Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Bob Marotto said there is a review process, and all circumstances are reviewed to see <br /> if there is provocation. He said there are routine instances of this, and these are evaluated <br /> individually. <br /> Bob Marotto said the language regarding dangerous dogs is permissive and allows for <br /> decisions by qualified staff, based on the facts of evidence. <br /> Commissioner McKee said the general public identifies with the term watch dog. He <br /> noted that dogs are not supposed to run free in Orange County. He said this ordinance shifts <br /> responsibilities to the owner rather than to the person trespassing. <br /> Commissioner Gordon thanked all the individuals who drafted the ordinance and she <br /> recognized that it is a difficult task. She said there are certain basic aspects of the ordinance <br /> that need to be addressed before the Board can effectively consider it. She said some of <br /> these issues have already been discussed, and noted two specific issues, as follows: <br /> • Use of the word "injury" on page 28 and page 30 —The definitions of"injury" (page 28) <br /> and "severe injury" (page 30) need to be revised. <br /> • Lack of clarity in wording on page 42, section 4-43, regarding Impoundment. The <br /> paragraph beginning "Any animal found at large..." needs to be revised. <br /> Commissioner Gordon recommended that the Board ask ASAB and staff to look at the <br /> substantive issues. She said there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed, along <br /> with consideration of written comments from the Board of County Commissioners and the <br /> public. She suggested there should be no vote tonight, and that staff should bring the <br /> ordinance back for first reading, with the proposed revisions. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said she has one other issue. She questioned why there is a <br /> difference between dogs and other animals, and she referred to pages 45 and 47. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said staff needs to go through and deal with the internal <br /> inconsistencies in the ordinance, and then deal with the substantive issues. <br /> She said she has read through all of this, and she realizes that it is very difficult to <br /> merge three different ordinances. <br /> Chair Jacobs referred to page 49 and said the section on the appeals process should <br /> say "5 working days" rather than "five days." <br /> He referred to the language on page 42 regarding animals put to death. He said there <br /> should be language noting that the owner be notified to be made aware of what has <br /> happened. Chair Jacobs said he would rather not assume that the planning department has <br /> approved the fire standards of kennels and facilities. He would rather the Animal Services go <br /> back and find this information and bring it back to the Board. <br /> Chair Jacobs reviewed the following list: <br /> Main issues: <br /> • General comfort level of ASAB being part of appeals process — Is there need for an <br /> intermediate step? <br /> • Watch dog issue- Is it too extreme? Can the term be related to trespassing? <br /> • Term of trespassing —This needs to be addressed and clarified. <br /> • Dog bites — How are these regarded? Is there another mechanism of punishment to be <br /> considered for the owner, if not the animal? <br /> • Notes and suggestions — Board members and staff are directed to give hand written <br /> notes and suggestions to the board. <br /> Chair Jacobs suggested staff address the main sticking points, and bring this back in <br /> two weeks or however long it takes to satisfy the majority of the Board. <br />