Calaveras planning panel upholds permit for 5-dog boarding facility amid neighbors' noise, road concerns

The Calaveras County Planning Commission on an appeal hearing upheld an administrative use permit for a small dog-boarding operation at 1298 Apple Blossom Drive in Murphys, denying an appeal that argued the use would create a noise nuisance and pose safety and maintenance costs on a private road easement.

The permit allows an existing 20-by-25-foot kennel converted to a five-dog run boarding facility on a 40.83-acre parcel zoned A-1 (General Agriculture). Planning staff told the commission that the AUP (AUP2024-082) includes conditions that cap daily vehicle trips at the level of a single-family residence (7.5 average daily trips), require an on-site full-time caretaker, restrict nighttime outdoor access, and require drainage from runs into an approved septic system; staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the permit.

Planning staff said the parcel has split General Plan designations of Working Lands and Rural Transition and that the A-1 zone permits animal boarding with an approved AUP. Brett Sampson of the planning department said staff routed the application to county departments and notified property owners within 300 feet; staff received neighbor comments raising traffic, noise and public-safety concerns and determined, after consultation with county counsel and public works, that legal access via a 50-foot bridal road easement and recorded grant deed satisfied access requirements.

Neighbors and the appellant, represented by attorney Mikayla Whitney for Dr. Ralph (Ralph) Niven, told the commission they hear speech and other sounds from the Glanville property, and said topography (hilltop-to-hilltop and canyon echoes) makes barking likely to travel farther than typical. Whitney urged denial or additional conditions including a noise study, relocation or reorientation of outdoor runs away from the canyon, and requirements that the property owner bear road-increase costs and indemnify neighbors if third parties use the bridal easement to access the business.

Applicant Noah Glanville and his son Max described the project as a small, family-run enterprise limited to five runs and dogs no larger than about 35 pounds. Glanville said the runs have solid partitions to prevent dogs from seeing one another, that floors are sloped to drains tied to the septic system, and that dogs will be kept inside in an insulated kennel during nighttime hours. He also said the kennel faces BLM land and that the family has cleared and maintained parts of the private easement.

Animal Services staff (Elise Medina, Environmental Management Agency Administrator, and manager Michael Vasquez) told the commission their office enforces County Code nuisance provisions for animals and that barking complaints vary by circumstance; they noted some summonses and that even a single dog can be the subject of enforcement depending on facts and evidence. Planning staff said the project was found categorically exempt from CEQA under the guideline the report cited (staff referenced the exemption for structures similar in size/use to those listed under CEQA Section 15303(c)).

Commission discussion focused first on noise. Some commissioners said the distance to nearby commenters (staff repeatedly cited roughly 1,300 feet to the closest neighbor, another at 1,341 feet and others at more than 2,000 feet) and the site conditions reduced the likelihood of a code-level nuisance; other commissioners and several neighbors said voices and other sounds already carry between hilltops and that five dogs could create a recurring disturbance. Commissioners also debated whether the planning department properly evaluated "potential" adverse effects required by County Code for an AUP or instead relied on post-approval conditions and existing nuisance enforcement.

After discussion and procedural motions, the commission voted to deny the appeal and uphold approval of AUP2024-082. The final approval stands subject to the AUP conditions in the staff packet (including the ADT cap of 7.5 trips, caretaker residency, indoor nighttime kenneling, drainage to septic, and compliance with county nuisance/animal code provisions); staff also noted signage, sight-mirror and other traffic-safety measures could be added and the applicant agreed to install partitions and take other mitigation steps described at the hearing.

The decision can be appealed to the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors within 15 calendar days of the commission's action. If complaints arise later, Animal Services and code enforcement remain the county's enforcement path under existing ordinances; neighbors were advised that civil remedies related to the private road easement remain a separate matter for private litigation.