Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
ii. "Seriously interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment by <br />neighboring residents of their property including but not limited to <br />howling, whining, crying, or other noise making." <br />c. Issue: That neighbors may be impacted significantly by cats in ways other than <br />vocalization and that these should be addressed by the ordinance, e.g., habitual <br />presence on a neighbor's property, causing misbehavior of a resident cat while <br />on another's property, etc. <br />d. Context: Two residents of a Hillsborough HOA have met with staff and the <br />Animal Services Advisory Board to express their concern about a cat that roams <br />the residencies within the HOA and that on one occasion caused one of the <br />resident's cats to bite her. They would like the ordinance to address this issue <br />but it does not because the roaming cat is owned and microchipped (see (8) viii). <br />The ASAB and staff thinks that one of the aforementioned alternatives is the best <br />way to address their legitimate concerns. <br />Dangerous Animal Restraint <br />The issue of whether Sec. 4 -42 needs to be amended to establish a different form of restraint <br />for animals deemed dangerous is currently under discussion. The issue has been posed by a <br />HOA officer based upon concerns with a declared dog in one of the residencies within the HOA. <br />The issue has been addressed to the County Attorney as well as Animal Services staff and the <br />Animal Services Advisory Board. The ASAB will be discussing the concerns at their upcoming <br />(March) meeting. <br />Appeal Scope <br />Animal Services staff and staff within the County Attorney's Office are planning to propose an <br />amendment to Sec. 4- 53.- appeals that more specifically defines what parts of the Unified <br />Animal Ordinance may be appealed under this section. The original intent was to delimit <br />appeals to matters for which no other process of appeal was available but the actual language <br />is broader. (Specifically, (a) says a "person ... may appeal the final decision made by the Animal <br />Services Direct or to the appeal board..." This was not actually intended and it is simply not <br />feasible given the administrative burden that would be placed upon Animal Services. In <br />addition, members of the Animal Services Appeal Panel Pool have not been recruited to review <br />civil citations, warnings and the like and there are serious questions as to whether the pool <br />could be managed and sustained with that kind of work load. <br />Prepared by Robert A. Marotto, MW tZ <br />Animal Services Director <br />a <br />