Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Green Bay committee denies one over‑limit dog permit, approves another to advance to council
Summary
The Protection & Policy Committee denied an over‑the‑limit permit for a tenant at a large apartment complex after animal‑control staff cited repeated nuisance and safety complaints, but approved a separate townhouse resident’s appeal and will forward both recommendations to the Common Council on Dec. 2.
The Green Bay Protection & Policy Committee voted to deny an appeal by Raven Walling for an over‑the‑limit animal permit but approved a separate appeal by Laurie Walling and sent both recommendations to the full Common Council for final action on Dec. 2.
Animal‑control staff told the committee the city ordinance allows two dogs (a third with an excess‑animal permit) but does not contemplate four dogs in a rented unit. Staff described repeated complaints, dog attacks and accumulated animal waste at a large rental complex at 300 Bond Street and said management has repeatedly failed to enforce rules and often does not respond to city requests. The staff presentation noted management turnover and cited state statute 74.07 as the basis for vaccination and licensing enforcement.
Raven Walling, who identified herself at the hearing and gave a Bond Street address, said two of her four dogs are certified service animals and that she followed landlord guidance when she moved into a unit advertised as dog friendly. Reading a written statement, Walling said the dogs are vaccinated, spayed/neutered, well cared for and bonded together; she asked the committee to consider mental‑health and welfare impacts if she were required to remove family animals. “These dogs are my family. They are my support system,” she said.
Committee members acknowledged the emotional argument but said the decision turned on the concentration of animals across the property and the pattern of complaints. One member referenced officer testimony about repeated calls and a prior dangerous‑dog order at the property. After discussion, a committee member moved to deny Walling’s over‑the‑limit permit; the motion carried and the committee forwarded its recommendation that the Common Council uphold the denial.
By contrast, the committee approved Laurie Walling’s appeal for a different unit on the same Bond Street property. Laurie, who identified herself as living in a three‑bedroom townhouse on the development, told the committee her four small dogs include two emotional‑support animals and that the larger unit, separate entrance and her records of care made the request more appropriate. A member who supported approval cited unit size and separate access as material differences from the apartment case.
Both committee recommendations will be considered by the full Common Council at its Dec. 2 meeting. The committee’s action was explicitly framed as a recommendation; the council has final authority.
What the committee relied on
• Staff and animal‑control accounts that the apartment complex at 300 Bond Street has a history of animal‑related complaints, management nonresponse and at least one prior dangerous‑dog removal.
• The city ordinance the committee cited permits two dogs (three with an excess‑animal permit) and does not explicitly allow four dogs in a rented unit. The animal‑control presenter noted the ordinance and state animal statutes when explaining denial grounds.
• Testimony from the applicants describing housing layout, management communications and the dogs’ ages, vaccination status and certifications.
What happens next
The committee’s recommendations will be on the Common Council agenda Dec. 2 at 6 p.m. for final decisions. The committee record showed staff will also continue enforcement and outreach to management at the Bond Street properties.
