GREENFIELD — Officials are unsure whether a citizen’s petition, which proposes the city adopt an ordinance instituting a special permit requirement to possess a rooster in the suburban and urban residential districts, contradicts the city’s state-enforced Right to Farm status.

The Zoning Board of Appeals and Economic Development Committee will hold a joint public hearing on Tuesday, Dec. 10, to discuss the petition, which was filed by Public Safety Commission Chair David Moscaritolo.

Speaking as a civilian at the Nov. 20 City Council meeting, Moscaritolo explained that his neighbors on Davis Street had previously adopted roosters, a choice that he said resulted in him and his wife being awoken at all times of night.

“2 a.m., 2:30 a.m. 3:30 a.m., 3:45 a.m., 5 a.m. — these are the times that my wife and I have been woken up almost every morning for about a year and a half,” Moscaritolo recounted. “My neighbors on Davis Street adopted roosters and chickens. I’m fine with the chickens, but the roosters in this residential area, to me, seem to be unjustified and a problem. … I don’t think any suburban house needs to have a rooster.”

City regulations require property owners to have at least 5 acres of land before they can keep a rooster by right. A special permit is currently required to keep one on less than 5 acres. If approved, however, Moscaritolo’s proposed ordinance would require all aspiring rooster owners in the urban or suburban residential districts to obtain a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

According to Precinct 5 City Councilor Marianne Bullock, the proposed ordinance might conflict with the city’s Right to Farm status, which is backed by state law. At a Dec. 3 Committee Chairs meeting, she said she empathized with Moscaritolo’s frustration, as she also lives near a rooster and it has awoken her late at night numerous times.

“There is a rooster on my street that I have looked for and I would take that bad boy out if I could find him,” Bullock said jokingly at the meeting. “This [ordinance] might be something we want to get reviewed by the city attorney.”

Bullock, when reached by phone last week, said that regardless of whether the ordinance passes, the city must find ways to enforce its rooster regulations. She added that while she’s not opposed to people keeping roosters on a lot that is 5 acres or larger, she does not believe the birds belong in densely populated areas.

The councilor added that even if the proposed ordinance conflicts with state law and cannot pass, something must be done — such as a noise ordinance — to ensure peace in thickly settled neighborhoods.

“In general, I support there not being roosters in our area. You know, if someone has 5 acres of land, especially out here, the intent is that you want to farm, so I’m not against [that]. I’m not necessarily against this ordinance in theory. ... I have roosters that live on my street and I live in a thickly settled street right close to downtown. It drives me crazy,” Bullock said. “Though, even if we get an ordinance that says ‘no roosters,’ who is going to enforce it? Who’s coming and taking the roosters out of someone’s coop when someone reports it?”

Anthony Cammalleri can be reached at acammalleri@recorder.com or 413-930-4429.