Laserfiche WebLink
92 <br /> February 20,1980 <br /> I:A! <br /> Councilman Langus asked if the PnIelic h..heen eduCeted he ehe <br /> , rnquirement and Jackie replied that there are still a lot of dogs but the <br /> public is more aware. <br /> tJI President Overstreet asked if there were any objections to a 2-year license <br /> and Jackie's recommendation in that case would be to issue a lifetime <br /> license. <br /> I l• .c:NTPST:t:dI'Mts7.tlen:Is:11sp::::=ZS"s" ""s" <br /> MIL:Ts'as:e=A19/"LSIgh=lrvissSY stated that s YssS'Y <br /> ;1; Jackie spoke of the prohibited and regulated conduct saying it was a <br /> l I lation to permit any animal to become at large,with the exception of cats, <br /> I to permit an animal to trespass upon the property of others with the ex- <br /> ception of cats,and it is now a violation to confine an animal within or <br /> on a motor vehicle under such conditions that may endanger the heal.or <br /> well-being of the animal. <br /> She reported that a new general regulation was included regarding chickens <br /> I;II; or ducklings younger than 8 weeks of age may not be Bold in quantities of <br /> less than 25 to a single purchaser and also live animals could not be given <br /> away as prizes or inducements. <br /> grnsa:t7r.:1dc=o1 MI==ZsZht:arsablurcIt!:11:f'InInr:o1711:s:i" <br /> IM. jailable offense. <br /> " 'isst <br /> CC bCyCCpCbb <br /> Roll was called with all Councilmen voting yes,except Councilman Pope,who <br /> ,ms excused,CCCouncilman Aldcroft,who was absent. <br /> Motion Carried <br /> ORD/NANCE 555-78-(CB 802-75) <br /> Celia Strong,of the Public Works Department reported that Ordinance 555-78 <br /> why.rect..that public street improvements be provided for at the time <br /> a buildnng perm.Is issued became effective in <br /> SC October of 1978. A group <br /> of interesd parties worked with the staff to develop administrative guide- <br /> 11nen to enforce this ordinance. These gundellnes became effective In early <br /> 197I. This group then worked wIth the City to develop proposed amendments <br /> to nce ordinance in areas of a new variance and appeals process,the re- <br />. movin9 of 9 and 9-Plokes from the mati-family/commercial section and adding <br /> them to the single family/duplex section,the addition of an interim improve- <br /> ment section and the clarification of some of the language. <br /> Celia reported.at under.e Variance and appeal process the proposed <br /> amendment provIdes for variances.omething less or different than required <br /> hF ce")• Oedee hee aPPeals portion, la challenge that the code is not <br /> n k applicable to a given situation). The variance process requires a$50.00 <br /> non-refundable fee and would allow the bearing examiner to grant a special <br /> • <br />„r•II IiII <br /> ,q,• <br />