Minutes 12-15-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner Jacobs said this would have been a lot easier for the Board if the PowerPoint had been put in the agenda packet ahead of time. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the top of page 71, which discussed the issue of odor. He said determining what is a noxious odor is very subjective, and questions how to define the "odor" of a dog or cat Sec. 4-44- (b) (2). Bob Marotto said the answer is not simple, but that a pattern of corroborative evidence would be needed. He said the odor would need to interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the neighboring property. He said these assessments would never be made in a cavalier manner. Commissioner Jacobs said he would like a definition of odor, as it is too subjective the way it is written now. He suggested including public areas. Commissioner Jacobs said it appears that if one has a security dog, the owner must post it on their property; otherwise they will be unable to defend themselves if their dog bites someone. Bob Marotto said the proposed ordinance offers two subdivisions of security dogs: a sentry dog and a patrol dog. He said both of these dogs have specific requirements of established records of training and being registered with the County. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Bob Marotto could walk him through the exceptions in Section 4.42. The discussion ensued about vicious dog versus guard dog. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are reasons why one would post a no trespassing sign. Bob Marotto said if one posts a no trespassing sign and you choose to walk on the property and are bitten by a dog, said dog will not be considered vicious. Commissioner Jacobs said he still finds it unclear. He said posting a sign seems to afford owners extra protection should something happen. Annette Moore said a sign does afford extra protection if something were to happen. Commissioner Jacobs said it is confusing, as this information is listed under exceptions to vicious dogs. Commissioner Rich said this is a live document and asked if any changes have to go back to the Towns. Annette Moore said the Towns were told that if there were significant changes she would notify them. John Roberts said both Chapel Hill and Carrboro adopted the UAO in whatever form the BOCC adopts. He said if there are major changes then the Towns will be made aware. Commissioner Rich asked if this ordinance would help someone who lives next door to an excessively barking dog. Annette Moore said this ordinance did not seek to make new laws but rather tried to merge the three ordinances and there is a process in place already for this issue. Bob Marotto reiterated some instances on how Animal Services handles issues like this. Commissioner Pelissier said this item has been before the Board twice and suggested to bring it to some type of closure. She said she is fine with the proposed appeals process and supports Commissioner Jacobs' proposal about the wording of the attorney issue. Commissioner Jacobs suggested adding a paragraph at the top of the UAO about their intention, as Bob Marotto eloquently said earlier. Chair McKee said there were several changes made but the conversation got into the weeds some tonight. He said he intended to vote against the UAO, based on the appeals panel having two members from the ASAB; however, Commissioner Dorosin's proposed suggestion is a good accommodation. Chair McKee said he did have a concern about the lack of an attorney being present but he would be satisfied if it can be resolved with the proposed language from the personnel ordinance.