03-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

32388.2 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members c From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato)K'Q` 4�J IA � Date: March 23, 1988 V*r% 4f>Tll y Subject: 1972 Sha�-ywood Road 11AR 2 8 lg�g G .ttachments - 11'ii A. Fredrick Brown Memo Dated 11/28/77 I V4 B. 1972 Shadywood Road Memo Dated 2/4/88 ORONO ISSUE - 1. Provide Council with information regardinq the outcome of the jury trial for the violation of Ordinance 9.13, Subdivision 14. 2. Presentation as to further courses of action the City may choose to take. INTRODUCTION - The property at 1972 Shadywood Road has been the subjec- ;omplaints commencing in 1977 regarding the continuous feedinq of wa��-:owl by the resident at this addrass. At that time, the judge in the matter imposed one year sentence that would be stayed providing that the resident must not engage in any feeding during the stay or be charged with any other violation of public ordinance, as noted in Attachment A. In 1982, he was again cited for violation of the public nuisance ordinance, but in a stipulation signed in 1982 was given an amount that he was allowed to feed. In 1984, the City passed Ordinance No. 9.13, Subdivision 14 that limited the feeding of water fowl in a manner that it would precipitate their congregation, cause problems with excreme^t, or alter their migratory patterns. During the spring of 1987, the ty received complaints and during the summer of 1987 twice cited the ident of the above � Jperty for feeding the ducks. (The City only cites a violator twi.ce for a nuisance type complaints before they are taken to court as judges generally dislike a series of tickets for the same violation prior to it being heard in a court.) After a couple of preliminary motions in front of the judge during the fall and early winter this went to a jury trial on March 11, 1988 and the trial was concluded after five hours of deliberation on March 15, 1988. In a discussion with the jury foreperson, the City attorney was able to ascertain that neither the stipulation nor the fact of the congregation of ducks created a problem was an issue for the jury but the decision pivoted on the fact that there were only two instances cited for the feeding the ducks. The jury apparently did not feel that this constituted enough feedings to create the nuisance that exists. Th- City did on its behalf have three neighbors together with Dr. James Cooper, a noted migratory water fowl expert from the Univcrsity, testify indicating that the actions of the resident of 1972 Shadywood Road were detrimental to the properties owners with Dr. Cooper testifying as to the detriment to the birds themselves.