PC 062205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mark Becker, applicant, noted that they had approached 4-H and asked about the procedure for having chickens, nothing was said about a perm it_ He believed 4-Ii considered up to four chickens on a residential property to be allowable_ He noted that had he known prior to obtaining the chickens, he would have contacted the City and taken care of that. He had been told by 4-H that the area he lived in was zoned for chickens. He noted that they had had the chickens for rive or six months but that Mrs. Shoars-Mosby claimed. that she had been affected for two months. He noted that she was on the other side of the property of a neighbor who rarely heard the chickens. Ne noted that it was his idea to get rid of the dog with respect to the Rojas incident. IIe noted that he had built a permitted 1,000-square-foot addition to his home and believed that would enhance the property values in the neighborhood. He emphasized that he had no intention of turning the neighborhood into Castro Valley. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Comiriissioner Blar~ac regarding the allowable nuiriber of animals, Mr_ Ficken confirmed that the Municipal Code allowed up to three domestic animals. He noted that Section 7.36 of the Code provides that "no animal can disturb the peace and quiet of a reasonable person." A discussion of animal enforcement for dogs ensued. Commissioner Fox noted that she had walked the fence at the sports park near the site numerous times and noted that she could not hear the chickens during the day. She would like to limit the number of chickens to four or less. She considered barking dogs and airplanes to be noisier than the chickens, which. she could not hear over the sound of the other birds. She supported staff s recomiriendations _ Mr. Ficken noted the City's interpretation of a kennel as containing four or more dogs or cats, and they era not allowed in residential areas; three animals would be acceptable. Chickens arc considered to be fowl. Ms. Decker noted that the issue was raised some time agog and the use permit process was initiated for chickens. Chairperson Maas noted that animals such as horses must he boarded in an appropriate space and inquired why a special condition was allowed for chickens. Commissioner Fox noted that while chickens were allowed. in a conditional. use in a residential area, horses and pigs were not_ Commissioner Fox moved to make the required use permit findings and to approve PAUP-1, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit S of the staff report, as recommended by staff, with the modification that no more than four chickens be allowed in the enclosed area in the back yard_ Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion_ Chairperson Maas advised that she could not support this motion until the Commissioners have visited the site. C7ommissioners Arkin and Blank concurred. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2005 Page 1 5 of 20