Agenda - 09-05-2013 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

20 1 The North Carolina General Statute §153A-45 provides that in order for an ordinance to be adopted on its 2 first reading it "must receive the approval of all the members of the Board of Commissioners. If the 3 ordinance is approved by a majority of those voting but not by all the members of the board... it shall be 4 considered at the next regular meeting of the board." The Board then has 100 days after introduction of the 5 ordinance to adopt the change to the Ordinance. 6 7 Staff Attorney Annette Moore said that if this is approved, the advisory board would like to take this 8 to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and the small portion of Durham in Orange County. 9 Bob Marotto said the board has resisted the scope creep of creating new laws. He said there was 10 one exception to this, where a recommendation was made for an amendment on animal recovery. This 11 amendment requires a micro-chip fee for dogs and cats recovered for the first time; a refundable 12 sterilization deposit for people whose pets have been impounded and recovered two times; and a 13 differential recovery fee structure for the recovery of animals sterilized, versus those that are reproductive- 14 with higher rates for non-sterilized animals. He said this was done to address the pet overpopulation in the 15 county and reduce reliance on euthanasia. 16 17 PUBLIC COMMENT: 18 Allan Green is an Orange County farmer. He addressed several handouts at the Commissioner's 19 places and read from the following statement: 20 I want to thank the commissioners for this opportunity to speak. I am Allan Green, an Orange 21 County farmer, and member of the Agriculture Preservation Board (APB), although I am not here tonight 22 representing the Board. 23 I will be addressing two related issues described in the background material I provided to you. The 24 first originated over 4 years ago, on March 3�d 2009 when an ice storm shorted out our electric fence. One 25 of our small Dexter cows went through the fence, and was grazing outside my fences next to Orange Grove 26 road on property I partially own. A helpful passer-by called Animal Control, and even though the cow was 27 quickly confined, I was cited and subsequently fined because my cow as at-large, and by definition, a public 28 nuisance. Because the animal represented no real nuisance or public danger, I appealed to both the 29 manager and director of Animal Services; but they refused to void the citation, citing the language of our 30 ordinance: an animal at-large is a public nuisance, period. 31 As a farmer, this narrow definition seemed inconsistent with my experience and common sense, 32 and worth investigating. I began by researching similar provisions of the animal control ordinances of 33 surrounding counties. Attachment 2 summarizes the results: including our 10 neighboring counties, only 34 Orange County categorically defines at at-large animals as a nuisance, at least in unincorporated 35 jurisdictions. While ordinances vary, our neighboring counties reserve violations for actual nuisance 36 behavior while an animal is at-large. I then brought the issue to the APB, and in March 2010, our 37 chairperson met with the ASAB and requested a meeting to discuss our position. 38 Which brings be to my second issue. Attachment 1 is Director Marotto's response to that request. 39 He describes the issue as a waste of staff resources and unnecessary because animal control officers have 40 the discretion we are recommending. But, that is not what our ordinance says, and no discretion was 41 exercised in my case in 2009. Keeping and ordinance on the books so that it can be selectively enforced is 42 simply wrong. 43 I am therefore asking the Commissioners to direct Animal Services staff and the Animal Services 44 Advisory Board to work cooperatively with the Agriculture Preservation Board to make our Animal Control 45 Ordinance more consistent with the realities of rural life. Thank you. 46 47 Ed Johnson lives on 60 acres of land in the Orange Grove community. He said this proposed 48 ordinance is not ready yet and needs more work. He said last year, two of his dogs were declared vicious 49 animals, when an intruder came into his yard and one of his dogs bit the intruder during a confrontation. 50 The intruder ran away, and later, without revealing a past criminal record for trespassing, the intruder filed a 51 complaint against Ed Johnson. He said that state law allows an animal to be declared dangerous and has 52 a built in appeal process, while the county ordinance has a provision for vicious animals and has no appeal 53 process. He said it is unclear to him how animal control can make the decision between calling an animal 54 dangerous or vicious. He wrote to animal control pointing out that the county ordinance does not allow an