The Powell Planning and Zoning Commission effectively came to a stalemate on Monday night as it considered how many dogs the city should allow residents to keep. That puts the decision squarely back in the lap of the Powell City Council.

The members of the planning commission voted to recommend that the city relax its strict two-pet limit to allow more pets and reorganize the ordinances to make them more reader-friendly, but the members could not agree on whether residents should be allowed to have more than two dogs.

“... you can see how hard it is to make any progress,” Commission Chair Ronn Smith told the half-dozen audience members at the end of the one-and-a-half-hour meeting.

Current city code generally says that residents can have no more than two adult pets, whether that be a guinea pig, goldfish, cat or dog. However, Powell residents Chris and Heather Pittman approached the council in early March and asked the body to up the limits so that they can keep their four dogs.

The council agreed to consider a change and asked the planning and zoning commission for a recommendation and the panel collected feedback over the past two months.

At Monday’s meeting, the commission unanimously agreed that the city should exempt small indoor pets like snakes and fish from its limit.

“How many adult hamsters you have is beside the point,” said commission member John Campbell, and fellow member David Bryan called the existing small pet restrictions “crazy.” (It was also noted that those rules don’t seem to have ever been enforced by the city.)

The panel also was in agreement that the city should create separate limits for dogs and cats. Instead of being limited to just two pets, the commission is recommending that residents be allowed to keep up to two dogs and two cats, plus an unlimited number of small indoor animals.

However, much like the mixed feedback they received, the members couldn’t reach a consensus on whether to allow more dogs. 

To cap or not to cap

A couple commission members made the case that the number isn’t the real issue.

“We’ve got ordinances in place that could deal with the problems — which are, you know, too much noise or people aren’t picking up their dog’s mess,” said Bryan, adding that, “a well-behaved third dog is not a problem.”

Member Bob Graff, who lives in rural Park County, similarly said he believes the strict cap is “inconsequential.” He suggested the city should instead levy bigger fines for violations involving more dogs and larger numbers of complaints.

Meanwhile, member Alberto Acevedo suggested the city could allow people to have more than two dogs if they obtain a permit.

“We’re not enforcing it [the limit] right now and it seems like you could have three, four, two, one [dog],” Acevedo said, also guessing that less than half of residents register their dogs every year as the city code requires.

He suggested a permitting system for three-plus dogs would be a way to allow more leniency while also having some regulation.

Smith said the City of Billings has a similar set-up for extra dogs with a process that includes periodic inspections, a fee and the ability to revoke the permit if there are nuisance violations. 

Bryan said the City of Powell could potentially consider the size of the lot, the proximity to neighbors and whether the other dogs were licensed. 

He suggested allowing for “flexibility,” but City Attorney Scott Kolpitcke warned that the city would have to come up with consistent criteria so residents know what the rules are.

“If you don’t have criteria, it’s completely subjective and arbitrary, and we want to avoid that,” Kolpitcke said.

That proved to be an issue last year, when the city denied an exotic pet permit for a pygmy goat owned by Powell resident Venus Bontadelli. The city council later reversed course and awarded a permit after Bontadelli argued in federal court that the permitting system was arbitrary and capricious; the council then scrapped the process altogether.

A complaint-driven process

Member Thom Miller also said he was struggling with the uncertainty of a potential permitting system. He also said he lives in a neighborhood where some people have more than two dogs already.

“And the noise does go up,” Miller said.

Graff and Campbell were also opposed to a permit system, questioning its point. 

While Graff wanted no cap, Campbell made clear that he wants the city to keep the two-dog limit. 

“I just think that if you want to have huge numbers of pets, then maybe the city isn’t the place for you to be living,” Campbell said, specifically mentioning concerns with noise.

He also said that, under the current system, people can basically have extra dogs as long as they don’t draw complaints. 

“So you have an ordinance with a specific number of dogs, but it doesn’t matter how many dogs you have?” Graff mused.

“Well, it does, but only if they become problematic,” Campbell said.

Still, there was some consternation about relying on complaints, with Bryan noting that some people love dogs and others really don’t; one bark might be all it takes to generate a complaint from someone who doesn’t like canines, he said.

The panel briefly touched on a decibel limit or something else that makes it easier to enforce, with Graff quipping they might limit dogs to “three barks per hour.” However, it was also noted that enforcement will always involve a judgment call from the responding officer.

Smith said he struggled with the issue, but noted a set number is more black and white than more subjective criteria.

“It’s still not cut and dried,” he said, “but there’s some argument that can be made for why a lot of municipalities have limits and why they tend to be from two to four.”

With the commission unable to reach a consensus on whether to recommend sticking with, increasing or scrapping the two-dog limit, the city council will have to reach its own conclusion. The body will next meet at 6 p.m. Monday.