Two residents of Prospect Avenue urged Clayton leaders on March 25 to revise local animal-control rules after a series of recurring incidents involving a neighbor's dogs.

John Gudorf (75 Prospect Avenue) and Izzy Mayer (same address) told council they have documented repeated attacks, court filings and many animal-control responses tied to one property and owner, and they said existing enforcement has not ended the problem. They said the case has gone to municipal court multiple times and that fines and misdemeanor penalties have not deterred the owner from keeping dogs that repeatedly escape or act aggressively.

Why it matters: The residents said the situation created an ongoing safety risk for neighbors, including seniors and children, and noted animal-control officers had visited the property more often than any other in Montgomery County, according to staff they cited. They urged council to consider ordinance changes to close enforcement gaps, increase penalties, or impose stricter limits on ownership after repeated violations.

What residents described: Gudorf and Mayer said the property owner (identified in the public comment as Ellen Fogle) has been the subject of dozens of municipal-court actions (they said the count had reached about 28 appearances). Mayer said several animals previously deemed vicious or ferocious were humanely euthanized after court proceedings; she said other animals remain on the property. The residents reported one incident in which multiple pit bulls attacked a small dog in their front yard and later entered their home; they credited police and animal control with responding quickly but said the recurrence of incidents shows the current legal response is inadequate.

Staff response: Detective Campbell (police) told the council staff had identified a possible suspect and was investigating; staff encouraged residents to continue to document incidents. City staff and council members suggested exploring ordinance clarifications; staff said the city's terminology follows state guidance that breed alone cannot be the basis for deeming a dog vicious and that state law (House Bill referenced in 2012) shaped local definitions.

Authorities and legal context: Residents and council referenced Vandalia Municipal Court proceedings and cited Clayton's applicable code citations as well as Ohio statutes for animal control; the visitors specifically mentioned sections they characterized as 505.12 and 505.13 (as discussed in the public comments). Councilmembers and staff said they would review local code language and discuss whether changes should be routed through the Planning Commission or legal counsel.

Next steps: Council members encouraged residents to provide court records and documentation to staff. Council directed staff to review the municipal-record history and to explore whether the city can revise its definition of a hard, dustless surface and whether ordinance language on repeated animal-control violations should be adjusted; staff noted code changes would likely be reviewed by Planning Commission prior to adoption.

Ending: Residents said they would prefer a legal remedy that prevents repeat ownership after multiple convictions and reduces the chance of future attacks; council members thanked the speakers and asked staff to follow up.