Agenda - 10-01-2013 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

15 Ordinance; however, specific nuisance behaviors associated with cats are not defined in the current Ordinance. By contrast, the existing Town of Carrboro Animal Control Ordinance (Article V, §10- 12(e)) explicitly differentiates the behaviors associated with cats from those dogs, such as nuisance barking, e.g., defecation or urination in sandboxes and flower beds or damaging vehicles owned by someone other than the animal's owner. 7. Establishing authority sufficient to effectively regulate dogs that are a danger to the public and to effectively control dogs possessed by repeat offenders. (Sec. 4- 42.- Control of vicious animals; security dogs). (Integration and Deficiency) • Integration — Carrboro's current Animal Control Ordinances uses language that is similar to the language found in N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 67, Article 1A et. seq. Dangerous Dogs. Instead of repeating the entire section found in the statute, the citation of the statute was added to §4 -42 Control of Vicious animals; security dogs of the Unified Ordinance. Most, but not all, action constituting a declaration under the Dangerous Dog statute would also constitute a declaration under the vicious dog provision of the County Ordinance( §4 -42); however, the remedies and the relief provided are not the same. • Integration and Deficiency — Neither the County Ordinance nor the North Carolina General Statutes provides an adequate remedy for dogs previously declared "dangerous," "potentially dangerous" or "vicious" that continue to act in an unlawful manner. Throughout the County there have been a number of cases where dogs designated either "dangerous" or "vicious" have repeatedly, both on and off their owner's property, bitten again. These situations have resulted in extensive contact with the courts for victims, witnesses, owners and staff. Language from the Chapel Hill 3 Animal Control Ordinance §4 -16 Vicious Animals has been included in the Unified — Ordinance not only to integrate Chapel Hill's language into the Unified Ordinance but also to fill the a critical deficiency in the current Ordinance. • Deficiency — Micro - chipping- Requires micro - chipping for identification of vicious and dangerous dogs. This language is new. IV. Concerns from the Public At the June 4th Board of County Commissioner meeting, nine residents spoke on the proposed Unified Ordinance. After reviewing the tapes of the June 4`h meeting, we paraphrased the concerns of the speakers and provided feedback as requested by the Board on these issues as it relates to the Ordinance. We attempted to capture their comments as closely as possible; however, the Minutes of the June 4, 2013 Board of Commissioner's meeting have been attached and may more accurately reflect what was stated. If Staff had additional information that could provide context to the speaker's concern it was also included. 1. Allen Green— Mr. Green's concern was that § 4- 45(b)(6) of the Ordinance, which deemed animals "at large off the premises of the owner or keeper" a public nuisance, did not provide animal control officers the discretion to determine whether or not a citation should be issued when a farm animal was found off the property of its owner. Response: In 2009, Mr. Green received a civil citation for public nuisance after a cow was found off his property. Mr. Green disagreed with the citation and opted to proceed to court. The Court heard his claim and upheld the citation, ordering Mr. Green to pay the fine. In 2009 and 2010, Mr. Green met 3