Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springdale council weighs raising two‑pet limit, sends research forward
Summary
Council members debated whether to raise or remove the city's two‑pet limit and agreed to leave options open while directing further review; no ordinance was adopted at the meeting.
Councilmembers on the Springdale City Council discussed updating a decades‑old zoning code that currently limits households to two domestic pets, considering options to raise the cap or remove a numeric limit altogether.
The discussion matters because the rule, adopted in 1978, affects many households and can produce neighbor disputes that trigger formal enforcement. Council members and administration described enforcement as complaint‑driven and emphasized that any change would not alter other animal controls such as leash, noise and vicious‑dog rules.
Mr. Jacobs, Councilmember, summarized the committee's research and said the committee found few nearby municipalities with a hard numeric limit. "There had been research done. There are no communities nearby that have such a hard limit," Jacobs said, and he urged raising the number to protect residents already keeping more than two pets from neighbor complaints. Mr. Vanover, Councilmember, said the committee presented two main options: increase the number to four or five or remove the numeric limit entirely. Vanover noted the Ohio Revised Code reference point, saying the state allows five.
Not all councilmembers supported raising the limit. Ms. Webster, Councilmember, who said she researched the ordinance's history, said changing the rule could pit neighbor against neighbor: "What is a rush? Who would want to live next to a pack of dogs? Barking, fighting, mating, squealing, doing their business, not to mention the smell," she said. Mr. Gleaves, Councilmember, said he preferred a modest increase to three pets to reflect lot sizes and owners' ability to care for animals.
Administration and legal staff clarified process options: council can (1) do nothing, (2) ask the city's Rules and Law committee or an individual councilmember to draft a specific ordinance with a recommended number, or (3) ask the planning commission to draft an ordinance based on broader guidance. Mr. Braun, the city's legal adviser, explained that if council wishes, it can ask planning to prepare an ordinance with general parameters; any resulting draft would still require a council member to formally place it on an agenda for a vote.
Council did not adopt an ordinance. The body acknowledged the Rules and Law committee's research and left the decision open: individual councilmembers may propose draft ordinances, or council can later direct planning to prepare language with parameters. Administration emphasized that current animal rules (leash laws, noise, waste, vicious dog provisions) remain enforceable and would not change absent new legislation.
The issue will return in future work if a member authors specific draft language or council issues a referral to planning commission.
