3/23/1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND ZOFNING COMMISSION, MR. BERG STATED THAT IT HAS AND NOTED THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AN ANIMAL ORDINANCE WHICH FALLS PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED TODAY, EXCEPT THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTAN-,E WE ARE PUTTING IT INTO, A ZONING SECTION OF THE CODE, - DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO DEFINITIONS OF THE ANIMALS LISTED IN PARAGRAPH (A), AND COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THERE HAD N, IT BEEN A REQUEST MADE TO THE ZONING COMMISSION TO HAVE "EXOTIC" ANIMALS SOMEWHERE, ASSISTANT PLANNER MERG STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A REQUEST TO HAVE AN OCELOT, WHICH HE WOULD CLASSIFY AS A "WILD" ANIMAL, BUT HE FELT UNLESS SUCH'AN ANIMAL IS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED, IT WOULD BE PROHIBITED, COMMISSIONER LOY DISCUSSED HAVING, SUCH ANIMALS AS A BUSINESS AS OPPOSED TO BEING PETS, AND MR, BERG FELT THAT IS A DIFFERENT AREA ENTIRELY THAN IS BEING CONSIDERED TODAY AND WOULD HAVE TO GO TO TNF VARIANCE BOARD, HE ALSO FELT THIS WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS IT IS SPECIFICALLY LISTED AS A.PERMISSIVE USE. ADMINISTRATOR KENNINGS NOTED THAT HIS MAIN CONCERN IS WHO IS GOING TO BE CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THIS ORDINANCE AS HE -FELT IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE AND IS OFTEN A CASE OF "NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR. MR, BERG FELT THE ZONING nEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TO ENFORCE IT UNLESS THE ORDINANCE PROVIDED SOMETHING ELSE, ATTORNEY COLLINS SAID HE FELT IT WOULD BE THE COUNTY COMMISSION'S RESPONSIBILITY ALSO - SIMILAR TO VIOLATIONS OF OTHER TYPES OF NUISANCES, HE POINTED OUT THAT AS A REMEDY THE INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO SUE AGAINST THE NUISANCE, AND THIS ORDINANCE WILL ALLOW THE COUNTY TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION OR TURN IT OVER TO THE STATE'S ATTORNEY. CHAIRMAN 11ODTKE (QUESTIONED WHO WOULD DECIDE, FOR INSTANCE, IF AN ANIMAL "HABITUALLY BARKS", AND STATED HE WAS DOUBTFUL ABOUT ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE WE CANNOT ENFORCE, THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHED TO BE HEARD, 34 NEAR 231977 20 ng J