Wheeling now may say only 3 pets to a household

Already unswayed by a Wheeling resident's plea to keep her five dogs, village officials are now considering lowering the limit on pets to three per home in multifamily complexes.

The current village ordinance makes it illegal "for any person to keep or harbor more than four of any type or combination of animals" older than 4 months.

The village board on Monday could adopt the three-pets-only rule for multifamily residential complexes, such as apartments, condominiums or townhouses that share common walls and outside areas. Single-family homeowners would still be allowed to have four pets.

"We surveyed the neighboring communities and we found that the neighboring communities were less than we were," Acting Village President Dean Argiris said.

Among the communities surveyed, Prospect Heights and Buffalo Grove allow two animals per home in multifamily complexes; Des Plaines, Mundelein and Vernon Hills each allow three pets; and Arlington Heights allows four animals.

A proposed "grandfather" clause would allow residents of homes with four pets registered before July 1, 2009, to keep them for the life of the pet, Village Manager J. Mark Rooney said.

That means resident Margaret Bucher could keep her four dogs - a Pomeranian, two Maltese, and a shih tzu - but not the fifth dog, a Maltese/shih tzu mix.

Bucher, who asked the village board to review the ordinance and make an exception for her dogs, was issued two citations Tuesday for violating the current four-pets rule and not registering four of her five dogs. She must appear in Rolling Meadows court May 11 and could be fined between $50 and $500.

Bucher said the tickets didn't come as a surprise. She raced to village hall to register her remaining dogs and was allowed to only register three.

Bucher didn't receive citations for three cats living in her home because she quickly placed them elsewhere after finding they, too, were in violation of the village ordinance.

"I guess I'll lose everything now," said Bucher, 63.

Bucher said she thought she had found a loophole in the village ordinance where it limits the number of pets per "person" because her daughter also lives in her home.

Officials said they could also clarify the language of the ordinance to remove any ambiguity that the word "person" really applies to each "dwelling."

"What if you have five people living in your house? Then are you allowed to have 20 dogs?" Argiris said.

Rooney said case law has upheld ordinances with similar language limiting pets in other communities.

"This has been challenged different times in the last 20 years throughout the Northern suburbs," he said.

Bucher said she would like to fight the tickets despite not being able to afford an attorney. But she can't give up one of her dogs, she said, choking with emotion and adding that she is searching for a place to move if all else fails.

"It's not that I don't want to comply. ... I love these guys," she said.

Pets: Officials clarify limit applies to each dwelling, not each person