WEST MIFFLIN, Pa. — Residents are outraged by a proposed ordinance that would limit how many cats and dogs can be kept as pets in West Mifflin.
If passed, pet owners would be limited to a maximum of three dogs, and could have “no more than five cats and/or dogs combined in total over the age of 6 months.”
Adelaide Turlik, a borough resident, called the proposal “unfair and unjust.” Turlik currently owns cats and two bonded dogs, and had hoped to adopt another pair soon. The ordinance, however, would prohibit that.
The document states that the ordinance stems from “numerous complaints” regarding residents with numerous pets. Those complaints have reportedly included “excessive noise, disturbance of the peace, foul odors” and “neighbor disputes,” which “constitute nuisances.”
Channel 11 visited the borough building on Thursday, and Borough Manager Brian Kamauf said that leaders have been discussing and tweaking the measure for nearly a year, following a dog attack on a borough resident.
“The intention is to make the community safer and get rid of the nuisance problems, make sure we don’t have vicious dogs attacking residents.”
But the ordinance places a limit on all pet dogs and cats, addressing “dangerous” dogs in a separate section. The ordinance prohibits residents from having any “dangerous dog,” defining it as one that has been declared as such by the court system.
Channel 11 obtained a previous version of the ordinance, which would have allowed residents to have up to five dogs, and provided certain exceptions for individuals who had more animals beforehand.
The new proposal, however, states that any pet owner exceeding the limit before passage would “be given 60 days to come into compliance with this limit.”
Channel 11 repeatedly asked Kamauf if individuals would be forced to surrender their pets under the current language.
“It’s not to get rid of your household pets, not to put restrictions on good residents. The intention is to make the community safer and get rid of the nuisance problems.”
We asked why the ordinance doesn’t distinguish between a nuisance pet and a non-nuisance pet and were told the solicitor would have to answer to that.
“There needs to be some clarification,” Turlik said. The pet owner is among several who intend to attend a hearing on the matter next week.
“There are nuisances, but unfortunately, we can’t also punish the good people that do take care of their responsibilities, and when they have animals they do take care of them,” Turlik said.
Turlik further noted that area shelters are overrun, and wouldn’t be able to take in a mass number of surrendered animals.
The ordinance states that violations and penalties are set forth in section 82-8, which was not listed within the document Channel 11 was provided.
An online records search of 82-8, amended in 1999, states, “Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any provision of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than $600, plus costs, and, in default of payment of said fine and costs, to a term of imprisonment not to exceed 30 days. Each day that a violation of this chapter continues shall constitute a separate offense.”
Channel 11 asked Kamauf if that is the current 82-8 language. He said he believed it to be accurate.
Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW