Centre Wellington council has refused a permit for a zoning amendment application and new kennel license application in former Nichol Township.
The municipal council chambers was packed on July 20 as area residents awaited council’s decision.
Township planner Mariana Iglesias recommended council amend the zoning bylaw and authorize the chief building official to approve a new kennel license.
Iglesias said the rezoning would allow a commercial kennel operation on a property – 7629 4th Line – that does not meet the minimum size or setbacks as required by the township.
A public meeting was held on May 25, during which several oral and written submissions were presented. While some supported the proposal, Iglesias said the majority had concerns about the application, primarily unrestrained dogs, potential noise and visual impacts, and disposal of animal waste.
She stated planning staff has reviewed the application and is now satisfied the intent of the regulations can be maintained due to the location of the lot, which is buffered by surrounding farmland, and measures the proponent has agreed to put in place.
Iglesias said the owner agreed to fence the entire operation to keep the animals from getting loose.
In addition, if approved, the owner agreed to a phased approach to enlarge the operation over a number of years, beginning with the request to keep 15 to 20 dogs in a building roughly the size of a double car garage, in addition to fenced exercise areas.
Iglesias noted the township can limit the number of dogs in the operation if regulations are not strictly adhered to.
“Staff are very aware of the concerns of the residents and neighbours and will keep these in mind throughout the entire process,” she said.
“But staff is convinced the concerns raised have been satisfactorily mitigated through fencing and phasing.”
She noted additional matters could be addressed through licensing and inspection of the facility and that staff considers the proposal an appropriate accessory use of the land in a rural area.
Councillor Kirk McElwain asked specifically about potential noise issues, wondering how complaints would be addressed and how often people would be sent to investigate those complaints.
Clerk Kerri O’Kane said the process is similar to enforcement of other bylaws.
“The case of dogs isn’t handled any differently than any other noise complaint in the township,” she said, noting the idea is the complaint must not be of a frivolous nature.
“What would qualify is persistent barking, perhaps over several hours … it is monitored and regulated.
“But people cannot be there 24/7, but we’ve been assured by the applicant that this is a business and the dogs are important and not going to be left outside for extended periods and will be brought in at a reasonable time.”
At the same time, the dogs need to be exercised and enjoy a quality of life.
“It is regulated by the animal control officer,” O’Kane said.
She added the officer is dispatched when there is a complaint, “but like anything else, there may be a queue as to when he is able to investigate.”
McElwain stated that after a number of legitimate complaints an acoustical consultant might be brought in.
“Who is going to pay for that?” he asked.
O’Kane said the noise evaluation study is at the cost of the applicant.
McElwain noted there were two words in the document “that bug the hell out of me every time I see them in this context – they are ‘mitigate’ and ‘minimize’. It automatically means someone’s quality of life will be negatively impacted and we’re supposed to feel good if it’s not as bad as it could be.”
O’Kane said the applicant agreed to move some buildings, put up fencing and there is some natural buffering as well.
“A noise evaluation study would determine if the mitigating factors in place are effective or not,” she said.
Mayor Kelly Linton said typically the requirement for such operations is 15 acres, while this proposal is on a property three-quarters of an acre in size – “It’s a huge difference.”
Linton asked staff for rationale why this would be acceptable.
Iglesias said the property size was intended to mitigate impacts to local residents.
“Staff looks at the intent of the zoning regulations and whether they can be met,” she said.
She added that even if the applicant had tried to purchase adjacent land – it would not have changed anything.
“All it would have done is remove land from being farmed.”
Because of a farm severance, the land adjacent to the applicant’s property can only be used for farming so it essentially acts as the buffer required within the zoning, Iglesias said.
Council Fred Morris said “this is a tough one, folks.” Morris said he’d spent the previous weekend weighing the sound arguments on both sides of the issue.
He then brought up the Canadian Code of Practice for Canadian Kennels, noting, “I do believe our staff report is flawed. I believe our entire bylaw is flawed.”
Morris explained the buffer zone of 14 acres is not primarily to act as a sound buffer.
“According to the experts, the buffer zone is required for the safety and health of the dogs.”
He said the dogs need room to run and move about and be separated at certain times.
Morris maintained the bylaw is flawed because it only addressed concerns of the neighbours – not the dogs.
“We’re talking about living creatures here. Dogs that feel pain, have anxieties, much the same as human beings,” said Morris, who opposed the application “because in the interest of dogs, this three-quarters of an acre is not enough.”
Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen also struggled with the issue, being an advocate of business within country lots.
But VanLeeuwen struggled because the property is so small and because of the type of business involved.
“We’re talking about something that doesn’t really fit three-quarters of an acre no matter how we spin it.”
Councillor Stephen Kitras said he advocated using rural spaces for businesses, but meeting all the requirements of a planning document is not the same thing as living there.
“Living in the area is not theoretical, it is actual,” he said, adding the requirement for 14 acres exists for a reason.
The recommendation to approve the rezoning and kennel licence application was defeated by council.
Council then passed a motion to refuse the zoning amendment application.
