Loading...
03-05-97 PCVilliam S. Radzwill Andrew J. MacArthur Michael C. Couri Megan M. McDonald February 27, 1997 RADMILL & CO URI Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Box 369 St. Michael, MN 55376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) Planning Commission Members City of Otsego c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Adams Dog Kennel CUP Dear Planning Commission Members: At the request of the City I have reviewed the minutes of the last Planning Commission meeting which involved the rehearing of the above mentioned CUP. I have also discussed that hearing with Bob Kirmis of NAC and Chairman Swenson, as well from the unapproved representing the kennel owner. It appears minutes of the hearingand those esented to justify adverse sions that there is insufficient evidence pr adverse action on the CUP at this time. The purpose of placing this matter for rehearing was to establish whether there were violations of the conditions of the CUP. In this case there were repeated complaints regarding the facility. The City is not required to wait unto criminal a Conditional convictions have been repeatedly obtained in order t Permit. The term "violations" in the context of a planning and zoning matter does not necessarily mpproval is given subject to criminal standards, since the that it be proven to initial app operation of the facility in the best interests of the community., In my opinion, due to problems inherent in attempting to prosecute dog barking complaints, a public hearing athemore problemsaearlier ble way to address the issues raised. It appears that reported to the City have been largely remedied. I have also been asked to respond to certain questions raised by Letter to Otsego Planning Commission February 27, 1997 Page 2 thresponses; Planning Commission. Following are my p number of dogs or density which 1. Do City ordinances restrict the be kept at the Adams Kennel? may The City Ordinances were patterned after the state statutes whThe did not set forth specific numbersy taken from the Minnesota Rules, Otsego City Ordinance was general states, "Enclosures must specifically Minn. Rule 1720. 1420, or cat to turn about fully be of sufficient size to allow each dog osition. The and to stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable normal P enclosure must be constructed so as to prevent injury o the dog or cat." Within the City ordinances it is generally understood that the state inspection process should provide limits on the number of animals. tates that no es may 2. The conditional use permit the functions of retail Adams 1Dog 1Kennel occur upon one site. One o is to find homes for stray dogs. Mr. Goener has questioned whether this constitutes a commercial activity. Within the City ordinances "retail" is defined as, "the sale of items in small quantities directly to the consumer." Retail and sale implies sale for profit. If animals are being sold for a indeed constitute a violation, profit on the premises this may g exchan ed for the costs of however, if the animals are merely being their upkeep while at the facility that would not constitute retail activity in this particular case. 3. Condition 6b of the conditional use permit states that dogs kept outside must have access to shelter to protect them from sun, rain the and snow. Based on testimony heard not at vee "outdoor" shelters. Mr. Adams. Kennel apparently. Goener has questioned whether this would be considered a violation of the conditional use permit. The Conditional Use Permit states that "Dogs kept outside must have access to shelter to protect them from sun, rain, and snow." City This is simply a restatement of Min.Ruland72cond condi0.1400. tions arest basically ordinance requirements for kennelse key word here is "access", as taken from the Minnesota Rules. Tmnoved inside they have access to at the i long as the dogs can be readly shelter. I would also note twhen thecuprequires gis rnot on the premises• inside during the night, and 4. The Adams Kennel apparently has cats on the premises. Does this constitute a CUP or City ordinance violation? The CUP approved was for a dog kennel. Whether or not the keeping Letter to Otsego Planning Commission February 27, 1997 Page 3 of cats at the facility is a violation or potential dependent upon the numbers. If there are a few pet premises I would not consider that a violation. In conclusion, based upon my review that the facility is now operating conditional use permit and that the to take adverse action against the Ver my yours, dre J. acAr .RADZW & COURI violation is cats on the of the minutes it would appear in general compliance with the is insufficient justification dog kennel at this time. cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC at Law Gerald Paulson, Attorney William S. Radmill Andrew J. MacArthur Michael C. Court Megan M. McDonald February 19, 1997 RADZWILL & COURI Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Box 369 St. Michael, MN 55376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) Planning Commission Members city. -of Otsego c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Adams Kennel CUP Dear Planning Commission Members: �-^ r, f7 RNA �_'., 1I FEB 2 5 A question has been raised regarding the authority of the City to order a rehearing in this matter. The original CUP states as follows; 1114. If gross violations are identified in County and/or State inspections, or if there are repeated violations of applicable City ordinances, the City may at its discretion, hold a rehearing of the conditional use permit with the potential of revocation of the permit being ordered by the City Council." The City Council did, at its discretion, and at my recommendation, order the rehearing. Part of the reason for ordering a rehearing was that in this particular situation such a hearing appeared to be the best forum for resolving ongoing complaints about the facility. These complaints were not only received in. writing but also by telephone and in person. The majority of the complaints regarded continuous barking of dogs, disturbing neighbors. Such noise, depending upon .its duration and intensity, may be a violation of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance Sections 6-2-7, A&B, and 6-2-8, F. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not such violations have occurred. Because of the nature of complaints regarding noise, it will be necessary for the Planning Commission and the Council to use their best judgment. The building inspector did go out to the site and did note some concerns. I have been informed that he has recently gone out to the facility and that it appears to be in better shape.