The Mountain View County subdivision and development appeal board has heard an appeal of the cancellation of the development permit for a dog kennel facility in the Water Valley-Winchell Lake community.
The hearing took place on Sept. 4 in council chambers.
The property involved is located along Highway 579 and Rge. Rd. 52 within a multi-lot residential subdivision.
The development permit is for a kennel facility with a maximum of 24 dogs. The county issued a cancellation notice of the development permit on July 25.
In issuing the cancellation notice, the county cited five reasons, including having “dogs at large”, having “dogs attacking or killing neighbours' pets”, having “strong odour of dog manure”, having “undisposed dog manure in buckets”, having the “kennel facility in a dilapidated and ruinous condition” and having the “kennel facility larger than approved site sketch.”
In a briefing note to the board, administration said, in part, that, “The county has a long history of complaints received related to the kennel facility which include contravention of the issued development permit conditions for the appellant’s kennel operation.”
Administration cited eight dates when complaints were received related to the property. Those complaints included dogs at large, dogs attacking other animals, noise, manure management, dogs being aggressive, and dogs killing cats and a pig.
A total of 17 tickets have been issued regarding the property under the county’s dog control bylaw, including five tickets issued on Sept. 13, 2016 and eight on May 12, 2017.
The July 25 cancellation notice required permanently removing all but three dogs from the property and decommissioning and removing from the property all components of the kennel structure.
In his notice of appeal, appellant and property owner Allan Charles Pace called on the board to reinstate his development permit issued in July 2001 or allow a new permit.
“If the appellant is unable to carry on as a hobby breeder, as he has done for the past 30 years, and for the most part without incident, it will cause emotional distress to lose the remaining dogs and financial hardship to lose the supplemental income that he has come to rely on,” he said.
“I am not aware of when the number of dogs on a landowner’s property became a consideration and required a development permit. I question whether I need a development permit to have up to 24 dogs or even 16 dogs on my property. I am wondering whether this is a licencing issue as opposed to a development issue.”
Pace told the board he has recently improved fencing on his property and also made changes to the way he handles dog manure to reduce odours.
Also during the hearing, a number of Pace’s neighbours related stories of a pig being attacked by dogs from the property, and noise and odour concerns.
The subdivision and development board is expected to release its ruling on the appeal sometime this month.
