BC 1992 08 03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

35 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Revised Animal Control Ordinance Proposal A. Presentation of Recommended Revisions by the Board of Health B. Public Hearing Relative to Revisions to the Ordinance since June 15, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. Dr. William F. Pilkington, Health Director, reported that the Board of Health had voted 8-1 to recommend the revised Animal Control Ordinance with two provisions: (1) that any further changes in the ordinance be reviewed with the Board of Health prior to adoption of the ordinance; and (2) the Board of Health opposes the establishment of any advisory committee on animal control other than the Board of Health. Dr. Pilkington reviewed the revisions as recommended by the Health Board. He also pointed out that the veterinarians had indicated on this date that the $40.00 adoption fee would be applied to the cost of spay/neuter and would not cover the entire cost of this service. It was also noted that Section 5, Licensing and Permits, (f) "Any dog or cat under six months of age" should be deleted to correspond with provisions of Section 5(1). UPON MOTION of Commissioner Barnhart, seconded by Chairman Carpenter with Commissioners Barnhart, Hamby, and Payne and Chairman Carpenter voting for, the Board agreed to remove the breed specific provisions of the proposed Animal Control Ordinance along with the other revisions recommended by the Health Board. These revisions were outlined on a document entitled "Changes Which Have Been Made to the Proposed Animal Control Ordinance" and dated July 27, 1992. Chairman Carpenter reported that a number of letters had been received in regards to the proposed Animal Control Ordinance. She stated that these letters had been considered by the Board of Commissioners and forwarded to members of the Health Board as well as the special committee which had worked on the revisions to the proposed ordinance. Chairman Carpenter opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. and asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the revisions which had been made to the proposed Animal Control Ordinance. Mr. Tim Lowder of 8750 Flowes Store Road objected to the $12.00 license fee, stating it was excessive and unfair. Ms. Betsy Carpenter spoke in support of the proposed ordinance and encouraged spay/neuter. She supported a flat kennel fee for hunters/breeders and asked that a specified holding period be included in the ordinance. Mr. Bill Powlas of Macedonia Church Road objected to the proposed ordinance and the license fee for dogs. Mr. Duard Murphy of Barnette Road opposed the proposed ordinance and asked that the issue be placed on the ballot in November. He stated in his opinion the proposed ordinance would place a burden on the responsible dog owner and commented that rabies control and enforcement of provisions dealing with stray dogs would be sufficient for Cabarrus County. Ms. Diane Reilly of Forest Street objected to the proposed ordinance, stating that it was unclear and poorly written. She cited concerns regarding several provisions of the ordinance, specifically the use of voice control, restraint of cats, the veterinarian's responsibility to return proof of rabies vaccination, exemption of persons with five acres or more, and the "immediate seizure and humane destruction of dogs". In conclusion, Ms. Reilly stated in her opinion the problem of dogs running at large should be the' main issue addressed in the ordinance. Mr. James Haviland of Cobblestone Lane asked that the restraint provisions of the proposed ordinance apply to cats as well as to dogs. Mr. Gary Troutman objected to the provisions of the ordinance restricting the barking of dogs. He stated it was the natural instinct of dogs to bark and asked for more emphasis on animal protection rather than control.