Laserfiche WebLink
<br />accommodation in the past after similar issues were submitted to the Department of Housing and <br />Urban Development. He noted he is requesting an accommodation to be made that they are able <br />to have one emotional support animal on their property and submitting a photo and the name of <br />the animal to be kept with the City until the animal is deceased. He shared that a complaint has <br />been filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and they would like to see <br />how this case is handled. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak shared that a distinguishing point needs to be made here. He explained that <br />in the instance of the accommodation that Mr. Trout was referencing, there were no conflicting <br />rights or issues involved in that case. He stated this is not a situation where they are comparing <br />apples to apples and the other instance did not have the conflict of the animal being used for <br />emotional support. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell stated that she is not supportive of emotional support animals as it is a <br />slippery slope; however, when there are other situations where they have complaints coming in <br />about a business, these complaints are investigated for a finding of facts. She stated that the Council <br />has not been presented with evidence to back up the conflict of disabilities, so she struggles to take <br />this into consideration when looking at other cases that have findings of facts. She added that the <br />rooster owner is on a lot that is 2.19 acres, and they are meeting the setback requirements. She <br />shared that they have also made the accommodation for chickens in the past. She explained that <br />she is concerned that they have not come up with some type of proposal of an accommodation to <br />see if this would be a possibility. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove shared that she has also been looking through this and trying to figure <br />out a way to look at this and have a reasonable accommodation in regard to the medical aspect. <br />She noted she is okay with allowing the resident to have this rooster until the rooster is deceased <br />and after that they would not be allowed to have another rooster on the property unless the code is <br />changed. She added that she has done some research on this and shared that there are bands that <br />can be put around rooster’s necks, so they do not crow as loud. She also suggested an <br />accommodation of having the rooster inside the home at certain times. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff agreed that this is a contentious case. He stated he will be defaulting <br />to those who are currently abiding by the rules of the City in making a determination of this. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Woestehoff, seconded by Councilmember Riley, to approve <br />Resolution #24-022, A Resolution Determining That a Violation of the Ramsey City Code <br />Relating to Keeping a Rooster on a Parcel of Less Than 2.5 Acres Has Occurred at 6025 177th <br />Lane NE and Directing City Staff and Law Enforcement Authorities Take Such Measure as May <br />be Necessary to Remove the Animal Therein. <br /> <br />A roll call vote was performed: <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff aye <br />Councilmember Specht aye <br />Councilmember Musgrove nay <br />Councilmember Howell nay <br />City Council / January 9, 2024 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />