Can I ask a question? How can a town have two definitions of “kennel” in town code and use only one against you?
Three months ago, I moved into my new dream house in Payson, Arizona, from the Valley with my six, longtime family dogs. I recently was notified by town code that I had too many dogs in my possession (six) and was considered a “kennel.” I was told I had to get rid of two of them. My family was devastated.
Being a law-abiding citizen, we made plans to depart with two of the dogs. But I was curious and checked town code and found that there are two definitions of “kennel” in town code:
Section 90.04 defines a kennel as: “An enclosed, controlled area, inaccessible to other animals, in which a person keeps, harbors or maintains, dogs or cats under controlled conditions, for the purpose of
operating a related business for profit.”
Section § 154-11-002 defines a kennel as: “A building lot or premises on which five or more pets, including dogs, cats or other small animals are kept, maintained, trained, boarded, or offered for sale with or
Under one definition I’m legal and under the other I’m not. The town’s argument is that one code is under the “General Provisions” and the other “Unified Development Code.” Seriously?