Ordinance Considerations - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Pa g e 3 ii. “Seriously interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment by neighboring residents of their property including but not limited to howling, whining, crying, or other noise making.” c. Issue: That neighbors may be impacted significantly by cats in ways other than vocalization and that these should be addressed by the ordinance, e.g., habitual presence on a neighbor’s property, causing misbehavior of a resident cat while on another’s property, etc. d. Context: Two residents of a Hillsborough HOA have met with staff and the Animal Services Advisory Board to express their concern about a cat that roams the residencies within the HOA and that on one occasion caused one of the resident’s cats to bite her. They would like the ordinance to address this issue but it does not because the roaming cat is owned and microchipped (see (8) viii). The ASAB and staff thinks that one of the aforementioned alternatives is the best way to address their legitimate concerns. Dangerous Animal Restraint The issue of whether Sec. 4-42 needs to be amended to establish a different form of restraint for animals deemed dangerous is currently under discussion. The issue has been posed by a HOA officer based upon concerns with a declared dog in one of the residencies within the HOA. The issue has been addressed to the County Attorney as well as Animal Services staff and the Animal Services Advisory Board. The ASAB will be discussing the concerns at their upcoming (March) meeting. Appeal Scope Animal Services staff and staff within the County Attorney’s Office are planning to propose an amendment to Sec. 4-53.-appeals that more specifically defines what parts of the Unified Animal Ordinance may be appealed under this section. The original intent was to delimit appeals to matters for which no other process of appeal was available but the actual language is broader. (Specifically, (a) says a “person…may appeal the final decision made by the Animal Services Direct or to the appeal board…” This was not actually intended and it is simply not feasible given the administrative burden that would be placed upon Animal Services. In addition, members of the Animal Services Appeal Panel Pool have not been recruited to review civil citations, warnings and the like and there are serious questions as to whether the pool could be managed and sustained with that kind of work load. Prepared by Robert A. Marotto, Animal Services Director