Laserfiche WebLink
258 <br /> <br />vacation. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: RELATING TO TERMS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS <br />(2nd reading) <br /> <br /> The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND <br />REORDAIN SECTION 2- OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF <br />CHARLOTTESVILLE, 19~6, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO.LIMITATIONS ON <br />TERMS OF MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS," which was <br />offered atthe July 20th meeting, was approved by the <br />following vote. Ayes: Mr. Barnes, Mr. Buck, Mrs. Gteason, <br />Mr. Towe. Noes: None. Absent: Dr. Hall. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: BANNING ROOSTERS IN CITY LIMITS (2nd reading) <br /> <br /> Ms. Marge Brown of Cherry Avenue, stated that her <br />yard backs up.to the property housing the rooster about <br />which complaints-had bee~ received, but that she does not <br />find the rooster annoying. Ms. Brown stated that the <br />rooster brings simple pleasure to an elderly couple and <br />presented Council with a petition opposing the proposed <br />ordinance. Ms. Brown stated that the person complaining <br />about the rooster is a student and renter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hal Javens of 610 Lyons Court and the owner of <br />hens, opposed the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gale Pickford, an attorney representing Ms. Barker, <br />the owner of the rooster, stated that while Council has the <br />authority to prohibit roosters within the City limits, he <br />felt the matter should be dealt with as a private nuisance <br />problem for which there are existing remedies. <br /> <br /> Ms. June Chavin stated that she did not consider <br />roosters a nuisance. <br /> <br />Mr. James Hicks spoke in opposition to the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Charles Steen, 1412 Baker Street, who had <br />originally lodged the complaint against the rooster, stated <br />that the existing remedies available to him have been very <br />difficult and the fact that he is a renter should not <br />diminish his rights. Mr. Steen encouraged Council's support <br />of the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Barnes, Ms. Barker <br />replied that she has received no other complants about the <br />rooster. <br /> <br /> Mr. Steen stated that he was aware that other <br />complaints had been made in the past about the rooster. <br /> <br /> Mr. Towe questioned the sanitary condition of the <br />rooster's pen. <br /> <br />Ms. Barker replied that the pen is not dirty. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wiley stated that the Commonwealth's Attorney has <br />agreed to allow the City Attorney's office to prosecute the <br />rooster's owner on the basis of a violation of the noise <br />ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Towe stated that he would not favor banning <br />roosters until legal remedies have been exhausted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he felt the noise ordinance should <br />apply to the rooster and that the matter at this time should <br />be treated as a private nuisance. <br /> <br /> The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND <br />REORDAIN SECTION 4-7 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF <br />CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1976, AS AMENDED, TO PROHIBIT THE KEEPING <br />OF ROOSTERS WITHIN THE CITY," which was offered at the July <br /> <br /> <br />