EAST PROVIDENCE — A few weeks after it appeared likely to pass narrowly, an ordinance allowing residents to legally keep chickens was defeated before it was even voted upon.

Following the remarks of At-Large member Bob Rodericks indicating he would be reversing his initial vote on the matter, the council at its May 3 meeting opted against taking up the ordinance any further.

One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Ward 2 member Anna Sousa, suggested it be tabled. After a brief exchange with fellow sponsor, Ward 3’s Nate Cahoon, the body subsequently did vote to drop it from further consideration by a 5-0 vote.

Rodericks ultimately held the deciding voice. At the April 19 council forum, he joined Sousa and Cahoon in allowing the ordinance to move forward with a first passage on a 3-2 vote. Ward 1 rep and council president Bob Britto along with Ward 4 colleague Ricardo Mourato were against.

As is the case with all ordinances, a second vote and a public hearing was required for it to be codified, which took place last week.

Then, more residents spoke for and against the bill. It would have, among other things, allowed residents to keep as many as six chickens, defined the distance between coops and abutting properties, curtailed the keeping of roosters, while setting up a line of permitting/enforcement from the zoning board to the police department’s animal control officer to municipal court.

In again speaking of the virtues of the ordinance, one that has been discussed on and off for well over a year, both sponsors used the term “vetted” as a means of urging the support of their fellow councilors.

Cahoon, who talked before Rodericks, said the principles put into place would allow for “quicker resolution” of any problems involved with the matter.

Sousa, who spoke after the At-Large member, said the bill was “well drafted with good intentions” and that it was “unfortunate” it apparently wasn’t going to pass.

Rodericks remarked it is his wont to give first passage to most if not all ordinances put before the body to allow for a larger “conversation” and to “listen more to the public.”

In this instance, he said the more people became aware of what was being considered, the more he heard opposition.

He cited the lack of a daily newspaper that covers the city as one of the reasons why residents were late to realizing what was being proposed, although it was debated greatly on social media and has been covered throughout the year-plus duration of the debate by local and regional news outlets.

Rodericks said he also based his final decision on recent opinions authored on the topic by the federal Centers for Disease Control and the local Defenders of Animals, both of which warned of the inherent pitfalls of allowing the keeping the chickens in urban settings.

Rodericks later said, “I just think as the dust finally settled through my deliberations, we’re more city than country. We’re not Rehoboth and Seekonk, but we’re not Providence and Central Falls either. We’re an urban ring community and where do we draw the line?

He continued, “No matter what we do tonight, there will be some people who have them. So be it, if they’re responsible. I’m not looking to send the chicken police out after people. But if this gets out of hand, then what happens? I’ll be voting against tonight.”

And with that, it was known the ordinance would fail to pass as both Mourato and Britto had already reiterated their opposition.

What happens next is what has happened previously. Residents are not allowed to legally “house and keep” chickens. Property owners with complaints will go through the city’s municipal court system to remedy each dispute on a case by case basis.