The ordinance review committee took up the issue of animal control in Wrangell Thursday afternoon.
Discussion focused around revising ordinances related to animal control, and touched only briefly on the potential for hiring a part-time ordinance enforcement officer, who would also be trained for and tasked with controlling the town’s stray dog population.
Ordinance review committee sessions are largely informal, without set agendas. Suggested changes to the ordinances are noted and submitted to the assembly for first reading and second reading before being enacted. Formal votes at the committee meeting are unusual.
Discussion primarily focused around how to get problem animals – for example, roosters that crow and wake neighbors – into more desirable or constructive zones.
One method borough officials will consider involves changing zoning regulations to suit more densely populated areas of town. Currently, numbers for various species of animal are set depending on how a property is zoned. Residences having only a single pet rabbit, for example, don’t need to apply for zoning variances because they don’t have the minimum number of animals requiring them to register as “animal establishments,” which would force them to meet different standards, according to borough economic development officer Carol Rushmore.
“I guess there’s two ways of looking at this, too, because zoning can also address some issues by allowing or not allowing certain things within a particular zone,” she said. “There are some things in there that aren’t working or could be modified as well.”
The planning and zoning commission was set to take up the issue at tonight’s 7 p.m. meeting, Rushmore said.
“The way the zoning dealt with it – and this is where one of the problems is – the zoning code set up what was called an animal establishment, and for the different type of animal, based on the number you had, you either became an animal establishment or not,” Rushmore told the committee. “If you’re under that, that’s where some of the zoning regs fall out.”
“That’s not necessarily working,” she added. “The numbers may be high or low depending on who you are or what you’re thinking about.”
Another consideration depends on whether chickens are in coops or on the dinner table, said Police Chief Doug McCloskey.
“You take chickens, they’ll have a litter in the spring, and by fall they’re all in the freezer,” he said. “How many do they have?”
Zoning changes must be practical, said Mayor David Jack.
“We don’t want to get in a situation where (St. Francis Animal Rescue proprietor Dolores Klinke) is in non-compliance,” he said. “She’s providing a service in regard to animals, and we have to be kind of careful what we do there.”
Klinke currently has 17 cats, short of the 20 which would require a permit.
Among the ordinance revisions the committee discussed relating to canines – which have sparked a lively Facebook exchange on the subject – the committee increased the borough penalty for first-time code violations from $15 to $25. Borough code currently fines second-time violators $50, third-time violators $100, fourth-time violators $125, fifth time violators $150, and sixth time violators $200.
In addition, the committee also adopted one section from a draft ordinance prepared by borough staff, which allows for an animal to be off of a leash and controlled by voice provided “the person exhibiting the voice control is present with the animal and monitors all of its activities,” “is capable of directing all of the animals movements and activities by voice commands,” and “the animal … follows all of the vocal commands quickly and accurately.”
Police have a number of options to pursue in the event of non-payment, McCloskey said.
“We go after them several ways if they don’t pay up,” he said. “We try to garnish their dividend.”
“You don’t want to seize their chicken?” quipped borough manager Jeff Jabusch.
Dogs who are repeatedly impounded without owners to pay for them can be euthanized, McCloskey said.
“The other side of it is, if we do catch their dog another time, if they want him back they pay up the fines and clean up their tab or we do the dog away,” he said. “Sometimes that’s what it boils down to. They won’t let us do the owners, so …”
Reader Comments(0)