10-08-2001 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2001 0 6. Amendment to Animal Regulations 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. The 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 license for over 4 or 5 cats. He stated that the ordinance would include cats owned, harbored, fed, boarded, or kept on a residential property. He 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 a kennellicense, but was not in favor of a cap on the number of cats allowed. Flint stated he favored the staff proposal to require a kennel license for over 5 cats. Mayor Peterson stated she was in favor of treating cats the same as dogs. Hollander stated that according to a Minnesota statute, the Council could not verbally change an 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 are 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 stated that Judge Alton would not be considering the overpopulation issue, only if the cats were properly cared for in terms of health and safety, so the finding would not affect the ordinance before Council. Hollander asked where he could keep his cats if they were returned to him. He stated the court action was to determine if the seizure of his cats was legal. Simpson stated the City had nothing to do with the seizure of his cats. He also stated the ordinance did not address Mr. Hollander's situation, and was not directed to him. Jaclyn 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 Bruer, 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 everyone and is non - negotiable, yet residents have wanted action taken 6. is Amendment to Animal Regulations 4