Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> 1 — Carrboro had separate Animal Control officer until 2013 (on-call provided <br /> 2 previously by OCAS) <br /> 3 — Mebane continues to provide its own Animal Control services (despite overtures <br /> 4 from OCAS) <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Reasons to Unify <br /> 7 To create a coherent and integrated ordinance for Orange County as a whole <br /> 8 — The municipalities that receive animal control services each have different <br /> 9 ordinances <br /> 10 — Ordinances are confusing to public, staff and judiciary process <br /> 11 To provide necessary & overdue updates <br /> 12 — Reflect consolidation of sheltering and animal control operations in OCAS <br /> 13 To fill critical gaps <br /> 14 — Years of judicial process have identified important gaps within each of the <br /> 15 ordinances <br /> 16 — Hampers department's ability to protect the public and animals of the county <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Staff Attorney Annette Moore, presented the following slides: <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Summary of Recommendations <br /> 21 Updating ordinance to reflect OCAS department creation <br /> 22 Keeping & displaying of wild animals <br /> 23 Creating an appeal process for administrative orders and civil citations <br /> 24 Designating only animal control staff as cruelty investigators <br /> 25 Creating authority for assuring humane treatment of animals and humane euthanasia <br /> 26 Adding differentiation of public nuisances created by cats <br /> 27 Establishing authority sufficient to effectively regulate potentially dangerous dogs <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Summary of Public Concerns <br /> 30 Livestock as nuisance animals <br /> 31 — § 4-45. (b) (6) added: "at large off the premises of the owner or Keeper, �����cepj <br /> 32 In the case of dorirhestlic Ilivestock the nliririal Seirvli����s IDiir�����toir�� shall Ir�ave the <br /> 33 discire lon to �1���teirirrir�hliir��-.�� -aviolati�:�ir�';; [pg 23 -strikethroug h version-of <br /> 34 recommended ordinance <br /> 35 Dangerous vs. Vicious <br /> 36 — Existing county ordinance includes vicious animals <br /> 37 — Any added language comes from Chapel Hill and Carrboro ordinances <br /> 38 No appeal process for vicious dog declaration <br /> 39 — Existing ordinance has no appeal process, but proposed unified ordinance does <br /> 40 contain an appeal process for vicious dog declarations, as well as other <br /> 41 administrative orders <br /> 42 Dual declaration appeals <br /> 43 — Existing ordinance has no appeal process for vicious dog declarations. <br /> 44 Proposed ordinance allows the appeal of both declarations to be considered in a <br /> 45 single appeal hearing. <br /> 46 That proposed ordinance makes it responsibility of owner to prove intruder came onto <br /> 47 property with criminal intent <br /> 48 — § 4-42. (e) (4) deleted: "Committing a willful trespass or other tort as I pirovided In <br /> 49 W'"'.. Gen. Scat. ("'. ���I�vteir° °14, Article °2°21E:''µ" [pg. 18 in strikethrough version of <br /> 50 recommended ordinance] <br />