Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Green Bay committee holds appeal over excess-dog permit at 917 Belp Avenue pending fence inspection
Summary
The Protection and Policy Committee held an appeal on an excess-animal permit for 917 Belp Avenue to allow time for fence-code corrections and a final inspection. Staff cited a prior bite incident, neighborhood letters about excessive barking and unresolved fence code violations as the basis for the original denial.
The Protection and Policy Committee on [date not specified] voted to hold an appeal on an excess-animal permit at 917 Belp Avenue until its October committee meeting to allow completion and inspection of required fence work.
Officer Mavis, who provided the city’s background on the case, told the committee the property had been the subject of a bite report that broke skin, and that the owner had been out of compliance with licensing and the excess-animal-permit requirement when staff first intervened. Officer Mavis said neighbors also submitted multiple letters reporting excessive barking and safety concerns that factored into the original denial.
The applicant, Stacy Rums, said she had acquired materials and installed the majority of a fence but still needed to flip boards and move support posts to comply with code, and that she had engaged a trainer for a dog described as reactive. “We never let our dogs out after 2200 without someone being with them,” Rums said, and added she would not have kept three dogs without knowing a permit was needed.
Inspection staff confirmed the permit was opened Aug. 12 and that a housing inspector visited the property before the meeting; staff said some code issues remain (support posts and the finished side of fencing must face neighbors) and the owner must request a final inspection to close the permit.
After questioning from committee members about mitigation and inspection timing, a committee member moved to hold the appeal so staff could inspect the completed fence at the next October committee meeting; the motion was seconded and carried. The committee did not adopt a new permit at this meeting and directed staff to bring the matter back after a final inspection.
Next steps: The appeal will return to the Protection and Policy Committee for follow-up after the final fence inspection; any formal action by the full council could follow when the committee forwards a recommendation.
