Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents persuade Pittsylvania supervisors to deny dog-kennel rezoning
Loading...
Summary
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors denied a rezoning request from Charles Womack to operate a commercial dog-breeding kennel on Abbott Place, citing neighbor objections about noise, odor and insufficient mitigation plans; the board voted to deny after public opposition and questioning of the petitioner's plan.
Chair Robert M. Tucker opened a public hearing on case R-26-002, in which petitioner Charles Womack asked to rezone 2.02 acres on State Road 706 (Abbott Place) from R-1 residential to A-1 agricultural to allow a dog kennel contingent on a special-use permit. Womack told the board he had researched ways to keep the operation clean and to reduce noise and odor and had provided materials in his packet.
Neighbor Larry Ford spoke for a petition of residents opposing the rezoning. Ford said the neighborhood signed a petition against a commercial dog-breeding operation and warned of persistent barking, feces and urine and an incompatible commercial use in a quiet residential area: "The residents in the neighborhood would be subject to a hellish noise and smell problem." He read a letter from a nearby resident and said many neighbors had signed the petition.
Tracy Love, a resident and experienced dog-sports judge, told the board the proposed kennel did not meet minimum standards for large-breed whelping areas, lacked insulation and temperature control, and did not show a viable plan or funding to prevent accidental overbreeding. She said cost estimates for sound-absorbent materials were far higher than the petitioner's materials list and concluded, "If actual accidental breeding and overbreeding is not a concern, then this is actually a puppy mill."
Board members questioned whether Womack had met with neighbors and whether his mitigation and funding plans were sufficient. Chair Tucker said the submitted plan was not "sufficient nor sustainable" and, because the property is in his district, moved to deny the petition. A second was recorded, discussion followed and the board voted; the motion carried (the clerk initially read the tally as 6-1, then corrected the vote to unanimous).
Next steps: The denial does not prevent the petitioner from returning with a revised, more detailed plan or seeking other permits; the board invited the petitioner to work with staff on a viable, sustainable submission if he wishes to reapply.
Ending: The board closed the public hearing on R-26-002 and moved on to the remaining agenda business.
