The chickens can come home to roost.

But that rooster?

He’s got to go.

That’s the apparent outcome of a decision by the Salisbury Township Zoning Hearing Board, ruling unanimously 5-0 concerning a Black River Road property on South Mountain.

Salisbury Township Zoning Hearing Board Vice Chairman Attorney Ian Baxter made the motion, seconded by Zoning Hearing Board Member Ron Evans, to uphold the decision of Salisbury Township Zoning Officer Kerry Rabold.

Brian and Paola Moore, 1436 Black River Road, had appealed Rabold’s decision denying a zoning application to add the “keeping of pets and accessory animals” as an accessory use on their property.

According to the appeal at the Feb. 23 zoning hearing, “the applicant seeks to keep two roosters, up to 20 chickens and either two goats or two sheep.”

In the alternative, the applicants “seek a variance to utilize the property as stated with proposed quantity and type of animals not permitted.”

The property is in the conservation-residential zoning district.

The zoning board decision symbolizes the changing nature of Salisbury Township, from formerly agrarian in some areas to luxury estates.

Some home properties in the vicinity of the Moores’ Black River Road property are listed in the $1 million range.

So, it’s not just a question of nobody here but just us chickens.

It’s more a matter of: Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Apparently, the rooster. And now he’s a goner.

There were as many as 19 participants listed on the Zoom format for the Feb. 23 zoning hearing held in the municipal building meeting room. The Moores’ portion of the hearing lasted approximately two hours.

The Feb. 2 zoning hearing, which included the Moores’ appeal, was rescheduled to Feb. 23 because of Winter Storm Orlena. The Moores’ appeal had been tabled at the Jan. 5 zoning hearing.

The hearing board includes, in addition to Baxter and Evans, Attorney Kent Herman, chairman and Nicole Ortiz and Joe Kovach. Tom Spinner, a new member as alternative on the board, sat in as a nonvoting member.

Attorney Thomas A. Capehart, partner attorney, Gross McGinley, LLP, was hearing board solicitor, filling in for Attorney Victor F. Cavacini, also of Gross McGinley.

Objectors to the Moores’ appeal included Myron R. Haydt, of Myron R. Haydt Development, Inc., a neighbor, 40-plus-years Lehigh Valley homebuilder featured on “Dream Builders” on the HGTV television network, and developer of Newport Ridge, 1511 Black River Road.

The other objector was Attorney Christopher B. Slusser.

Also signed on to testify was Thomas Yundt, a neighbor, who supported the Moores’ appeal.

Attorney Michael A. Santanasto, representing the Moores, said, “The use of the property for the keeping of accessory animals is consistent with a pre-existing conforming use.”

Previous owners had alpacas, goats and sheep, Herman noted.

Brian Moore has lived in the single-detached home on 6.427 acres at 1436 Black River Road since October 2020, having purchased it in July 2020. The house was built in 1943, before the township zoning ordinance.

A barn, three sheds and a chicken coop are on the property.

Moore bought the property from Lynn Hoats, who owned chickens, roosters, 40 goats, a donkey, miniature horse and alpacas.

Some 18 photos of the property, which is mostly wooded on the north face of South Mountain, were shown on the computer screen, including interiors and fencing, the latter with trees growing through it in some instances.

“The animals were there prior. They were there for quite some time,” Brian Moore testified.

“I was made aware of their objections,” Brian Moore said of some of the neighbors.

Moore purchased a decibel meter. A video was shown on the computer screen, depicting a rooster crowing that registered 61.1 decibels on the meter.

After neighbors’ complaints, Moore said he got rid of one rooster.

“I got rid of one that was a little louder and I put a crow-collar on the other. I did that after speaking with Mr. Haydt,” Brian Moore said.

Haydt said he sent videos concerning the crowing roosters last summer to a township official.

“I have neighbors who heard the same thing that I hear. Because roosters aren’t allowed in the neighborhood, I didn’t think I needed to prove anything,” Haydt said.

“Just on Sunday, my wife and I sat out in the sun and we heard the rooster,” Haydt said, adding, “You are going to hear the rooster even over the sound of a car passing.

“This rooster is so loud.

“I would like to bring the board videos. I even have one where an airplane is going over. In the backyard, we hear a rooster. We have the window open, we hear a rooster.

“We are in the country. The woman who lived there previously, she had two alpacas. That’s all I’ve ever seen until I owned the property.”

Haydt has owned the nearby property for 14 years. He moved in 2019.

Slusser lives in Newport Ridge.

Lynn Hoats, former owner of the Moores’ property, was not a participant in the zoning hearing.

Emily Hoats, the previous owner’s daughter, testified. The addition to the house was occupied by Emily Hoats.

Slusser asked if a certificate of non-conforming use was obtained from the township.

Brian Moore said he wasn’t familiar with it.

Emily Hoats said she lived on the property for 20 years, since age five and moved out mid-November 2020.

The animals her mother tended included guinea hens, two alpacas, chickens, roosters, goats and a donkey.

Photos were shown, one dating to 2007, another dating to 2010 and yet another dating to 2013, of chickens, goats, a shed with a goat pen, a chicken coop and a donkey on the property when it was owned by Lynn Hoats.

Slusser asked Emily Hoats about a certificate of nonconformity. It was not received or requested.

Zoning Board Member Joe Kovach asked about the number of roosters on the property when Lynn Hoats owned it. “There were 10.” Lynn Hoats bought the property in 2000.

Under questioning by Baxter, Emily Hoats testified she moved out Nov. 15, 2020. Her mother had moved to North Carolina in 2018.

Emily Hoats said she and her sister had lived on the property. They had dogs, but no other animals. The most recent year when animals were on the property was 2018.

Yundt, of 1520 Black River Road, said he’s lived at that address since 1996. “It was my grandfather’s home. The old family farm was developed by Haydt.

Yundt recalled growing up in the area: “We looked forward to when the soil was tilled so that we could look for Indian arrowheads.

“Grandfather spoke about the farm when there were cattle.

“There were always animals around all over the neighborhood. There was Franko’s Egg Farm. We used to stop there for eggs after church.

“Everybody either had pets or was actively raising them to consume or to use.

“You used to hear the roosters. I don’t think anyone would debate that animals make noise.

“The house I live in was a garage where they boarded the sheep in the house to keep warm.

“We tend to respect each other, even when they are inconvenient,” Yundt testified about the neighbors.

When asked if the roosters’ crowing bothered him, Yundt said, “Not particularly. But I am used to them. I don’t pay attention to them, any more than I do the foxes or coyotes or other animals I hear up there.

Herman asked Yundt about the character of the Black River Road neighborhood: “Can you tell us what has occurred, particularly with respect to the Haydt development. Has the neighborhood changed?”

“Yeah, it’s changed. We have people who moved in who don’t understand the neighborhood,” Yundt said.

“It’s a little tonier. I think they don’t understand what country living is. It’s hard to keep the house clean.

“At night, the foxes are terrifying if you don’t know what you’re listening to. It’s unnerving.

“You have the screams of the raptors when they are migrating.

“We have a steady country pace and that seems to not meet with the approval of those who moved into Mr. Haydt’s development.”

Sally Yundt, Thomas Yundt’s wife, said, “I’ve been here for over 20 years.” She said she moved into the neighborhood in 1998. “As far as I know, there were always animals on that property. My son was born in 2005. We’d stop in and my son would pet the animals.

“It is a country environment. It was never a bother. It was fun,” Sally Yundt said.

She said she is in support of the Moores’ appeal: “Absolutely.”

Rabold highlighted a section of municipal code, which prohibits animals and fowls.

“There are three other families who consider this a nuisance,” Rabold said, citing emails she’s received.

Rabold read from her Nov. 6, 2020, review letter.

“A maximum of six chickens is permitted. No goats. The lot is over two acres, so they can have up to 12 chickens.”

Rabold never issued a citation or violation letter. “They agreed to apply for appeal,” Rabold said of the Moores, adding, “There was nothing in the files [for a nonconformity application.]”

“A pre-existing nonconforming use has some constitutional rights,” Santanasto said, and cited case law.

Santanasto said from 1965-1983, Yundt observed accessory animals on the property.

The daughter observed accessory animals, Santanasto said.

“They’re also allowed an expansion of pre-existing use,” Santanasto said.

“There is not a certificate of nonconformity. There absolutely has been an abandonment for a significant period of time,” Slusser countered.

“There has been no testimony provided that supports a variance.

“The ordinance specifically notes that the keeping of roosters is not permitted.

“The code specifically says that roosters are not allowed in a residential area.

“I don’t have an objection to the keeping of chickens or goats. It’s the rooster that’s causing the problem. And I think Mr. Haydt would agree,” Slusser said.

“The issue of abandonment is the primary focus of the board,” Slusser concluded.

“Looking at the zoning ordinance, there is the issue of abandonment and it speaks to 360 days,” Herman observed.

“Unfortunately, 2017 or 2018 would put us beyond the 360 days.

“There’s a list of other animals that can be there. But not on list are the animals that the applicant is requesting.

“I don’t see the basis for a variance,” Capehart said.

“It doesn’t mention roosters, which can be quote loud. It’s more than 60 decibels. I think certain animals can be kept there,” Kovach said.

“Any nonconformity was abandoned long before the applicant purchased the property,” Baxter said.

“I also reflect on the lack of testimony for a variance and especially from the standpoint of hardship.

“Also there was no testimony of selling eggs, which would require a rooster,” Baxter concluded.

“Do you have to vote on ... or can it be separated out ... if the issue is the rooster?” Rabold asked.

“We didn’t write the ordinance. In terms of hearing today that there should be a variance, I’m not convinced that would be the responsible thing to do,” Herman said.

“We’re constrained by what the ordinance says,” Capehart said.

With that, the motion for voting on the nonconforming use was proposed and voted down unanimously, as was the request for a variance, again on a motion by Baxter and seconded by Evans, and again voted unanimously to deny.

Herman summarized, “The nonconformity was abandoned. The variance was denied.”