Published: May 20, 2008 10:20 pm         

Officials put embattled Beckley pet ordinance change on hold for now

Too doggone controversial?

Beckley officials faced more than 50 residents Tuesday afternoon — most ready to unleash their fury about a proposed ordinance limiting the number of pets they could own.

The Beckley Planning Commission voted 4-0 to postpone any action on the amended ordinance until they have more time to complete further research, possibly on an ordinance that will address various pet owners’ concerns.

The city is considering amending its current pet ownership ordinance, under which residents are allowed to have no more than three dogs and no more than three cats, total, outside their homes or inside accessory buildings.

A loophole, though, has allowed residents to keep as many domestic pets inside their homes as they want, just as long as only three of each go outside.

The amendment would allow residents to keep three dogs and three cats — period. If it passes, violators could face a maximum $1,000 fine per day.

On more than one occasion, conditions during the meeting became heated, with citizens sniping at one another or at city officials.

Two residents spoke in favor of the ordinance, and they cited noise from barking dogs and dogs running loose in their neighborhoods. The overwhelming majority, however, were opposed. Several noted pet owners who have four or more pets are responsible, while others with one to two let their pets bark constantly, roam freely and live in squalor. Some pet owners also had a number of pets just over the city’s proposed limit and believed they should not have to pay for others’ irresponsibility.

Glenn Avenue resident Mora Griffith said she owned six cats — and all stay inside her house.

Dexter Avenue resident Walter Klingsensmith said he owns four dogs, and he keeps them on a large lot.

“I pick up their poop every day,” he said. “They have regular vet visits. I feel like the proposed ordinance is a bit excessive.”

Bob Cannon, the city’s chief zoning officer, said people like Griffith and Klingsensmith would be grandfathered. But when that number reaches three, from pets’ eventual deaths or moving to new homes, those owners would be limited, too. However, others attending the meeting noted a copy of the amended ordinance has no grandfather clause in writing.

Several others just told officials they were extremely confused — or thought the amendment amounted to smelly bureaucracy. They also believed existing laws — like barking dog or other “nuisance” ordinances — should simply be enforced more often.

“We have leash laws, the health department...” said Maxwell Hill Road resident Larry Robertson. “I’m just perplexed by this bureaucracy, more and more. If you can’t enforce the laws on the books, what are we going to accomplish here?’

“This will not stop the dogs from barking. You will not stop the smell of poop in the yards, even if you limit people to three.”

Residents also asked Cannon exactly how three was determined to be a reasonable number of pets. He said he did not know.