Laserfiche WebLink
62 <br /> <br />certain parks. Ms. Long added that she was concerned that the bank is eroding at Greenbelt <br />due to dogs accessing the river. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peyton Humphrey, Brandywine Drive, expressed concern about exempting Quarry <br />Park as one of the few parks allowing unleashed dogs since he views Quarry as primarily a <br />baseball facility. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano asked Mr. Humphrey if he had ever experienced any problem with <br />unleashed dogs at Quarry Park and Mr. Humphrey replied that he had not. <br /> <br /> Mr, Satyendra Huja, Kenwood Lane, spoke against both ordinances as an overkill <br />response to a minuscule problem. Mr. Huja stated that he did not think the proposed <br />ordinances were based on any factual problems and urged Council to look at the implications <br />of such ordinances again. Mr. Huja questioned the enforceability of the ordinances and <br />encouraged Council to refer the matter back to Parks and Recreation and then develop an <br />ordinance that addresses the real problem. <br /> <br /> Ms. Pam Ochs, Fountain Court, stated that she is a daily runner in Pen Park and feels <br />that a few irresponsible dog owners spoil it for others, Ms. Ochs stated that because of an <br />unpleasant experience with an unleashed dog she now finds that nmning creates anxiety for <br />her. Ms. Ochs stated that she hopes there will be a greater awareness of the need for dog <br />owners to be responsible as a result of the meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever presented Council with a petition signed by 60 Buford School students <br />opposing the leash ordinance and he stated that more signatures are expected. <br /> <br /> Ms. Beth Goldstein, 1804 Chesapeake Street, supported designating trails as areas <br />requiring leashes. <br /> <br /> Mr. David, a previous speaker, asked Council to identify the problem and then ask if <br />the proposed ordinances will solve the problem. Mr. David stated that he thought the issue <br />has been driven by prejudicial beliefs against dogs. <br /> <br />Mr. Saunier stated that he did not think the issue was one of dog lovers versus haters. <br /> <br />As there were no further speakers the public hearing was dosed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman noted that violation of either ordinance would be a Class IV <br />misdemeanor and could result in a $250 fine, and the ordinances as written represent the <br />request of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. Mr. Gouldman pointed out that <br />the City currently does not have a leash law, but requires dogs to be either on a leash or <br />under voice control of the owner. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty stated that she would like to see both ordinances redrafied to be less <br />broad, though she added that she has heard about and witnessed instances where unleashed <br />dogs have created problems. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter recommended that public areas such as the downtown mall, parks, <br />cemeteries and schools be identified in the "pooper scooper" ordinance rather than applying <br />to all public spaces. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he opposed the leash law, or perhaps only designating certain <br />areas where leashes would be required, and he thought concerns with the golf course could <br />be addressed separately. Mr. Vandever supported a redraft of the "pooper scooper" <br />ordinance. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she supported having a leash law which would include areas <br />designated for dogs to be allowed off.the leash, and with the type of leash required changed. <br /> <br /> <br />