For the time being, the animal ordinance newly adopted by the Whitehouse City Council is on hold.

Bob and Georganna Lenham, owners of the Wild Rose Rescue Ranch, filed a lawsuit against the city alleging that the new ordinance is unconstitutional. Following a hearing Friday, March 11, Judge Kerry Russell extended a temporary restraining order until March 30 and scheduled a hearing for 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, March 29.

At issue are several animals, particularly dogs, that could be seized by city officials under the guidelines of the new ordinance. The suit, according to Kay Davenport, cocounsel for the Lenhams, is to protect the couple permanently from losing their animals.

Whitehouse City Manager Mike Peterson said both parties will try to negotiate a temporary agreement on the ordinance.

“We’re negotiating attorney to-attorney to come up with an agreeable solution to the problem,” he said. “I anticipate a resolution to the problem. I think we’ll have a negotiated agreement.”

During city meetings before the ordinance was adopted, Whitehouse Assistant City Manager Kevin Huckabee, who wrote the ordinance, said the Lenhams and the ranch were not the target of the ordinance. Huckabee and other city council members said nuisance complaints from several areas in the city generated renewed interest in a more comprehensive ordinance.

Nevertheless, complaints from some of the Lenham’s neighbors seemed to polarize sentiment by Whitehouse citizens either for or against the ordinance. The ranch has long been a designated animal refuge, although a license for such a designation issued by the state was not renewed for 2011. City and county officials have used the ranch as a refuge in the past.

“We’re working with them. We’re going to get it resolved,” Peterson said. “We want what’s best for all citizens of the town.”

As the ordinance stands, the city animal control officer will look into animal nuisance complaints as they come up. When the animal control officer is determining excessive animals, he is required to consider factors such as the size of property, the types of animals, the number of animals and whether or not nuisance complaints were valid.

While the ordinance does not permit animals to run at large, a law that was already in force in Whitehouse, what is at issue regarding the new ordinance is the number of animals allowed or kept on private property. The ordinance limits the number of animals that may be kept to four dogs or four cats, or a combination of the two. According to the ordinance, the animal control officer can authorize certain exceptions on a case-by-case basis which, according to the lawsuit, is allegedly “unconstitutional” as it claims to limit the number of dogs to four but also states that “If an owner violates any provision of this article ...” then the number is limited to “a number prescribed by the animal control officer.”

That, according to the lawsuit, would appear to make the ordinance “vague and ambiguous” and unenforceable.