Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Webster Groves Board of Adjustment approves variance to allow private dog park at 354 Atlanta Avenue
Summary
The Board of Adjustment granted a use variance for a privately owned, for‑profit dog park at 354 Atlanta Avenue (docket 24‑20), finding the lot’s shape and setbacks create an unusual hardship. The board approved the variance by the required four‑member vote and directed staff to draft conditions and an ordinance for a future meeting in March.
The Webster Groves Board of Adjustment voted to approve a use variance for a privately owned, for‑profit dog park at 354 Atlanta Avenue (docket 24‑20), after finding the lot’s narrow shape and setback requirements leave it effectively undevelopable for conventional residential structures.
City planner Joel Pugh summarized the request to the board: “The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the planned use of the plot as a privately owned for profit dog park.” That request seeks relief from sections 53.073, 53.071 and 53.100 of the Webster Groves zoning code so the owner may continue operating the fenced and improved lot as a rental dog park.
The board’s discussion centered on two questions: whether the lot’s configuration creates an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty under the code’s standards, and whether a private, for‑profit dog park is an appropriate use in a residentially zoned A‑4 district. Members noted the parcel’s narrow frontage, depth and slope limit standard residential development and curb how accessory structures or a primary dwelling could be sited. One board member said the lot “can't be built on” in any practical way that would support a typical residence.
Property owner Steven Moore, who testified under oath, described improvements he made after purchasing the parcel as part of a property purchase and explained how the operation is run. “I'm not building anything. I mean, I built a retaining wall because the sidewalk was covered … it was just a fenced yard where people, you know, let their dogs run around,” Moore said. He said customers reserve time slots online, that he inspects and maintains the lot weekly, and that he requires proof of vaccinations through the reservation system.
Supporters who testified said there is local demand for a small, supervised off‑leash option. Regular user Steve Curran said he uses the site and that it fills a gap for owners living in apartments or without yards, and he added, “I strongly encourage you.” Another resident, Lacey Fields, asked the board to consider allowing a small structure later for shade or seating and suggested flexible hours tied to daylight.
The board voted to approve the variance; the chair announced that the vote met the required four‑member threshold for approval. The board instructed staff to draft an ordinance spelling out conditions — for example, limits on hours of operation, maximum dogs on site at a time, signage, waste removal responsibilities, parking guidance and any accessory‑structure rules — and return the item for formal ordinance language and a second review at a March meeting.
The board and staff emphasized that the variance grants permission only for the specific use identified (a privately owned dog park) and that the forthcoming ordinance will set enforceable conditions and limits. City staff also noted other municipal code provisions (animal control, nuisance and noise rules, business licensing) that could apply to operations on private property.
