Laserfiche WebLink
Eegular Meeting <br />April 25, 1977 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Delores Benson stood up and wanted to know what the lies were that had been <br />told at the hearing. Mrs. Van Odegaard said that Mr. Morelyhad said that <br />the dogs barked three times on Easter Sunday. This particular neighbor was <br />up at that time and could equally hear the dogs, and since this has started, <br />they made a point to listen. She said they did not bark three times. They <br />barked once. She said that Mr. Morely had made the statement that the Greiners <br />could not sell their house because of the dog situation. However, it was <br />felt byVan Odegaards that the turkeys, the rabbits and banged up doors could <br />be a contributing factor as to why they did not sell. <br /> <br />Mrs. Van Odegaard said if they were in violation of the ordinance that the <br />city council should have informed them. Instead they received a letter saying <br />they were in violation and had ten days to dispose of their animals. They <br />took five dogs, worth several hundred dollars, to the vet and had them put <br />to sleep, only to learn later that they were not in violation. <br /> <br />Nr. Van Odegaard said they were already looking at land to build a house <br />but said it woad be so difficult to move in 30 days and are Just asking for <br />a little time to build a house and sell their other house. He said if he <br />can do it in 30 days, hew ill, but if he can't, he just can't. <br /> <br />Mr. Tillery said it is not them (Van Odegaards) they object to, and doesn't <br />want to see them move, but to comply with the dog ordinance. Mrs. Benson <br />said the objectionable thing about the 90 days is going through the whole <br />summer again with the dogs. <br /> <br />Attorney Geurwttz said that they were not in violation of the ordinance which <br />referred to a commercial operation and thought that at first they were in <br />violation and applied for a conditional use permit. They reviewed the <br />ordinance and told Van 0degarrds there was no need to apply for a kennel <br />license because this ordinance did not apply to them. <br /> <br />The attorney explained there has been some waivering of the neighbors in <br />their feelings about this. Many signed a petition to grant the conditional <br /> use permit. <br /> <br />Mrs. Van Odegaard said that there were not all these neighbors when they <br />moved in and they were sort of assured at the time of buying their house <br />that they could maybe buy more land later. <br /> <br />It was stated by Mayor Cox that there were complaints registered in ci~ hall <br />during the year after Mr. Morelymoved in. Mr. Tillery said that he did not <br />know when he bought his lot about the dogs. His real estate agent never told <br />them, or he would not have bought the house. <br /> <br />Nayor Cox addressed Mrs. Van Odegaard explaining that whether it be one dog, <br />thirty dogs, or even children, they can all cause confusion and upset. He <br />said we don't want this in the city and would like to see some way of solving <br />this tonight that would not cause an additional expense or trouble to the <br />neighbors. He said he would like to see it accomplished without additional <br />discussions, hearings, or law suits that take up time and could create <br /> <br /> <br />