Martin County

File #: 19-0481   
Type: Public Hearing Status: Passed
In control: Board of County Commissioners
On agenda: 6/4/2019 Final action: 6/4/2019
Title: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9, ANIMALS, GENERAL ORDINANCES, MARTIN COUNTY CODE
Attachments: 1. Draft_animal ordinance_strikethrough_underline_04252019.pdf
PLACEMENT: Public Hearings
TITLE:
title
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9, ANIMALS, GENERAL ORDINANCES, MARTIN COUNTY CODE
end
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
executive summary
The Animal Care and Control Oversight Board (ACCOB) began its review of amendments to Chapter 9, Animals, General Ordinances, Martin County Code on May 18, 2017. After multiple reviews including the consideration of public comment, the ACCOB on January 12, 2019, unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance.
body
DEPARTMENT: Administration
PREPARED BY: Name: George M. Stokus
Title: Assistant County Administrator
REQUESTED BY:

PRESET:
PROCEDURES: None

BACKGROUND/RELATED STRATEGIC GOAL:

None

ISSUES:

The revisions to the attached draft ordinance included the following:
* Amending Section 9.1. Definitions to meet existing conditions and to achieve consistency with Florida State Statutes
* Changing the name Animal Care and Control Officer to Animal Services Officer
* Requiring an animal be of at least six (6) months of age for the issuance of an animal license and to meet the new rabies vaccination requirements
* Providing stricter requirements for transporting animals on public roadways
* Strengthening the process for the determination of a "Dangerous Dog"

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW:

This is a legislative matter. Legislative decisions are those in which the local government formulates policy rather than applying specific rules to a particular situation. A local government's approval or denial of an issue in its legislative capacity is typically subject to the fairly debatable standard of review. Fairly debatable means that the government's action must be upheld if reasonable minds could differ as to the propriety of the decision reached. Decisions subject to the fairly debatable standard of review need only be rationally related to a legitimate public purpose, such as the health, safety, ...

Click here for full text