Delmont Borough officials won't be appealing duck ruling
If the ducks of Delmont generate billable hours for attorneys, it will be because borough officials choose to review animal regulations, not because of a legal appeal.
Borough officials agreed late last month to accept a July zoning hearing board ruling allowing a Delmont couple to keep their four pet ducks in their backyard.
James Kistler was cited this spring for violating the borough's domestic pets ordinance by housing his ducks — Moe, Larry, Curly and Fred. That ordinance, adopted in the early 1990s, restricts residents from keeping certain animals on residential properties.
The ordinance prohibits poultry — but not everyone agreed that ducks qualified as poultry.
That's a potential problems that Delmont officials should examine, borough Solicitor Dan Hewitt said.
“These ducks can remain,” Hewitt said. “But the ordinance is not tossed out.”
Hewitt has said he suggested council and the planning commission review borough ordinances to look for any potential loopholes.
“This is certainly a trigger to say, ‘Look over what we have,'” Hewitt said.
Staff writer Amanda Dolasinski contributed to this report. Daveen Rae Kurutz is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8627, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.