Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident urges council to limit number of dogs after years of constant barking and safety incidents

Greenville City Council · May 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Greenville resident described three years of nonstop barking, multiple dogs kept on a sub‑quarter‑acre property and alleged safety incidents; council said it would review enforcement options and consider drafting a city ordinance to limit animals or base limits on lot size.

During public comment at the May 6 meeting, resident Shane Afflegate described repeated nuisance-animal problems at neighboring addresses on East Main Street, saying repeated barking and large numbers of dogs have disrupted his family’s quality of life and led to safety incidents, including a reported mauling and an episode in which a child was nearly endangered.

Afflegate gave the property addresses as 915 and 917 East Main and said the parcel 'is .199. That's less than 2/10 of an acre,' and that county dog-licensing records showed up to 18 dog licenses tied to the property. He described sustained noise and sanitation problems and said prior contacts with the dog warden and police had not resolved the issue.

Council members and staff acknowledged the frustration and said that, under current practice, the county issues dog licenses and nuisance complaints have been enforced under a general city nuisance ordinance (sound, smell, off-property exposure). A city official said the council would 'look into' whether a city ordinance setting a specific maximum number of animals (or a square-footage-based standard) would be feasible and how enforcement responsibilities would work between city police and the county dog warden. No formal ordinance was proposed during the meeting, and staff said further analysis and possible ordinance drafting would be needed.

Afflegate asked council to consider public-safety and health impacts when evaluating options; council asked staff to examine enforcement logistics and to return with recommendations if a legislative change is proposed.

Next steps: Staff will explore ordinance options and enforcement processes and report back to council; residents seeking remedies may be advised to document incidents for enforcement follow-up.