My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 12/13/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2016
>
Minutes - Council - 12/13/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 2:29:32 PM
Creation date
1/17/2017 11:04:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
12/13/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
stated that Peter is a pet and is not livestock, noting that the USDA also clarifies this type of pig <br />as a pet rather than livestock. <br />Mayor Strommen stated that the Council appreciates the emotion surrounding this issue and will <br />focus on the facts pertaining to the City Code. <br />Councilmember Kuzma stated that he lives within the Northfork community and is concerned <br />that the applicant is requesting a non-traditional license. He was not sure why this was not done <br />prior to purchase of the pet. He stated that he is also concerned with the other after the fact <br />permits as well as the safety issue regarding animal waste. He stated that he is not in support of <br />this request. <br />Councilmember Riley referenced the map which identified the location from which comments <br />were received. He stated that he was struck by the fact that the people nearest to the property <br />were in favor of the request and those opposing the request live some distance away therefore he <br />was not sure how those property owners would be impacted by the decision. <br />Councilmember Shryock stated that her understanding is that a pot-bellied pig is considered a <br />pet. She referenced the comment regarding their waste and stated that given the size of the pet <br />she would compare the waste to be similar to any dog and therefore did not see that as an issue. <br />She did not see how that would even be an issue as dog or cat waste could be all over someone's <br />yard. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that topic was addressed because of the non-traditional animal <br />license requested. He agreed that an animal of that size would not generate much more waste <br />than a dog. He stated that in terms of composting, it is not uncommon for communities to <br />prohibit animal waste from being composted which is why staff recommended building that <br />alternative into the license. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill noted that this is being treated similar to dog waste, <br />noting that the City would not allow accumulation of dog waste to be stored on the yard. <br />Councilmember Williams asked for clarification on whether the City Code prohibits backyard <br />composting of animal waste. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that topic is not specifically addressed within City Code, therefore <br />the exclusion could be viewed as being prohibited. <br />City Attorney Langel commented that if the item is not specifically prohibited, the result would <br />be that the activity is allowed. <br />Councilmember Williams commented that this is only the second non-traditional animal license <br />that has come before the Council. She appreciated the ability of staff to work through the <br />ordinance in order to apply the regulations to such different requests. She stated that hopefully <br />the license process will allow the City to respond to the requests in a reasonable manner. <br />City Council / December 13, 2016 <br />Page 9 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.