Carol,
Just between you and me, regarding Charles Robbins’ situation as described under “CItizen Appearances” at the March 2nd City Council meeting:
Subsequent to Planning Commission’s review of the infamous “chicken ordinance”, we realized that, while 10-1-2 names ten or more varieties in defining household pets, 10-4-4 (B) 3 permits pets “provided that not more than three (3) pets are adult dogs, cats, chickens [to be moved to new paragraph 2.5], ducks or rabbits or any combination of these species”. In other words, the 3-pet limit does not apply to smaller animals such as parrots, hamster, lizards—and, presumably, comparably-sized but unspecified avians such as pigeons. So, unless someone insists that pigeons are really “city chickens” (or commercially-raised “livestock”), Mr. Robbins and his pigeons should be free and clear.
Just my opinion, of course…as a private citizen casually reading the City’s Zoning Regulations.
David
Carol,
Just between you and me, regarding Charles Robbins’ situation as described under “CItizen Appearances” at the March 2nd City Council meeting:
Subsequent to Planning Commission’s review of the infamous “chicken ordinance”, we realized that, while 10-1-2 names ten or more varieties in defining household pets, 10-4-4 (B) 3 permits pets “provided that not more than three (3) pets are adult dogs, cats, chickens [to be moved to new paragraph 2.5], ducks or rabbits or any combination of these species”. In other words, the 3-pet limit does not apply to smaller animals such as parrots, hamster, lizards—and, presumably, comparably-sized but unspecified avians such as pigeons. So, unless someone insists that pigeons are really “city chickens” (or commercially-raised “livestock”), Mr. Robbins and his pigeons should be free and clear.
Just my opinion, of course…as a private citizen casually reading the City’s Zoning Regulations.
David