pf10-024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � � � Bryan Lloyd ' 1 r� �� ( %'"C;�w � From: Don Munson Posted At: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:15 AM Conversation: Dog daycare as an interim use at 1430 Co. Rd. C- Final Review Posted To: DRC - Final Review Subject: Dog daycare as an interim use at 1430 Co. Rd. C- Final Review ; �� i',�� ;S, , ?' 4 19.� /��r.1aK"�. �=-__ j� � AP They say in the first year there will be 10 dogs, but what is the maximum, we should know this going in. I would argue that the outdoor dog area constitutes outdoor storage (product) which is not allowed in the industrial district. Vehicles and equipment are allowed outside in industrial districts but they are expected and specifically regulated as to setbacks. If the dog use is allowed, it should only be for inside the building (prohibit the outside dog area as not allowed). The exterior dog area is incompatible with the adjoin residential area, it will generate complaints that will be very difficult to resolve. Lack of proper waste disposal (inside and outside) is a concern and a potential health threat. We don't have answers currently. Would have to be researched if a permit came in. Might be expensive. From: Bryan Lloyd Posted At: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:54 PM Posted To: DRC - Final Review Conversation: Dog daycare as an interim use at 1430 Co. Rd. C- Final Review Subject: Dog daycare as an interim use at 1430 Co. Rd. C- Final Review The proposed physical plans are here, and you can find more to read on the subject here and here. There was lots of concern at the initial review about noise from barking and odors from waste. I'm a little conflicted about it myself because the applicant's materials seems to address the noise issue is a very straight- forward way and their knowledge/experience with the field of dog daycare leads them to conclude that dog daycares are not noise nuisances. And I'm not too versed in the odor aspects either; I'll plan to do a little research on the topic. I didn't see this addressed in the application, but the applicant plans to own the property through a lease-to-own kind of scenario. That makes a stinky warehouse building their problem if they don't adequately protect the floor from dog waste. If indoor sanitation isn't regulated by a third-party, can/should we make the installation of some sanitation system a condition of approval? If so, what should that be? In any case, I would argue that the use is, indeed, allowed by the zoning ordinance; "dog Kennels" are conditional uses in all inustrial districts. Now, it could be that a kennel (or this use, which I would think is less