Parma Heights council debates allowing invisible pet fences in front yards; discussion to resume March 9

Parma Heights City Council members on Monday debated whether to allow invisible pet-containment fences in front yards as part of proposed edits to municipal code section 1193.01, with the Utilities and Streets Committee urging caution and several council members favoring limited allowances.

Council President Tom Rounds opened the Jan. 26 work session by saying the committee’s revisions to fences and barriers had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and that, as drafted, the language could forbid invisible fences in front yards. "That’s why we are here discussing this further," Rounds said, urging consistency with other recently revised chapters.

Councilwoman Carmen Palmisano said she supports permitting invisible fences in front yards, arguing the existing prohibitions target visual obstructions rather than invisible containment systems: "I think it should be allowed." Councilwoman DeSouza said she did not object in principle but recommended safeguards: markers and a required setback so a dog would stop before reaching the sidewalk. "There should be a length of space between the sidewalk and the fence," she said, adding that visible markers could warn passersby.

Mary Durichko, chair of the Utilities and Streets Committee, summarized the committee’s rationale for discouraging front-yard containment. Durichko listed safety and compliance concerns, saying, "Our number one concern was the safety for our community," and noted that invisible systems rely on training and equipment that dogs or external distractions in a front yard (delivery drivers, pedestrians, other animals) can overcome. She also raised public-perception and aesthetic worries—passersby cannot see the barrier—and said underground placement complicates monitoring and enforcement.

Councilwoman Maruschak said she had reviewed section 618.10 with the Animal Control Officer and cited state guidance, quoting Ohio Revised Code 955.22(C)(1): "Keep the dog physically confined or restrained upon the premises of the owner, keeper, or harborer by a leash, tether, adequate fence, supervision, or secure enclosure to prevent escape." Maruschak argued that, absent a statutory requirement otherwise, homeowners should bear liability for additional containment systems.

Councilman Stephen Kolezynski said the council should prioritize safety over visual esthetics and noted that invisible fences would remain permitted in back yards; he and other members pointed out that the Board of Zoning Appeals could hear variance requests where a hardship exists.

The council discussed comparables: the committee reported that Parma, Parma Heights, Middleburg Heights and Brook Park generally do not permit front-yard containment fencing, while Berea, North Royalton and Strongsville allow certain ornamental front-yard fences but not containment systems.

Council President Rounds said the proposed change remains under discussion and outlined a schedule to continue the conversation: he proposed placing the item on the Saturday, Feb. 28 work session and returning it to the March 9, 2026 council agenda for a vote. He said he intended to use council rules to postpone or table as needed. The meeting adjourned after a motion to adjourn by Councilwoman DeSouza, seconded by Councilwoman Maruschak; Clerk Barbara Allen called the roll and the meeting ended at 6:51 p.m.

The council did not adopt or reject the ordinance language during the Jan. 26 work session; members signaled divergent priorities — public-safety and enforcement concerns from the committee, and individual council members’ interest in allowing limited front-yard use with setbacks and markers. The item is expected to be revisited at the Feb. 28 work session and again on the March 9 council agenda for formal action or further direction.