18 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Commissioner Blank noted that he had been concerned about the use of the word "fowl" in the staff report and noted that the dictionary stated that "fowl" was any kind of bird. His research revealed that the classification for kingdom, phylum, and class were identical for fowls and hawks; however, they split at order. He noted that in the case of a wolf and a dog, kingdom, phylum, class, order,.family, and genus were identical; they split at species. The split between a dog and a wolf took place at step six; the split between a fowl and a hawk took place at step four; he believed there was a much broader differentiator of animal types. He brought forward that there was a large difference between a wolf and a dog while they were similar in terms of classifications. He described the differences between different kinds of poultry and fowl and did not believe a hawk would be classified as a fowl unless it was edible. Ms. Decker noted that staff's research was intended to conform to the requirements of the use permit. She added that Ms. Harryman had replied to an email by Mr. Dan Carl, which included the specific definition of "fowl," and stated that the keeping of a hawk would fall under "fowl" in terms of the use permit process. Staff did not believe it would be necessary to process an ordinance amendment or a Code amendment to include wild or exotic animals of any kind. Therefore, this project was before the Commission for a decision. A general discussion of the term "fowl" ensued. Commissioner Pearce inquired how the Webster's definition of "fowl" had come to be used. Ms. Harryman replied that was the dictionary kept in the City Attorney's office. Commissioner Pearce noted that Black's Law Dictionary did not contain a definition of the word "fowl." Ms. Decker noted that animals and birds that people have historically kept, such as chickens, geese, and pigs, were listed; it was not the City's intent that those constitute only fowl. Likewise, the list including sheep and cattle would not preclude any other kind of livestock considered for agriculture, such as llamas, horses, goats, or Shetland ponies. Similarly, these limitations generally addressed the numbers of birds or animals. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Commissioner Blank disclosed that he had exchanged several emails with Mr. Carl and had a telephone conversation relative to the subject. Dan Carl noted that he appreciated the staff and Commission work that had gone into the review of this item. A recess was called at 8:15 p.m. to enable the speaker to display screen shots for his statement. Chairperson Fox reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Carl believed that good municipal codes and consistent enforcement were the same as good fences, which made for good neighbors, leading to happy and safe neighborhoods. He spoke in opposition to this application, asked that it not be approved, and asked that it be acted on at this meeting. He noted that the initial notice had been made 15 months ago and added that it would DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 12/12/2007 Page 4 of 9