LIVERMORE – A proposed ordinance concerning dangerous dogs will undergo some reworking before it goes up for vote at a special town meeting on Oct. 24.

At a Planning Board public hearing Tuesday, residents questioned the definition of dangerous dog contained in the proposed ordinance. The board, it was decided, will change the definition to describe a dangerous dog as one that is found by a court to be a dangerous according to laws recently adopted by the state.

The current proposed ordinance included a sentence describing a dangerous dog as one that bites an individual who is not trespassing on the owners’ premises at the time of the bite, or a dog that causes a person … to fear imminent bodily injury by assaulting or threatening that individual or his domesticated animal.

It then went on to state that dangerous dog also means a dog found by a court to be dangerous.

The sentence and the word, also, will be dropped from the draft before it is brought to a special town meeting on Oct. 24.

If adopted by the town, the law would be more stringent then the state’s by requiring $300,000 liability insurance to keep a court-declared dangerous dog, secure enclosures and stipulated locations, and prohibits the transfer or selling of the dog.

The proposed ordinance was introduced by Anna Sanborn, 14, of Livermore, who spent hours reviewing other town ordinances, Kurt Schaub, the select board’s administrative assistant told the nearly 30 residents who attended the meeting.

After studying state laws on dangerous dogs, she worked with the Legislature and governor, he said, to have the state laws changed to include attacks on livestock as well as people and animals.

Sanborn’s family dealt with several dog attacks on their farm animals, including one incident in which 11 goats were attacked and two died.

After bringing a proposal to the Livermore Planning Board for review, Schaub worked with her to rework some areas of the draft to customize it to Livermore’s needs. Tuesday’s public hearing allowed residents to voice their opinions and questions on the draft.

“This law is pointed against my dogs,” said Peter Drown, the owner of dogs accused of attacking Sanborn’s goats. “It’s quite biased and I’m totally against it.”

David Hall, chair of the board, responded that the law targets everyone with dogs even board members who own dogs. The court will determine whether it is a dangerous dog, he said.

Drown also expressed concern over the amount of insurance required and the availability of the insurance for someone without a breeder’s license. Homeowners insurance does not cover certain dogs listed by the insurance company as dangerous.

The board was asked whether the proposed law included a list of certain breeds of dogs or was determined on a case-by-case basis.

Hall repeated that the court has to say it’s a dangerous dog. The law would not target certain breeds of dogs and would be determined by the evidence in each case, he said. The ordinance would give the judge guidelines to go by, but there still has to be evidence that the dog is dangerous.

The law is not directed at anyone special, said Tammy Sanborn. And, she added, the courts say a dog owner has a second chance to be responsible for the dog.

It’s the repeat offenders who kill every time they leave their owner’s property that are the focus of the ordinance, she said. Adding that a mother dog with a litter who bites would not be considered a dangerous dog because that’s her nature to protect her puppies.