Clayton BZA tables appeal by Greenacre Labs over revocation of kennel zoning certificate

The City of Clayton Board of Zoning Appeals on Aug. 5 voted to table an administrative appeal by Sandy Green of Greenacre Labs LLC, who is challenging the zoning administrator’s May 2025 revocation of zoning certificate No. 2024230 for a boarding/kennel use at 6070–6090 Taywood Road.

The zoning administrator revoked the certificate on the basis of “material misrepresentation and nondisclosure in the original zoning certificate application,” staff members told the board. Ellen Snyder, city planning staff, said the certificate originally issued July 25, 2024, described an indoor boarding/kennel use, and staff received complaints and site observations that dog breeding and the housing of dogs in uninsulated greenhouse structures were taking place.

“Staff recommends the Board of Zoning Appeals uphold the revocation of the zoning certificate number 2024230,” Snyder read in the staff report. The staff report references Clayton Codified Ordinance section 11 41.98 as the procedural basis for the appeal and cites provisions allowing revocation if a certificate was issued on false statements or misrepresentations.

Sandy Green, the applicant and tenant at the property, disputed the factual basis for the revocation. Green told the board she had applied for and received a kennel/boarding certificate and that she does not breed dogs at that location. “I do have my dogs there, my personal dogs there, just because it's kind of like a testing thing for me,” Green said, adding that greenhouse areas had not been used as sleeping quarters and that she planned to use one greenhouse for daycare-type activities. Green also said she obtained a Montgomery County kennel license to cover dog tagging and that she believed she had followed city guidance when applying.

City staff identified two documents missing from the application package: Ohio Department of Agriculture registration (if required as a large-scale breeder) and a Montgomery County kennel license. Staff told the board no such documentation had been submitted for review as of the hearing. Board members also discussed earlier communications and settlement discussions between city staff and the applicant; counsel for the applicant said those discussions were “settlement discussion[s]” and not dispositive of the board’s review.

Board members asked whether the applicant could secure documentation from the county auditor or other agencies; Green said she already held a kennel license and that outside organizations (she referenced an inspection by AKC) had inspected her operation. Green also told the board she paid for building-plan work and a building-permit fee but that the city would not release a building permit while the zoning matter remained unresolved.

After testimony and discussion, a board member moved to table the appeal for additional evidence; another member seconded. The roll-call vote was recorded as all present voting yes and the board set the matter for the next BZA meeting on Sept. 2 at 7:00 p.m.

Discussion vs. decision: the board’s action was purely procedural to table the appeal to allow both sides to present additional evidence. No substantive ruling reversing or upholding the zoning administrator’s revocation was made at the Aug. 5 meeting.

The record shows conflicting accounts: staff contends the operation differed materially from what was represented when the certificate was issued; the applicant contends she disclosed the boarding/kennel use, did not intend to and does not breed at that site, and has taken steps (licenses, inspections, building plans) to comply with regulatory requirements. The board’s tabling preserves the record for further evidence and a possible final decision at the Sept. 2 hearing.