Kern County Planning Commission continues kennel permit hearing to May 8 after neighbor complains of persistent barking

The Kern County Planning Commission on March 13, 2025 voted 4‑0, with one member absent, to continue a decision on a request by John and Bonnie Thompson to make permanent a conditional use permit to operate a kennel for up to 25 dogs on a roughly 20‑acre parcel in the Pozzo Flats area to a hearing on May 8, 2025.

Staff recommended approval of the modification after reporting the kennel operated under a previous five‑year temporary permit without any official complaints recorded by county departments during that term. Mr. Murphy, a county planner, told commissioners the operation includes a 2,600‑square‑foot residence, a 400‑square‑foot indoor kennel area, outdoor fenced runs, and that Kern County Animal Services has “confirmed that the kennel has passed yearly inspections and as and is in compliance for the requirements for this type of operation.” The staff report said 15 Miki breed dogs are currently maintained and veterinary care is provided by Waskow Veterinary Clinic.

The hearing drew one adjacent neighbor, Jared Cope, who said he has contacted the planning department, animal services and code compliance “22 times” over the last two years and offered hours of audio and video recordings attempting to document persistent barking. “The barking is non stop,” Cope said. He said the noise has lasted for “hours upon hours” and has affected his enjoyment and the marketability of his property. A witness, Mike Bettis, testified he had been a guest at Cope’s property and that “the dogs are relentless and loud and noisy.”

Applicant John Thompson acknowledged at the hearing that the Thompsons had received texts from Cope about barking and described operational changes they say were adopted to reduce noise, including locking smaller dogs inside when they leave the property and using bark collars for larger dogs. “Since that last text from him, whenever we leave the property, we take the smaller dogs, we lock them inside,” Thompson said.

County counsel raised evidentiary concerns after Cope played video in the hearing that staff and the applicant had not previously received. “There’s no time on it. There’s no date on it. We have some evidentiary problems,” counsel said. Commissioners agreed not to decide the permit at the meeting so all parties could exchange evidence and avoid a surprise‑evidence due‑process problem. The commission voted to continue the item to May 8, 2025 and asked staff to provide guidance to Cope on how to submit his recordings and other material to the project planner, Ms. Sarah Eichenorz.

No formal enforcement record was reported in the staff presentation: Mr. Murphy told the commission that, at the time staff mailed hearing notices, the department had received no outstanding written opposition from notified property owners and that staff’s recommendation reflected the materials on file. Staff did note one departmental comment requesting confirmation of well capacity and one letter of neighbor support included in the record.

The continuance vote was 4 ayes, 1 absent. The commission recorded the continuance so staff would have time to compile a supplemental staff report addressing any newly submitted evidence and for the applicant and opponent to receive copies of that evidence in advance.

Next steps: the matter will be heard again on May 8, 2025 (per the motion on the record) after staff prepares an updated report; the commission directed Mr. Murphy and project planner Sarah Eichenorz to accept and distribute evidentiary material submitted by the neighbor in advance of the continued hearing.