Laserfiche WebLink
�r� r <br /> . Roosters <br /> August 15,2012 <br /> Page 2 ` <br /> To summarize the existing code sections related to chickens and roosters: <br /> - Chickens are `farm animals' by definition. <br /> - The code does not distinguish between chickens (hens) and roosters;they are all defined as � <br /> `fowl'. � <br /> - Fowl are allowed in the 2-acre and 5-acre Rural Residential districts as an accessory use. <br /> - Fowl are allowed in the Lakeshore Residential 1/2-acre, 1-acre and 2-acre districts and in <br /> the RS district, as a conditional use,requiring a CUP. <br /> - The number of fowl allowed is based on the size of the properly; the minimum acreage for <br /> farm animals is at least one acre for the dwelling and one additional acre for each animal <br /> unit. <br /> - One animal unit is equivalent to 50 fowl under Orono code. Therefore, a 2-acre lot would � � <br /> be allowed 50 fowl, a 3-acre lot would be allowed 100 fowl,4-acre lot allowed 150, etc. <br /> �.r.� - Slxuctures for housing of animals, including fowl, must be 75 feet from neighboring lot <br /> +�: <br /> lines and 150 feet from neighboring residence structures. <br /> - Animal noise such as crowing that occurs repeatedly for more than 5 minutes at intervals of <br /> less than one minute is considered a noise violation. <br /> It should be noted that the general noise ordinance regulations contained within Chapter 58: <br /> Environment of the municipal code do not address animal noise. <br /> Scope of Review , <br /> As noted previously,the direction from Council was merely to consider a ban on roosters, and <br /> did not suggest that we should address other general animal regulations with respect to chickens <br /> and other fowl, such as the location,numbers, and manner in which they are kept. While these <br /> may be concerns of some small number of residents, staff is recommending that the focus of <br /> � , consideration at this time be limited to the issue of roosters. The low number and type of <br /> complaints received lately and in past years regarding fowl does not warrant a wholesale revision <br /> of the existing animal ordinances, in the opinion of planning staff(CSO Jason Barnes,who deals <br /> with animal issues, is in complete agreement with this position). � <br /> Analysis � <br /> The existing noise ordinance does not easily address the issue of roosters crowing, in that the <br /> thresholds for violation(crowing repeatedly for 5 minutes with intervals less than one minute) <br /> may not be met even though the crowing is an incessant annoyance. The extent of monitoring <br /> needed to determine if a violation is technically occurring is a frustration for both staff and the <br /> affected neighbors. Additionally, options for eliminating a rooster noise issue are extremely <br /> limited. While a barking dog can be fitted with a bark collar or brought into the house to address <br /> a noise issue,neither option is available for dealing with roosters. Removal of the annoyance <br /> rather than attempting to regulate it in this case may be most appropriate in the case of roosters. <br /> While a number of cities have banned roosters,there is no clear uniformity among local <br /> ordinances that deal with poultry. One generalization that staff believes can be made is that <br /> cities with higher density development are more likely to have banned roosters, and in some <br />