03-13-2018, 06:09 PM
Do you mean the 0.09% who are against rooster noise, or the 0.09% who are rooster farmers?
Referring to the 0.09% who wrote letters supporting the new Rooster Limit.
Bottom line remains: the land is zoned Ag, keeping of livestock is a permitted agricultural use, buyers failed to perform their due diligence. If the Ag zoning is a problem for a given subdivision, then that subdivision can write CC&Rs around the issue or petition for change of zone.
Address the real problem: County created this issue in the first place by allowing fraudulent use of Ag zoning as a means for developers to avoid providing proper residential infrastructure. It's long past time for the Code to include a means to complete this gentrification for those subdivisions that decide they are actually "residential".
Of course, this means higher property values (and therefore higher taxes), but if the landowners are going to demand R-style services (freedom from roosters, paved roads, emergency response, etc) then they should pay for that.
Referring to the 0.09% who wrote letters supporting the new Rooster Limit.
Bottom line remains: the land is zoned Ag, keeping of livestock is a permitted agricultural use, buyers failed to perform their due diligence. If the Ag zoning is a problem for a given subdivision, then that subdivision can write CC&Rs around the issue or petition for change of zone.
Address the real problem: County created this issue in the first place by allowing fraudulent use of Ag zoning as a means for developers to avoid providing proper residential infrastructure. It's long past time for the Code to include a means to complete this gentrification for those subdivisions that decide they are actually "residential".
Of course, this means higher property values (and therefore higher taxes), but if the landowners are going to demand R-style services (freedom from roosters, paved roads, emergency response, etc) then they should pay for that.