GREENFIELD — Residents flocked to City Hall earlier this week to voice their opinions on a proposed regulation that, if passed by City Council, would ban rooster ownership without a special permit in the city’s urban and suburban residential districts.

In a joint pubic hearing between the Economic Development Committee and the Planning Board on Tuesday, the two panels heard the public’s viewpoints on the proposed rooster ordinance, which Public Safety Commission Chair David Moscaritolo initially filed as a citizen’s petition.

Economic Development Committee Chair Marianne Bullock previously noted that the proposed ordinance might conflict with state law, which governs the city’s Right to Farm status.

At this week’s hearing, she maintained her position after doing some “deep digging” on the issue, but recommended that the boards file a formal grievance with the Mayor’s Office and the Agricultural Commission who would be able to direct a resolution enforcing proper livestock raising practices.

In her public comments on the issue, Agricultural Commission member Denise Leonard noted that she believes the proposed ordinance violates state law, adding that the Board of Health would be best equipped to handle rooster-based complaints in the neighborhood.

“Even if you buy all female chicks, they don’t sex them very well, so you’re going to get one or two roosters,” Leonard said. “One more thing, female chickens can decide to crow.”

Resident Peter Ruggeri spoke in favor of the ordinance banning roosters, explaining that his neighbor on Highland Avenue has a rooster that annoys him, especially during the summer.

Moscaritolo also spoke on behalf of his proposed ordinance, explaining that a rooster’s crow on Davis Street has awoken him and his wife in the middle of the night numerous times this year. He said that while he understands the state’s protection of Right to Farm laws, those who keep roosters in residential neighborhoods are not farmers.

Current 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 required to keep one on less than 5 acres. However, Moscaritolo said the rule is not well enforced and is often broken.

“What is the point of letting somebody have a rooster if they have 5 acres when they put their poop on your line 100 yards from your window?” Moscaritolo said. “There’s no need for roosters in a residential area, no matter how much land you have. If you’re a farm and you’re producing money and that’s your living, great, that’s understandable, but just to put them wherever you want is not fair for the neighborhood.”

Before the public hearing ended, Bullock said after researching the city’s Right to Farm status, she agreed that the ordinance would contradict state law. However, she still believes more enforcement of the nuisance birds is necessary.

“My hope is that neighbors will be good neighbors to each other. Those relations get tense sometimes and so, potentially, the Agricultural Commission or some other body of the city could step in to help negotiate movement of the coop or whatever their solution may be that could remedy the situation,” Bullock said. “As someone who is a chicken owner and who has a rooster problem in my neighborhood, I really see both sides of this issue.”

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