Lowell Council moves to separate dog daycares from kennel cap, asks solicitor to draft ordinance

Lowell City Council voted Tuesday to direct the city solicitor to draft an amendment to the city’s kennel ordinance so it treats dog daycares differently from overnight kennels and to report back to the council next week.

The move followed public testimony and petitions from local dog daycare owners and users who said a longstanding local cap of 25 dogs — now implicated by new state requirements commonly referred to in testimony as “Ollie’s Law” — could force some daycares to shrink or close. Petitions filed with the council were docketed as items 11.3 and 11.4 and were referred for solicitor and departmental review.

Councilors and business owners said the existing city ordinance was written for traditional kennels and not for businesses that provide daytime care or grooming. Councilor Getchia, who brought the ordinance item forward, said the change is intended to protect small, local businesses while keeping any future ordinance consistent with state law.

Why it matters: Pet daycare operators told the council that treating daycares the same as overnight boarding facilities creates a hard cap that does not account for differences in staffing, indoor space or safety practices. Councilors said losing those businesses would disrupt daily life for residents who rely on in‑city care and would push business activity out of Lowell.

What was said: Social Pup co-owner Sarah Quigley told the council the state still has not published final implementing regulations and that industry guidance expected in coming months will affect how local rules should be written. “Ollie’s Law does not have yet the regulations out guiding our daycare,” Quigley said. “Those laws are not final; they’re expected to be released later this year and then go into effect in December.”

Councilor Scott, who said he uses a local daycare for his dog, urged a fast response. “Losing these businesses in the city of Lowell will be terrible for me personally, for my family, but also for the city,” he said.

The city solicitor recommended a straightforward approach that creates a separate definition for daycares and adjusts the occupancy language. “We could raise that number from 25 up to say 40,” the solicitor said as an example of possible drafting language, and suggested tailoring any cap to exclude same‑day care operations where appropriate.

Outcome and next steps: The council approved a motion on a voice vote directing the solicitor to draft an ordinance that separates daycares from kennel occupancy limits, to coordinate with relevant departments (health, inspectional services, and the city manager’s office), and to return with a proposed text and recommendations within approximately one to two weeks. The petitions (11.3 and 11.4) were referred to the solicitor and to the relevant departments for recommendation. The motion passed on a council voice vote; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the minutes.

The council also asked staff to draft a letter to the city’s state legislative delegation urging speedy clarification or revision of the state rule’s collar/tag requirement, which several speakers and councilors said may pose safety risks in off‑leash play settings.

Discussion vs. decision: The action the council took was a referral/legislative drafting direction — the council did not adopt a final ordinance text. Staff and the solicitor will return with drafted language and recommendations; any ordinance change will require subsequent formal readings and votes.

Community input: Multiple local business owners and at least one resident who uses local daycares testified in favor of the change. Owners asked the council to adopt interim language or an administrative fix allowing current operations to continue until state implementing rules are final.

Clarifying details: Testimony to the council identified the city’s existing kennel rule as imposing a 25‑dog limit that would apply to daycares once the state requires daycares to be licensed as kennels. Petitioner Sarah Quigley told the council that the state rules’ implementing regulations were expected to be developed over the summer and take effect in December; she requested a local fix that would allow established businesses to operate under current arrangements until state guidance is issued.

What’s next: The solicitor will prepare proposed ordinance language and coordinate with health and inspectional services. Councilors indicated they want a draft back quickly — described repeatedly during the meeting as “next week” or within a short period — and directed staff to prepare a letter to the state delegation about the collar/tag safety concern.

Ending: The council closed the discussion by formally referring the petitions and requesting the solicitor and departments return with proposed ordinance text for the council to review at a future meeting.