Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Permit Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council grants resident’s appeal to keep four dogs after heated public testimony
Summary
After public testimony and testimony from a humane officer, the Green Bay Common Council granted Raven Wallene’s appeal of a denied over‑limit animal permit by a 7–5 board vote. Officer Mavis said the denial reflected building‑wide management and saturation concerns; supporters cited the dogs’ ages and the owner’s compliance.
The Green Bay Common Council voted on Dec. 16 to grant an appeal by resident Raven Wallene allowing her to keep four dogs after the humane officer had recommended denial, citing a congested apartment complex and repeated animal‑control complaints.
Wallene and supporters described the animals as older, well‑behaved and part of the family. Cale Lehi, who testified in support, said Wallene “followed all the rules” and emphasized the dogs’ ages and stability in the household. Wallene told the council she had registered two emotional‑support animals (ESAs) with the complex and submitted ESA paperwork and certificates; she said management had approved her dogs and that she sought individualized consideration.
Officer Mavis, a nationally certified humane officer with 18 years’ city service, recommended denial. She told the council the city’s ordinance limits each dwelling unit to two dogs and three cats and that this particular apartment building had chronic animal‑control issues, management turnover and prior aggressive‑dog incidents. Mavis said a prior variance filing had been improperly signed by facility staff who did not have authority and that management had been inconsistent in enforcement.
Council members debated discretion versus strict enforcement. Alder Johnson, who moved to grant the appeal, said the appeal process exists to handle nuance and that the council could exercise discretion for an individual case where the animals showed no documented behavioral problems and were elderly. Opponents, citing Officer Mavis’s experience and public‑safety concerns, urged enforcement against building management and broader abatement procedures.
After discussion the council requested a board vote; the motion to grant the appeal passed 7–5. The council also discussed next steps for management enforcement and chronic‑nuisance proceedings separate from the individual appeal.
The decision grants Wallene an exception in this individual case; council members said systemic issues at the apartment property would be addressed through enforcement and abatement processes.
