Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Protection Policy Committee deadlocks on appeal of excess-animal permit for 2566 Remington Court; goes to Common Council
Loading...
Summary
The committee split 2–2 on whether to overturn the denial of an excess-animal permit for a Remington Court property after police presented a multi-year incident history and neighbors offered conflicting accounts. The item will be heard by the Common Council on April 21 with no committee recommendation.
A 2–2 tie Tuesday left no recommendation from the Protection Policy Committee on an appeal of a denied excess-animal permit for the property listed at 2566 Remington Court, sending the matter to the Common Council on April 21 for final decision.
Officer Mayans of the Green Bay Police Department told the committee she reviewed a series of calls for service tied to the address dating back to 2018, including two incidents involving a dog named Roscoe and more recent reports involving a dog identified in police records as Daisy. "She does currently meet criteria for a dangerous dog. We're not deeming her dangerous at this time," Officer Mayans said, adding that the denial was based on the "totality of the circumstances" and a continuing risk of nuisance and uncontrolled animals in public rights of way.
The officer gave specific dates for documented incidents: complaints in 2018, a July 22, 2020 attack that resulted in a citation for the prior occupant, a March 17, 2025 incident, and a reported incident on Jan. 5, 2026. She explained that state-required quarantine applies when a bite breaks human skin; other reports are documented but may not meet quarantine thresholds.
The applicants (listed in the record as Diane Krause and Dan/ Daniel Tilot) spoke in their own defense and presented photos and a map of the property. One applicant said she had obtained licenses and vaccinations since moving in and disputed that Daisy had been quarantined or caused human injury. "I don't know what I'm supposed to do with these dogs. Am I supposed to shoot them? Give them all away?" the resident asked during testimony, arguing the animals are family members and that neighbors' complaints do not reflect the full picture.
A neighbor, Tracy T. Lai, told the committee she supported the household and urged leniency: "Do we not want to improve Green Bay by bringing people here that are assets to the Green Bay?" she asked, saying the couple and their dogs should not be forced to choose between their relationship and keeping pets.
Committee members weighed police documentation and neighbor statements against the applicants' current compliance. Some members said the record showed a pattern of uncontrolled animals across different dogs and household occupants; others noted the applicants obtained licenses and appeared willing to follow conditions. The city attorney advised that questions about restrictive covenants or homeowner-association rules are private civil matters and not within committee enforcement.
A motion to deny the appeal was made and seconded; after voice voting the tally stood at two in favor of denial and two opposed, leaving the committee without a majority recommendation. "It's going to Common Council on April 21 with no recommendation," the chair said at the meeting's close.
Because the committee did not reach a final determination, council members will review the record and make the binding decision at that meeting. The committee and staff noted that future enforcement actions—if additional incidents occur—could include citations under city ordinance 6-6 and penalties for dog-causing-injury and related violations.
