Council has directed that appropriate sound buffering be included in a draft bylaw for a zoning amendment to allow the creation of a kennel at a property on Concession 9 in former Peel Township.
Applicant Jennifer Walter is seeking the amendment to use an existing 1,500 square foot shed on the 100 acre property for a dog kennel. The lands are currently zoned agricultural and are occupied by a dwelling, drive shed, two poultry barns and a shed.
Wellington County senior planner Curtis Marshall notes in a report the proposed amendment would permit a commercial kennel to operate on a site specific basis on the property. Current bylaws restrict the use in all zones unless specifically permitted by an amendment.
“We are generally supportive of the kennel operation on the property as this location provides a suitable distance away from neighbouring dwellings and barns used for livestock,” Marshall explains in the report.
“Council however, may wish to consider requiring additional buffering to ensure neighbouring properties to the southwest and southeast are not negatively impacted. This additional buffering may be provided in the form of planting, solid fencing and/or berming around the kennel operation.
“This buffering can be implemented through a license for the operation under the township kennel bylaw,” Marshall told council.
“Some concerns have been raised by a neighbouring property owner in respect to noise by barking.”
The report notes the applicant has operated a commercial kennel in Mapleton for the past 11 years and has recently sold that land.
“They are looking to move the existing kennel operation to the family farm on Concession 8, where they can convert the existing building into the commercial kennel.”Mapleton chief building official Patty Wright noted the applicant is the township’s current animal control officer, so any inspections required for the kennel would be handled by the township’s bylaw enforcement officer.
“Would you be opposed if we asked you to put up a row of trees along the front of your kennel?” councillor Dennis Craven asked the applicant.
“Not at all. We are quite happy to do whatever is necessary,” replied Walters.
Councillor Lori Woodham expressed a preference for a berm as a sound barrier.
However Marshall suggested a berm, which would be required to be 1.8 metres high, might create problems for the applicant in terms of maintaining the property.
“My concern with a full berm at 1.8 metres, if you’re going to have a three-to-one slope, you’re going to be taking up quite a large area,” he explained.
Walters said she would have no problem putting up trees and possibly a fence.
Marshall said he would speak further with the applicant and include buffering plans in a draft bylaw to be presented for consideration.
