Clear Lake Chicken Ordinance Dispute Heads to Oct. 13 City Council Meeting

Northeast Radio SD News – Clear Lake, SD - Clear Lake officials and supporters of a voter-approved ordinance allowing chickens within city limits disagree over when and how the measure should take effect. The dispute involves the initiated-ordinance process, municipal zoning regulations, and the wording of official city records.

At the center of the conflict is a citizen-initiated ordinance permitting the keeping of chickens within city limits, which was recently approved by voters. However, rather than implementing the measure, city officials have delayed its practical execution, arguing that existing zoning provisions prevent the initiative from taking effect as written. The controversy raises significant questions regarding South Dakota election law and the limits of municipal authority, setting the stage for a contentious City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 13.

The Legal Standoff: Initiated Ordinances and State Law 

Supporters of the initiated ordinance point to South Dakota Codified Law 9-20-5, which states that an approved initiated municipal ordinance takes effect after the election returns are canvassed. They also cite SDCL 9-20-5.1, which limits a governing body’s ability to amend or repeal an initiated ordinance during its first year.

The City of Clear Lake has maintained that the voter-approved measure remains subject to the city’s existing Zoning Ordinance No. 700. In July, the City Council declared that the initiated ordinance was “in direct conflict” with the zoning code and directed officials to prepare a zoning amendment.

Proponents of the chicken ordinance contend that the city is using the zoning amendment process to avoid the one-year restriction on amending the initiated ordinance. Their argument is that changing the zoning code, rather than the initiated ordinance itself, would have the same practical effect.

Ordinance 700-02: Alignment or Constructive Amendment? 

In August, the Council reviewed a proposed amendment designed to “align” the new ordinance with the city's zoning regulations and advanced it toward a public hearing. By September, city officials had advanced Ordinance 700-02 through its first reading.

The proposed zoning amendment introduces several stringent requirements not present in the voter-approved measure, drawing heavily from regulations in neighboring communities. These new stipulations include mandatory property setbacks, municipal inspections, and a provision requiring neighbor permission in certain circumstances.

Advocates for the residents argue that the proposed conditions would amount to a de facto amendment of the initiated ordinance during its protected first year. They say the neighbor-permission provision would substantially limit the rights approved by voters and could prevent some residents from keeping chickens.

Administrative Silence and Record Disputes 

The regulatory standoff is compounded by a lack of clarity from the city’s legal counsel. In September, a representative for the residents issued a formal inquiry to the city, asking officials to identify the specific zoning provisions they believe control the matter, the legal authority supporting the delay, and whether the city would accept and process permit applications under the newly passed ordinance.

The retiring city attorney did not provide answers to the questions and said the City Council would address the matters after consulting with successor legal counsel. The initiated ordinance has not been implemented, and the article does not identify a statutory provision cited by the city as authority for the delay.

The dispute also extends to the city’s official minutes. Residents who addressed the council on September 8 say the minutes did not record the specific South Dakota statutes they cited and instead summarized their presentation more generally. They contend that the summary does not fully reflect the substance of their objections.

The October 13 Council Meeting 

The City Council is scheduled to hold the second reading of Ordinance 700-02 at 6 p.m. Tuesday, October 13.

Supporters of the initiated ordinance say the meeting concerns more than whether residents may keep chickens. They view the dispute as a test of municipal accountability, transparency, and the extent to which zoning regulations may affect implementation of a voter-approved measure.