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

Browse Search

2 allows the best use of available resources for the provision of animal services. Also, a unified ordinance does not preclude different jurisdictions from having their own ordinances. For example, all of the towns have chosen to keep their own livestock regulations, and Chapel Hill and Carrboro will keep their own tethering ordinances. As staff has previously communicated to the BOCC, no effort has been made to create new law (with the exception of the animal recovery requirements discussed below). Rather, staff is recommending that any new provisions to the ordinance be considered at a later date on the basis of the unified ordinance. However, the unification of three different ordinances is by no means a simple process. Elements that exist in one ordinance may be altogether absent in another, and staff may believe that these "new" elements deserve to be included given their professional experience (and expertise).3 One example is the vicious animal regulation for the Town of Chapel Hill, which sets out a much more formal process than exists in the County's ordinance for deeming and managing vicious animals. Another is differentiation between public nuisances caused by dogs and cats in the Carrboro animal ordinance, a very meaningful distinction that is altogether absent from the County's current ordinance. In addition, staff's opinion is that the process of unification should fill "gaps" that have become apparent in their work with the existing ordinances. Staff has needed to work around some very significant omissions in the current ordinance in order to protect the health and safety of the public and to protect the welfare of animals. Staff presented the Unified Animal Control Ordinance to the BOCC at its June 4, 2013 meeting (Minutes excerpt provided at Attachment 1). Comments were received from seven members of the public plus the chair and vice -chair of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB). In response to a request made by the BOCC at the end of that meeting, staff has prepared a summary of changes made in the ordinance (Attachment 2), indicating the changes made and the rationale for those changes. An added advantage of this inventory of changes is that the BOCC may adopt the Unified Animal Control Ordinance without one or more specific changes. For instance, it is possible to adopt the ordinance while preserving watchdogs as a category of "security dog ". Insofar as the inventory amounts to a menu of choices, then, the BOCC need not make an "all or nothing decision" about the unified ordinance. An item not addressed in the summary attachment deserves mention in this context. It is the possible involvement of UNC School of Government faculty member Aimee Wall, J.D. in the process of ordinance unification. After the June 4 BOCC meeting, ASAB Chair Susan Elmore contacted Professor Wall and reviewed staff's method and reasoning for the unified ordinance. According to Dr. Elmore, Professor Wall indicated that the approach taken is eminently reasonable and makes good sense as a starting point for considering other kinds of ordinance changes. Dr. Elmore and Professor Wall also spoke about the possibility of Professor Wall assisting the ASAB and /or staff should there be a need for her services in the future. An earlier version of the attached summary was considered by the ASAB at its August 21, 2013 meeting. On the basis of discussion, and with consideration of public comments, the ASAB again unanimously supported the unified ordinance, recommending that the BOCC accept the s The process of the work group entailed a side -by -side comparison of specific sections of all three ordinances, e.g., public nuisance and vicious animal sections. On this basis decisions were made about what to retain and what to modify in the county ordinance being proposed as a single unified ordinance for Orange County.