A public hearing concerning Ordinance Number 2025-330, which proposed amendments to Chapter 90 of the Lonsdale City Code related to chicken ownership, dominated the meeting. The ordinance included a $50 permit fee for chicken ownership, with an option for a $300 ten-year permit. It allowed residents to keep up to six chickens on residential property, adhering to requirements such as a site survey and building setbacks. The city reserved the right to inspect properties for compliance, responding to complaints from residents.

During the public hearing, opinions were divided. One resident expressed concern about the permit fee, labeling it “another hidden tax” and questioning its value. He argued that the requirement for permits represented government overreach, particularly in a rural area where residents should have the freedom to raise chickens without restrictions. He contrasted Lonsdale’s regulations with those of other areas, like Edina, where no permits were required.

On the other hand, another resident supported the ordinance, suggesting that chickens could positively influence home-buying decisions in Lonsdale, comparing them to dogs in terms of noise and cleanliness. This resident advocated for the self-sustainability benefits that chickens could provide to households.

A more passionate critique came from a resident who argued against the necessity of permits, citing concerns about infringement on fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He suggested that the permitting requirements could bypass constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, criticizing the city for imposing regulations that limited personal freedoms.

The Lonsdale Fire Department, represented by Kevin Mullica, voiced its opposition to allowing chickens and other farm animals within residential areas, citing public safety and fire prevention concerns. Mullica emphasized the risks associated with non-domestic animals in residential zones, including potential fire hazards, property damage, and health issues related to disease spread. He highlighted the dangers of poorly maintained coops, stating that a single improperly wired heat lamp or neglected coop could start a fire that might spread to neighboring properties.

Mullica urged the council to maintain strict regulations, advising against flexibility in setbacks or the introduction of additional animals, emphasizing the need for oversight and accountability. Despite these concerns, a community member with extensive experience in raising poultry argued that incidents of fires caused by chickens are rare. He advocated for the benefits of chicken keeping, such as sustainability and community engagement, noting the economic impact on local businesses associated with building and maintaining chicken coops.

The discussions revealed a significant divide within the community regarding the ordinance, with some residents favoring the benefits of raising chickens and others concerned about government overreach and financial burdens tied to city permits. The council acknowledged the need for further public input before reaching a decision, highlighting the challenges of balancing regulation with individual freedoms in community affairs.

In addition to the chicken ordinance, the council discussed Ordinance 2025-331, which regulates cannabis businesses. This ordinance, previously reviewed by the planning and zoning commission, included recommendations for limiting the number of retail registrations to one and establishing zoning requirements and hours of operation for sales. A council member raised the idea of abandoning the ordinance, questioning its benefits, particularly regarding potential tax increases. The revenue potential from cannabis sales was noted, but concerns about public safety and law enforcement resources were also raised.

The council clarified the intent behind the ordinance, seeking a motion to approve the preliminary draft with a specified limitation on flower cannabis retail. The discussion continued alongside the chicken ordinance, with the council addressing concerns about fee structures and the necessity of heating elements for chicken coops during winter.

The meeting also touched on other community concerns, such as public motor vehicle citations and the potential costs of splash pads. A resident expressed frustration over a citation related to a boat parked in their yard, emphasizing personal property rights. Another participant, claiming expertise in irrigation, warned against the high maintenance costs of splash pads compared to traditional swimming pools, highlighting financial implications and potential health issues due to inadequate filtration.