Editor’s Note: Join us in the fight against the radical left today and support our reporting as President Trump continues to usher in the Golden Age of America. Use promo code FIGHT at checkout to get 60% off!
When Todd Combs, a US Army veteran in Kettering, Ohio, first bought chickens, he had no idea he would soon find himself in another war.
In this case, the war was against his local government, which erroneously claimed he was violating the law by having chickens on his private property. Combs, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) purchased his flock for emotional support.
“They quickly became pets and emotional support animals for me and my son,” he told Townhall. Due to his allergies, he could not own dogs or cats, so he chose chickens. He explained how the birds have been a blessing to himself and his two-year-old son, who has delayed speech development. “He won’t talk to people—but he talks to the chickens,” Combs said.
“My son has bonded with them. I have bonded with them. They’ve become part of the family,” he added.
Combs said the birds are not noisy, and he does not allow them to freely roam around the neighborhood. Still, the city claims he is violating the law.
Stand up for the Combs family’s right to keep their pet chickens!
— You Are The Power (@YATPOfficial) August 7, 2025
Todd Combs, a combat veteran, and his family in Kettering, Ohio, have beloved pet chickens. These chickens are not for food production, they’re cherished companions that bring joy and comfort to the family,… pic.twitter.com/7Vaxbyg8ZT
The conflict began when a zoning inspector came to Combs’ property and informed him he was in violation of the city’s residential zoning code. The city claimed he was not allowed to have chickens on his property because they are considered “farm animals,” not household pets.
But Combs had done his homework. According to Section 1203.01(64) of Kettering’s Zoning Code, the term “Household Pets” includes: “animals or fowl ordinarily permitted in the house and kept for company or pleasure, including but not limited to dogs, cats, and pet fowl.”
Nowhere does the code define the term “pet fowl”, nor does it explicitly exclude chickens. It was this ambiguity that Combs is challenging.
Combs argued that his chickens qualify as pet fowl under the city ordinance. “If my chickens aren’t pets,” he said, “then what are they? They’re not livestock. We don’t sell them. They don’t free-range into neighbors’ yards. They live here, they help us, and they hurt no one.”
Combs submitted his response to the city, making his case for being able to own chickens. However, on August 12, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) rejected his request. “While the term ‘pet fowl’ is referenced in the zoning code, it is not specifically defined to include chickens,” the board argued, also noting that “Chickens are traditionally viewed as livestock or poultry, which are not permitted in residential districts.”
Combs pointed out that the ordinance provides no specific definition of “pet fowl.” Instead, it is simply arguing tradition, not law.
“I asked them point-blank—where in the code does it say chickens are banned?” Combs recalled. “They couldn’t answer. They just said, ‘That’s how we’ve always done it.’ That’s not law. That’s bias.”
To Combs, this fight isn’t just about chickens. It is about the government needlessly intruding into his life and telling him how he can live.
“I served my country. I’ve done my duty. And now I just want peace,” he said. “These chickens help with that. They’ve become a therapy tool I never expected.”
As part of his appeal, Combs provided letters from neighbors and others in the community — many of whom were unaware that backyard chickens would be an issue. Nobody has complained about Combs’ birds.
The BZA’s response acknowledged that “the animals were not disruptive to the surrounding area,” but still insisted that “There is no error in the application of the zoning code” and “no hardship sufficient to justify” allowing the veteran to keep his chickens.
To put it simply: Just because Combs’ chickens aren’t harming anyone doesn’t mean they should be allowed.
Combs on Tuesday made his case before the City Council. “My focus is simple: the code as written, the errors that were made in applying it, and the legal precedents that show why this decision must be reversed,” he said.
He pointed out that the city code allowed “pet fowl” and that it does not specifically exclude chickens. “During the hearing, the city provided no evidence that I, Todd Combs, has been in violation of its code,” he said.
“These pets mean so much to me and my family. I cannot overstate this,” Combs continued. “I am a US Army Combat Veteran who had suffered from suicidal thoughts till I have gotten my pet fowl. My pets lift my spirits as well as those of all my family members. I tend to be a private person, Yet I have shared my story with the community as I believe my rights as a Kettering resident are being violated. And that’s not fair… to me, my family, or any Kettering Resident.”
Combs hopes city leaders will reconsider the code and its impact on people like him. “It’s not just about chickens. It’s about choice. It’s about compassion. It’s about common sense,” he told Townhall.
If the council rules against him, Combs says he’ll keep fighting. “I didn’t quit when things got hard in the Army. I’m not quitting now."
