SPECIAL MEETING
LEVY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
November 16, 1999
The Special Meeting of the Board of Levy County Commissioners was held on November 16, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the Levy County Board of County Commissioners’ meeting room, with the following Commissioners present:
Chairman Frank Davis
Vice Chairman Wilbur Dean
Comm. Don Foley
Comm. Lilly Rooks
Comm. Sammy Yearty
Also present were:
County Attorney Gregory V. Beauchamp
County Administrator William C. Cobb
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m..
APPOINTMENTS
Comm. Dean moved to reappoint Mr. C. R. "Rowdy" Lowman to the Planning Board. Comm. Foley seconded and the MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCES
Chairman Davis noted the revision of Section 80-10. Non-Conforming Pre-Existing Uses presented for review by County Planner, Ms. Krista Kelly. Mr. Greg Beauchamp said the revision would address the commercial business which was established prior to December 31, 1990 and through encroachment of residential development is now adjoining a land category which requires a reduction in noise generation would be able to continue to operate under its existing use, however, any expansion or change of use would recognize the entire commercial operation as a non-conforming use and would be subject to a noise limitation as described in Section 80-10.
Mr. Dean Pruitt of Bronson Speedway said the revision of Section 80-10 addressed his concerns and was satisfied with the revision.
Mr. William Hull said he was concerned about Section 80-6(3)(b). of the proposed noise ordinance relating to barking dogs. Mr. Hull said his dogs are loose on his property at night and are working dogs who bark if anyone comes on his property or if coyotes or other wild animals are on the property near his livestock.
Comm. Rooks said the ordinance allows for animals to give a sound of danger or warning under particular circumstances and does not believe Mr. Hull’s dogs would be found in violation of the ordinance in the circumstance he presented.
Sheriff Glass said a review of the complaints for barking dogs in 1998 and found twelve (12) complaints. Sheriff Glass said five (5) of the complaints were from the same person from a lady who was in poor health and the majority of her complaints were from 3:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. Sheriff Glass added his dispatcher’s normally advised callers reporting complaints of barking dogs that there was no enforceable action that could be taken by the Sheriff’s Office unless the dog owner wanted to cooperate and that the complainants would possibly have a civil action against the dog owner. Sheriff Glass said these calls did not have any record made and was unable to provide any statistics on the number of reports made and only had the information on the calls which actually had a deputy respond to.
Sheriff Glass said the proposed noise ordinance would provide a tool for law enforcement to work with and the Sheriff’s Office would not be patrolling neighborhoods looking for barking dogs but would have a regulatory law which would allow enforcement when complaints were received.
Comm. Yearty moved to adopt the propose ordinance as written except to exclude the section concerning barking dogs (i.e. Section 80-6(3)(a)(b)). Comm. Foley seconded. Comm. Yearty said he did not want to enact the portion about barking dogs at this time as it does not appear to be that extensive of a problem.
Comm. Foley said if the ordinance was adopted with the portion of barking dogs included it appeared the number of complaints to the Sheriff’s Office would increase and would not meet the criteria required in the noise ordinance but would put additional burden on the Sheriff’s Office.
Comm. Dean said a concern was for citizens who had dogs trained in fox hunting in kennels and possibly located in a residential area but on larger tracts of land.
Comm. Rooks said a noise ordinance needs to address all issues and allow citizens with legitimate complaints a remedy.
Sheriff Glass said his office would keep a log on the number of complaints received concerning barking dogs and keep the Commission appraised on his findings. Sheriff Glass said an ordinance addressing noise is needed in the county with or without a section on barking dogs.
Comm. Yearty, Comm. Davis, Comm. Foley and Comm. Dean voted YES and Comm. Rooks voted NO and the MOTION CARRIED.
911 ADDRESSING
Comm. Yearty said the 911 Addressing office was contacted and they expressed a desire to remain in their present location of the court house due to the proximity of the map room in the Property Appraiser’s office. Comm. Yearty added there would be additional costs involved in moving communication lines and changes can be made in the future if the need arises. Comm. Yearty moved to allow the 911 Addressing office to continue at its current location in the court house. Comm. Foley seconded and the MOTION CARRIED. Comm. Dean said he would recommend the drive-thru window at the bank building where Building and Zoning and the Planning Departments will locate be left in the building for future use.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS THE MEETING ADJOURNED.
Frank Davis, Board Chairman
ATTEST:
Douglas M. McKoy, Clerk of Court