As the City of Powell considers the possibility of allowing residents to keep more pets, it’s getting some mixed feedback.

At a Monday night meeting of the city’s planning and zoning commission, a couple residents called for an increase to the current two-pet-per-household limit, but several voiced opposition, suggesting the city should instead more tightly enforce the existing rules.

More than a dozen members of the public attended the discussion at Powell City Hall, making for an unusually well-attended meeting of the volunteer panel.

Commission members won’t make any recommendations to the city council until their next meeting, set for late this month; at Monday’s meeting, they discussed possibilities that ranged from doubling the limit to four pets, allowing only two dogs but also two cats or even removing the cap altogether.

The city council will ultimately decide whether to make any changes to the existing ordinance.

How it started

A Powell family kicked off the conversation in early March when they asked the council to increase the limit so they can legally keep their four dogs. Chris and Heather Pittman only learned about Powell’s two-pet rule after their neighbors lodged complaints with police.

The couple told the commission that they’re doing everything they can to keep their dogs from barking and also upgraded their fence to avoid any escapes.

“I just want you to understand that we did not do this just to be stubborn,” Heather Pittman said. “We did this to also protect our children from the harassment they were getting from the neighbors.”

Although the family moved to Powell from Texas last fall, Chris Pittman made a point of noting their deep roots to the area; that included two grandparents who were born in Penrose and Lovell, respectively.

“I’m not an outcast trying to move in and change the way Wyoming does things,” he told the audience.

While the Pittmans may have begun the debate over the limit, planning commission chairman Ronn Smith stressed that the city wouldn’t be changing an ordinance just because of the family’s situation.

“We’re trying to consider everyone’s interest,” he told the Pittmans, “I mean, yours are important to us, but we would not change an ordinance for one specific instance.”

Reports to police

Anna Paris, who handled countless animal-related complaints in over three decades of work as the Powell Police Department’s community service officer, cautioned the commission to consider the potential implications of the pet rules, including enforcement. Paris suggested that the commission look at the police department’s stats.

The department’s annual report shows Powell police logged 644 reports related to animals last year — including 58 reports of noisy animals, 20 reported bites and five calls related to animal waste.

Priscilla and Bud Gates are among those who have contacted police. The couple said they have a neighbor who has long had four dogs and had upwards of 15 last summer. The neighbor takes good care of the animals and lawn, but the Gates said they are reluctant to use their own backyard because of the neighboring animals, which can be noisy.

“When those little yippers get going at 6:30 in the morning, I’m not a happy camper,” Priscilla Gates said. “And I just think that if you have a rule, two dogs, it should stay to two dogs.”

Bud Gates added that, “If everybody on the block had four animals, can you imagine what that would be like in a block? That’d be 50 dogs in one block. Nevermind what the mess it would be.”

Priscilla Gates later wondered what could be done about their neighbors’ pets; Bud Gates said police left after the neighbor reported that they were babysitting the extra dogs.

City Building Official Ben Hubbard advised the Gates to report the issue to police each time there’s an issue, saying it takes repeated calls for a case to be made.

“So call every day?” Bud Gates asked.

“Whenever you have a complaint,” Hubbard said.

Complaining about neighbors

The difficulty of enforcement was a repeated concern at Monday’s meeting.

Longtime commission member John Campbell said he’s had several neighbors with three or four dogs, but hasn’t called the police on them.

“... it’s really hard to call and complain about your neighbor,” he said, “because the consequences of having neighbors that you don’t get along with is pretty significant.

“And so there may be more complaints if we weren’t trying to be friendly across the city,” Campbell said.

Further, he said it’s often difficult for police because the dogs have often stopped barking by the time they respond — and he noted the potential ambiguity of what qualifies as a disturbance to the neighborhood.

Meanwhile, resident John Sinskie — who previously applied for a vacant city council seat — said an unnamed city official has three dogs.

“So how can it be enforced when some city official has three dogs, you know, and it’s not being enforced at that level?” Sinskie asked.

He also said the city has a problem with dog waste, including on sidewalks and lawns.

Although Sinskie said he has a sign telling dog owners to keep their pets off his lawn, “they still let their dogs trespass on our property to use it as a bathroom — waste and urine.

“Urine does destroy grass, it destroys property. So our property rights are being violated, right? They’re trespassing,” Sinskie said. “So if anything, I think there should be a strict ordinance that you don’t allow any of your animals to go on private property, period. And enhance the fine for that if they get caught.”

He also called for stricter rules related to barking dogs — and he indicated he’d prefer a limit of one dog per residence.

Meanwhile, resident Stephen Kessler said that “exasperation would be an understatement” when it comes to the issue of dogs. He put up a fence to prevent canines from going on his lawn, but some people still let their dogs go around it and damage the grass with urine.

Kessler said that when his wife confronted people about allowing pets on the couple’s property, one man’s response was “the Bronx salute” while another woman made a kiss off gesture. He also provided the commission with a picture of dog feces deposited right in front of a no pets sign at another residence.

“They literally do not care and it’s just frustrating,” Kessler said of those dog owners.

After his comments, chairman Smith spoke up to say that, “we’re only considering the limit on number of dogs, not the merits of dog ownership,” though he said he sympathized with Kessler’s experience.

‘A people problem’

Commission member Bob Graff said most of the comments seemed to relate to dog owners not being responsible.

“That’s a people problem,” he said, adding that if the owner is irresponsible, “one dog, four dogs, none of that makes any difference.”

In his remarks to the panel, Councilman Troy Bray made the argument that the city shouldn’t limit the number of pets and should instead focus on behavior.

“We have noise ordinances, we have trespassing ordinances, we have ordinances that already cover most of the behavior that I’ve heard complaints about tonight,” Bray said, “and those can be enforced much more easily than they were going into everybody’s house to see how many cats they have.”

He suggested that noncompliance is common. When he’s gone door-knocking, Bray said he’s seen a lot of people with, say, two dogs outside and perhaps six cats and two small dogs inside. He said that the uneven enforcement could create liability for the city.

“There are a couple city officials who don’t necessarily adhere strictly to the two-pet limit,” Bray added, “and the fact … that’s not being enforced on them opens the city up to lawsuits.”

He noted the recent suit that resident Venus Bontadelli filed over the denial of a permit for her pet goat; Bontadelli’s attorney from that case, Austin Waisanen, recently made the same argument as Bray, writing in a letter to the Tribune’s editor that the city should regulate behavior rather than numbers.

Commissioner David Bryan also questioned the apparent arbitrary nature of setting the limit at two pets. He backed Bray’s recommendation to focus on behaviors, like dogs barking up a storm or peeing on other people’s property.

“That’s the thing that needs to be regulated,” Bryan said. “Yeah, 20 seems like too many to me, but if they’re all quiet and all well behaved and nobody’s [pooping] on anybody else’s lawn … then I don’t see the problem.”

However, Sinskie then spoke up from the audience to say that would “never happen.”

“There needs to be a limit,” he said.

Chairman Smith later offered that limits don’t solve all the problems, but are designed to “prevent the conflicts before they happen, as opposed to relying on people to tell on their neighbor after the fact.”

“I think it has a purpose, … but I don’t know if there’s anything magic about two,” Smith said. “Obviously the more dogs you have, the more apt you are to have barking dogs.”

Taking feedback

From his research, Smith said most municipalities in Montana that have a pet limit — including Billings, Bozeman and Livingston — allow just two dogs, but also allow two cats. He said he couldn’t find another ordinance that limits the total number of pets to two. Some cities, including Billings, allow additional dogs with a special, more expensive permit, Smith added.

The commission received one written comment from Will Hawkins, who is poised to have two dogs and one cat when family members move to Powell this summer. 

“I understand the hesitation to increase the limit, but I do think Powell would benefit from making room for housebound pets,” Hawkins wrote. While four dogs might be a big ask in city limits, two dogs and an indoor cat that sleeps all day doesn’t seem to be excessive, he said.

The commission plans to accept written comments over the coming weeks — they can be submitted to Hubbard at bhubbard@cityofpowell.com — before making a recommendation at their April 27 meeting. It’s set to begin at 7 p.m. at city hall.