Posts: 14,121
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Those who move into a quiet neighborhood and then proceed to acquire a large number of roosters
Except that it's actually an "agricultural subdivision" consisting of "farm lots" where the "keeping of livestock" is considered a "permitted use".
If you really wanted "small birds and insects quietly chirping" then you should have bought R-zoned land or a subdivision with strict CC&Rs.
Why is this so hard to understand?
The real problem is that the subdivisions were created using fraudulent application of zoning codes. Decades later, it's obvious they are not being used as intended. Why not address that issue directly? Just get a majority of the landowners to agree on change of zone, then petition County and State for approval, forcing them to go on record. Ag zoning is clearly inappropriate for lots less than 5 acres.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
"you should have bought R-zoned land or a subdivision with strict CC&Rs"
This is where the concept of localism comes in, and I'm not going to provide a definition. The rooster farm who has been on the small subdivision lot for 25 years, essentially being among the first to be there, has a strong moral case. (maybe grandfather them in).
But the new rooster farmer who elects to set up operation in a dense subdivision and he sees existing homes next door? Then Durian Fiend's comment is apt: "(rooster farmers are) 2nd in line for being the worst neighbors behind thieves."
(We should not need the law to explain how to have basic courtesy to neighbors.)
Posts: 14,121
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
(We should not need the law to explain how to have basic courtesy to neighbors.)
Yes, but realistically, that's what we have.
In any case, I suggest that redefining "Ag" is not the answer; if these subdivisions are really "residential" they should be zoned appropriately, either by County or with suitably restrictive CC&R overlay.
Suppose that the "rooster bill" had passed. Will we repeat that process every time someone finds a "permitted agricultural use" which offends the neighbors? Noisy peacocks, stinky pigs, barking dogs...
Both RA and FA zoning allow livestock "provided that any feed or water area, salt lick, corral, run, barn, shed, stable, house, hutch, or other enclosure for the keeping of any permitted animals shall be located at least seventy-five feet from any lot line". This would effectively preclude any keeping of livestock in most subdivisions, and this is probably appropriate for the current residential use as it actually exists today.
Posts: 1,086
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2016
How many people thought that the bill, if passed, would have forced the existing rooster farms to move out? Same question for rezoning.
Posts: 1,086
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2016
Take grandfathering a step further....If there were new restrictions that don't apply to the grandfathered farms, wouldn't that lessen the likelihood that those farms would ever relocate?
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
This Ag is always noisy and offensive narrative is somewhat misleading. If there is a tractor running all day, it is probably on a lot in the hundreds of acres. (And the noise is spread across a large area.)
Chainsaws, weedeaters, other tools? They are run intermittently mostly, and in daylight hours. In Hilo town, there's guys running leaf blowers all over. Every day. And I hear just as many barking dogs.
The noise that is most problematic, city or country, is 1) chronic and 2) occurs at night. Roosters and generators. And many people using generators are not farmers, and a proper generator house mitigates the noise.
Posts: 14,121
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
This Ag is always noisy and offensive narrative is somewhat misleading.
Agree, but only the part about "always". Reality is, "permitted agricultural uses" aren't necessariy compatible with "residential uses". If the lots were being "used as intended" this wouldn't be a problem.
It's long past time the zoning was updated to match reality. Instead, we have this recurring hope that government will save us from ourselves. "The roosters are noisy, please change the laws." ("We can't manage our roads, please manage them for us.")
Posts: 907
Threads: 12
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,457
Threads: 12
Joined: Oct 2016
quote:
Originally posted by MarkD
The noise that is most problematic, city or country, is 1) chronic and 2) occurs at night. Roosters and generators. And many people using generators are not farmers, and a proper generator house mitigates the noise.
Right. IMO, NO one, regardless of what zoning their home is located in, should be subjected to the sporadic, disruptive noise that roosters produce during sleeping hours.
BTW, a chronically night barking dog in the 3 acre ag subdivisions subjects the owner to warnings and tickets.
Posts: 14,121
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
NO one, regardless of what zoning their home is located in, should be subjected to the sporadic, disruptive noise that roosters produce during sleeping hours.
The keeping of livestock is a permitted agricultural use explicitly allowed on ag-zoned lands.
Construction of a primary dwelling is also a permitted use of ag-zoned lands.
The uses are obviously incompatible. Whoever approved the subdivisions should be sued.
a chronically night barking dog in the 3 acre ag subdivisions subjects the owner to warnings and tickets.
How often is that law actually enforced? Next thing you're going to tell me that the developer was required to pave the roads before receiving final subdivision plat approval.
|
