|
The Ordinance Committee held a public meeting on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 5:30 P. M. in the Sullivan Chamber. The purpose of the meeting was to consider proposed amendments to the Cambridge Municipal Ordinance Chapter 6 entitled Animal Control Regulations, to provide rules for off-leash areas.
Present at the meeting were Councillor Michael A. Sullivan and Councillor Brian Murphy, Co-Chairs of the Committee, Councillor Henrietta Davis, Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Councillor Craig Kelley, Vice Mayor Timothy J. Toomey and City Clerk D. Margaret Drury. Also present were Nancy Schlacter, Assistant to the City Manager, Nancy Glowa, Deputy City Solicitor, Stuart Dash, Director of Community and Neighborhood Planning, Community Development Department (CDD), Paul Ryder, Director of Recreation, Department of Human Services, and John Nardone, Director of Operations, Department of Public Works (DPW).
Councillor Sullivan opened the meeting and stated the purpose. He invited Ms. Schlacter to explain the proposed changes. Ms. Schlacter said that there are two parts to the proposal (Attachment A). The proposed changes to the Animal Control Regulations in Section 6.04.040 were developed through a Dog Committee working group process, which involved Councillors Murphy and Kelley, members of the Cambridge Dog Owners Group (CDOG) and city staff. The changes in this section would apply to any designated off-leash area in the City. The proposal establishes rules for the number of dogs any individual can have in the off-leash area (three), requirements for having a leash available, and other behavioral regulations. For example, dogs may not wear prong or choke collars in these off-leash areas.
The second part of the proposal (Section 6.04.045) evolved out of a sub-committee of the Fresh Pond Advisory Board. It includes all of the proposed regulations in Section 6.04.040 and adds particular regulations for dogs off-leash in the Fresh Pond Reservation. In addition to the current requirement that the dogs be owned by Cambridge residents (and thus be licensed in Cambridge), the section also would require the dog to have a current Fresh Pond Reservation Dog Medallion, which will be available in April 2007. The Fresh Pond Advisory Board and the Water Board voted unanimously in favor of these regulations.
Councillor Sullivan then invited public comment.
Judy Miller, Cambridge, asked why the maximum number of dogs accompanying an individual was three and stated that she would like to see the maximum raised to four. She also asked about the regulation of prong collars.
In response to an inquiry from Councillor Sullivan, Ms. Schlacter said that the three-dog maximum was chosen as a compromise after a long discussion, which included consideration about the limits of how many dogs an owner could control effectively by voice and also a desire not to encourage professional dog walkers. Ms. Schlacter said the debate was about whether to allow two dogs or three, four was never under consideration. She noted that the three-dog limit only applies to off-leash dogs. With regard to the prong collar prohibition, Ms. Schlacter said that there is a safety issue in a situation where there could be several dogs playing together in close quarters.
Marilyn Wellons, Green Street, spoke in support of a letter from Kathy Podgers objecting to passage of the proposed amendments because there has been no process to bring the ordinance into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Kathy Podgers, Pearl Street, submitted a letter objecting to passage of the proposed ordinance and requesting establishment of a committee to consider service animals used by persons with disabilities (Attachment B). She stated that the City has never conducted the self evaluation of compliance required under the ADA and therefore does not have the right to amend this law until there is a full ADA review of the law. For example, there should be a definition of service animal in the ordinance.
Evan Olson, 24 Russell Street, stated that he agrees that prong collars should be prohibited in enclosed off-leash areas, but he does not agree with the need to prohibit them at Fresh Pond. He also stated that he opposes the Fresh Pond medallion program. A Cambridge dog license should be sufficient.
Monica Strauss, 48 Reservoir Street, said that she does not agree with keeping off-leash dogs off of all of the grassy area at Fresh Pond reservation. The grassy area has been increased significantly. It is excessively restrictive to not allow dogs on any of the grassy areas, although she believes that it is reasonable to keep them off of the largest grassy areas. Fresh Pond is a conservation area, not a garden.
Helen Fairman, Cambridge, said that her particular concern is the restriction on all grassy areas. She is also concerned about the medallion program.
Councillor Sullivan asked Ms. Schlacter for clarification of whether the prong collar prohibition applies to off-leash dogs at Fresh Pond reservation. Ms. Schlacter said that the focus was on enclosed areas. Councillor Murphy pointed out that the language in the proposed ordinance would seem to apply to Fresh Pond as well, because Section 6.04.045 provides that all unleashed dogs at Fresh Pond are subject to the rules and regulations outlined in Section 6.04.040. If there was no intent to prohibit prong collars at Fresh Pond reservation, the language needs to be clarified.
Councillor Sullivan noted that the Water Board had voted in favor of the medallion program. He asked whether the Water Board’s authority supersedes that of the City Council with regard to the regulation of Fresh Pond reservation. Ms. Glowa said that the Water Board has a strong interest and some control, although she would not characterize it as superseding the City Council’s authority, but the City Council has always deferred to the Water Board in its judgments relative to the preservation of our water supply.
Councillor Sullivan asked why there is a need for a medallion program, separate from a Cambridge dog license. Ms. Schlacter said that there is a certain “buy-in” aspect to the program. Owners are required to read and sign an agreement, so use by dog owners will be more intentional and less casual, which may result in fewer dogs. Councillor Davis added that she believes there was also an intent to increase the visibility the indicator of what dogs are permitted in the reservation. Dog licenses from different jurisdictions look pretty much the same. Councillor Murphy pointed out that if the owner violates the rules, the medallion can be taken away, which is not something that you would want to do with a dog license.
Councillor Davis moved that the proposed amendments be referred to the full City Council with a positive recommendation. The motion passed on a voice vote.
Councillor Murphy and Councillor Sullivan thanked all those present for their interest and work on this issue. The hearing was adjourned at 6:07 P.M.
For the Committee,
Councillor Brian Murphy, Co-Chair
Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chair
|
