stating that they do not object.

Lindsay Moore, the only resident who spoke at the hearing, supported the reduction in how far a coop must be from the property line, but didn’t like the provision prohibiting them from being built with scrap material.

“My backyard is about 75 feet from the house to the lot line and I would really like to keep chickens back there if I can,” she said. “But I take issue with the no scrap provision. I understand that you don’t want large, ugly looking buildings. But part of the reasoning for allowing chickens are environmental concerns. And using leftover lumber would be an environmentally sound thing to do.

“If a coop is sound and looks alright, why not let people build it with what they have on hand and then supplement it with more lumber?” she said.

Councilman David Smith noted that eliminating that requirement wouldn’t create a major problem because the coops must be surrounded by four-foot-tall fencing or shrubs. He suggested that at the very least, residents should be allowed to reuse lumber on the interior of the coop or areas that are not visible to neighbors.

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)