City hears public, mulls changes in pet limit ordinance

Limits on how many dogs city residents could own and revisions to animal kennel requirements highlighted a list of issues the city council discussed during a public meeting March 26.

The council scheduled the hearing after members of the public spoke out in opposition of proposed changes to the local animal law during a council meeting earlier that week.

Revisions to city code follow a series of discussions before the city council in recent weeks to amend Mountain Home's animal control ordinance. The law would've allowed people to own a combination of up to six dogs or cats in their home within city limits.

However, members of the public that spoke during a city council meeting March 24 argued that number was far too many.

With the law expected to pass during a third and final reading of the ordinance last week, the council reversed its decision and unanimously voted against the measure. It then prompted the council to arrange the March 26 planning meeting to specifically address the law.

During the 90-minute hearing, the council looked specifically at curbing the maximum number of dogs people could own.

"We're doing this because people in Mountain Home want this," said Mayor Tom Rist. They want limits set on how many animals, specifically dogs, that people can own.

While some cities in the United States have no limits to the number of pets people can own, the mayor argued that Mountain Home needs to set a limit.

"One way or another, we (need) a method to keep animals under control," Rist said.

These types of requirements are outlined in state law to protect the rights of those that live in close proximity to those who own dogs, said Councilman Geoff Schroeder.

"We have a duty... to protect the community," Schroeder said.

At the same time, a nuisance dog infringes on the rights of their neighbors, said Councilman Russ Anderson. When they bark constantly or their smell from their waste isn't controlled, other homeowners can't go outside and enjoy their own property.

If a dog owner is being responsible, they know they have an obligation to control their animal, Anderson added.

During their discussion, the mayor and Schroeder considered putting a three-dog limit in the ordinance. Anderson and Councilman Jimmy Schipani recommended no more than four dogs per household while Councilman Richard Urquidi suggested something below the six-animal limit.

Whatever number the city finally adopts, the council agreed to include a "grandfather" clause for those that currently own more animals than the revised law would allow.

While the clause would allow these owners to keep these pets until they die, these people couldn't get any more dogs or cats until they have less than the maximum number outlined in the law.

While the council focused most of its attention on dogs during the March 26 meeting, they agreed the law needed to address cats, especially those that owners allow to roam outdoors.

Cats represent a significant problem in Mountain Home, according to city building official Mike McCain. They can jump over someone's six-foot fence and cause problems in their neighborhood, which is something dogs can't do.

At the same time, it's easier for someone to disavow they own a cat if they're confronted by a police officer or animal control official, Schroeder said. It's harder for dog owners to make the same claim.

A majority of the discussion during last Wednesday's special meeting focused on kennels and licensing requirements.

Mountain Home Police Chief Nick Schilz said the kennel requirement was triggered, in part, by residents that pushed the limits on how many animals they could adequately maintain. He highlighted one instance where an individual was running what the police chief called a "puppy mill" out of their home.

The current law requires those with five or more dogs or cats to apply for these permits, which the council contends were costly. At the same time, a conflict in the city's current zoning ordinance already prevents people from having a kennel in a residential area, Schroder said.

The councilman recommended changing the zoning law that would allow people to set up animal kennels but limit them to the city's general business and industrial zones. At the same time, a kennel would need to follow the provisions of a conditional use permit, which by law would allow the public to submit their inputs regarding those requests.

Schroeder also recommended an additional requirement that would keep kennels from butting up against residential neighborhoods. The councilman emphasized it would be a "disaster" if the city didn't impose this minimum distance standard.

"If you put a kennel with 300 barking dogs 100 feet from someone's home, you'll have a problem without a conditional use permit," Schroder said. "A 'box' of barking dogs is not a right; it's a nuisance."

Initially, Schroeder recommended a minimum separation of 500 feet between a kennel and the nearest residence. However, that restriction posed a significant problem since it would've affected the city's plans to build a new animal shelter on Elmcrest Street near the intersection of Marathon Way.

Planners were already looking at moving the actual facility back an additional 50 feet from its original location to keep it at least 200 feet away from existing homes in the area.

Another provision the city officials expect to include in the revised ordinance involves animal "hoarding" or the collecting of animals to satisfy a psychological need or addiction. The provision would address incidents reported in recent years of individuals keeping large numbers of dogs or cats in their homes.

In 2012, for example, animal control officials responded to complaints at a home on North 10th East Street in which the owner had 27 cats living inside.

Bill Houston was one of a handful of local residents that spoke before the council during last week's special meeting.

"It seems we're moving forward and this is something we can live with," Houston said regarding the proposed revisions to the animal control law.

Houston added that most people in Mountain Home are law-abiding citizens. It's the ones who don't care for their animals that represent a problem, he said.

Brad Seymour liked where the city was going with the proposed changes to animal control ordinance. He also recommended adding a provision in the law that would make it illegal for owners to allow their dogs to bark outside past 10 p.m.

But not everyone supported the council's plans. Kevin McCarthy opposed setting limits on the number of pets people could own. He recommended changing the laws to make Mountain Home a "pet-friendly community." McCarthy told the council that larger dogs represent a more significant problem than smaller ones. Instead of setting limits, the law should differentiate between the size of dogs with restrictions based from that perspective, he said.

In response, the mayor said the city is still taking "baby steps" with regards to the ordinance. For now, it's not ready to incorporate that type of requirement into the law.

The city council expects to continue to discuss the ordinance at upcoming public meetings. During this process, the public still has the ability to provide input to these revisions.