Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMIVIMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 20,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 7. Structures for housing of animals, including fowl,must be 75 feet from neighboring lot lines <br /> and 150 feet from neighboring residence structures. <br /> 8. Animal noise such as crowing that occurs repeatedly for more than five 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: Environment <br /> of the municipal code do not address animal noise. <br /> Landgraver asked if a property owner would be allowed 50 roosters on a 2-acre property. <br /> Gaffron indicated they would be. <br /> Thiesse asked if the rooster in question meets the structure location requirement. <br /> Gaffron stated he is unsure at this point. The Community Service Officer(CSO)has reviewed the site. <br /> Thiesse stated in his view that would be important to know because if the rooster is not in compliance,the <br /> City could require the rooster to go. <br /> Gaffron noted this particular situation is currently in litigation and that the outcome at this point is <br /> uncertain. The City does have a violation enforcement process in place,which is being followed. <br /> Thiesse asked why the City would not prosecute under the noise ordinance. <br /> Gaffron stated the way the City Attorney has to determine if it a noise violation is if it is in excess of five <br /> minutes and not more than one minute apart. The CSO has spent a lot of time dealing with that. If the <br /> City were to prosecute based purely on location, it is likely they would move the chicken coop and not <br /> solve the problem. <br /> Landgraver noted there is no requirement that the fowl must be kept in that structure so the fowl could be <br /> let out and be able to go to the property line. <br /> Schoenzeit stated there is an option as to whether roosters should be dealt with under the zoning code or <br /> under the animal code,and asked if the City chooses to go under the animal section,whether the rooster <br /> in question would be grandfathered. <br /> Gaffron stated if the ordinance is approved under the zoning ordinance,existing roosters would be <br /> grandfathered, but under the animal section it would not be grandfathered. <br /> Leskinen asked if the City wants to go down the path of changing an ordinance based on complaints from <br /> one or two neighbors when they have not historically had a lot of complaints regarding this situation. <br /> Gaffron stated he is in agreement but that Staff has been directed by the City Council to take a look at the <br /> situation. If the conclusion is that, no,the City should not,then they are back to the City Attorney dealing <br /> with the situation under the regulations currently in place. <br /> Schoenzeit noted neither of the parties are in attendance tonight. • <br /> Page 6 <br />