Dog
owners need to take a close look at Agenda Item 12.A., This is an ordinance
scheduled for first reading this Monday, April 7, 2014, by the Palmetto Bay
Village Council. This ordinance is sponsored solely by Mayor Stanczyk and it
represents a major change from the existing reasonable noise ordinance.
The current noise ordinance provides for restrictions on
noise between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (later on weekends) and also provides
that a “barking dog” shall be considered a nuisance if it barks or bays for a
period of longer than twenty minutes.
These are reasonable restrictions which prevent homeowners from leaving
animals out to annoy neighbors all day, or keeping neighbors awake at night.
This current code can be found online: Sec.30-60.29. Noises – [scroll down to (e)(5) Animals].
This
is a proposed amendment to our Palmetto Bay zoning code specifically targeting barking
dogs and someone’s new opinion about what constitutes a “public nuisance animal”.
It provides for more stringent rules and puts only pet owners at risk for fines
levied against their homes based solely upon subjective standards and the owner
of any animal deemed a public nuisance animal, “… including barking dogs …”
“shall be deemed to be in violation of this article regardless of the knowledge, intent or culpability of the owner.” (emphasis
added - Contained in subparagraph (5). I was hoping that this was an April
Fools’ Day prank, as it was posted to the village website on April 1st,
but it is now April 2nd and it is still there.
This
will have a profound and adverse impact on innocent dog owners and you need to
be made aware of it. It is directly solely at property owners who have pets.
The proposed process does not extend to any other items that people may
complain of - loud parties or early morning noise in violation of the noise
ordinance like lawn maintenance or construction that starts in violation of the
noise ordinance. It doesn’t extend to repairing race cars in one’s yard or even
mowing the lawn more than once a week. No, this ordinance is solely directed at
pet owners. It essentially states that,
should a neighbor claim that a dog is barking excessively (more than five barks
per hour), a fine will be levied. It is
not required that anyone other than the complaining neighbor hear the dog.
This
will become a real tool for a vindictive neighbor who wants to target a pet
owner, not to mention someone who simply has an unreasonable dislike for
animals. And yet someone who does not want to be "a bad guy' by turning in
the offensive neighbor will still have to 'suffer in silence.' My fear is that
this process will in fact be expanded to other situations – thus setting up
neighborhood feuds.
I
was unaware as to how bad the living conditions must be in Palmetto Bay. Barking
dogs are a crisis requiring drastic new rules? Can you imagine a senior citizen
having to give up the family dog because their toy poodle happens to bark 5
times in an hour, more than once during a single month, thus facing a $500
fine? Do you want to tell your children
that you have to get rid of the family pet because a neighbor has targeted you because
your dog barks occasionally? Do dogs not
occasionally bark? Mine does; especially when chasing balls or running with
family members. Or when a neighbor lawn service starts up, or mango thieves
enter our front yard (good dog!) or when another dog walks by (we are, or used
to be, a friendly dog-walking community).
An
occasional dog bark falls into the category of “normal suburban noise.” We do not live in the country, so
occasionally, we will hear our neighbors talk, do yard work, start their cars,
play with their children, splash in their pools, and yes, hear their dogs
bark. By all means, dogs should not bark
for an hour. But an occasional bark is a
fact of life.
No
more playing with the dog outside should it make noise? How is that family
friendly? That is just sad. This is not the vision so many of us have for living
as a functioning community in Palmetto Bay.
If
such a law was really needed, wouldn’t it be nice if there was a provision in
this law that protected pet owners from malicious or frivolous claims, to make
you whole for costs (and potential attorney’s fees) you have to put out to
defend yourself in the “Civil Citation Hearing Before Special Master [numbered
subparagraph (2) of the proposed ordinance]?
There is no intent to create a level playing field here. This is a dog silencing ordinance. It is
interesting that there is no ability of neighbors surrounding the Thalatta
Estate to seek similar redress when that place gets rocking each weekend.
Village
leaders should not abdicate their enforcement responsibilities to
residents. This power to initiate a fine
levy will only led to spreading the current dysfunction on the village council
into neighborhood dysfunction. This is why we hire professionals – our well-trained
police and code enforcement officers to step into these situations and make
trained judgments. They are impartial.
If a police or code enforcement officer is called and hears a dog
barking excessively, a fine will be levied under the existing noise ordinance. If the dog is not barking enough for the
police to notice, this likely means that the barking is not excessive.
Has
Palmetto Bay finally “gone to the dogs”?
This is a bad proposal. As one of the village founders, we promised those
skeptical of incorporation that they would not be subject to restrictive codes
– “no Coral Gables type rules.” This
proposal is much more draconian. This
proposed ordinance can be seen as another covenant with the people broken by
the current mayor.
Please
respond to me as to your review of this proposal.
Thank
you.
Eugene
Flinn
