Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seabrook council to ask staff to rewrite code language after residents, Animal Control clash over "at-large" citations
Summary
After residents described tickets issued for dogs that remain on private property, council directed staff to review whether underground/electric ("invisible") fences meet the city's ordinance definition of a physical enclosure and to propose registration or marking options.
Seabrook residents and Animal Control officials clashed at the Nov. 7 City Council meeting over how the city enforces its "at-large" animal ordinance, and council members directed staff to review the code language to address underground/electric fencing.
"My concern is the fact that that is being weaponized by an animal control officer that continues to go through our neighborhood," resident Kylie Wilson told the council, saying neighbors have received citations even when animals remained on their own property. Wilson said people with invisible fences and signs nonetheless are being cited and urged the city to stop issuing tickets for animals that do not leave a property.
Joanne Hutton, another resident, asked the council to "do some research of the fences" and to consider grandfathering existing systems if the ordinance is changed. "If the dog gets near the underground fencing, he's shocked," Hutton said, describing how the collars warn animals and keep them from crossing the yard.
Animal Control staff explained the enforcement basis. "Any animal not confined to the premises of the owner by some physical means of sufficient height, strength, length, and/or manner of construction to preclude the animal from leaving the premises of the owner," quoted Animal Control staff when reading the city definition of "on premises of owner," and noted that the code defines an enclosure as a fenced area that is locked and of specified minimum dimensions.
Councilmembers raised practical concerns about verification and liability if the city were to accept invisible fences. One councilmember suggested a way forward: require residents who use underground fencing to notify the city and document boundaries so officers can verify containment before issuing citations. Another suggested adding visible corner markers or registration tied to dog licensing.
Rather than make an immediate change, council agreed to direct staff to review the ordinance language and return with options that would recognize newer containment technologies while protecting the city from liability. Councilmember Rob (first name only in the record) moved to ask staff to study possible wording changes and accommodation measures; another councilmember seconded the request and council approved giving staff that direction.
Next steps: staff will review the enforcement standards, research ordinances in comparable municipalities, and bring recommended ordinance language or registration options back to council for consideration.
