East Bethel council revokes interim use permit for Gratitude Farms after hearing on alleged noncompliance

The East Bethel City Council voted to revoke Interim Use Permit IUP 2021-74 for Gratitude Farms following a public hearing focused on whether the permit-holder complied with conditions governing inspections and confinement of animals. The vote followed testimony from city staff, the permit-holder and multiple residents.

City staff opened the hearing by framing the item narrowly. “This is about an interim use permit, and it's about conditions set forth in an interim use permit,” the staff presenter said, describing the city’s role as enforcing the IUP conditions rather than adjudicating unrelated criminal charges. The staff report attached a public document from Anoka County District Court and described attempts by the sheriff’s office to locate and inspect animals at the property between Jan. 31 and Feb. 6.

Tammy Gimple, the applicant and operator of Gratitude Farms, told the council she had not been given the 12-hour notice described in one IUP condition and denied knowingly allowing animals to be off-site. “I was never I would was never given a 12 hour notice about an inspection from anybody,” she said. Gimple also said dogs taken in by animal control were confined to her premises and defended her record caring for animals and serving the community.

Members of the public offered sharply divided views. Resident Renee Beckman and other speakers cited the city code’s definition of a commercial kennel and said Gratitude Farms had advertised boarding and was operating in a residential zoning district, which they said would make commercial boarding impermissible. One commenter said, “She has been boarding since… well over 15 years.” Another frequent commenter, Christine Dahlman, listed longstanding complaints she said the city had not resolved and said inspection records and surrender paperwork were missing from the city file.

Other residents defended Gimple, saying she had helped reunite lost dogs and rescued animals. “Tammy does amazing things with the animals,” one supporter told the council.

City attorney Jacob Souffley and staff told the council the municipal standard for evaluating IUP compliance differs from criminal standards and that the council’s decision should be based on whether the IUP’s conditions were violated. Staff pointed specifically to two IUP conditions flagged in the report: the city-designated inspector must be allowed access for inspection with 12 hours’ notice (condition cited in the report) and a requirement that confined dogs remain on the premises during required holds (condition 9). The staff report noted the sheriff’s deputies were unable to locate dogs on the property during their attempts and that some animals appeared to have been moved multiple times, which catalyzed the county investigation.

A councilmember moved to revoke the permit and a second was made; the motion passed. The council did not record an on-the-record roll-call vote in the hearing transcript, but the mayor declared the motion passed. Staff said they will send formal correspondence to the permit-holder and will report back to the council on follow-up and timelines; the exact wind-down period was discussed but not finalized on the record. Counsel noted the horse IUP referenced previously included a 30-day wind-down, while the dog IUP at issue does not contain a specified wind-down period, and recommended staff pursue an administrable enforcement timeline.

The revocation addresses only compliance with the interim use permit conditions the holder agreed to when the IUP was issued. Staff and the city attorney emphasized the council action is separate from ongoing county criminal proceedings. The decision means the permit-holder may be required to cease the IUP activity; staff will notify the permit-holder and return to the council with updates on enforcement and any requests to reapply.

Public comment and staff questioning also raised multiple ancillary issues the report said were in city files or in county records: whether Board of Animal Health inspection reports were filed with the city, whether contracts or impound forms were on file, and whether boarding or rescue activity was advertised. Those matters were described by several residents as unresolved complaints the city had not previously enforced to their satisfaction.

The council’s action closes the municipal process on IUP 2021-74 for now; staff directed to proceed with formal notice and follow-up and to present any subsequent administrative or legislative steps to the council.