PC 121405 - Laserfiche WebLink

interest in zoning Borne of the areas as Ag,ricultural_ She believed this would -apply if a _ - PLJD were zoned as R-1 . Angelina Sum mers dial not believe this was an essential iten~r and was concerned that disclosure of adjacent chickens would jeopardize future home sales- She believed this issue should. be kept as status quo because there have been only two applications for keeping chickens- She believed. that passage of this ordinance would lead to many more children asking for chickens- THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED_ In response to an inquiry by Conimissioncr Roberts regarding wl-~ctl~er the preserrce of chickens must be disclosed, Ms. Ncrland stated that she did not know whether there was case law or statutory law. The general rule of thumb when selling property was that something detrimental must be disclosed, such as flooding or poor water pressure- She believed that a property owner would be wise to disclose the presence of a loud rooster, but unless chickens produced a noxious odor or sound, it may not be an issue. She stated that she did not intend to give real estate advice to members of the audience. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether capons crowed, lvls. Decker confirmed that they did. Corrrn~rissioner Blank suggested that "rooster" be replaced with "male chickens." In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding bantam chickens, Ms_ Decker noted that had not been addressed and that four chickens was a reasonable number of birds to track- Commissioner Fox recalled the discussion of the location of a chicken coop in direct sun if it were at the farthest point from the neighbor's house. She suggested the following language: "The coop shall be in a location that is appropriate for chicken habitation and irraxirriizes distances from neighbors' windows-" Ms_ Dcckcr believed that would be appropriate to accommodate varying lot configurations. Commissioner Blank moved to find that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code are statutorily exempt from CEQA and to recommend approval to the City Council of Case PRZ-30 with the following modifications: L Section F_1_ shall be modified to read as follows: "Male chickens (roosters or capons) shall not he kept-" 2_ Add Item 2_a_ of the staff memo dated ~ecem her 14, 2005 as a new condition, which reads as follows: "The owner is responsible for practicing standard animal husbandry and is required to maintain the chickens in a healthy condition and have them inoculated if available or recommended by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and if not, subject to review and reconsideration by the Planning Directo r_" G'ommissioner Maas seconded the motion_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December l4, 2005 Page 5 of 18