Melrose Council Search

← Legal & Legislative Committee · 2026-03-23 · Legal & Legislative Committee

Amending Melrose Revised Ordinance 93-6 Leashing Requirements to Provide Exceptions for K-9 dogs and Service Animals.

Clerk file 2026-447 — its full path through the council

Passed · Recommend · moved by Kim Vandiver, seconded by Elizabeth Kowal Yes: Maya Jamaleddine, Bradley Freeman, Elizabeth Kowal, Kim Vandiver.

Agenda original PDF

No further agenda text.

Minutes original PDF

D. (ID # 2026-447): Amending Melrose Revised Ordinance 93-6 Leashing Requirements to Provide Exceptions for K-9 dogs and Service Animals. Motion to Recommend made by Councilor Vandiver Seconded by Councilor Kowal All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council AYES: Maya Jamaleddine, Bradley Freeman, Elizabeth Kowal, Kim Vandiver 4 NAYS: None ABSENT: Manjula Karamcheti, Cal Finocchiaro Comments on discussion: -Chair Jamaleddine asked for an explanation of when a service animal would be off the leash. It could be for a visually impaired individual who the dog is trained to help retrieve products for. The dog would then be off-leash to go get the item and bring it right back. These dogs are heavily trained before they are equipped for service, so I think they're very well-behaved dogs and don't generally need a leash.

All documents for this meeting on the city portal

Transcript (~3 min @ 19:56)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 19:55 Maya Jamaleddine: Next, we have ID number 2026-447, amending Melrose Revised Ordinance 93-6, leashing requirements to provide exceptions for K9 dogs and service animals. Uh, President, Freeman.

▶ 20:12 Bradley Freeman: Thank you, Chair Jamaleddine. Uh, this is an order that was filed by Councillor Finocchiaro, who is unable to join us tonight due to a f- a family matter. So she asked me just to briefly speak to this, provide a little background, and answer any questions. This is an ordinance that the council passed earlier this year that aimed to, provide a little more clarity around our dog leash ordinances, and at the time, we acknowledged that there was a provision we wanted to revisit regarding police dogs. And in that time since then, we also learned of a provision regarding service animals that we wanted to make sure was in here just to ensure that anyone who has a service animal is able to have that dog or animal be operated in a manner that is best fit for their responsibilities, and that may not be with the use of a leash. Um, but as long as that dog or other animal is within their control, we wanted to make sure that was allowed. So what this ordinance does is it puts a provision in there for service animals, and it also specifies that dogs, canine dogs being used for police activity, are able to be off leash for the purposes of that activity and that activity only. Um, so I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone has. It's, it's in the packet with both of the, the amendments clearly labeled.

▶ 21:22 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Um, any questions from my colleagues?

▶ 21:30 Maya Jamaleddine: I have a question. Please. So m- and, and that's probably because I, I don't own a dog myself. So, service animals, would be for, a service reason- Yeah. It could be- ... they may be required to be off leash. So this part of the service, is that what it is?

▶ 21:51 Bradley Freeman: Yeah. It could be, for an example, for a visually impaired individual who, who the dog is trained to help retrieve products for them. Okay. The dog would then be off leash to go- Got it ... get the item and bring it right back. Um, again, these dogs are heavily, heavily trained before they, are equipped for service. So I think they're very well-behaviored dogs and, and- Yeah ... don't generally need a leash.

▶ 22:12 Maya Jamaleddine: That makes a lot of sense. Um, thank you. Any other comments?

▶ 22:19 Speaker 1: Okay. What is the will of the committee?

▶ 22:22 Speaker 2: A motion to recommend. Second.

▶ 22:24 Maya Jamaleddine: We have a motion to recommend made by Councillor Vandiver, seconded by Councillor Kowal on, discussion. Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Any oppose? Okay, this motion passes. ID number 2026-632, amend the language of the, mobile food vendor, articles three of, chapter 127 of City of Melrose ordinance, remove the requirements of public hearing prior to license, issuance.