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 5 of 12 <br /> <br />(3. #10-3491 CITY OF ORONO - HARDCOVER REGULATIONS AMENDMENT, Continued) <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated they would be, but noted that those type of structures are typically not allowed to be <br />constructed in the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> <br />Bremer noted those items were always included in the calculations. <br /> <br />Mayor McMillan opened the meeting up for public comment. <br /> <br />Dennis Walsh, 1354 Rest Point Circle, noted that there are flat lots and steep lots along the lakeshore and <br />that lots that require a stairway and/or a landing would then be penalized if they are not excluded. <br /> <br />Mayor McMillan closed the public comment portion of the meeting. <br /> <br />Printup moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 94, Third Series, an Ordinance <br />Amending Regulations Governing the Regulation of Hardcover and Establishing the Stormwater <br />Quality Overlay District, and adoption of the Summary Ordinance for publication in the local <br />newspaper. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br /> <br />Mayor McMillan thanked the Hardcover Task Force and Staff for their work on drafting the ordinance. <br /> <br />4. ROOSTERS - POTENTIAL ANIMAL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT <br /> <br />Gaffron stated in response to a small number of ongoing complaints from one or two residents about <br />incessant crowing of roosters located at a property on Watertown Road, the City Council directed that <br />Staff and the Planning Commission review the issue of whether the keeping of roosters should be <br />prohibited within the City. This resulted in a discussion at the August 1 Planning Commission work <br />session, at which one of the residents affected by the roosters related their concerns and requested that <br />roosters be banned and chickens be further regulated. <br /> <br />Subsequently, a public hearing on this issue was held at the August 20th Planning Commission meeting. <br />Owners of roosters in the City were not identified nor individually notified. No members of the public <br />were present to testify at the hearing. The level of public input thus far has been minimal and essentially <br />one-sided. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that regulation of roosters be considered <br />an animal control issue and not a zoning issue. Further, the Planning Commission encouraged the City <br />Council to take no further action on the ordinance amendment. <br /> <br />Staff has prepared an amendment of Municipal Code Chapter 62 consisting of a single sentence to be <br />added to Section 62-9: "No person shall own, harbor, keep or have custody of a rooster on his property." <br />Staff is not proposing any provision for licensing roosters at this time. It is Staff's opinion that if the <br />Municipal Code is amended to ban roosters, this would be the most appropriate method and code section <br />in which to accomplish banning roosters. Establishing a rooster ban in the Animals chapter will avoid <br />grandfathering of existing roosters. Placing the restriction within the Zoning Code would allow for <br />grandfathering and open up a variety of issues regarding how to deal with existing roosters. <br /> <br />The recent complaint about roosters crowing incessantly is currently being addressed by the City via <br />prosecution of the property owner for a noise ordinance violation. If that litigation is successful, it is <br />possible that the owner will get rid of the roosters voluntarily to avoid future action. If the litigation does <br />not result in solving the problem and the Council determines there is a need to amend the code, the extent <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/08/2012 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 09/24/2012 [Page 5 of 12]