Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Dog Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Selectmen review draft town ordinance on dogs, debate leash rules and athletic‑field ban
Summary
Sandown selectmen reviewed a draft ordinance to require dogs to be leashed or under handler control on town property, ban dogs from athletic fields, require cleanup of waste with tiered fines, and heard extended public comment from the police chief and local dog trainers and owners.
The Sandown Board of Selectmen spent substantial time April 20 reviewing a draft ordinance that would require dogs on town‑owned or -managed property to be leashed or under the handler’s control, ban dogs from town athletic fields, and require owners to remove and properly dispose of dog waste.
A board member read the proposed ordinance language aloud: dogs must be leashed or under handler control on property owned, leased, or maintained by the town (including streets, cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, open space and public trails); dogs are not allowed on town athletic fields; owners must carry a suitable container or bag and properly secure and dispose of dog waste; penalties begin with a warning, a $25 fine for a first violation and fines up to $100 or up to $500 for subsequent offenses.
The police chief (identified in the transcript by role) told the board he supports a measured approach focused on family use of fenced areas but warned enforcement is needed and suggested dispensers for bags as a convenience. The chief emphasized recreation commission rules will still control recreation property use and that enforcement will often be complaint driven.
A long‑time dog trainer who identified himself as an AKC judge and trainer (first name George in the record) urged the board to preserve training opportunities, argued that fenced areas are important for safe training and that many responsible owners already clean up, and asked the board to avoid blanket prohibitions that would remove all training spaces. George said the cemetery incident that helped prompt the draft appeared to be based on a single complaint and urged caution before broad enforcement.
Board members debated enforcement mechanics (warnings, fines, whether to use bag dispensers or signage), how the ordinance would interact with recreation commission authority over athletic fields, and whether additional education or a permission/permit system for regulated field use might be useful. Several members said they favored a staged approach emphasizing education, warning and targeted enforcement of repeat offenders.
No vote was taken on adopting the ordinance; board members asked staff to circulate the draft to the full board and to the recreation commission for input, and to return with suggested edits. The board also discussed operational ideas such as including ordinance language with dog‑license mailings and using reminders to reach owners.
