10-22-2001 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MELTING MONDAY, OCTOBER 8,2001 6. Amendment to Animal Regnlationi Gaffron stated that there is currently no ordinance restricting the number of cats allowed on a property. Other metro cities allow 4-5 cats without licensing. ITtc proposed ordinance would amend Orono ’s current “Dog Regulation and Licensing*’ ordinance by additionally regulating the number of cats that can be kept on a residential property. Staff suggested that 10 cats per property may be an appropriate number, and that Council might consider an amendment that would require a kennel licen.se for over 4 or 5 cats. I le stated that the ordinance would include cats owned, harbored, fed, boarded, or kept on a residential property, lie also stated that it was not a zoning ordinance, and therefore was not subject to the Planning Commission review or hearing requirements. Sansevere stated he did not mind requiring u kennel license, but was not in favor of a cop on the number of cats allowed. Flint slated he favored the staff proposal to require a kennel license for over 5 cats. Mayor Peierstm staled she was in favor of treating cals the same as dogs. Hollander stated that according to a Minitesota statute, the Council could not verbally change oa ordinance pending his district court decision to keep him from getting his cats back. He also stated that there was a Minnesota statute that includes a formula for how many cats arc allowed in a space, and according to that formula, his garage was not overpopulated with cats. He also requested the matter be tabled until his attorney could be present to represent him. and stated he was not notified the issue would be on that night’s agenda. Simpson slated that Judge Alton would not be considering the overpopulation is.suc. only if the cals were properly cared for in terms of health and safely, so the finding would not affect the ordinance before Council. Hollander asked where he could keep his cals if they were relumed to lum. He slated the court action was to detcmiine if the seizure of his cals w as legal. Simpson stated the City had nothing to do with the sei/ure of his cals. He also slated the ordinance did not address Mr. Hollander ’s situation, and w^ not directed to him. Jacivn Ricks, of 2108 Sugarwoods, pointed out that if Mr. Hollander got his cats back, he would simply have to apply for a kennel license. Paul Druer, of 275 Hollander Road, stated that he wondered why a building that was obviously not up to code for years was allowed to remain so for so long. He stated the code applies to eveo'onc and is non-ncgotiable, yet residents have wanted action taken 6. Amendment to Animal Regulations