06/10/1996 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 that a cat attacked a small child in Lino Lakes. The parents of the child was unable to bring any charges against the owner of the cat because Lino Lakes does not have a cat ordinance. If the child had been bitten by the cat, the cat would have been required to be quarantined. Council Member Kuether asked if cat problems could be handled without requiring them to be licensed. Ms. Kenow said that if the cats are licensed, they could be returned to their owner if they stray and the owner would be educated about the responsibilities of being a cat owner. If this ordinance is adopted, a lot of time will be spent educating the public and actually getting cats licensed. Ms. Kenow said that the Police Department does not have the staff needed to address the problem at this time, however, she did feel it was necessary to make a proposal to aid the citizens who are have problems with cats at this time. Council Member Kuether said that she was concerned about what this proposed ordinance would do to the Police Department. Council Member Bergeson said that if there is a concern about rabies and other diseases of cats then cats should be licensed. It would be easier to find the owner to verify if they have been vaccinated. He noted that there has been a lot of work preparing this ordinance and said he would hate to see the Council deny it because of some specific concerns. Council Member Bergeson said that it appears that a number of issues have been clarified that may be unclear in the existing ordinances. He referred to the portion of the packet that identifies differences between the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance. It appears that four (4) items listed are more restrictive or clarifying than the current ordinance. Two (2) items are less restrictive. These two (2) are the number of dogs and the other is the amount of land needed for a private kennel. Council Member Bergeson said that he is concerned about the requirement of one acre needed for a kennel license. He felt one acre was not a very large parcel for a number of dogs. He said he is less concerned about the requirement that no more than three (3) dogs be allowed without the need for a kennel license. He noted that several cities in this area do allow three (3) dogs. It was his opinion that if Lino Lakes allowed three (3) dogs without the need for a kennel license, this would do away to a large extent with the need to reduce the size of lots where a private kennel would be allowed. He said he is not in favor of reducing the size of the lot where private kennel licenses would be allowed but would be in favor of increasing the number of dogs from two (2) to three (3) without the need for a kennel license. Council Member Lyden agreed that a lot of work had been put into the creation of the proposed ordinance. He referred to page 5, paragraph B and noted that the Council should be more proactive, as much as possible. To say that there is an unlimited number of adult dogs that would be allowed on five (5) acres or more is not the best interest of the residents. Ms. Wyland explained that the proposed ordinance does say that a conditional use permit would be required which would specify the number depending on what they are requesting. Council Member Lyden said that the wording does say unlimited number of dogs and this would be opening the door to other interpretations. He said he would like much stronger language. Council Member Lyden referred to Page 5, paragraph B again and said he felt allowing six (6) dogs on such a small parcel is not in the best interest of the City. He felt that should be at least as restrictive as the current ordinance. PAGE 13