East Bethel council schedules public hearing after alleged IUP violations at Gratitude Farms

The East Bethel City Council on May 12 directed staff to place a review of three interim use permits held by Tammy Gimple on the council's May 28 agenda for a public hearing, after staff and the city attorney reported alleged noncompliance and a related criminal summons.

The city attorney summarized the permits and alleged violations, saying the permits include a 2019 interim use permit allowing up to two horses and a 2021 permit authorizing a noncommercial, animal contractual services home occupation. He told the council that the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office had sought entry to inspect animals brought to the property beginning Jan. 26, 2025, and, according to the sheriff’s office, was denied entry and later obtained a search warrant. “That criminal prosecution resulted in a summons complaint that was issued on or about March twelfth of 2025,” the city attorney said, and recited the two counts listed in the complaint.

Why it matters: interim use permits (IUPs) in East Bethel are personal and conditional; they typically expire on sale of the property or for noncompliance. If the council proceeds after the public hearing, it could amend permit conditions or pursue revocation of one or more permits, though any formal change would follow the public hearing and public‑process requirements.

Key facts presented at the work session included permit conditions and alleged departures from them. The city attorney reviewed written conditions from the IUPs: one permit limits the property to two horses and requires a fenced pasture of three acres; the animal contractual services permit requires noncommercial operation, limits boarding of outside dogs to 10 days, requires municipal contracts to be filed with the city, allows inspection upon 12 hours’ notice, and reserves the council’s right to modify conditions. He also said the permits authorize annual or as‑needed inspections and referenced a Minnesota Board of Animal Health inspection dated Dec. 15, 2023.

City staff said they observed more animals than permitted. The city administrator said, “I drove by that property. I counted 8 horses that I could see,” and noted that seeing more than two horses would exceed the 2019 permit terms. Staff also noted a reported refusal to permit inspections by the sheriff’s office, which the city attorney said formed part of the basis for the sheriff’s referral for criminal prosecution.

The attorney read the criminal counts described in the summons and complaint as: count one, gross misdemeanor theft in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.52, subdivision 1(a), with alleged offense dates Jan. 29–Feb. 10, 2025; and count two, misdemeanor obstruction of lawful process, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.50 (as read in the meeting), with the same date range. The attorney emphasized that the criminal matter is separate from any administrative or civil action the city might take concerning IUP compliance and reminded the council that statements made at council could be used in other proceedings.

Council members asked procedural questions about notice and next steps. Council Member Mundell asked whether letters notifying the owner of violations had been sent; staff said a courtesy email about this discussion had been sent but that there is no separate required letter‑notice process for IUP concerns the way there is for code enforcement. Council Member Urkel asked how to place the item on a future agenda; staff said if the council reaches consensus, the matter could go to the May 28 meeting for a public hearing and that photos and supporting documentation would be provided at that time. The city administrator confirmed staff would assemble the file and forward documentation to the IUP holder and that any additional resident submissions would be included in the record.

The council did not take a formal motion that night; for the record the mayor and all council members nodded in favor of placing the item on a public‑hearing agenda. The attorney said the council’s decision that evening was limited to directing staff to start the noticing and hearing process; any determination to amend or revoke a permit would follow the public hearing and, if needed, code procedures.

Background and limitations: the IUPs are personal to the permit holder and, according to staff, standardly expire on sale of the property or for noncompliance. The attorney noted that some permit conditions listed a compliance deadline of Feb. 28, 2020, and that IUPs can be amended over time as circumstances change. He also said that one permit requires kennel quarantines not to exceed 15 kennels and that housing enclosures be in an enclosed facility.

Next steps: staff was asked to provide photographs, copies of the IUPs, any applicable inspection reports, and an update on the criminal case in advance of the May 28 public hearing. The council’s direction that evening was procedural only; no administrative modification or revocation took place at the work session.