Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br />Village of Arden Hills <br />Monday, June 21, 1911 - 1 :30 p.m. <br />Village Hall <br /> <br />Ca II to Order <br />Pursuant to due cal I and notice thereof, the meeting was called to <br />order by Acting Mayor Charles Crichton at 1:32 p.m. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />REPORT OF VILLAGE ATTORNEY JAMES LYNDEN <br /> <br />Ordinance No. 198 re DOll LicenslnQ and Control - Final Readlno <br />Lynden referred Councl I to draft of ordinance, and to his letter of <br />6/24/11 re Proposed Dog Ordinance; noted that ordinance has been read <br />In Its entirety and Is pending Final Reading. <br /> <br />Woodburn moved, seconded by Wingert, that Counci I approve Ordlnence <br />Number 198, AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE OWNERSHIP, KEEPING AND CONTROL <br />OF DOGS; REQUIRING THE LICENSING THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOUND- <br />MENT, REDEMPTION, RELEASE AND DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN DOGS; ESTABLISHING <br />A CITY POUND; PROHIBITiNG CERTAIN NUISANCE ACTiVITIES OF DOGS; <br />ESTABLISHING A QUARANTiNE PROCEDURE; REQUIRING RABIES VACCINATION; <br />PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING OF KENNELS; REPEALH,G ORDINANC~S IN <br />CONFLICT THf'REWI.TH; AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATiON THEREO::. <br /> <br />In discussion, the following comments were made from ~-l'te floor: <br /> <br />Jim Ross. 4029 N. Falrvlew - opposed particularly to Section 1, <br />as proposed; punishes the majority of citizens with welf behaved <br />dogs because of a minority of violations of the existing ordinance; <br />Invasion of his rights for someone to come onto his property, <br />seize his dog and Impound it; hoped for an ordinance which Is <br />more fair; possible It should come to a vote in order to obtain <br />the feelln.gs of all citizens of the VIllage; Section 1 Is unjust <br />and unfair; asked whose obligation It would be to notify him <br />this his dog had been impounded. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Jerrv Williams. 4320 Arden View Court - as chairman of Home Owners <br />Association, spoke In favor of the proposed ordInance; feels <br />Section 1 Is most appropriate; Home Owners Association has already <br />adopted a similar ordinance for Townhouse VI lieges at Arden Hills. <br /> <br />Grace Young, 4444 N. Snelling - ordinance can't be too strong; <br />has en 8 year old girl who cannot speak; has no protective <br />extension; likes to be out doors, for her protection, feels <br />that dog ordinance must be very strict. <br /> <br />Irving Lerner, 3915 N. Falrvlew - agreed that Mrs. Young's case <br />Is an unusual and unique circumstance; there Is a different <br />problem In the Townhouse area, and in an apartment area, than In <br />the greater portion of Arden Hills where the density is lower <br />and where we have no sidewalks, street lights etc.; proposed <br />ordinance Is repugnant to the concept of the community In wh"ich <br />he wished to live; we'll lose our home burglary protection. <br />Lerner said he was prosecuted under the existing ordinance for <br />a violation; can't understand why It cannot now be enforced. <br /> <br />nt was noted by Council that, In order to enforce either the existing <br />or proposed ordinance. a paid dog catcher wll I be required; difficult <br /> <br />-1- <br />