My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2015/07/06
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
Agenda Packets - 2015/07/06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:49 PM
Creation date
7/10/2018 12:41:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/6/2015
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/6/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Bee Report <br />July 6, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />In addition, I have included a staff report from Edina which spells out the processes and <br />conditions by which an apiary permit can be revoked, with particular attention paid to <br />residents within 200 feet demonstrating a confirmed, documented allergy to bees. The City <br />Council may want to consider whether it would be beneficial to create a more formal <br />process to appeal a beekeeping permit, such as what Edina considered. The Edina <br />process, however, allowed neighbors to appeal after the hive had been established at <br />substantial expense. I asked the Edina City Manager about this, and he suggested that the <br />opportunity to appeal might be more appropriately conducted prior to the approval: <br /> <br />“Our apiary registration process allows potential beekeepers to buy all <br />the equipment and bees, and then come into the City to register their <br />apiary. The registration triggers the notification to neighbors, which <br />means that neighbors with concerns don't get a chance to express them <br />until after, in some cases, the apiary is already installed and <br />functioning. That also means that a revocation of the apiary comes <br />after it is already established. We are working with our Council to <br />change the ordinance to require a notification and waiting period before <br />the beekeeper can establish the apiary. This order of things would be <br />better because it saves money and fear for everyone.” <br />The City Attorney has previously advised the Council that it is not good practice to have the <br />applicant obtain signatures of permission from neighbors or to allow neighbors or nearby <br />residents to effectively deny a property owner’s request (dog kennels, chickens, etc.) <br />however in the case of an apiary, if a neighbor can demonstrate a bona fide allergy to <br />bees, who should prevail? Should one person’s hobby be allowed to put a neighbor at <br />greater health risk? <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> Review the information presented and provide direction to staff as to how extensive the <br />requirements should be or whether the amendment should simply be to eliminate bees <br />from the definition of a farm animal and allow hives from a permissive standpoint. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />________________________ <br />James Ericson <br />City Administrator <br /> Attachments: <br />1. Star Tribune article, dated Jan 28, 2014 <br />2. St. Louis Park Patch article, July 24, 2012 <br />3. Circle Pines Beekeeping Ordinance <br />4. Eden Prairie Beekeeping Ordinance <br />5. St. Paul Park Beekeeping Ordinance <br />6. Stillwater Beekeeping Ordinance <br />7. Edina Beekeeping Ordinance <br />8. Edina Staff Report on Apiary Revocation Process
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.