Thursday, May 03, 2007

Dog owners growl about proposed limit

By Brian Mosely

The number of pets allowed in a yard may be re-examined after the Shelbyville City council got an earful from concerned dog owners about animal control proposals.
Council members have been wrestling with how to deal with changing the city's code on animal control, which came following several dog attacks, including the attack on a Shelbyville woman by two pit bull dogs last November.

A new section to the city code is currently being considered regarding limitations on keeping animals outdoors. This would limit the number of animals allowed based on lot size.

The most critical component, the dangerous dog section, is already going through the process of becoming law, with a second reading set for the next council meeting on May 10.

However, a misunderstanding has arisen over the limitations with some interpreting it to mean that they would have to get rid of some pets if the ordinance is passed. City Manager Ed Craig explained that those animals would be grandfathered in.

One woman took strong objection to limiting the number of animals a person could keep. Debbie Corvino asked the council if they were trying to stop her "from extending my family."

Corvino said that she already has four dogs and asked why she would be prevented from adopting more. "These animals are like my children," she said.

She continued to ask why she was being punished for the irresponsible actions of others, saying that "good people are being punished for the bad people."

"You don't mess with my kids," she said.

In the current proposal, for a lot three acres or smaller, the total number of animals allowed outside would be no more than two cats, two dogs, one rooster, four chickens, four ducks, four rabbits, but no horses or cows. Property that is three to five acres may have one horse and cow each and a lot over five acres would be permitted to have two each.

The animals kept outside would have to be maintained to eliminate any nuisance disturbing the peace and enjoyment of the neighborhood, unsanitary conditions or an unsightly appearance.

Magazines.com, Inc.

All animals must be kept in a confined area and maintained in a sanitary manner. All cages or kennels used to house the animal must conform to the city's accessory use regulation, which allows only 25 percent of the property be used for the pens.

A transitional period will be provided, giving those with animals 45 days from the effective date to comply with the new requirements. The animals with the license would be able to stay on the premises where they are licensed until they are sold, transferred to another location or die.

Persons owning or keeping roosters, chickens, ducks or rabbits over the limit would have one year to meet the requirement.

Transition licenses would be issued by animal control to each animal that is kept in excess of what the new section of the code allows. The license would be specific to the location and after completing the application, an animal control officer will inspect the outdoor facility and photograph each animal.

The animal control officer may require that an identification microchip be implanted if he determines it is necessary to identify the animal in the future.

Another part of the animal control issue concerns amending the city's zoning ordinance to create a special exception for "hobby kennels," which is defined as an outdoor pen, maintained by the owner for housing, breeding or training dogs, cats, or rabbits owned by the person and not for others. A kennel is defined as a facility that is operated commercially.

The special conditions would require the owner to provide a site plan or other documents that would show location, property lines, proposed fencing and how sanitation would be maintained.

The permit would only be given to the owner or occupant of the property, no signs advertising the hobby kennel would be permitted, no grooming, boarding or other commercial service would be allowed and the applicant will have to establish that the hobby kennel would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood.

Reference:t-g

No comments: