Agenda - Council - 12/12/2023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Musgrove commented on the delicate nature of the ADA and accommodations and how this plays into trying to work with residents. She noted that it is not always black and white with this. She stated that it would be beneficial to hear from the resident on this matter. Derek and Lanie Trout, 6025 177th Lane NW, came forward and shared that they submitted a statement to the City over the weekend. Mr. Trout stated that there have been false complaints and police reports about him for a different matter, so he is not sure if the complaints pertaining to this matter are legitimate complaints. He added that one of the families who stated that they have been affected by the rooster have loud chickens on their property. He shared that he has been reading Ramsey's Code and he has found that the City allows dangerous wild animals within the City limits. He added that his rooster already has the required enclosure with more than the required setback distances. He shared that when they first got their rooster at the beginning of the year they were under the impression that the minimum lot size was 1.5 acres so there would have been no need for the emotional support animal recognition. He added that over the last few months the City has changed their goat regulations down to a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres. He shared that there is a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres for swine; however, there is no minimum lot size requirement for potbelly pigs.He stated that he does not understand the City Code as it pertains to these animals. He noted that it may be beneficial to review the rooster ordinance. He shared that he also requested a reasonable accommodation that would ensure that the animal was put away during normal quiet hours for City Code. He added that a typical lawn mower would be twice as loud as their rooster. Councilmember Howell asked if there have been other instances where there have been code violations when there was a need for emotional support animals based on recognized disabilities. City Attorney Knaak said yes and explained that in the instance he is thinking of there was no balancing of disability interests as there is in this case. Councilmember Musgrove asked if there have been other instances where there was an accommodation made for someone with a disability, but it did not include a rooster. City Attorney Knaak said yes and explained there was an accommodation made. He noted that what was not present in this other situation was the mitigating factor. He added that the resident already has neighborhood relationship problems that could drive this in a different direction; however, that is not relevant for this discussion. Councilmember Musgrove stated that it is hard for her to make a decision on this as there are some factors about the other disability that are not known. She noted that they have made exceptions for people who have had code violations. She asked if this could be tabled, and the Council could look at the rooster code issue since they are already reviewing the code in Work Sessions. City Attorney Knaak shared that if the Council needs more time on this then they can take it. Councilmember Woestehoff stated that the longer they wait to decide on this the longer the other resident is suffering. He noted that they would be making an accommodation to one resident and put the burden back on the other resident. He stated that the exotic animals that are addressed in City Council/November 28, 2023 Page 7 of 11