Volusia County Council upholds 30‑dog limit at Southern Coast Canine; owners given 90 days to comply

The Volusia County Council on Feb. 4 denied an appeal from Southern Coast Canine and upheld a Development Review Committee condition that limits the number of dogs housed overnight at the training facility on Meadowlane to 30, giving the operator 90 days to comply.

The appeal asked the council to remove the 30‑dog limit imposed during the site‑plan approval process; the business said it historically had more animals on site and sought a higher cap. Attorney Joseph Koveshesh, representing the business, told the council his client had operated with “between about 80 and 100” animals before the condition was added and asked the council to allow a higher number or more time to reduce animals on site.

The council heard extended public testimony from neighbors who live adjacent to the facility. Residents described recurring barking, odors and heavy traffic on a private, dead‑end dirt road. “We are prisoners of our own homes,” said Katie Bowden, identified in the meeting as a resident, who urged the council to deny any increase. Several neighbors described property‑value and safety concerns and said they had repeatedly sought relief through staff and code enforcement.

Staff said the site has a long history of compliance issues that led to the special‑exception and site‑plan process. County staff described the 30‑dog limit as a condition reflected in the staff report that accompanied the 2022 special‑exception approval and noted the site plan was later approved with that restriction.

After questions from council members about enforcement, noise measurement and whether mitigation measures could be required, Councilman Troy Kent moved to uphold the DRC condition limiting overnight kenneling to 30 animals and to require compliance within 90 days. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote with all seven council members voting yes.

Council members and staff said the council could direct staff to work with the operator on site‑specific noise abatement measures and bring back a report; councilmembers also said they wanted a measurable follow‑up so the county could return the matter to the council if violations continued.

The council noted options the operator still has after the decision: (1) pursue an amendment to the special exception through the Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission and the council; or (2) comply with the 30‑dog limit within the timeline. Staff said code‑enforcement remedies could follow if the operator failed to meet the deadline.

The council’s action did not require immediate shutdown; it required the operator to reduce the number of animals to the approved limit and left open the ability to apply for a different, public hearing‑level approval later.