01-22-2013 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

- p / `-.. Date Application Received: NA Date Application Considered as Complete: NA 60-Day Review Period Expires: NA To: Chair Schoenzeit and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Michael P. Gaffron,Asst. City Administrator Date: January 17, 2013 Subject: #12-3586 City of Orono -Zoning Code Amendments-Expanded Scope � ' a) Housekeeping Amendments -Reviewed at Nov. 2012 PC Meeting b) Use of Council Discretion-Horse Pasture Requirement c) Appropriate Numbers of Chickens -Residential Sites . ■ Public Hearirig on Items b) and c) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Zoning Code Sections Affected: a) 1) 78-394, 78-419 and 78-443 (Accessory uses in Rural Residential Districts) 2) 78- 566 (Accessory uses in the RS District) b) Keeping of Farm Animals for Non-commercial Purposes: Conditional use in 78-303(3); 78-328(3); 78-348(3); 78-367(3); Accessory Use in 78-394(5); 78-419(5); 78-443(5) c) 78-1; definitions of"Animal unit" and"Farm animals" Application Summary: This application initially was merely a pair of housekeeping text amendments to: 1) Sections 78- 394, 78-419 and 78-443 regarding the keeping of farm animals as an accessory use in Rura1 Residential Districts. The revision would eliminate language that was inadvertently added via Ordinance 82 Third Series in December 2010 suggesting a CUP is needed for this accessory use in RR districts; and 2) Section 78- 566 correcting a cross-reference to the list of accessory uses in the RS Seasonal Recreational District which was not corrected when Ordinance 90 Third Series was adopted in December 201 l. At its December 10, 2012 meeting the City Council tabled the amendment and directed staff to broaden its scope to additionally address two animal-related topics: - Define a process and/or provide guidelines for Council's use of its discretion in determining whether or when to allow horse pasture requirements to be reduced; and - Review and address the issue of how many chickens or fowl can be harbored on a residential properly; the inference being that current code defining 50 chickens as one animal unit("a.u.") coupled with 1 a.u. allowed per acre,may be excessive. To avoid duplication and for clarity,this memo will primarily address the two additional topics noted ixnmediately above.