05/14/1986 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD May 14, 1986 Page Two JAMES J. HILL - VARIANCE TO DOG KENNEL ORDINANCE Mr. and Mrs. Hill appeared before the Board requesting that they be allowed to keep the dogs they presently have. The facts in this matter are as follows: - Earlier, the property owned by the Hills was divided creating the lot on which their home is and a lot with a home which the Hills rent to another party. Each of the lots is between 1/2 acre and one acre. The party renting from the Hills has one dog of their own and they also keep one of the Hills' dogs. - The Hills own four dogs - one kept by the renting party and three which they keep on their own property. - The ordinance allows for two dogs maximum per residence. In order to qualify for a kennel licence allowing more than two dogs, the applicant in an ER zone would need five or more acres. The Hills live on less than one acre. - The Hills asked to be considered as a "grandfathered" situation. The ordinance would allow the continuation of all kennels which were validly located in Lino Lakes prior to the adoption of the new ordinance. At no time in the past have the Hills had a valid, licensed kennel, therefore there would be no "grandfather" situation. - All dogs with the City are required to have an individual dog license. The City must have proof of rabies vaccination before issuing a dog license. The Hills dogs have not been licensed. Their explanation was that they vaccinate the dogs themselves. (Licenses could have been obtained if the owner could show the vaccine bottles and labels.) - The Hills feel that they cannot get rid of the dogs they pres- ently have because the dogs belong to their college age sons and are used for hunting. To choose one to get rid of would cause an emotional problem to the family. The other option to the family would be to move out of their home. - The City Planner reminded the Board that if they decide to allow the Hills to maintain the current situation, a text amend- ment to the ordinance would need to be approved, which would in essence allow four dogs to anyone who wanted four dogs on as small as 1/2 acre lot. He recommended against such an amendment, MOTION: Mr. Cody moved to recommend to Council denial of the application dated 4/22/86 by James J. Hill, 298 Elm Street for a kennel ordinance variance due to the fact that the applicant has not proven the necessary hardship to the land (which is required for a variance), and also be- cause it has been determined by this Board that there was no valid pre- existing kennel at the time of the adoption of the new kennel ordinance. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion which carried unanimously.