GREEN RIVER — The Green River City Council unanimously denied a special use permit for a house with five dogs following the testimony of a neighbor whose son was reportedly attacked by one of the dogs in June.

Ja’Nell Tanner submitted a letter to the Green River Planning and Zoning Commission in July requesting the permit to help out a friend. Tanner owns a dog walking and sitting business, and had been taking care of two dogs for a client named Dorothy Scutt.

Scutt fell ill and was moved to the Mission at Castle Rock, where she eventually passed away. Scutt’s family was no longer able to take care of the two dogs, and Tanner began keeping them at her home alongside her three dogs. In her application, Tanner said she wanted to keep all five dogs until two died, at which point she would be back down to the city’s three-dog maximum. 

Rob Fischer, planning and zoning administrator, told the council that the commission recommended approval on Aug. 12 with the stipulation that the permit last two years, contingent on no nuisance citations or court appearances, and becomes void once Tanner’s dog count returns to the allowed limit.  

Two neighbors within 200 feet of the residence submitted letters opposing the permit, citing concerns over noise. Fischer said animal control was not contacted ahead of the commission’s recommendations and assumed the department was already aware of the situation. After the fact, animal control submitted their own letter of opposition citing concerns about setting a precedent for residents seeking special use permits to keep extra pets. 

During the public hearing, two residents who identified themselves as Karlee and Kody Brady told the council their 13-year-old son was attacked by one of Tanner’s dogs in June while riding his bicycle down the street. Karlee said the dog bit her son twice and he had to use his bike as a barrier to get away. Karlee said the bites left two puncture wounds and abrasions where the dog’s teeth broke the skin, and his leg was bleeding when she picked him up. She claimed Tanner was present during the attack and did not intervene. 

Karlee said Tanner’s son answered the door and wouldn’t talk with her about the bite. Karlee then reported the attack to the police, and animal control followed up with Tanner. When asked whether or not they wanted to press charges, the Bradys declined because they were told two of the dogs would be temporarily removed and the attacking dog permanently removed from the home.

Two days after the attack, Karlee said her son’s leg became infected, requiring an urgent care visit and a 10-day course of antibiotics. She said the injury left her son with visible scars and he now avoids riding his bike past the Tanners’ residence.

“I understand that there may be compassionate circumstances behind why she is caring for these dogs, and I’m not here to question those circumstances or attack anyone personally, but it cannot come at the expense of public safety,” Karlee told the council. 

The Bradys weren’t aware of the special use permit application until they heard it on the radio the morning of the meeting. Since they live farther than 200 feet from the Tanner residence, they were not sent a public notice. 

Phillip Stanton, member of the planning and zoning commission, addressed the council, saying the commission was unaware of the dog bite incident until the night of the meeting. Since the incident was not in their packet, they assumed that it wasn’t a bad bite and the two parties handled it “neighborly”.

“I’m not speaking for the whole planning committee, but me personally, if I’d have known there was an incident that caused a puncture wound and an infection, that would have changed the whole outcome,” Stanton said. 

Tanner did not address the council during the meeting. 

Councilman Mike Shutran’s motion to table the item failed unanimously. City Attorney Galen West recommended the council vote on the item instead, calling it “cleaner.” Councilman Gary Killpack then moved to approve the special use permit, seconded by Councilman Robert Berg. The motion failed unanimously, denying the permit.