ROBBINSVILLE: Council discusses dog limit ordinance

According to officials, the current limits households to three dogs, except for the case of a larger property where up to six dogs may be kept.

by James McEvoy, Managing Editor
ROBBINSVILLE — Writing local ordinances can often mean officials having to weigh governance and the quality of life of constituents.
   These factors were both highlighted as members of the Township Council discussed a potential dog limit measure last week.
   According to officials, current regulation limits households to three dogs, except for the case of a larger property where up to six dogs may be kept.
   However, recently officials said they have received some complaints from residents – one involving someone who houses show dogs that do not necessarily belong to them, and another who believed the limit was too restrictive.
   Municipal Clerk Michelle Siegfried said at the April 24 meeting that she collected information regarding how neighboring communities address pet limits, which include some policies outlining an overall limit, while other towns do not have any limit at all.
   Council President Sheree McGowan said she believes the matter needs to be looked at.
   ”I think that there definitely needs to be a limit because the last thing you want is … somebody having 10 dogs living next door to you that bark all day and night, Council President McGowan said.
   She said she particularly liked measures in other communities that provide exclusions for those who rescue and foster animals – given the latter is often temporary, she said.
   Another priority for her would be to grandfather in those who may be in excess of any new limit established by ordinance.
   ”We have to be cautious because you don’t want to run into where people are almost having illegal kennels on their property,” she added, noting she’s particularly concerned about those who live in condos or townhouses. “We have to err on the side of caution because there’s people that have one dog and they’re not responsible and cause issues.”
   Councilman Ron Witt, a dog owner, said he believes a limit is necessary, but felt the three dog limit was “not enough.”
   ”I can make an argument that you can be a responsible pet owner and have more (dogs),” Councilman Witt said.
   ”You have to be careful what you wish for,” he added, noting he was unsure of how officials would enforce any limit with his belief that there’s a high likelihood of homes already in excess of current limits.
   Councilwoman Christine Ciaccio said she would like to take more time to digest the information, especially the other community ordinances.
   Late last year in neighboring Hamilton Township, one of the towns mentioned by name by Ms. Siegfried, the governing body approved a new ordinance increasing pet limits.
   Under the measure, which set limits on a sliding scale based upon lot size of a given property, a resident on a property with 25,000 square feet would be allowed a limit of six pets. The figure also applies to rural properties.
   Upon the ordinance’s passage last year, Business administrator John Ricci said lot sizes of 10,000 and 15,000 square feet would continue to have a limit of four pets.
   The limit under the previous ordinance, which also included an exception for those fostering pets, was two.
   Hamilton officials also suggested the limits would be a reactive measure to ensure the township has some way to police incidents where residents don’t use common sense in caring for their pets.