HOWELL — Following months of examination, a dog ordinance that once riled the residents of Howell has been brought back to the table to largely positive reviews.
The original ordinance, which was slated to have been adopted in February, would have limited the number of pets a resident is permitted to have to five dogs or cats, or a combination thereof.
Officials said the intent of the ordinance was to protect animals from abuse and neglect. The law was drafted after Monmouth County Board of Health officials, in conjunction with the Associated Humane Societies and the Monmouth County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, removed a number of dogs from a township kennel.
Officials said the dogs had been neglected and were subject to overcrowding conditions.
But pet owners rallied against the dog ordinance, claiming it would punish many individuals for the misdeeds of a few. The public convinced the governing body at a Feb. 17 hearing that the measure was too broad and unconstitutional and the Township Council voted against its adoption, instead calling for the formation of a committee to explore possible solutions.
These solutions were researched over the course of the year by a committee of residents and experts headed by Township Attorney McKenna Kingdon. The final amended dog ordinance was a discussion item on the agenda for the Oct. 6 council workshop meeting.
“There have been several revisions, all of which have been discussed at length,” Kingdon said. “The question that kept coming up was, ‘What is the purpose based on the last time we introduced the ordinance?’ And the end result was not to limit the number of dogs that you can own as a pet owner, but to prevent irresponsible dog ownership.”
Kingdon noted that the committee worked closely with members of the Howell Zoning Board of Adjustment and zoning board attorney Ronald Troppoli.
The ordinance, as amended, establishes commercial breeders, dog kennels, shelters, pounds, training facilities and pet shops as a conditional use within the Special Economic Development (SED) zone and Highway Development (HD), HD-2 and HD-3 zones. It also revises the licensing requirements and definitions, which were the cause of concern among residents, regarding breeders, boarders, training facilities and pet shops.
The purpose of the revised dog ordinance is to protect the general welfare of residents from irresponsible dog ownership, to encourage commercial entities to locate an adequately sized property, to regulate, but not limit, the number of dogs on a property, and to recognize that dogs are not considered livestock.
Kingdon elaborated on revised licensing requirements, which was also a main function of the ordinance.
“The impetus behind the ordinance, I believe, is that there was a facility that was not a permitted use, that has had its license revoked and is operating illegally. And some of those dogs are not being regulated,” the attorney said. “We are trying to subject those facility owners to the same regulations that kennels are subjected to if you are going to breed these dogs and sell them.”
Kingdon said facilities that are already in existence in certain areas not zoned for kennels and such will be allowed to continue to exist in those zones as long as all other requirements are met.
She said the number of complaints relative to unleashed dogs and barking were only a fraction of the complaints lodged regarding animals in 2008, therefore these issues did not need to be addressed in the ordinance. She said there are already nuisance and noise violations and penalties in place that would protect residents from those types of problems.
“Generally, [the ordinance] addresses what the council wanted to address and even the folks that own these pets, some of their concerns, as well as the zoning board,” Kingdon said. “We needed something in place.”
Reactions from the council and the public were positive, although some questions and concerns were raised.
“I’m not 100 percent in agreement with every single thing about it, but I think you did your best,” Mayor Robert Walsh remarked.
Councilman Curtis Vislocky questioned why farmland would not be a permitted use for a kennel.
“It would make logical sense if you own a 10-acre farm to be able to put a kennel on it, but if you’re on a highway or an SED zone, it’s a permitted use?” he asked. “That’s something that doesn’t seem to make logical sense to me. It just seems like a disadvantage to those who own large parcels of land.”
However, Kingdon explained that the zoning board reviewed and approved the zones and reminded Vislocky that dogs cannot be considered livestock under an agricultural use, so the applicant would need certain variances if they wished to operate a kennel on farmland.
Sue Sullivan, a legislative issues representative of the New Jersey Dog Federation, praised the committee that examined this matter, but suggested that more could be done on a regular basis to monitor compliance with the ordinance. She recommended that the township set up an ad-hoc committee akin to an animal control advisory board.
The Township Council agreed, and said that applications will be available shortly and that the advisory committee could be formed as early as January.
Township Manager Helene Schlegel also recommended that educational sessions be created relative to the ordinance and animal cruelty and that these educational programs be coordinated with the Department of Parks and Recreation.
During the meeting’s public hearing, residents, many of whom were members of the ordinance committee, spoke positively of the amended dog ordinance.
“Our workshop has worked really hard to come up with ideas we all can live with,” said resident Ralph Citarella, who breeds white English bulldogs. “After research, we found that only a few made it difficult for many, as with most problems.”
Citarella also explained the difference between breed enthusiasts and hobbyists vs. socalled puppy mills and noted that shelters “should be for dogs that don’t have a home, not the ones that are already loved.”
Resident Lois Rondo agreed.
“It seems to be the main goal of the township to alleviate puppy mills by not allowing them to breed an excess number of puppies,” she said. “Responsible breeders police themselves, and that should be the goal of everyone in town.”
Walsh said he was impressed by the thorough examination of the ordinance and its careful revisions.
“It was well worth going about this process,” he said. “I have a lot of good feelings about this. I know not everyone’s going to like it, but it has some great ideas.”
Although there is not a definitive date yet, the dog ordinance will be on the agenda for introduction, public hearing and adoption in the coming months.