Okaloosa County BOCC — August 19, 2014 — reading text

Animal Ordinance, she is not in favor of the limitation of four, this should depend upon the property size. She also feels that it is not the business of the City to prevent the slaughter of chickens if it is done responsibly and humanely. Ms. Helt feels that the City should not have a prohibition against the selling of eggs to ones neighbor. Ms. Roy stated that the selling of eggs is a Heath Department and a Food and Drug Administration issue not a City of Crestview issue. Ms. Helt expressed that she feels that the word moveable as it regards to a chicken enclosure needs to be clearly defined or omitted. Because what one may consider moveable maybe not what the City considers moveable. She does not want to impose rules and regulations where she does not think it necessary when it comes to those issues. Ms. Roy stated that with the selling of the eggs if the City allows people to sell eggs is the City held liable if those eggs make someone sick this would be a question she would have to pose with the Health Department. Mr. Gordon agrees with the other Council members on their view regards to owning chickens. Mr. Hayes stated that the chickens do not pose a problem until they become a nuisance. He would like the selling of eggs to be researched. Ms. Roy stated that the number of chickens one can own is really determined by the space that is provided for the chickens to live in. If a person has the adequate amount of space for a large number of chickens and they are not a nuisance to neighbors then it may be possible to have more than four chickens. Discussion ensued relative to the space for chickens. Ms. Roy suggested that with the selling of chicken products if there is no wording specifically against it but to say that the selling is only allowed if it is by state statute. Mr. Miller commented that he does not find a sponsor for a particular policy among the legislators. Ms. Roy is not the legislator. We can produce a sponsored draft ordinance for you to approve, and then convince your fellows that, that model ought to be passed. He feels that the Council is no further along today in this mediation approach to composing legislation than they were months ago with this and other issues. There have been subject matters opened today that have some foundations in other locations in the City Code. In 1941, when Fort Walton Beach was incorporated, the driving force was that Florida was an open range state. That was the way that people in an urban area could come together and gain the authority to regulate roaming livestock. Because in unincorporated areas in Florida every property was, in practice, zoned agriculture and for agriculture uses the livestock could roam anywhere they weren’t fenced out. There was no requirement that they be fenced in. In the City’s zoning code there are permitted 2 Workshop 05/12/14 Packet Pg. 408 uses, none of them can be used by its owners for agricultural purposes except for possibly two locations that are zoned for agriculture. There seems to be some sentiment to change that and permit agricultural uses in a broader portion of the City. This would be a zoning issue not an Animal Ordinance issue. Mr. Miller suggested to Council to have a draft ordinance generated by them, with Staff if you need that assistance, would be a starting point on that expressed philosophy. Ms. Roy explained the reason that the twenty foot from the property line is in this ordinance is because of the City’s Land Use Ordinance which prohibits any kind of animals, livestock within twenty feet of a property line. By having that in the Animal Ordinance keeps it in compliance with the Land Use Ordinance. Mr. Blocker commented that with other guidelines in place if a person meets that criteria then they should be able to keep as many chickens as they please. Ms. Roy continued to speak about the other changes in the ordinance in dealing with the number of animals a person is allowed to own. At current the ordinance states that one can own at least four adult dogs and four additional animals. The change would decrease the number of domesticated animals to seven. This does decrease the total by one but it increases the amount of actual dogs one can have. Ms. Helt suggested language related to nuisance stand and we should stay of a person’s business in regards to how many pets they have. Provided they have the space, the means and take good care of their dogs as long as the dogs are not a nuisance she does not like the limitation. Mr. Rytman asked if these changes being made to this ordinance was to clarify that P.A.W.S handles the Animal Control and not the City of Crestview. This is will give P.A.W.S a guideline to regulate the animals within the City limits and we as a Council should decide what a nuisance is. Ms. Roy states that this ordinance is not being changed to accommodate a contractor. The ordinance is being changed and taking the City Animal Control out of the ordinance and to put the City in compliance. Discussion ensued relative to the topic of number of dogs and animals being a nuisance. Mr. Gordon echoed the same sentiment of Ms. Helt of keeping government out of dictating to people how many dogs a person can own. Mr. Hayes stated that he does not have a problem with the number of dogs, cats, chickens one owns as long as they are not a nuisance. He feels that citizens may not have a problem with the number of animals, but whether or not they are a nuisance may be the issue. Ms. Roy informed Mr. Hayes that there are provisions for animal nuisance in the ordinance. 3 Workshop 05/12/14 Packet Pg. 409 Mr. Hayes stated that the consensus of the Council is to look more into what defines a nuisance. Ms. Roy points out that on the current ordinance and the revised ordinance the City is designated as a Bird Sanctuary. She could not found why or how the City got this designation but in researching this that any bird that is protected is protected by Federal and State statutes. There cannot be any gun fired, fireworks displayed or any action that may prove dangerous to birds. A person cannot remove a bird from a light pole, even if it causing problems, because of this designation. Ms. Roy suggested to get rid of the Bird Sanctuary designation. Mr. Miller stated that at this point it seems that there are two legislative perspectives. He recommends that the Council do separate ordinances to get some these issues resolved. One would be to remove the provision that imposes a restriction on the number of dogs and the other would be removing the Bird Sanctuary designation. Mr. Blocker commented that from his research he agrees to remove that designation from the ordinance. Ms. Roy addresses the issue of the pot bellied pigs because in the current ordinance chickens or pigs are not allowed. In the draft ordinance it was said that the pot bellied pig is considered a domesticated animal. Ms. Helt stated that she did not want to impose a regulation on someone where a regulation does not need to exist. Discussion ensued. Ms. Roy then reached the issue of tethering as it relates to the ordinance. This is not in the current ordinance at all. This change would disallowing tethering of dogs to solid posts except for limited times when there is someone in your yard. It has been brought forth from citizens who do not want people to be able to tether a dog to a tree or a dog house as a means of restraint. If a dog is on a chain it would need to be on a moveable line not a tether. Mr. Hayes addressed Mr. Miller in relating to the number of animals and bird sanctuary will that mean a change in the ordinance or how does the process work. Mr. Miller stated that he already suggested to the Clerk to bring these items back to the Council in separate ordinances. Because there is a variety of input they will need to come back as separate ordinances. Ms. Roy asked if there was a consensus from the Council on tethering. Mr. Hayes answered that he was for what is in this ordinance now. Mr. Miller asked if the issue of tethering was in the old ordinance. 4 Workshop 05/12/14 Packet Pg. 410 Ms. Roy answered that it was not in the old one but in the rewritten ordinance. Mr. Blocker asked for clarification of the meaning of the word property as it relates to tethering a dog. He also asked if it is P.A.W.S who determines the fees a person should pay or is a fee schedule that the City provides them to determine what a person should pay when they are in violation of the ordinance. Ms. Roy informed Mr. Blocker that the ordinance clearly stated that property is defined as one’s dwelling and not a vehicle. As far as the fees, those are set by P.A.W.S because they are the collector of the fees. Those fees are used to offset the City’s cost to P.A.W.S that is in the contract now. Mr. Gordon states that his issue is with the tethering of the dog in a back of a vehicle. He feels that it would be over regulating the freedom of our constituents and those traveling through this area. He thinks that it is inhumane to tie a dog up in the backyard but do we want to have a dog tied up in the back of a vehicle because it is the City policy. Mr. Rytman agrees with what Mr. Gordon stated on this issue. Ms. Helt does not feel that this is an issue that really needs to be addressed. Even on the tethering issue, she doesn’t understand where the Council stands on it. Right now there is no prohibition in the current code related to tethering. She wants to know if the Council is going for a prohibition against tethering or not to deal with tethering at all. Discussion ensued relative to tethering. Mr. Hayes states that it seems that the Council would agree to the tethering portion of the ordinance but not to the tethering to the vehicle and to leave that to the responsibility of the owner of the animal. Ms. Helt asked that if Mr. Hayes was agreeing to the tethering portion as written. Because there is no mention of a pulley system or alternatives to tethering a dog to a stationary object as discussed. Ms. Roy stated that the verbiage for that can be added. Ms. Helt commented that from what she read it the ordinance would seem to not allow any type of tethering. Ms. Roy stated that the only tethering not allowed is the tethering to a stationary object. Mr. Blocker addressed section 10-7 where it states that an owner cannot vaccinate their own animals. Ms. Roy stated that is correct because it is a state law. 5 Workshop 05/12/14 Packet Pg. 411 Mr. Blocker does not agree with that at all even if it is a state law. Mr. Hayes then asked Council for direction or a consensus to the ordinance. Mr. Blocker recommends to do away with the number of animals a person can own whether it be a chicken, cat, pig or dog because there is legislation in place that dictates what one can do or have on their property. Mr. Hayes commented that there was a consensus to remove the number of animals from the ordinance. Mr. Gordon stated that in regards to tethering, he feels that to have a dog tied to a stationary object is inhumane there has to be some source of opportunity for the Animal Control to come in and care for the animal if the owner is not doing so. In that instance he agrees that there needs to be a tethering policy. Mr. Rytman commented that his main concern was the abuse to animals he does like the pulley system idea and is for the tethering