Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Staff has tried to work around the gaps in the Ordinance in close collaboration with staff attorneys from the <br /> County and municipalities to respond to animal control issues and to protect public safety and the welfare <br /> of the animals. In addition to Staff review of the Ordinance changes, the Animal Services Advisory Board <br /> ("ASAB") also reviewed and suggested changes to the draft Unified Ordinance. <br /> The ASAB discussed the proposed changes to the Ordinance on three occasions: <br /> • At the initial meeting (February 20, 2013), the Animal Services staff attorney discussed the effort to <br /> create a unified ordinance, its rationale and its scope. <br /> • In a subsequent meeting (March 20 2013), the Animal Services Director and staff attorney went through <br /> a draft version of the proposed ordinance distributed in advance of the meeting for review by board <br /> members. This was a page-by-page review in which feedback was provided for additional consideration. <br /> • At the May 15, 2013 ASAB meeting, the focus was on the status of vicious animals in the proposed <br /> unified ordinance. The Animal Services Director presented a summary to identify the "gaps" that were <br /> being in-filled by the proposed ordinance as well as the logic of state and local laws and their articulation <br /> and limitations. At the meeting the ASAB made some suggestions for further consideration (which staff <br /> has incorporated) and unanimously recommended that staff bring its effort to create the unified ordinance <br /> to <br /> as soon as possible. <br /> This detailed examination of the Vicious Animal section of the Ordinance was done to assure that issues <br /> voiced by concerned residents about the laws surrounding vicious animals at the March 20, 2013 meeting <br /> were fully discussed. It also had the added benefit of completely clarifying how the unified ordinance <br /> would strengthen the County ordinance given that the BOCC Chair and Vice-Chair had previously <br /> requested such <br /> consideration from staff and the ASAB in response to resident concerns about the death of a dog as a <br /> result of an attack by a declared dangerous dog in the resident's neighborhood. <br /> The only area in which amendments that would be considered a change are being proposed is in the area <br /> of animal recovery. These changes are being proposed on the basis of the recommendations made by the <br /> ASAB and Animal Services staff to the BOCC at the Board's February 12, 2013 Work Session. The <br /> changes are part and parcel of the County's five year plan for managing pet overpopulation in order to <br /> both reduce the euthanasia of potentially adoptable animals and to contain and control the medium and <br /> long-terms costs of providing animal services. There are three specific changes that are incorporated into <br /> the unified ordinance on the basis of this effort. These changes are to create: <br /> 1. A requirement for micro chipping stray cats and dogs upon their first recovery; <br /> 2. A tiered and differential fee schedule for the recovery of cats and dogs depending upon the number of <br /> times they have been recovered and whether they are reproductive or sterilized; <br /> 3. A refundable spay/neuter deposit for cats and dogs recovered three or more times. <br /> Bob Marotto said subsequent to County adoption of the ordinance, as previously indicated, staff from the <br /> towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro will present the unified ordinance for consideration by their respective <br /> governing boards. There has already been legal review of the Ordinance in each jurisdiction and there is <br /> ongoing consideration of the best way for the towns to enact the Unified Ordinance. Significantly, the <br /> towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill are expected to retain some portion of their ordinances that have been <br /> designed to address unique circumstances specific to that jurisdiction or where there is no corresponding <br /> component in the Unified Ordinance in the other jurisdictions: (i.e. tethering, permitting chicken, and <br /> keeping livestock). Where a Municipality may have a more restrictive Ordinance in an urban area than the <br /> County does for rural areas, the Ordinance provides for the greater restriction in the municipalities than in <br /> the County. Communication from the Hillsborough Town Manager indicates that Hillsborough will <br /> essentially adopt the County's new unified ordinance. The Town has done and will continue to do so on <br /> the <br />