18 ATTACHMENT 13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Glen Mosby, 2596 Larrikeet Court, noted that he had brought the issue to light when his wife had been disturbed by the noise from the chickens. He was concerned that the applicants had not applied for the use permit prior to having the chickens. Commissioner Arkin noted that was a common occurrence. Mr. Mosby believed that chickens were a farm animal and did not know why they were part of the conditional use permit process. He accepted the noise of crows and barking dogs nuisance and noted that these were urban sounds that had established remedies in place. He noted that chickens could not be trained to be quiet, were farm animals, and should not be located in residential urban areas. He noted that only the neighbors within direct earshot were affected. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, noted that many residents on her road used to raise chickens for eggs. She recalled the history of this use in the City and noted that annexed properties in the Happy Valley area may keep animals if there is a parcel of 40,000 square feet or more. In order to keep the animals, there must be 20,000 square feet of open space to maintain 50 fowl or similar animals. She noted that the Commission could condition that the eggs not be sold. Alana Shoars-Moseby, 2596 Larrikeet Court, noted that she had filed the initial noise complaint with several offices in the City and had been enduring the noise since April. She appreciated Mr. Ficken's visits, but he was not there all the time. She urged the Commission to deny this application so she could regain her quality of life. She challenged the definition of a chicken coop and believed they should be enclosed buildings that muffled the sound. She believed the chickens should be on a farm. She stated that she had contacted several 4-H club entities and found that they recommended "parental common sense" with respect to animals and 4-H. She noted that 4-H recommended that the families speak to the neighbors and check the local zoning laws; she stated that they were not contacted. She noted that this was not disclosed when they bought their property and was very concerned about their property value. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Maas regarding from what part of her property she heard the chickens, Ms. Shoars-Mosby replied that it was either in her bedroom on the second floor or on her porch, where she normally paints. She described it as an intermittent clucking sound and was becoming weary of her quality of life being interrupted. She asked the Commission to give her quality of life back to her. Ruth and Tom Rojas, 2599 Skimmer Court, pointed out their lot on the overhead projection and spoke in opposition to this item. tiir. Rojas noted that he had noticed two chickens walking loose in the applicants' backyard the previous night and pointed out that the staff recommendations stated that they must be kept in an enclosed area. He had hoped to decrease the number of animals, not increase them. He noted that the Beckers' dog had previously bitten his eight-year-old son twice and was disappointed that they had not been able to develop a rapport with the Beckers. He submitted the police report from that incident. He stated that he had experienced problems with the Beckers' dogs and cats and perceived a lack of consideration from the applicants. EXCERPTS: PL:~'~NING C(~M~IISSION 1~9EET[tiC; ~11VU DES. June ?~. BOOS Page ? ut•~