HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0765.045 2016-2018w
From: Kit Muhs
To: Council Testimony
_
' O
Subject: Bill 112
Y
Date: Saturday, March 10, 2018 11:40:10 AM"3
Aloha,
I am writing in support of Rooster Farm Bill 112. 1 realize we have a sensitive situation, as property
owners who keep roosters on property zoned ag are acting within their rights per the ag zoning.
However, they are also simultaneously infringing on neighbors' rights to quiet enjoyment of their
property. The challenge is to address this issue in an equitable manner while respecting long-
standing cultural practices. I believe your bill does this.
I've heard the pro -rooster camp's objection many times: If you don't like it, move. As a local realtor, I
know first-hand that's easier said than done. Having a rooster farm next door makes it much more
difficult to sell one's property and move away from the nuisance; it also erodes a property's value.
I have also seen copies of old HPP deeds in which the original developer included a deed restriction
that stated the lots, although zoned ag, were to be considered residential use. Those deed
restrictions are expired, but I do believe it speaks to the developer's original vision of HPP as a
residential community. Now that there is increasing pressure of more and more residents (not
farmers or livestock keepers) moving in, we have a changing land -use situation and a community
demographic that needs to be addressed in regard to rooster farms. Unfortunately, those who
counter with statements like, "don't move here if you don't like roosters" or "just move away," are
failing to understand they live among many other people who also have rights, and aren't accepting
the reality of our changing community.
I believe that restricting the number or location of roosters on any particular parcel to within a set
distance from any boundary line is an equitable solution. I support your bill.
Kit Muhs,
HPP resident