Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, September 24, 2012 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 8 of 12 <br /> <br />(4. ROOSTERS - POTENTIAL ANIMAL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, Continued) <br /> <br />Mattick noted he is not familiar with this litigation but that if the City Council is opposed to roosters, <br />Staff's recommendation would be the best way to deal with the situation. Mattick noted if the City <br />proceeds under the noise violation regulations, the City is required to prove that a nuisance exists. <br /> <br />Franchot asked if roosters are necessary for chickens to lay eggs. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated roosters are not required for chickens to produce eggs but they are required to make <br />baby chicks. <br /> <br />Franchot reiterated he would be in favor of adopting the proposed amendment if the litigation does not <br />solve the problem. <br /> <br />Mayor McMillan asked what other recourse the neighbors would have to deal with the crowing. <br /> <br />Mattick stated the City needs to demonstrate to the judge and/or jury that the crowing is loud and <br />obtrusive, which can be done by having a police officer visit the site and observing the situation. Mattick <br />noted that it can be difficult to prove it is a nuisance and that sometimes it comes down to the time at <br />which the noise is repeatedly occurring. <br /> <br />Mayor McMillan stated given Staff's memo, she would be okay with following Staff's recommendation of <br />waiting to see if the situation will be resolved in the court system. McMillan indicated she would be <br />agreeable to reviewing this situation in a few months to see whether any further action should be taken. <br /> <br />Bremer stated she is also agreeable with waiting, but noted the big difference between crowing roosters <br />and barking dogs is that the dogs can be placed indoors if they are barking but that the same is not true for <br />roosters. Bremer indicated she does not know what else can be done to help quiet roosters and that it <br />appears there are two movements; one that prohibits roosters completely and another that allows roosters <br />to a limited extent. Bremer stated if the rest of the City Council is interested in banning roosters, she <br />would also be in favor of banning roosters. <br /> <br />Bremer asked when the litigation is expected to be concluded. <br /> <br />Laura Shatzer stated they have their arraignment in a couple of days. <br /> <br />Mattick noted the arraignment is the first step in the process and that it could be a few months before it <br />works its way through the court system. <br /> <br />Shatzer stated given the time and expense that the City has gone through already in dealing with this <br />situation, she would like to see something enacted that would give the City more authority to prevent <br />similar situations from occurring. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if the situation would be different if there was only one rooster. <br /> <br />Shatzer commented she is unsure of that, and noted that there are between five to ten roosters at any one <br />time on the property. Currently the neighbor has two or three roosters, which has improved the situation <br />slightly. <br /> <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/08/2012 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 09/24/2012 [Page 8 of 12]