County authorization to approve up to 24 chickens on any lot by ordinance
Summary
SF4547 amends Minnesota county zoning law governing feedlot ordinances to expressly allow counties, by local ordinance, to approve up to 24 chickens on any lot. The bill is framed as a local government measure and would override conflicting setback restrictions in Minnesota Rules for animal feedlots to the extent necessary to permit that level of backyard or small-lot chicken keeping.
In addition to the chicken provision, the bill retains and restates existing county feedlot ordinance procedures. Counties proposing new or amended feedlot ordinances must notify the Pollution Control Agency and the commissioner of agriculture early in the process, may seek agency review and recommendations, and may request an economic-effects report. The bill also preserves a requirement that if a county ordinance imposes setbacks for new feedlots from existing residences, it must also apply comparable setbacks for new residences near existing feedlots in agricultural areas, subject to variance authority.
Impact
The bill would amend Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 394.25, subdivision 3c, by adding explicit county authority to permit up to 24 chickens on any lot through local ordinance, notwithstanding certain state feedlot setback rules. This would give counties clearer legal authority to regulate small-scale poultry keeping at the local level and could affect homeowners, hobby farmers, county zoning officials, and operators of existing feedlots where local setback rules are implicated. It does not broadly rewrite state animal agriculture law, but it does create a specific local-option exception within the county feedlot ordinance framework.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears to be a practical local-control bill rather than a controversial statewide overhaul. The authorship and caption suggest support for allowing counties flexibility to authorize backyard chickens, which is often viewed favorably by residents interested in small-scale food production and urban or suburban agriculture. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to be local land-use impacts, nuisance concerns, and the interaction with existing feedlot and setback regulations. Supporters would likely emphasize county flexibility and the ability to permit modest chicken keeping on residential lots, while opponents could raise concerns about odors, noise, sanitation, animal welfare, and whether local ordinances should override or modify state-level setback expectations. The bill also preserves a reciprocal setback rule for new residences near feedlots, which could be contentious for property owners and developers in agricultural areas.