RAYMOND – Any animal making a noise lasting longer than 10 minutes could net its owner a steep fine, according to a proposed animal noise ordinance that Raymond voters will decide Tuesday, June 12.

The ordinance, drafted by the town’s attorney using ordinances from around Maine and the country as a guide, was inspired by the ongoing neighbor dispute in the Ledge Hill Road section.

In that dispute, Wayne Gelston complained last summer to town officials that his across-the-street neighbor, Julie Sutherland, had brought 25 noisy roosters to her 3-acre hobby farm. After appealing to the town to solve his issue, the dispute received attention from the town’s former fire chief, Denis Morse. He attempted to mediate the dispute, which Sutherland describes as a property rights issue and Gelston says is a violation of his right to privacy.

With all manner of mediation having failed to this point, the rooster issue has become a classic stalemate with neither side willing to give. With the selectmen approving the referendum earlier this spring, Raymond voters, therefore, are being asked to step in and decide the matter.

The ordinance levies fines for violations, but exempts commercial agriculture operations. It is supported by Gelston and opposed by Sutherland. If adopted, Sutherland, or any animal owner, could be fined if their animals make noise for constant durations lasting longer than 10 minutes or intermittent durations of more than 30 minutes. After a warning, the first violation would be $50. The second would be $100. Each additional violation would cost the animal owner $200.

“I’m happy with the ordinance,” Gelston said. “I was concerned initially with the length of time the animal would have to make noise, but after reviewing ordinances throughout the country, the 10-minute limit is pretty much the standard in the industry.”

While the entire town is being asked to weigh in, both sides, including selectmen, have publicly stated the issue of animal noise is not a town-wide problem. Gelston, therefore, doesn’t see the adoption of an ordinance as opening the floodgates to complaints.

“The selectmen have never been inundated with complaints from residents about other types of animals, so I think it’s sort of a straw horse to say everyone is going to complain about their neighbor’s animals because that hasn’t been the case over the years,” he said.

While she agrees that the issue isn’t a townwide one, Sutherland believes the ordinance is an overstepping by government and an affront to non-commercial farmers and animal lovers, who shouldn’t have to worry about neighbors complaining about noises that should be expected in rural areas.

“It’s gone way out of hand,” Sutherland said. “In other towns, ordinances can [allow] 30-60 minutes [of animal noise] and rural areas are exempt. Raymond is going to put a 10-minute limit and they’re not recognizing hobby farms, only commercial farms. They’re not recognizing insect control and agriculture, only as commercial farms, which I don’t think is right at all.”

Gelston, an avowed conservative who believes government regulation should be the last resort, agrees with Sutherland that “it’s a shame it’s gotten this far.” But, he says, because she won’t act neighborly, he is forced to do something about the noise issue that he said wakes him early in the morning and makes his family’s outside pursuits less peaceful. While Raymond is largely rural compared with Portland, lots are close together.

“The last ordinance, which is a dog barking ordinance, was written in 1984, when Raymond was a lot more rural than it is now,” Gelston said. “And no one in their right mind when they wrote the ordinance thought someone would think to bring 25 roosters. They thought a person might have a rooster or two. And as I told her at the [mediation] meeting, if you only had one or two roosters, we wouldn’t even be here. I can live with one or two roosters, but not 25 of them.”

While the neighbors are at loggerheads, some of the selectmen also see the issue differently. Charley Leavitt is opposed to the ordinance, not because he supports Sutherland’s position, but because he feels the judicial branch is a better venue for solving what he says is a civil dispute.

“To me, in this particular case, the Gelstons could go with a civil action against Sutherland,” Leavitt said. “If they want to pursue that, there are avenues available that the civil courts would make a decision on.”

Leavitt is mainly worried that if Raymond adopts the ordinance, taxpayers would become embroiled in lawsuits stemming from the new ordinance.

“If Raymond chooses to adopt this ordinance, all we’re going to do is basically replace the plaintiffs in a lawsuit, and it’s going to cost the town of Raymond money in the long run,” Leavitt said.

Like Leavitt, Sutherland also sees the new ordinance as potentially unenforceable by the animal control officer, Susan Fielder.

“The animal control officer’s budget is going to increase 10 times over,” Sutherland said. “Can you imagine when the summer residents come up with their animals, they’re not used to the area so they’re going to bark 10 to 20 minutes, probably more. Poor Sue is going to be totally nuts. She’s not going to get any sleep whatsoever.”

While Fielder declined to comment on the enforceability aspect, Town Manager Don Willard said the ordinance has solid backing by the town’s legal firm and is based on existing law.

“Our law firm at Bernstein Shur say it’s a perfectly enforceable ordinance,” Willard said. “It’s modeled on similar ordinances in other towns, and exempts agriculture, which is what we want it to do. And so I think this will solve the problem and address the concerns of the people who have had issue with this, and also make an orderly and workable environment for people who keep and work with animals. I think this is a good first step. It may not be the last thing, but it’s a good step, and it’s not unusual at all.”

Mike Reynolds, the selectman who proposed that the measure go out to voters as an all-encompassing animal noise ordinance, has had second thoughts since the vote earlier this spring.

“First and foremost, I wish [the vote] wasn’t happening. This is really about neighbors,” he said.

Reynolds said he will likely vote against the ordinance, saying the measure was inspired by the rooster dispute and overreaches as a solution. He’d prefer a rooster-specific ordinance in town.

“If I had my druthers, it would be just about the roosters, not about all animals, and I came to that realization during that beautiful week in March. I woke up and had the window open and saw my neighbor’s shed about 125 feet from my window and thought, hmmm, that could be 25 roosters,” he said. “So it’s more about neighbor responsibility and maybe we would need an ordinance that was more specific, such as you could have one rooster per chicken coop, or something like that.”

If the ordinance fails, and barring any change of heart on Sutherland’s part, Gelston, citing Reynold’s remarks, said he would also seek a rooster-specific ordinance.

“We’re hopeful that it will pass. But even if it doesn’t pass, we’re going to move forward with another ordinance,” Gelston said. “But I am optimistic that this will pass because I’ve heard from a lot of people in town who have said they’ve had to deal with roosters too and they didn’t know what to do.”

Sutherland claims to have talked to just as many people in town who don’t support the ordinance. She said she’s also spent $1,100 in trying to suppress the noise emanating from her roosters, and that the town is unfairly targeting her roosters with the ordinance.

“A lot of people in town – alpaca farms, deer farms, other farmers – are quite upset it’s gone this far, that it’s a waste of money for the lawyers and all that,” she said. “They’re not recognizing the rural farmers and the hobby farmers and the other farmers in the area. And it’s very discriminative.”

Copy the Story Link