08-20-2012 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

;y i� . _,�. . . � Date Application Received: NA Date Appiication Considered as Complete: NA ' 60-Day Review Period Expires: NA To: Chair Schoenzeit and Planning Commissioners Melanie Curtis,Planning&Zoning Coordinator -Jason Barnes, CSO . . Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Mike Gaffron,Asst. City Administrator Date: August 15, 2012 Subject: Roosters -Potential Ordinance Amendment-Public Hearing Attxchments: A-Draft Ordinance Amendment for Discussion . B -Public Hearing Notice � C-PC August 2012 Work Session Memo and Attachments D - Letter from Wade &Laura Shatzer Dated 8/4/12 � Introduction In response to a sma11 number of ongoing complaints from one or two residents about incessant crowing of roosters located at a property on Watertown Road in the 5-acre RR-lA Rural Residential zoning district,the City Council directed that staff and Planning Commission review the issue of whether the keeping of roosters should be prohibited within the City. This resulted in a discussion at Planning Commission's August 1 work session, at which one of the residents affected by the roosters related their concerns and a request that roosters be banned and chickens be fiu-ther regulated. � Notice for a public hearing on the issue of roosters has been posted and published, such hearing to be held at the Planning Commission's regular meeting of August 20. This hearing process is required if a zoning code amendment ultimately results from the discussions. However, owners of roosters in tlie City have not been identified or individually notified. The level of public input has been minimal and essentially one-sided in discussions to date; it is unknown whether there is some level of public sentiment toward a pro-rooster viewpoint. Background As previously noted,the basic issue is that roosters have a natural propensity to crow loudly in early morning hours and intermittently throughout the day. The high-pitched sound travels significant distances, and may be heard hundreds of feet away. In a completely rural setting this may be acceptable; in a rural residential setting of 2- acre and 5-acre lots that characterizes 80% of Orono, separation distances between homes may not have much effect on reducing the noise impact. The work session memo provided an overview of existing City of Orono ordinances regarding the keeping of animals, and full copies of the pertinent ordinances were included in that packet. Chapter 62: Animals of the Orono Municipal Code (not part of the Zoning Code) contains provisions that regulate the keeping of farm animals with regard to housing conditions, containment of animals and trespassing, and animal noise. Relative to roosters,the animal noise regulations (Section 62-10)would consider it a violation when a rooster crows repeatedly for at least five minutes,with one minute or less between each crowing instance. The provisions of Chapter 78: Zoning Code further regulate animals by establishing zoning districts in which animals are allowed as an accessory or conditional use; minimum acreages required for keeping various animals; and the location of animal housing structures.