Laserfiche WebLink
<br />....- <br /> <br />127 <br /> <br />TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1985 <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />In consideration of Ordinance No. 85-9 amending Chapter 5, Articles I, II <br /> <br />and III of the City Code as to Animals and Fowls, several questions were <br /> <br />asked as to the definition of kennels, how many dogs should be allowed <br /> <br />before it would be classified as a kennel, would present situations in <br /> <br />conflict with proposed amendments be "grandfathered" or be "violations" to <br /> <br />be enforced and corrected, are proposed zoning restrictions proper for <br /> <br />this type ordinance. Mr. .To'3eph W. Stillwell, 712 Grattan Road, expressed <br /> <br />his concern about habitual offenders and there being no specific <br /> <br />references to the dog owners and their responsibilities, that the $10.00 <br /> <br />fine meant nothing to the habitual offender, that it should be more. It <br /> <br />was noted that under the proposed changes it would be more--$10.00 plus <br /> <br />$25.00 court costs for a minimum fine of $35.00. Mr. J. Randolph Smith, <br /> <br />Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney for the City, stated that the City's present <br /> <br />ordinance needed to be updated to bring it into compliance with State <br /> <br />statutes, thus strengthening the laws and making them easier to enforce by <br /> <br />the Police Department. Police Chief Terry Roop stated some situations <br /> <br />that presently exist that need correcting where there are a large number <br /> <br />of dogs that are potentially vicious that our present ordinance does not <br /> <br />allow the Animal Warden enforcement privileges. Upon motion by Vice-Mayor <br /> <br />Severt, seconded by Councilman Williams and unanimously carried, Council <br /> <br />accepted this proposed ordinance on first reading pending further study <br /> <br />and recommendations for consideration on second reading at the August 13 <br /> <br />meeting. <br />