PC 121207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Fox noted that on page 10 of the staff report, it is stated that hunting was not allowed in the EBRPD, which seemed to contradict Ms. Decker’s statement that the EBRPD is a potential site. Ms. Decker stated that she could not respond with details regarding sites that may be available to falconers. She noted that site was mentioned as being allowed for special permitting in order to hunt in those areas. She added that the question had been raised regarding this application being a PUD modification versus a conditional use permit. She noted that PUD’s relied on the underlying zoning and the straight-zoned requirements. She added that the PUD guidelines contain clarifications that this use fell back on the R-1-6,500 zoning district, which requires a use permit. Ms. Decker indicated that this covered the discussion of questions from Chairperson Fox that was provided to staff. She added that Commissioner Blank had also sent an email at 3:05 p.m. that staff would address regarding questions on the kingdom and species of hawks. Commissioner Blank referenced the email and 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. He noted that other definitions for “fowl” exist. He indicated that the classification of animals include kingdom, phylum, class, and order. His research revealed that the classification for kingdom, phylum, and class were identical for fowls and hawks; however, they split at order. He indicated that this was a high split. For reference in the past chicken issues, a chicken had the identical kingdom, phylum, and class, but split at order, and there is a significance difference between a hawk and a chicken. He indicated that there are eight steps in classification: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. 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 read from the Britannica and Encarta encyclopedia. It indicated that the modern usage of the term “fowl” relates to edible species, unless specifically used in the context of waterfowl or wild fowl, and is usually restricted to the common domestic fowl or chicken. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 8 of 19