My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 12121989
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1989
>
CC PACKET 12121989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 4:40:18 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 4:40:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
18
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 1987-1989
SP Name
CC PACKET 12121989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
10 • <br /> 1 concern that three dogs in the house might result in <br /> 2 deterioration of the real estate. Mr . Hodges objected to <br /> 3 that conclusion, and stated that their previous home in <br /> 4 St . Paul was maintained well and sold for a profit and that <br /> 5 thev intend to maintain and improve their property in <br /> 6 St . Anthony. Mayor Pro Tem Ranallo reminded the Council <br /> 7 that they have the right to a report by a public health <br /> 8 officer. Council Member Enrooth added that , should a <br /> 9 problem develop, approval could be withdrawn . <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Council Member Ma'{owske asked at what time the neighbors ' <br /> 12 comments were solicited, and was informed that the comments <br /> 13 were received near the end of October, shortly after Hodges <br /> 14 and Bartel moved 'in. Mr . Hodges stated that two of their <br /> 15 neighbors exnr. essly welcomed them and their dogs to the <br /> 16 neighborhood when they moved in . He commented that he and <br /> 17 Mr . Bartel investigated the issue with the City immediately <br /> 18 upon moving to the neighborhood in an effort to cooperate <br /> 19 with community requirements . <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Motion by Marks , seconded by Enrooth , to approve three dogs <br /> 22 in the home at 3219 36th Avenue Northeast subject to the <br /> 23 condition that the dog ordinance is not violated and the • <br /> 24 dogs become a nuisance . <br /> 25 <br /> .26 Council Member Makowske stated that she originally -intended <br /> 27 to vote in favor of approval but would- vote against it <br /> 28 because the majority of neighbors (five out of nine) who had <br /> 29 expressed an opinion expressed opposition to three dogs in <br /> 30 the household , although she recognized and appreciate3 ' <br /> 31 Hodges ' s and Bartel ' s cooperation . <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Aye : Enrooth, Marks , Ranallo . <br /> 34 ?day: Makowske . <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Motion carried <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Bernhard Pr.eussner asked what the penalty is for an <br /> 39 unlicensed dog, and Mr . Soth replied that as a misdemeanor <br /> 40 it carries a penalty of up to 90 days in jail or a $700 <br /> 41 'fine . <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Council Member Marks commented that at the last Council <br /> 44 meeting a statement was made concerning the large number. of <br /> 45 unlicensed dogs in St. Anthony but that. he personally is <br /> 46 unaware of sucha situation . Mr . P.reussner stated that he <br /> 47 estimates there are at least 500 dogs in St . Anthony but <br /> 48 that fewer than 100 are actually licensed . Mayor Pro Tem <br /> 49 Ranallo remarked that at the last Council meeting it was • <br /> 50 decided that the dog ordinance should be studied . He asked <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.