Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Animal Use 5902 Dairy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies variance for doggy daycare separation at 5902 Dairy Road after neighbor objections
Summary
Commissioners denied a variance that would have allowed an indoor dog daycare and boarding facility at 5902 Dairy Road to locate within 300 feet of single-family homes; staff cited lack of required waivers and potential impacts to adjacent residences.
The Victoria City Planning Commission on Dec. 19 denied a variance request that would have reduced the required separation for a proposed commercial animal use at 5902 Dairy Road, a property the owner intends to use for an indoor doggy daycare and boarding operation.
Planning staff told commissioners the Unified Development Ordinance requires commercial animal uses to meet a minimum separation distance from single-family residences. To site the use at 5902 Dairy Road, the owner would need a waiver from every single-family residence within 300 feet; that waiver requirement was not met, staff said. Staff recommended denial, citing potential noise and odor impacts to the adjoining neighborhood.
“Approval of the variance could have a detrimental impact on the surrounding single family residential neighborhood based on the proposed animal use,” the staff presentation said, noting the UDO adopted separation standards to prevent incompatible uses.
Several neighbors testified in opposition citing noise, potential impacts on property values, water-flow concerns at a creek on the site’s edge, and public‑health worries such as flies, ticks and fleas. Nathan Henselka, who said his backyard abuts the property, told commissioners he was concerned about dogs barking, the effect on home resale values and possible changes to the natural water flow that runs next to the property.
Priscilla Davis, the property owner, said she purchased the 2.2‑acre property intending to open a doggy daycare and that several owners directly behind her property had told her they supported the plan, though they had not all returned notarized waivers. She said she had circulated petitions and offered stamped envelopes to help residents return waivers.
Other residents said they opposed the variance. “We stand in opposition to the variance request,” said Justin Miller, who lives within the 300‑foot radius. Bill Pass, another nearby homeowner, raised health concerns from insects and pests that can accompany animal facilities.
Commissioners discussed the UDO requirement and the importance of community cooperation in the waiver process. A commissioner moved to deny the variance; another seconded the motion and the commission approved the denial on a voice vote.
Staff noted that a variance would not have been necessary if all required waivers had been obtained; staff said the lack of returned waivers indicates affected neighbors were not supportive of the use.
