Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Silver Creek supervisors direct attorney to draft nighttime barking ordinance after resident complaints
Summary
After residents reported persistent, night‑time dog barking that they said hurt their quality of life, the Silver Creek Township Board voted to have the chair and township attorney draft an amendment proposing a nighttime quiet period; the board will review the draft at its first February meeting.
The Silver Creek Township Board of Supervisors voted Jan. 6 to have the chairman work with the township attorney to draft an amendment to the township dog ordinance after residents said persistent barking was harming their quality of life.
At a public comment segment, a homeowner at 12946 County Road 8 told the board the barking problem "was getting worse" and said the dogs' noise "affect[ed] their quality of life." A nearby homeowner at 12986 County Road 8 responded that their dogs protect sheep, are fenced on the property and appeared to be barking less.
Board members reviewed sample ordinances from Southside, Clearwater and Rockford townships and discussed how any change could affect farmers, businesses and residents outside platted developments. Supervisors Ryan Nelson and Andy Christensen said they favored Clearwater Township’s approach, which specifies a prohibited nighttime barking window.
Nelson moved and Christensen seconded a motion directing Chairman Mike Helman to work with the township attorney to draft an amendment proposing a nighttime prohibition on dog barking; the motion carried 4-0. The board’s motion left the exact start time uncertain in the motion text, noting either 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. as possible start times and 6 a.m. as the end; board members said the attorney should clarify the precise hours in the draft.
The board said it will consider the attorney’s proposed amendment at its first meeting in February, unless the attorney cannot prepare it in time, in which case a later date will be set.
The action was procedural — the board directed staff and counsel to prepare language for future consideration; no ordinance was posted or adopted at the Jan. 6 meeting.
