PENDLETON — The Umatilla County Planning Commission voted to recommend increasing the number of small livestock for some residences.

The eight-member commission at its public hearing Thursday evening, May 2, in the Vert Auditorium in Pendleton voted 5-3 to recommend approving the increase of small livestock per acre from two to four on single family dwellings that are not farmland and are outside city limits and urban growth boundaries in the county. The commission also approved more minor changes to text regarding location and clarity.

But the commission voted 7-1 to recommend denial of changes to the code’s section regarding fowl and roosters, which has caused particular public outcry.

The recommendations go to the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners for consideration at its regular meeting June 5 at 10 a.m. in the Vert Auditorium.

The planning commission heard from Umatilla County Planning Division staff as well as 26 members of the public during the hearing on changes to the county development code regarding animal density. Around 100 people attended in person, and the meeting lasted about four hours.

The proposed changes came about after county commissioners received complaints about rooster noise and suspected cockfighting. There is no way for county code enforcement to address such complaints either through noise or land use ordinances.

All but two people spoke in opposition of the proposed amendments to the code. The two who were not opponents noted they were neutral.

Part of rural life

One of the points people reiterated during the public comment portion of the hearing was flies, smells and noisy animals, such as roosters, are part of living in a rural area.

Daniel Tejeda, of Hermiston, said limiting the land use restricts his rights to use his land.

“The proposed amendments regarding roosters and poultry won’t guarantee there won’t be any noise issues,” he said. “Animals, even one, can be loud.”

Michael Cuneo, of Pendleton, said the amendments’ section on cleanliness is unreasonable, as even the cleanest farm will have flies. He also said the ratio of two roosters to 38 hens fails to follow animal husbandry standards.

“A general rule of thumb for animal husbandry is six chickens to one rooster to maintain a healthy flock and egg production,” he said. “And on a 4-acre plot, in the established verbiage, I’m stuck to the same as a 2-acre plot closer to town, which doesn’t make sense to me.”

Another resident, Brad McMinn, added something can happen to a flock — such as sickness or an animal attack — that wipes it out.

“How do I start over? I can’t do that with two roosters,” he said.

David Turk, who lives in Reith, said although he does not own any livestock or chickens, he’s never had an issue with anyone else’s.

“The whole idea of living in a rural community is to put up with your neighbor’s livestock,” he said.

After the public comment period, county staff responded. Megan Davchevsky, Umatilla County planning division manager, said code enforcement for land use violations is complaint-driven.

“We do know that there’s a rooster problem countywide,” she said. “We do get complaints from people countywide.”

Further, without any details or restrictions in the code, there’s no way for the county to respond to a complaint. If the amendments were approved, then in the future, code enforcement would have something to point to for why a change has to be made.

“Right now, as it stands, if somebody has 300 chickens in a quarter of an acre on a 1-acre property,” she said, “they’re in compliance regardless of how much of a nuisance those chickens are.”

Other concerns

Some county residents said complying with these changes would effect their small businesses.

Melissa Porter, of Adams, said as urban growth expands into areas that are rural right, these kinds of restrictions could hurt people trying to work and live off the land.

“We’re killing off small producers completely,” she said.

Others talked about the noise associated with dogs, and how there don’t seem to be the same kinds of concerns with those. County staff said there are limits on the number of dogs in the code, but also dogs generally haven’t been what the county receives complaints about. The county does not have an animal control ordinance.

Owen Hegdal, of Weston, said he doesn’t like the proposed amendments — which limit small fur-covered animals to 40, just like chickens — because they don’t differentiate between breed sizes.

He keeps rabbits, he said, and some are the size of small hedgehogs while others are as large as dogs. Smaller rabbits will have a lower impact on the land than bigger ones, but there’s no distinction between them in the proposed language. The same goes for certain breeds of horses, he said.

“The language is so broad, it doesn’t deal with density,” Hegdal said, “it just deals with numbers.”

County staff said getting into breed specifics became too long and complicated, so it seemed more straightforward to have a single standard.

A few people raised concerns about how this change would impact 4-H and FFA students’ animals. County staff said the changes would not affect them.

The vote

The Planning Commission spent almost an hour asking questions to staff, making motions, discussing them and voting on them. At one point, before the vote, a group of about 15 audience members left indignantly after being told the time for public input was closed.

Commission Chair Suni Danforth said it was the commission’s responsibility to present a recommendation to the board of commissioners, but it didn’t have to be all or nothing.

Sam Tucker, the commission’s vice chair, asked whether the county noise ordinance could be used as an enforcement mechanism instead of limiting numbers, echoing public questions, But county counsel, Doug Olsen, said the noise ordinance excludes agricultural uses.

Commissioner John Standley wanted to recommend a blanket denial of all changes. His motion failed, not even receiving a second.

Instead, as Tucker suggested, the commission voted piecemeal, starting with a 5-3 vote in favor of recommending passage of the increase of small livestock to four per acre, except when mixed with larger livestock such as cows or horses.

“For me, I think we did good,” Danforth said in an interview after the meeting. “What I feel really good about is the community turnout, and there were many different points brought up. There was a lot of desire to get various points across and I think that got accomplished and I think that people got heard.”

“The only one that actually listened to anything any of us said was Mr. Standley,” Rueppel said after the meeting. “They say expanding is a good thing, but they didn’t talk about the fine print, which is if you have two horses, you’re back down to two little goats. In my opinion, they’re missing the forest for the trees.”

For Rueppel and others, the code itself is the problem, and fails to recognize the nuances that come with living in a rural residential area. Roger Robinson, for example, said he shared four cows with two other neighbors, so at any given time, whoever has the cows would technically be in violation, even though between the three properties, there is plenty of space.

“I think they should’ve flat-out denied it, the whole thing,” Rueppel said. “I think that the next thing that should be done is we should work on getting the whole thing tossed out.”

Any efforts to eliminate the code entirely would be a separate process from the approval or denial of the proposed amendments that will soon be before the board of commissioners during its June 5 meeting.