Brownie, the rooster at issue, first came to the attention of the authorities in 2023 when a nearby rental owner complained to town animal control. The property owner, who lives elsewhere most of the time, claimed tenants might terminate their leases solely because of the “nuisance-causing rooster” next door.
But concluding a bench trial in May, Town Justice David Filer took issue with what he called the unconstitutionally vague town code, which neglected to define and quantify how a nuisance was defined. “What is a nuisance for one may not be a nuisance for another,” he wrote in his determination. “If the town wants to prohibit (or otherwise regulate) noise from roosters, or any other livestock, they need to do so explicitly in their local code,” Justice Filer declared.
The rooster’s happy fate is one thing, but there is more to it than just that. The case underscored the ongoing tension between people who live here and others for whom their properties are a moneymaking opportunity. According to the rooster-owning family, the house just over the fence has been frequently rented short term, including on at least one occasion to a group of loud young people who made up a drinking game around Brownie’s crowing.
Various local officials have from time to time sought to tidy up what in their opinions were unwelcome annoyances — even classic Bonacker-style boats and fishing gear in the yard and unregistered vehicles, including those undergoing slow restoration.
For the moment, these and crowing roosters are safe, though with the creeping suburbanization of the South Fork one can’t say what new restrictions might be coming down the road.