Orange County NC Website
31 <br /> <br />BOCC has the flexibility to go with a year as opposed to 18 months. He said the 18 months just <br />allows for extra protection to make sure an animal is really ready to do no harm. <br />Commissioner Rich said she would favor a year. She asked if this could apply <br />retroactively. <br />Anne Marie Tosco, Staff Attorney, said the intent is for this to apply retroactively, but <br />more specific language can be added. <br />Commissioner Rich said she would like to see this language added. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if these court proceedings are rigorous. <br />Anne Marie Tosco said this is a bench trial, where the rules of evidence and civil <br />procedure apply; the County is represented, etc. She said there has only been 3 or 4 of these <br />brought forward since the unified ordinance, and only one that has gone to trial on the merits. <br />Commissioner Jacobs suggested that one of the County attorneys prepare a document <br />that tells residents how to do an appeal. <br />Bob Marotto said this already exists with respect to the quasi-judicial appeal conducted <br />by the Animal Services Hearing Panel pool. He said his department is very thorough in <br />explaining this appeal process, as well as the availability of the second step in the appeal <br />process. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is any guidance provided once one gets to court. <br />Anne Marie Tosco said as attorney representing the County that would be a violation of <br />attorney ethical rules. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said he means before any dog is charged; more like a primer on <br />how the process can proceed. <br />John Roberts said his office can help staff to prepare a document to provide to the <br />public. <br />Chair Dorosin said residents have their dogs during the appeals process, and need to <br />make sure that the dog does not get out and hurt anyone. He said public safety is an important <br />matter, and he is less concerned about the timing. He said there are two sides to the story, and <br />a balance between the aggressors and the victims. He suggested it may be wise to defer this <br />item also. <br />Commissioner Rich said she would like to pull the item in order to address the issue of <br />retroactivity. She asked if there is a place where the inspections are described. <br />Bob Marotto said yes. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if animals that are raised for fighting are handled the same <br />way. <br />Anne Marie Tosco said the ordinance does not address fighting animals, except in the <br />cruelty provisions. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said Animal Control officers have the authority to enter onto and <br />inspect, and asked if an animal that is subjected to cruelty included animals that are being made <br />to fight. <br />Anne Marie Tosco said yes. <br />Bob Marotto said it may also be that they have an animal that is without water on a hot <br />day. He said there are a variety of forms of mistreatment. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said there are enough instances of fighting dogs, and they should <br />be able to go on the property to prevent cruel treatment, which includes being raised for fighting <br />purposes. <br />Anne Marie Tosco said her only hesitation to clarifying that is just the statutory <br />construction, but she can work on this. <br />Commissioner Price said would like to hear reasons for 12 months versus 18 months. <br /> <br />This Item was deferred. <br />