The Windsor Planning Commission studies the proposed Town of Windsor Chicken Ordinance at its April 23 meeting. (Photo by Titus Mohler)

The Windsor Planning Commission reviewed and recommended some changes April 23 to a slightly revised version of the unadopted Town of Windsor Chicken Ordinance that had been considered by the commission and Town Council back in 2017.

To open the review at the commission’s April 23, 2025, meeting, Windsor Interim Planner Maxie Brown stated in a memo, “As you may recall, the Planning Commission and Town Council reviewed an ordinance amendment in 2017 to allow chickens in several residential zoning districts. At its meeting on April 8, 2025, council voted to send the 2017 ordinance back to the Planning Commission for further review and/or changes.” 

She noted that commissioners would find as part of the April 23 meeting agenda packet the 2017 Chicken Ordinance with a legend indicating the original ordinance and additional work and changes that have been undertaken since that time.

This version of the ordinance can be found at www.windsor-va.gov/page/2025-planning-commission-agendas/ at the end of the agenda packet, which is linked to on that webpage.

Brown said the ordinance information was for the commission’s discussion and recommendation.

“Ultimately, the ordinance back in 2017 was not adopted at Town Council’s September meeting, so all of the ordinance amendments and proposed ideas that came from council that night are also incorporated into the changes that you have before you this evening,” she said during the April 23 meeting.

At the meeting, the commission opted to go through each section of the ordinance one at a time.

Following are selected excerpts from that process.

The ordinance begins with section 160-36 G. Chickens in Residential District. The beginning of that section is as follows:

“1. Residential districts where chickens are permitted

“a. R-1, R-4, Low Density Residential, LDR. Staff suggests that all residential zoning districts (R-1, R-1MHP Manufactured Mobile Home Park, HDR High Density Residential, LDR Low Density Residential and A-1 Agricultural) be considered subject to the following standards. The standards provide adequate restrictions to ensure public health, safety and welfare. Staff notes that many residential neighborhoods, including but not limited to, Windsor Station and Holland Meadows, are not zoned R-1 or Low Density Residential LDR.”

Brown said, “(Windsor Town Manager) William (Saunders) and I discussed this, and we decided to put it on here because we were not here in 2017, and we were not privy to the background about why some (residential zoning districts) were included and some were not, so we thought we would just put it out on the table for discussion.”

Brown indicated that the ordinance would place limitations upon the chicken owners in terms of zoning, but there may be limitations coming from other sources as well.

“I think as you go through each subdivision, whether it be the trailer parks or whatever, as we discussed a little earlier, there are deed covenants — now that’s not zoning — and other agreements that you sign to be part of that community, so there are other limitations here, but in terms of zoning, it’s what it is as written (in the proposed ordinance),” she said.

Commission Chairman Leonard L. Marshall said, “So if there’s a deed covenant or something like that, who would enforce that?”

Brown said it would be the property owners, and Commissioner Dale Scott echoed and expanded on that answer, confirming it with Windsor Town Attorney Fred Taylor.

“If I can confirm or deny what I’m thinking, but in my experience the neighborhood property owners, they would be the ones who would be responsible for enforcing anything after a development is complete has been my experience, am I wrong?” Scott said.

“No, that’s correct,” Taylor replied.

To the commission, Scott said, “I think you’ll find that most of your newer neighborhoods are going to fall under covenants’ restrictions; the older neighborhoods would have little to none in there.”

Under ordinance section 160-36 G. Chickens in Residential District, point No. 2 states: “The following standards shall apply to all residential chickens,” and that point includes 10 sub-points, or items — letters “a” through “j.”

“a. All chickens shall be provided with a predator-proof shelter that is thoroughly ventilated, provides adequate sun and shade and protection from the elements, and is designed to be easily accessed and cleaned. Pens shall provide a minimum of 10 square feet of space for each chicken.”

Responding to input from another member of the commission, Commissioner David Adams said, “So for section 2-a, Ms. Brown, maybe we consolidate on a term instead of vacillating between ‘shelter’ and ‘pen’ and just call it a ‘shelter.’” 

“b. All shelters and associated structures, including fencing, shall be located fully to the rear of the residential structure, and shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from all property lines. Chickens are not allowed in common areas in the MHP and HDR zoning districts. And shall comply with all setbacks for primary structures. Staff is concerned with enforcement issues associated with permissions granted by adjacent landowners and agrees with a minimum of 15 feet from all property lines without adjacent property owner language. Staff also suggests that chickens not be allowed in common areas where there are no individual lot lines.

“c. All chickens shall be kept in a shelter outlined in item a., shall have their wings clipped to prevent excessive ranging, and shall be prohibited from free ranging unless under the supervision of the owner or his designee.”

As a result of discussion from the commission, Brown said, “Staff will add fencing requirements to 2-c.”

“d. The maximum number of chickens permitted on a residential property shall be six. The keeping of other types of poultry or fowl are prohibited.

“e. No roosters shall be permitted to be kept on a residential property.

“f. All shelters and associated structures, including fencing, shall be always kept in a neat and sanitary condition, and must be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent odors outside the boundaries of the property. All feed for the chickens shall be kept in a secure container or location to prevent the attraction of rodents and other animals.

“g. No person shall store, stockpile, or permit any accumulation of chicken litter and waste in any manner whatsoever that, due to odor, attraction of flies, or other pests, or for any other reason which diminishes the rights of the adjacent property owners to enjoy reasonable use of their property.

“h. No commercial activity such as the selling of eggs or chickens for meat shall be permitted to occur from the residential property.

“i. A zoning permit shall be required for the keeping of chickens on residentially zoned properties or the placement of any associated structures. Violation of any of the above requirements may result in the zoning permit being revoked. In accordance with Article I, Section 160-27 of the Land Development Ordinance of the town of Windsor, fees may be collected by the town of Windsor for said zoning permit on an annual basis. The fee for a zoning permit is established at $25. A zoning permit is valid once issued unless revoked by the town in accordance with established ordinances.”

Commissioner Debra Hicks requested clarification after noting that when Brown read item j., she said “fees shall be collected by the town of Windsor” rather than “may be” as is written in the draft ordinance.

Adams, who also sits on the Town Council, has led the revival of the discussion regarding the proposed chicken ordinance after hearing public comments about it, and he had issued some revisions to the ordinance prior to it being presented again to the commission. The relevant sentence Hicks was asking about had been inserted by Adams.

“When I wrote it in,” he said, “I wrote ‘may’ because I wanted to leave it to staff to kind of determine, so I think if the staff says, ‘yes,’ then we probably should put ‘shall be collected,’ unless, Mr. Taylor, you disagree. I always kind of leave wiggle room because we may decide not to collect it, but…”

Taylor said, “Obviously, as noted, two very different intents there (between ‘may’ and ‘shall’), so I think it has more to do with preference. If it’s going to be hard and fast — ‘This is how you’re going to do it’ — then ‘shall’ certainly would be the operative language I would use.”

After a discussion about whether or not the fee should be required on an annual basis, Adams said, “I think probably the easiest thing would just be to strike the ‘on an annual basis,’ end the sentence there, and describe what the fee is. I think that’s probably easiest.”

“j. The zoning permit is not transferable and does not run with the land. (This has been paraphrased from ‘property owners will own the chickens on the property, the permit must be renewed with a new landowner if the adjacent landowner moves and has given previous permission for the setback reduction, chickens shall not free range on property of other ownership.’ Staff agrees that the zoning permit should not be transferable.”

Commission Vice Chairman G. Devon Hewitt recalled a detail from the last time the proposed chicken ordinance had come up.

“There were some people that spoke about it, and they don’t want to even see chickens in their neighbor’s yard,” he said. “They just don’t.”

Adams indicated he has no doubt that if people deem it necessary, they will make their opinions known during the upcoming public hearings.

“That’s what I want,” he said. “At the end of the day, that’s why I brought this back, because there were three people that spoke that wanted it, one person spoke against it. I wanted to send it down here so we could all discuss it, come up with as best policy we could, public hearing here, public hearing with council, and then we do the will of the people. That was my thing.”

Brown progressed through the rest of the ordinance, including section 160-53. A-1 Agricultural District.

Following a discussion among commissioners, Brown said, “Do you want to put something in this section that talks about the small operation and lesser setbacks…?”

Marshall said, “I would think put something in there like, ‘If you’ve got a backyard chicken operation, there can be small setbacks, but if you’re really doing a chicken operation on five acres, there ought to be more stringent setbacks.”

Scott said, “How do you define ‘a backyard chicken operation’?”

The answer came: “Six chickens or less.”

At the conclusion of the commission’s review and input on the ordinance, Brown said, “Staff will be happy to make those changes and bring it back to you next month. I guess my question is — do you want this brought back for further review prior to holding a public hearing? And how quickly was council thinking of having this returned?”

Adams said, “I had requested that it be returned to the council by July 31, so I don’t want to rush this through. For the sake of time, I want to think about it, make sure the public has time and then come back up. That was my intent. But I’m probably going to abstain from the vote just to let you guys kind of determine how you wanted to proceed, because I brought it down.”

“I think we should bring it back to the commission,” Hewitt said. “Once you get the changes made, reword it, reprint it, go through it all again just to make sure we’ve got all our t’s crossed and i’s dotted before we have a public hearing.”

Multiple commissioners said, “I agree.”

“Gives a chance to review your revisions and then give our stamp of approval on that,” he said to Brown. “Then we can schedule a public hearing and move from there. … If we’re going to do it, let’s do it right.”

Taylor said, “I think you’d still have another month even to play with if you come back, review it again next month, potentially have your public hearing in June. You’ve still got some flexibility.”