Royal Palm Beach council adopts ordinance defining animal nuisances and civil penalties
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The village council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 1068 to add definitions and prohibit certain feeding/keeping of wildlife and habitual nuisances caused by animals; the ordinance allows civil fines up to $500 and relies on an alternative code enforcement citation process that requires a sworn affidavit to initiate enforcement.
The Village of Royal Palm Beach on Jan. 15 adopted Ordinance No. 1068, a second‑reading ordinance that creates new definitions for general and habitual nuisances caused by animals and authorizes civil penalties for violations.
Staff described the language as a targeted response to resident complaints about wildlife feeding and nuisance behavior and said they had received both supportive and concerned feedback during the ordinance drafting. The text defines nuisance conduct (including breeding of flies, odors, objectionable noise, animals chasing people or vehicles, and damage to property) and establishes an alternative code enforcement mechanism for civil penalties that complies with state law.
During public comment residents raised questions about who would determine whether an animal is a nuisance and whether euthanasia would be authorized. The village attorney said the ordinance contains a specific definition of nuisance to reduce ambiguity, that the civil penalty route is commonly used for discrete violations, and that the municipality had verified there was no conflict with Palm Beach County's existing community‑cat ordinance.
The ordinance permits civil fines not to exceed $500 and requires a sworn (notarized) affidavit to initiate many complaints, a threshold the attorney described as a safeguard against casual social‑media complaints. Council members voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance No. 1068.