Minutes 04-08-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3. Administrative appeal: Some procedural issues, such as whether there should be sworn testimony, are in need of clarification; and more generally, there is the question of the best format for appeals in the absence of an established standard. 4. Livestock and Public Nuisance: The issue of whether there should be a special provision for livestock in the public nuisance provision of the ordinance is included among these issues because historically it has needed clarification. Bob Marotto said he is hoping that the Board will provide staff direction tonight, so that that steps can be taken to bring this back as a finished product. Chair Jacobs suggested an outline be given of each issue. Michelle Walker said the first issue is listed on page 7 as follows: LIVESTOCK & PUBLIC NUISANCE Affected section of proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-45. - Public nuisance. Substitute the following language into the public nuisance section (Sec. 4-45) of the proposed ordinance for (b) (6): Except in the case of domestic livestock, any animal at large off the premises of the owner or keeper. At large domestic livestock will be considered a public nuisance when it, in the judgment of the Animal Services Director, or designee, presents an immediate public danger, is destroying or damaging property, is violating property rights, or has been habitually at large. Susan Elmore said historically there has been a need to update this portion of the ordinance and this is a good time to do it. She said the ASAB has worked closely with the Agricultural Preservation Board in getting input on what their recommendation would be for this unified ordinance. She said this information is included in the abstract. Chair Jacobs asked for a brief explanation of the change. Susan Elmore said the change is that if there is livestock off of property, it is not immediately designated as a public nuisance, and the farmer is not automatically fined. She said it will instead be up to the Animal Services Director to determine if the animal presents an immediate public danger, is destroying property, violating property rights, or has been habitually at large. She said if there is a storm that takes down a fence and livestock gets loose, the farmer will not be cited or fined for that. She said, on the other hand, if the fence stays down for weeks and the animals continually leave the property, then the farmer would be fined. She said these are the kind of issues that the Animal Services director will handle. Bob Marotto said one principal difference is that there isn't presently a distinction within the ordinance of livestock versus other animals. She said the language that has been recommended gives much more detailed guidelines for decisions to be made about livestock. Commissioner McKee said this seems to be a better fix, and it makes sense to better define and highlight the differentiations. Commissioner Price asked if it makes sense to put in some kind of timeline instead of just leaving it up to Director's discretion as to how to distinguish one incident from another. She asked if there would be any legal hassle if it was just the Director's discretion. Bob Marotto said there is considerably more detail in this version than in the last version. He said you want to have the flexibility to deal with the variety of issues that arises in broad community like Orange County. He said he would defer the legal questions to the staff attorney and the County attorney. Annette Moore said the Director should have enough experience and judgment to make these decisions. She said being too specific could create more problems.