Dunbar turns down request for deer permit
Can Bambi find a new home in Dunbar Borough, or is she considered a wild, exotic or dangerous animal?
Council members debated that question Monday night after resident Roger Hall requested a deer permit from the borough.
Council explained that Hall had a deer four years ago, but the deer escaped and ran away.
After much debate, solicitor Tim Witt said he believes it would violate Dunbar's ordinance that regulates the keeping of animals within the borough.
Witt referred to section two of the ordinance that states “it shall be unlawful for any person to keep, breed or raise any dangerous animal, any exotic/wild animal, any large animal or any domestic fowl at any place within the borough of Dunbar.”
Witt said Hall also must comply with regulations established by the state Department of Agriculture.
“He would be required to house deer and to build a confine to certain specifications,” Witt said.
Councilman John Maddas said Hall could not trap a wild deer and keep it. Instead, he would be required to buy a deer from someone who sells animals that have been raised on farms and not in the wild.
In other business, council issued letters to borough residents who were in violation of storing abandoned vehicles or parts on their property.
In the letters, Witt said the residents were notified that they had 30 days to comply with the borough's ordinance. After they received the letter, residents had 10 days to file an appeal, requesting a hearing on the issue.
Council also decided to write a letter to the Dunbar Borough/Township Sewage Authority, expressing support to refinance $300,000 in current debt at a lower interest rate.
Cindy Ekas is a freelance writer.
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 â 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.