2015.05.26 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 26, 2015 Page 4 of 11 number of fowl to six. City Attorney Gilchrest asked for a second to the motion. AMIJNDMENT: Motion by Councilmember Jacobsen seconded by Councilmember Burg to amend Ordinance 834 to allow only six fowl r c gar dles s of the size of the residential properly in the City of New Brighton. Councilmember Bauman has an issue with the Ordinance, as there were no restrictions written into the document. For that reason, she recommended that the Council not support the previous version of Ordinance 834. She stated for the record, that she appreciated the flyer that was circulated as it went to all residents and provided the public with information on the topic. She did not appreciate the spiteful comments that are being made from New Brighton residents. She encouraged residents to be rational with their comments versus making personal attacks. She reported that she received 175 phone calls from residents and from those calls, 15 were in support Numerous calls from residents expressed concern about the need for control measures for chicken keeping. Councilmember Burg questioned what restrictions or control measures should be written into the Ordinance. Councilmember Bauman would be in favor of the language including a no slauglmtering clause, and required licensing and fines. City Attorney Ulchrest advised the Council to take action on the amendment on the table prior to making another amendment. Mayor Jacobsen expressed concern with the City moving forward prior to hearing back from the State on the keeping of chickens. He discussed the actions of the CDC and recommended that the Council not allow chicken keeping until further information was available from the State and federal governrmrcnt. He believed that the majority of the community was not in favor of chickens or an Ordinance without enforceable rules and regulations. He reported that he was trying to keep the City moving in a direction that was in the best interest of the community. He was saddened by the threats and level of anger that he has been subjected to over this issue. City Manager Lotter commented that two public hearings have been held regarch ng this topic. He believed it took courage for individuals on both sides of the issue to come forward and make a statement. He applauded the residents that spoke at the May 12, 2015 public hearing. It was his opinion that the comments made were done so with respect and displayed community. He reported there were more things uniting the City at this time, than were dividing. He understood this was an emotional issue and encowagead the Council to keep this in mind when making a final decision. He appreciated the direction the Council was headed and believed that the through several amendments, the Council could reach a middle ground. Councilmember Bauman called the question. 3 Ayes, 2 Nays (Bauman and Mayor Jacobsen opposed)-Amendment Carried Councilmember Jacobsen asked if Ordinance 834 could have a cross reference to City Code regarding the treatment of deceased pets. City Attorney Gilchrest recommended that the Council include desired language within this Ordinance and not provide a cross reference. Mayor Jacobsen stated that if the City were to proceed with allowing chickens it may need to consider hiring a licensed chicken inspector. This would ensure that licensed homeowners with chickens were following the City's Ordinance requirements. Councilmember Bauman recommended that the Ordinance have rule restrictions. She questioned how many complaints were going to be allowed for a residential property with chickens. She was not in favor of the City hiring a chicken inspector. She did not believe the City's resources should be spent in this manner. Councilmember Burg questioned what compliance items staff would recommend be added to the Ordinance. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development/Planning Director Gundlach stated the task force considered a registration or licensing process. However, this recommendation was not forwarded to the Council. She reported that the only purpose of the licensing process would be to know where chicken keeping was taking place and to hold an initial inspection. She stated the only enforcement mechanism for the City was to write a citation in order to reach compliance.