Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goldsboro council adopts bulk animal‑code revisions, tables tethering rule for later review
Summary
The City Council voted 7–0 to adopt updated language to Chapter 91 (animals) to modernize enforcement and definitions, while tabling section 91.16 (tethering/number‑of‑dogs specifics) for further drafting and public notice after councilmembers raised concerns about outdoor tethering and shelter standards.
Goldsboro’s City Council voted unanimously to adopt a set of revisions to Chapter 91 of the city code that rewrite antiquated language and clarify enforcement of violent‑animal standards, but the council set aside one section on tethering and the indoor/outdoor distinction for further work.
Chief West said the older ordinance made enforcement difficult because the definition of a "vicious" animal effectively required a bite before action could be taken. "The actual classification at that time was animal has to actually bite someone," Chief West told the council, arguing the change would help officers respond to violent animal behavior that did not result in a bite.
The revisions also increase the allowed number of dogs inside city limits from three to four and update several definitions from the 1960s and 1970s, according to staff. Council members raised questions about tethering rules, including maximum hours per 24‑hour period, chain strength relative to an animal’s weight and what constitutes adequate shelter in extreme temperatures. One councilmember pressed for clearer outdoor/indoor distinctions, saying the nuisance concerns often stem from animals kept outside.
Mayor Gaylor proposed, and the council approved, a motion to adopt all of the presented changes except for §91.16. That section—covering tethering and the numerical limits for dogs—will be tabled until staff can draft clearer language and circulate it to the public. "I just want us to address it," the councilmember who raised tethering concerns said during discussion, and the council asked Chief West and staff to return with recommended language and public notice.
The council voted 7–0 to adopt the ordinance revisions with the exception of §91.16. The mayor asked staff and the councilmember who raised the issue to confer and try to resolve the tethering language for an upcoming meeting.
The council’s action revises multiple sections of Chapter 91; the record shows a commitment to provide clearer language on tethering and shelter standards before adopting that portion.
