OK, flame me or not about what I did last night.

I'm a member of my town's Zoning Board of Appeal. Last night we heard a petition for a special permit to allow a "kennel" in a rural residential zoning district. The petitioner was a woman who owns 15 dogs that she breeds and shows. There are about 50 puppies born each year which she sells. These are pure bred dogs.

The petitioner bought the property 2 years ago and says her broker told her she could run this kennel. She never checked with the town. After a few months of operating, the neighbors began to complain because, according to the crowd of neighbors who showed up for the hearing, the dogs barked incessently from early morning to late at night. They also roamed around the neighborhood. After the complaints, the Board of Selectmen told the petitioner that she had to get a permit from us. She waited another year before she applied. Her basic argument to us last night was "I've been operating this kennel for almost 2 years so you have to let me continue."

Because I'm a lawyer, my Board always asks me my opinion first so last night I said that this was a very difficult position for the Board to be put in but that we were not in the business of permitting an obvious nuisance. I told the petitioner that it was her responsibility to have checked the zoning before she bought the property. I told her that if everybody figured that they could operate something illegally and then come to the town for a blessing, we'd have a ton of illegal uses and unhappy neighbors.

I told this woman that I could not vote to grant the permit but that I hoped that she would work with her neighbors to solve the noise problem and the roaming problem. The rest of the Board agreed and we denied her petition. Do you think we did the right thing?

:hi:

And I wouldn't want a puppy mill next door to me, either. You probably did the dogs a grand favor as well.

We have a similar ongoing problem in the Napa Valley. City slickers come to the valley and buy property. They know when they buy it they can't: a.) put outdoor seating for the restaurant; b.) expand the parking lot; c.) tear down a historic building; d.) put in a vineyard in that location... or whatever. But they buy whatever it is they are buying and try to sneak whatever it is they want... or get a referendum on the ballot. One b**ch not only tore down the historic building, but got her restaurant expansion plans on the ballot twice. We defeated it both times. At present she rented out the property to someone who is running a restaurant in the existing space (sans the historical building). But she will be back, and sooner or later she'll spend enough money in the right places to get what she wants.

Pisses me off. :mad:

...the applicant put you in a difficult position. What else could you do?

I think you absolutely did the right thing.

That would be like someone knowingly putting a pig farm downtown then saying "what smell?" when the summer heat baked it, right? It seems that simple to me.

:shrug:

She may have a kennel, but if her dogs are roaming the neighborhood she doesn't seem to have the proper equipment and staffing to maintain it. Backyard puppy mill is more like it.

...I can't help but sympathize with this woman. (I only have 5, and they're a quiet breed, but still.) I've never really seen the sense in random and draconian zoning ordinances, which seem intended to homogenize the neighborhood, force everyone into the same mold, and deny people their individuality and self-expression. Of course it's hard to know where to draw the line; I wouldn't necessarily advocate allowing people to pile junker cars on their front lawn, but why deny someone a home business? Why tell them what color they can or can't paint their house? Why tell someone they can't hang laundry out to dry in their own yard?? That's the kind of thing I object to.

Regarding the kennel, the dogs should not be roaming, for their own safety as well as for the neighborhood's sake. That's an issue that needs to be addressed. And yes, she should have checked on any potential problems before buying the property. But how bad is the barking issue, really? Is it a couple of cranky neighbors complaining if they hear an occasional bark - is it any worse than screaming kids, loud stereos, and power lawnmowers?

It's not a cut-and-dried issue. But I'd hope that the neighborhood and the zoning board has some love for animals and some understanding of the hardship involved if the owner now has to sell the place and move, or have to get rid of her dogs. If the realtor told her she was fine, then this person is at least partially at fault, too.

Not flaming you, just giving my take.

I hated the idea of disrupting the woman's business but that was the bind she put us in. She does not have to get rid of the dogs but she will have a nuisance problem if they keep barking and roaming. If she wants to run her business she'll have to make some physical changes to the property.

The neighbors were very calm amd one after another said the barking was loud and incessant.

The zoning laws in this town are very minimal...mainly geared to heath, safety and quiet enjoyment. I do think that in a residential area people have the right to peace and quiet. I did encourage this woman to work with her neighbors and come up with a solution. She can always come back to us.

:thumbsup:

I bet she doesn't have the required licensure from the USDA, either.

Zoning laws are there for a reason.