Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northfield council debates changing barking-dog rule; move to suspend readings fails
Summary
At its Oct. 13 meeting the Village of Northfield heard a first reading of Ordinance 2021-38 to replace a 15-minute continuous barking standard with a reasonableness test; a motion to suspend the three-reading rule failed, so the ordinance will return for a second reading.
Law Director Brad Bryan read proposed changes to Northfield's barking-dog ordinance (Ordinance No. 2021-38) at the Village council's Oct. 13 meeting, saying the Police Department requested the revisions to make enforcement easier.
Bryan described the key change as the removal of a continuous 15-minute rule and its replacement with a reasonableness standard that prohibits "frequent and habitual barking, yelping, or howling" that "creates loud and disturbing noises of such character, intensity, and duration as to disturb the peace, quiet, and good order of the municipality." He also said the provision that made a first offense within one year only a warning was eliminated to give officers discretion, although officers may still issue warnings where appropriate.
Council discussion focused on whether removing any time-based threshold would weaken protections for neighbors. Councilperson Keith Czerr said he opposed the amendment and "thinks some kind of time requirement is necessary." Councilperson Jenn Domzalski responded that officers would use judgment and consider the time of day and whether dogs were outside and unattended, and that the change was intended to avoid tying up officers listening for 15 consecutive minutes in cases where that standard is unnecessary.
Councilmember Renell Noack and Councilperson Gary Vojtush joined Domzalski in saying the ordinance is intended to give officers discretion while still addressing genuinely disruptive animals.
A motion to suspend the three-reading rule on the ordinance failed on a roll-call vote (Czerr -- no; Noack -- yes; Vojtush -- yes; Domzalski -- yes). Because the suspension did not receive the required four affirmative votes, the ordinance will advance to a second reading at the next council meeting rather than taking immediate effect.
The council did not take a final vote on the ordinance at the Oct. 13 meeting; members asked that it return for further consideration.
