|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
News
No changes in pet law : News : Oswego Ledger-Sentinel : Hometown Newspaper for Oswego and Montgomery, IllinoisNo changes in pet law
| Montgomery Village Board rejects proposed revisions
| by Tony Scott
| 2/18/2010
|
The Montgomery Village Board Tuesday evening agreed to leave as-is the village's ordinance that restricts the number of dogs or cats in a household.
The village's ordinance currently allows for two dogs or cats of any one species, not to exceed a total of four animals.
The ordinance is only enforced following a complaint by a neighbor. If found in violation of the ordinance, a resident can be fined $50, and if that fine is not paid within seven days, it increases to $125, according to village officials.
A resident questioned the restriction on the number of dogs, specifically, at a December village board meeting. The resident stated that she had a greater than allowed number of dogs, and wanted the village to increase the limit.
Assistant Village Manager Mera Johnson explained that a 2007 survey of comparable communities was updated to include Yorkville, which has no restrictions on the number of dogs or cats in a home. The Village of Oswego also has no limit on the number of domestic animals, according to Johnson's survey.
Sugar Grove limits households to four dogs or cats over four months of age, and Plainfield limits them to three domestic animals, "but that number may be increased to five per household," according to Johnson's survey.
Montgomery officials last visited the issue in 2007, when they considered a proposal to increase the number of pets allowed to four. However, as they did Tuesday, the board decided to keep the restriction as it was.
At Tuesday's meeting, board member Robert Watermann said he had spoken with several people to get their opinion on the limit and could see both sides of the issue, but wanted to keep the ordinance as is.
"I think we're opening ourselves up a can of worms," he said.
Denny Lee said the ordinance is complaint-based, and that it doesn't make a difference to him if it's changed or stays the same.
Pete Heinz said the village should "keep it the way it is."
"They're just looking for trouble," he said of those who violate the ordinance.
Jeanne Felten said she could see both sides of the issue.
"We have an ordinance that really we're not enforcing," she said. "Unless somebody calls and complains, we have no way of knowing. There are people who have four, five, six dogs. Then we get the people, like the lady who came here, who wants to be honest and come forward... and we're penalizing (them)."
William Keck said the village needs to keep the restrictions.
"I think it needs to stay on a complaint basis, and if there's a complaint, call the police and we'll address it then," he said. "It's not that it's not being enforced; it puts the onus on the dog owner to keep his animals under control, and that's the bottom line here. You could have a person who has six or eight dogs, and they're perfect, they don't make noise. Then you can have a person who has two dogs, and they're barking constantly at the neighbors."
Andy Kaczmarek asked if the village could require a kennel license for more than three animals or add an ordinance for animal breeding.
Village President Marilyn Michelini said she might be in favor of a kennel license, but not for the breeding ordinance.
However, the majority of board members were in favor of keeping the ordinance the same.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
