Orange County NC Website
basis of the action of the Town Board of Commissioners, as it is codified in the Town's own animal <br />ordinance, which allows it to depart from the County's code where they wish to do so. <br />Presently, the Town of Hillsborough does so only through the prohibition of roosters and permitting <br />requirements for farm animals within city limits. <br />The North Carolina General Statute §1 53A-45 provides that in order for an ordinance to be adopted on its <br />first reading it "must receive the approval of all the members of the Board of Commissioners. If the <br />ordinance is approved by a majority of those voting but not by all the members of the board... it shall be <br />considered at the next regular meeting of the board." The Board then has 100 days after introduction of <br />the ordinance to adopt the change to the Ordinance. <br />Staff Attorney Annette Moore said that if this is approved, the advisory board would like to take this <br />to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and the small portion of Durham in Orange County. <br />Bob Marotto said the board has resisted the scope creep of creating new laws. He said there was <br />one exception to this, where a recommendation was made for an amendment on animal recovery. This <br />amendment requires a micro -chip fee for dogs and cats recovered for the first time; a refundable <br />sterilization deposit for people whose pets have been impounded and recovered two times; and a <br />differential recovery fee structure for the recovery of animals sterilized, versus those that are reproductive - <br />with higher rates for non - sterilized animals. He said this was done to address the pet overpopulation in <br />the county and reduce reliance on euthanasia. <br />PUBLIC COMMENT: <br />Allan Green is an Orange County farmer. He addressed several handouts at the Commissioner's <br />places and read from the following statement: <br />I want to thank the commissioners for this opportunity to speak. I am Allan Green, an Orange <br />County farmer, and member of the Agriculture Preservation Board (APB), although I am not here tonight <br />representing the Board. <br />I will be addressing two related issues described in the background material I provided to you. The <br />first originated over 4 years ago, on March 3rd 2009 when an ice storm shorted out our electric fence. One <br />of our small Dexter cows went through the fence, and was grazing outside my fences next to Orange <br />Grove road on property I partially own. A helpful passer -by called Animal Control, and even though the <br />cow was quickly confined, I was cited and subsequently fined because my cow as at- large, and by <br />definition, a public nuisance. Because the animal represented no real nuisance or public danger, I <br />appealed to both the manager and director of Animal Services; but they refused to void the citation, citing <br />the language of our ordinance: an animal at -large is a public nuisance, period. <br />As a farmer, this narrow definition seemed inconsistent with my experience and common sense, <br />and worth investigating. I began by researching similar provisions of the animal control ordinances of <br />surrounding counties. Attachment 2 summarizes the results: including our 10 neighboring counties, only <br />Orange County categorically defines at at -large animals as a nuisance, at least in unincorporated <br />jurisdictions. While ordinances vary, our neighboring counties reserve violations for actual nuisance <br />behavior while an animal is at- large. I then brought the issue to the APB, and in March 2010, our <br />chairperson met with the ASAB and requested a meeting to discuss our position. <br />Which brings be to my second issue. Attachment 1 is Director Marotto's response to that request. <br />He describes the issue as a waste of staff resources and unnecessary because animal control officers <br />have the discretion we are recommending. But, that is not what our ordinance says, and no discretion was <br />exercised in my case in 2009. Keeping and ordinance on the books so that it can be selectively enforced <br />is simply wrong. <br />I am therefore asking the Commissioners to direct Animal Services staff and the Animal Services <br />Advisory Board to work cooperatively with the Agriculture Preservation Board to make our Animal Control <br />Ordinance more consistent with the realities of rural life. Thank you. <br />Ed Johnson lives on 60 acres of land in the Orange Grove community. He said this proposed <br />ordinance is not ready yet and needs more work. He said last year, two of his dogs were declared vicious <br />animals, when an intruder came into his yard and one of his dogs bit the intruder during a confrontation. <br />