My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/26/1981 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1981
>
01/26/1981 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2014 2:17:54 PM
Creation date
10/20/2014 1:32:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
01/26/1981
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
242 <br />January 26, 1981 <br />There was discussion on the proposed road easement on one side of the proposed <br />parcel of land. It was pointed out that in order to ensure proper setbacks, if <br />and when a street is installed, Mr. Barrot will beed a 30' setback on the side yard. <br />Mr. McLean was concerned that this split is just the first of a string of single lot <br />splits on this land. He suggested that something that says this is the only split <br />that will be allowed on this parcel - the remaining lands will have to be platted <br />before any future building permits will be allowed. <br />Mr. McLean moved to approve the variance for land of less than 22 acres with the net <br />frontage of 175', owner must set home 30' from the West side lot line, Variance to <br />Ord. #78 with a notation that no further lot splits will be allowed from this parcel <br />until the land is platted. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Mrs. Elsenpeter amended <br />the motion to add 'money in lieu of land for park purposes, Mr. McLean accepted the <br />amendment. Motion carried unanimously. <br />Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to approve the permit for the moving in of the house from Mound <br />Trail to 795 Birch Street with the stipulations that insulation be installed to R38 <br />and that repairs to the outside of the home be done per the Building Inspector. Se- <br />conded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. <br />Mr. Henry Suchy had applied for a kennel license for the purpose of keeping three dogs. <br />Mr. Schumacher reported that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval <br />of this license with the stipulation that there will only be three dogs at that loca- <br />tion with an amendment that Mr. Suchy be required to license the dogs. <br />The provisions of the ordinances requiring any one with three dogs or more to ob- <br />tain a kennel license was discussed as what the provisions of the ordinance regu- <br />lating kennel license. <br />Mr. Pete Nadeau, from the audience, felt that the Planning and Zoning Board had made <br />up their minds before people were allowed to speak and he said he did not feel that <br />the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation should be considered by this Council. <br />He said the dogs bark all the time, particularly if someone in the neighborhood is <br />outside their home. <br />Mr. Suchy said he had two small house dogs and one large watch dog that is chained <br />outside. He said he bought the large dog after he had been robbed. <br />There was several persons who spoke from the audience on the nuisance they felt these <br />dogs are creating. Both parties accused the other of allowing their dogs to run loose. <br />Mr. Kulaszewicz pointed out this same situation has been before the Council on other <br />occasions and this Council always hears that no dogs are running loose, but at each <br />hearing both parties say the dogs are running loose. <br />Mrs. Elsenpeter felt that this matter should be handled by the Police Department and the <br />Animal Control and the only thing this Council should be considering is the application <br />for the keeping of three dogs and she moved to allow Mr. Suchy to keep three dogs. <br />Mayor Gourley asked for a second to the motion three times and the motion died for <br />lack of a second. <br />Mr. McLean moved to deny the request for a kennel license noting there is no state- <br />ment of need for three dogs, no indication of this being a kennel facility - this is <br />an application to keep an extra dog. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.