ALTAMONT — The proposed changes to Altamont’s current dog law were largely met with criticism during a public hearing on the matter, but Mayor Kerry Dineen sought to make clear that the amendments residents were railing against weren’t being proposed. 

The board on June 4 took no action on the proposal. 

The current code, article 1 of chapter 124, titled “Dog Control,” states, “It shall be unlawful for any owner of or any person harboring any dog in the Village of Altamont to permit or allow such dog to”:

— Roam freely unless it is on a leash or accompanied by its owner or a responsible person who can control it;

— Engage in frequent loud howling or barking, or behave in a way that habitually annoys anyone other than the owner or caretaker;

— Cause damage to property or create a nuisance on someone else’s property;

— Chase or harass people in a way that causes reasonable fear of harm or injury;

— Chase or bark at motor vehicles; or

— Leave feces on any of Altamont’s public roads, gutters, sidewalks, parks, other public areas, or private property without the property owner’s consent.

The proposed amendment takes the second provision, which says specifically: “Engage in habitual loud howling or barking or to conduct itself in such manner so as to habitually annoy any person other than the owner or person harboring such dog,” and adds “crying or whining” following “barking.” And also adds “that lasts continually for a period of 10 minutes or intermittently for a period of 30 minutes” after “such dog.”

On June 4, Dineen sought to set the record straight. 

“Before I ask people to share their thoughts with the board tonight, I want to give you some background. From the screenshots and information I received from friends and neighbors, I think almost 100 percent of what’s been going around online has been false,” the mayor said.

Background

By way of background, Dineen said, “There was someone who ran into some dogs that approached their dog who was on a leash. And they indicated to those folks, ‘Your dogs are on public street, [they] are supposed to be on a leash.’”

Dineen said the issue then came to the board.

“And I said, ‘Well, here’s what you need to do. The same advice we gave for chickens, the same advice we give for anything like this — no one just changes it because a neighbor asks us to, that doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t .…”

Dineen said she advised the complainant to garner some support and come back to the board, which is what happened. “There is a process. There’s always been a process; that’s number one,” she said. 

The proposal does not add fines to any behavior for dogs, Dineen said. The current fine for a first violation is $25 and up to $100 for subsequent violations.

“Nothing has been added to this local law for that, none,” said Dineen. “It has not added any registration fees. That was what I heard today, that now we have registration fees. We don’t have any registration fees. You register your dog with the town of Guilderland. It’s always been that way .…”

“We didn’t add anything about dogs barking,” the mayor said. 

“In the original law, yes, 1972. It was last amended about dogs barking. We didn’t add it. It’s been there the whole time. There’s no change,” Dineen said. 

The new law adds “crying” and “whining” to barking.

“What we are proposing were three very small changes, and one of them isn’t a change, it’s just a ‘Let you know what we’ve been doing all this time,’” Dineen said. 

The first issue, the mayor said, had to do with leashing. 

“It changes … leash ‘or’ control of your dog, to leash ‘and’ control your dog,” Dineen said. “One word is ‘and.’”

She said that most Capital Region municipalities — though not all  — require a leash; “some of them say how long that leash should be.”

The other addition that was added, Dineen said, “was only to tell you what’s been going on. So under the [section of the law that says] ‘dogs, barking, howling,’ which had always been there, was the change: we added the minutes, 10 minutes and 30. That is the procedure, has always been the procedure.”

Dineen said excessive barking had “only happened once in my whole tenure here.”

“And lastly, I asked our council just to add a note that the village can determine days, times, or events,” she said. “Because if there’s an event — we rent out all these spaces, especially like a kid event at the camp  — that maybe we feel, [it] might not be great to have dogs there that day, because of the families or the kids, that we have that ability.”

Public comment

Moving to public comment, of the eight or nine residents who spoke, perhaps one was in favor of the proposed amendment. 

Joseph Connors cautioned against changing the law because of one person, and advised that Alamont emulate neighboring Voorheesville. 

“Looking at everything that was submitted in the record here, there was one incident of somebody walking on a public street, dogs approached, she lifted her small dog up and was scared about that,” Connors said. 

He said Altamont should “follow the lead of the village [of Voorheesville] … And keeping the law the way it is.”

Western Avenue resident Matthew Flaherty was aghast board members were unable to quote the village code, chapter and verse.

“You did not know what the law was with the word OR?” he said in a near-scream at the mayor, referring to the proposal to change leash “or” control your dog, to leash “and” control your dog.

“Oh, I’ve already said that,” Dineen responded calmly.

Flaherty asked how many incidents there had been.

“I can’t give you data right now,” Dineen responded, to which Flaherty interjected, “Well, if you don’t know, why are you proposing a new law?”