Minutes 11-01-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11 Commissioner Jacobs said yes. Commissioner Burroughs said she was glad to keep the review period at 18 months, especially as this recommendation came from the Hearing Panel Pool and Animal Services staff. Bob Marotto said the Hearing Panel Pool felt strongly that there should be some mechanism to revisit the issue and not have a lifelong sentence imposed on an animal, based on one incident. He said other counties’ practices were reviewed and the 18- month period is the recommendation by all involved. Commissioner Burroughs supports the 18-month period. Commissioner Price referred to the exceptions and the instance of a dog defending an animal or a person at the time of injury. She asked if there is a process to determine when an animal is acting out of defense rather than aggression. Bob Marotto said Animal Services staff would make this determination based on evidence gathered during the investigation. Commissioner Price clarified that the determination is not simply based on the testimony of the owner. Bob Marotto said no, there would be a review of the totality of the circumstances and all available evidence. He said an example would be if a dog was attacking him, and his own dog interceded to defend him. Anne Marie Tosco said that is existing ordinance language, which she moved around to avoid some previously caused confusion. Commissioner Rich thanked staff for revisiting this, and the additional information was helpful. Commissioner Rich referred to Section 4-42 on page 7, and the four reasons listed as to why a dog could be considered dangerous. She said this same language is also on the application for review under Section 2. She said reason number 4 states that an animal can be deemed “potentially dangerous or dangerous in accordance with the NC General Statute, Chapter 67, Article 1-a: dangerous dogs,” and asked if it is known who is making such as determination for the State. Bob Marotto said the Animal Services Director and staff. Commissioner Rich asked if, when the 18-month period passes and a dog is no longer deemed dangerous, does staff also inform the State of this change. John Roberts said the 18-month period applies to declarations under the County’s Animal Control Ordinance (items 1, 2 and 3), and if an animal is declared dangerous pursuant to State Statute, the 18 months does not apply. Commissioner Rich clarified that the dog would remain dangerous in the State, but not in the County. John Roberts said there is no way to remove the declaration from the State. Commissioner Rich clarified that number 4 does not fit in with numbers 1, 2, and 3. Bob Marotto said it is not subject to be repealed under the State Statute, and he would like to see such a mechanism exist under the State Statute, and the County may wish to make this recommendation some time in the future. He said the County can only amend its own Ordinance, and has no authority to revisit it under the State Statute. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason why this is in the review process, and should it not be removed if the County has no authority to amend the Statute. Anne Marie Tosco said the Statute defines dangerous dog differently than the Ordinance, and has different restrictions. She said the Ordinance is more restrictive. She said a dog could be declared dangerous/potentially dangerous under State Statute, but also have additional Ordinance restrictions put on them. She said the County cannot lift the State declaration of “dangerous” but can lift the additional restrictions imposed by the Ordinance.