Buffalo Township denies permit for proposed dog kennel
BUFFALO TWP — After a contentious public hearing, the board of supervisors denied Robert and Jacqueline Micholas’s request for a conditional use permit to operate a dog kennel and boarding facility at their home on Beale Road.
The request was denied on the grounds that, according to the township’s ordinances, operating a dog kennel is not a permissible use in the zoning district the property was located in: R-2 residential.
“There is no conditional use for dog kennel and grooming within the R-2 district,” Farrington said. “It is permitted in the A-1 (agricultural) district.”
In the weeks leading up to the meeting on Wednesday night, March 13, the township received seven letters from residents who expressed concerns about a dog kennel being established in a residential neighborhood. Most of the letters were from neighbors concerned about noise from dogs impacting both quality of life and property values in their neighborhood.
“Beale Road is a quiet street, and we value the peace and quiet that our home’s location provides,” wrote Matt Slamecka. “The noise generated by the dogs and the associated activities may cause disturbance to the neighboring residences.”
“We currently have to keep our windows closed in the evenings and overnight due to the noise caused by the multiple dogs located next to the proposed kennel,” wrote Robert and Jennifer Kramer. “We don't believe keeping our windows shut will keep out the additional noise of the kennel.”
The board of supervisors meeting was preceded by a public hearing where the letters, along with other items, were admitted into evidence.
Attorney John Pallone, who represented the Micholas couple, defended their right to operate a dog kennel out of their home. In his project narrative, he noted three dog kennels previously had been approved for R-2 districts, with at least one starting operation before the current ordinance came into effect.
“We do think the ordinance, in its current condition, is prohibitive towards residents and property owners,” Pallone said.
Pallone also defended his clients against accusations the proposed dog kennel would negatively impact the surrounding the neighborhood.
“This isn't your average kennel with chain-link fences and dogs running wild,” Pallone said. “Quite frankly, this is the Waldorf of dog kennels. These animals are going to be pampered.”
Pallone objected to the admission of the letters into evidence, an objection the supervisors overruled. He also asked Farrington to recuse himself from further discussion of the matter, as he believed Farrington had “encouraged the board to make rulings and decisions on areas” when the property was discussed at Buffalo Township planning commission meetings in February and March.
“Frankly, that is the most ridiculous and outlandish accusation I have ever heard at one of these hearings,” Farrington said.
In addition to the letters, some residents showed up at the municipal building to speak against the kennel in person. Among them were Edward and Sylvia Walters, who live near where the Micholas couple planned to operate their kennel.
“We've never had any problems with any of our neighbors in 44 years. We get along with everybody. We like to sit out on our deck in the evening and listen to music where it's quiet,” Edward said. “Having dogs there is not recommended for our neighborhood. I don't care if you put sound barriers up; they’ve still got to go outside.”
