Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 05-24-04 . ..~ ~v CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ~ May 24, 2004 ~ -~ () -() f ~ li. Northwood Hills, Section 1, Lot 6 - Easton Residence (SU-161-01) Petitioner seeks approval of a Special Use to continue a commercial kennel use originally Approved with Conditions for a period of eighteen (18) months on May 22, 2000, as Docket No. 8U-19-00. The site is located at 6320 Northwood Drive. The site is zoned S-I/Residence - Low Density. Filed by Gerald & Evelyn J. Easton. The first auuroval for the kennel took ulace on Mav 22. 2000. Here are exceruts from the minutes from the Mav 22. 2000 BZA meetin2. referrin2 to the kennel: 2h. Northwood Hills, Section 1, Lot 6 (SU-19-00) Petitioner seeks approval of a Special Use to establish a commercial kennel. The site is located at 6320 Northwood Drive. The site is zoned S-I/Residence. Filed by Bruce Boje for the Eastons. Over a period of years, the Eastons have taken in a number of pets who have been abandoned, injured, and in need of special care. Mrs. Easton at one time worked for Home for Friendless Animals and the driveway and front yard of their residence became a designated drop-off place for these types of animals. The Eastons have a fenced back yard for the dogs; they are all neutered, and all dogs have their shots. Since the current controversy, it was brought to the Eastons attention by the Department that due to the number of dogs, they were considered a commercial kennel under the Ordinance. The Eastons were advised that they would have to either seek a Variance or a Special Use to continue to keep the dogs. The Eastons have attempted to limit the amount of time the dogs are outside. With respect to the designation of "commercial kennel" -- it is not commercial in the sense that it is done for income or for profit -- these are domestic pets for their own personal use and enjoyment. The Eastons were surprised when they received notification by the Department of Community Services that they were considered a commercial kennel under the Ordinance and would need separate zoning approval. The Eastons had their dogs licensed through the Township Trustee's office and received a minor kennel license from Dixie Packard in the Township Assessor's office. The Eastons thought they had complied with the law. Mr. Boje stated that the Eastons do not want to open this for commercial use. If they are allowed to continue to keep the dogs, the Eastons request that approval only be for them and their use, and only for their situation, and that it not attach to the land and any property rights. The Eastons are willing to commit that no more animals will be added than currently housed by them. In addition to their dogs, they have two cats. Mr. Boje offered to submit pictures of the animals. In addition, through attrition, the Eastons will be able to bring the number of animals into compliance with the Ordinance. It is felt that the petitioner's request meets the Special Use requirements. Nothing is being changed about the residential use of the lot or the character of the area. No structures are being added; nothing is being done to alter the construction of the home. The dogs are not penned outside, the dogs do not generate traffic or income, and the dogs are not kept for commercial use... Steve Engelking, Director of the Department of Community Services, rendered the staff report. The issue before the Board is whether or not to grant a Special Use, which is allowed in a residential area for a commercial kennel. This has been an issue that the Department has been involved in for approximately two years, and it is an emotional one. Mr. Boje has correctly stated the situation that several complaint letters were received by the Eastons, and inspectors from the Department have visited the Eastons on a number of occasions to discuss the situation. Certified letters have been sent to the Eastons and at least one letter from the Department of Law of the City of Carmel. The contacts were over a period of two years, and predicated on the fact that there were initial conversations that seemed to have some fruitful ending in sight, only to find that that was not the case. At one point, the Eastons had offered to sell the property, and it was listed. At that point, the complaints seemed to subside. The property did not sell, and the Department re-visited the issue. The Ordinance is a quandry, but a commercial kennel is classified as anything greater than three pets. The characterization by Mr. Boje is somewhat misleading; there was confusion between the Township Trustee's office and the City of Carmel with regard to the Ordinance, in that the Township Trustee's office does issue pet licenses. However, they do not issue licenses for any commercial operation or kennel operation, only dog licenses or cat licenses. The Township was unaware of this Ordinance for a number of years, and they have since been advised in writing. The Department report is somewhat analogous to what Mr. Boje has offered for some sort of mediation. If the Board chooses to approve the Special Use, they could condition it for a period of time perhaps consistent with the attrition of the pets down to a legal number allowed within a residential zone. The public hearing was then closed. Questions and Comments from the Board: Leo Dierckman asked to see a copy of the Minor Kennel Permit issued by the Township. Pat Rice asked for clarification of the Minor Kennel License, which is for less than 15 dogs. Terry Jones stated that the Minor Kennel License is a form that the Township Trustee's office uses. The Township does issue dog tags and specifies certain numbers for major and minor kennels. The result of discussion with the previous Trustee is that they are required to issue the license or a tag seeking the license and not necessarily bound by the zoning ordinances of the City. However, it does not relieve the individual of obtaining the licenses. The Township does notice the individual, but they do issue the license. Pat Rice stated that there is certainly reason for the confusion. John Molitor commented that the State Statute explicitly gives the power to the Trustee to issue the license outside the City limits. There is a Joinder Agreement in Carmel and Clay Township with regard to the zoning. The Trustee does not directly regulate the zoning, but does have the power to issue the permits or dog licenses. In a perfect world, there would be better communication and an ordinance would have been passed stating that the licenses should not be issued unless there is a certification that the zoning was in place--but this has not occurred yet. Leo Dierckman questioned the petitioner as to the actual number of pets in his ownership. Jerry Easton stated that he has 2 cats only. There are neighborhood cats that come around as well as raccoons and opossum. There are four dogs that are 11 years old, one is 13 years old, two are 14 years of age and need medication and special care. . . .. .Leo Dierckman proposed the following commitments: 1) no food accessible outside home and available to any stray animals, including the garage, in perpetuity. 2) no more than 3 dogs outside at anyone time and owner to be present in home when dogs are out. 3) Down to 7 dogs and two cats in 6 months. In other words, fmd homes for 5 dogs presently on the property. There would be a total of 30 months for the term of the permit and for the homeowner to come into total compliance. Michael Mohr agreed that this is an extremely difficult decision. Mr. Mohr was concerned with the length of term and that the neighborhood would be policing the situation and it may create chaos. There needs to be some resolution to the problems. Earlene P1avchak commented that in spirit, Mr. Dierckman's proposal is good, but in reality it would be difficult to enforce. The Eastons should be able to find a suitable home for the 5 dogs that are considered adoptable. The 7 feeble dogs would be difficult to place and would need different consideration--but to set a date for their demise is a little hard- hearted. As the dogs naturally expire, they should not be allowed to be replaced and the Eastons will eventually be in compliance. Pat Rice, no food outside is an absolutely essential idea and that one of the owners be present when dogs are outside is great, also, the natural attrition is good. Any violation in terms of dogs running in the neighborhood needs to be met with some consequence. There is certainly a discrepancy between the Township and the Ordinance. To take away the five dogs the Eastons have become attached to is a difficult decision. Ms. Rice stated she would be inclined to set limits with no outside food, the owner must be present when the dogs are out. Michael Mohr asked if there were an alternative to granting a commercial kennel license, and if there were any way to work out a compromise. Terry Jones responded that one of the problems is the number of animals--if they are over that number, by definition, it qualifies as a commercial kennel. Leo Dierckman commented that there needs to be some time constraints for a permit to expire within normal parameters. John Molitor asked that the Board consider the option to grant a special use with some commitments for a period of time, and when the commitment expires, the Eastons would come back to the Board with a report on the situation and possible renewal. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. SU-19-00, Northwood Hills, Section 1, Lot 6, with the following commitments: 1) No open food outside, animals are to be fed indoors (garage); 2) No more than 3 dogs are to be outside at anyone time and one owner must be on the premises during that time; 3) These commitments will expire in 18 months and the homeowner must return to the Board for a review of the situation. Through attrition, the petitioner will be down to 3 dogs and in compliance with the Ordinance. APPROVED 3 in favor, one opposed. (Michael Mohr). END. The second auuroval took ulace February 25. 2002 (after beinS! tabled in Januarv due to imurouer notice) at the BZA meetinS!. then. Here is an excerut of those meetinS! minutes: (Excerpt from January 28, 2002 BZA Meeting Minutes) "At this time, there was open discussion regarding Docket No. SU-161-01 Northwood Hills, Section 1, Lot 6, Special Use petition that was Tabled due to improper Publication of Notice. The petition expired in November 2001. "Department Recommendation, Laurence Lillig reiterated the Ordinance definition of a commercial kennel as being any lot on which four or more dogs or small animals at least 4 months of age are kept. There is no requirement of commercial sale involved. Mr. Lillig reminded the Board that the number of cats on the premises also counts toward the total number of animals present. The Department believes there are nine dogs and two cats, a total of 11 animals, on the site. If the Board does permit the Special Use to continue, the Department recommends written commitments be required as part of any such approval rather than conditions. A limitation on the number of animals at this site and a time limit would negate a kennel. Ms. Rice had several questions for the petitioner: the age of the youngest dog; the number of cats; and clean up ofthe yard. Ms. Rice asked Vicki Miller how many pets she had (one dog, two cats), and where they are fed (in the garage). The Millers have a cat door, but it has been kept closed because of the situation with the Eastons cats. Ms. Rice asked Ms. Kessler what she would recommend be done with the Eastons dogs? Ms. Kessler suggested they be given homes for the betterment of the neighborhood. Leo Dierckman said he had actually driven by the Easton property 3 or 4 times, and the garage door was open. The entire portion of the backyard is not visible from the street, but cats were seen about. Mr. Dierckman had stopped at the Millers and was in their backyard for the purpose of viewing the Eastons backyard; however, the case was not discussed. This IS a difficult situation for all concerned. Mr. Easton said the nine dogs range in age from 6 to 13/14 years. The age of the cats is hard to determine. Ms. Rice agreed that this is, indeed, a difficult decision and situation. Michael Mohr then closed the public hearing. Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Docket No. SU-161-01, Northwood Hills, Section 1, with the following written commitments: 1) No open food outside-animals are to be fed indoors. (garage) 2) No more than 2 dogs outside at anyone time, and a minimum of one (1) owner must be on the premises during those times. 3) By the end of the eighteen-month approval period, the owner must have reduced the number of animals to three (3) dogs and/or cats in compliance with the Ordinance. 4) At the end of the eighteen-month period, the owner must either return to the Board at its Monday, July 28, 2003 meeting to demonstrate that they have come into compliance with the Ordinance, OR apply for a new Special Use approval in time to be heard at the July 28, 2003 meeting. 5) Between the hours of9:00 AM and 11:00 AM, all 9 dogs will be permitted outdoors for a 30-minute period within that time frame. 6) The Eastons agree to contact the Sheriff, Humane Society or other appropriate body when stray cats or stray dogs appear on the property. 7) The Eastons agree not to acquire or adopt any additional animals--(any dog or cat that dies will not be replaced!). The motion was seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 3 in favor, one opposed (Michael Mohr). END. Carmel DOCS is asking the BZA for a review of their previous decision, prior to proceeding with enforcement action.