SR 06:015 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Commissioner Blank inquired ~hat authority the Animal Control Officer had to enter private property, Roy Ficken, Animal Control Officer, replied that the standard used is probable causeo If they believed a crime ~as being committed or if the animal is in distress, they had the right to enter the backyard. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Annaliese Sanborn noted that she had been part of the Abbey 4-Honey Poultry Project for approximately eight years and that she ~as the youth leader of the project this year. She noted that ~ith respect to the number of birds, children need at least t~o birds at the fair, ~hich may lead to six birds if there 'Were three children in a family. She noted that there ~ere no specifications bet~een standard sized birds and bantams; the standard sized birds are four times larger than the bantams, and that children usually sho~ bantams, ~hich can be the size of a large dove and need less coop space, She noted that the placement of the coop should be in a cool and shady area, ~hich may not be the farthest from the property lineo The Ordinance specifies that the coop needs ~ood sides; that material is not optimal because of the summer heat. She noted that ~ire sides that can be covered ~ith plastic in the ~inter are a good coop configuration. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore, expressed concern about the effect of this ordinance on agricultural lots in the City and unincorporated areas, Ms. Nerland advised that the Code Amendment as proposed ~ould apply to lots that are zoned ResidentiaL The County lots are not zoned ~ithin the City yet, and that ~ould not be an issue until and unless they ~ere annexed in as Residential, as opposed to PUD zoning that ~ould be n:1ore flexibleo She believed that most of the property had come in under a PUD; going for~ard, properties in Happy Valley could be called out if there ~ere interest in zoning some of the areas as AgriculturaL She believed this ~ould apply if a PUD ~ere zoned as R-lo Angelina SUl'nmers did not believe this ~as an essential item and ~as concerned that disclosure of adjacent chickens ~ould jeopardize future home sales, She believed this issue should be kept as status quo because there ~ere only t~o applications for keeping chickenso She believed that passage of- this ordinance 'Would lead to many more children asking for chickenso THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts regarding ~hether the presence of chickens must be disclosed, Ms, Nerland did not kno~ 'Whether there ~as case la~ or statutory la~o The general rule of thumb ~hen selling property ~as that sOlnething detrimental must be disclosed, such as flooding or poor ~ater pressureo She believed that a property o~ner ~ould be ~ise to disclose the presence of a loud rooster, but unless chickens produced a noxious odor or sound, it Inay not be an issueo She stated that she did not intend to give real estate advice to Inembers of the audience, DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, 12/1 4/05 Page 2 of4