CC PACKET 07092024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 9, 2024 Page 2 Thus, proposed changes to the second reading are collected in Subsection (G), and highlighted for the Council’s review. The changes create a clear disqualification for applications that elicited a positive response from any abutting neighbor to the bee-sting allergy issue. The structure of the ordinance would create a process as follows: a.Application is made to City staff. b.Staff creates a notice to abutting neighbors of the application for beekeeping, including a request for response to any medically-documented bee-sting allergies for current residents. c.Neighbors are notified of the upcoming Council meeting on the application, and given the opportunity to respond to staff. d.Any responses that claim the presence of a bee-sting allergy would result in rejection of the application by Staff. e. Staff would notify Council of the application as an agenda item, and whether the application was rejected, or if it is being brought forward for Council approval. The Council also questioned the aspects of the code related to nuisance concerns. The Code Officer indicated that per the resource materials used by the PEC – including those from the University of Minnesota Extension – that hive maintenance requirements were a key in minimizing the potential that the bees would become more aggressive. Those aspects of maintenance are built into the Code language in that regard. Finally, the Council asked staff about the longer-term impact of the allergy issue, and the effect on an approved beekeeper when new allergic neighbors move nearby. The language of the proposed ordinance creates a requirement for approved beekeeping locations, and makes it clear that new neighbors moving to the area would not result in termination of a prior approval. As discussed by the Planning Commission, while beekeeping can create a heightened level of concern, proof issues would exist for an allergic neighbor who wished to make a nuisance claim. To help address this concern, the PEC structured its original recommendation to require that bee-sting allergies result in automatic rejection so as to avoid creating that concern for susceptible residents. This is in line with the idea that beekeeping, while it has certain specific benefits, is not an intrinsically residential use of property, and that potential beekeepers are subject to the discretion of the City when seeking to pursue this activity. Apart from this change, the proposed Ordinance amendment has been generated by the Parks and Environmental Commission (PEC) to allow beekeeping in St. Anthony. If adopted, beekeeping would be allowed upon approval of the City Council as a waiver from what is currently a prohibition on “farm animals”. The approval would be subject to a set of regulations that are designed to ensure that applicants are thoroughly trained to responsibly keep and maintain bees on their residential property. The existing City Code provisions relevant to “farm animals” prohibit them in the City, with the allowance that the City Council may approve specific requests, waiving the usual prohibition. This waiver has been primarily utilized for chickens in the past. There are no specific requirements for the keeping of chickens, however, staff and the Council routinely add 62