Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables decision on 317 Armstrong Road animal‑boarding request after neighbor raises noise concerns
Summary
At a public hearing for a proposed animal‑boarding use permit at 317 Armstrong Road, a nearby resident expressed concern about potential continuous barking; with the applicant absent the commission voted to roll the item to next month so the applicant can attend and answer questions.
The Bradley County Regional Planning Commission opened a public hearing on a use‑on‑review at 317 Armstrong Road for an animal‑boarding facility and then tabled the item to the next meeting after neighbor testimony and the applicant's absence.
Neighbor Kevin Roden spoke to the commission and identified himself as adjacent to the proposed site. He said he was not necessarily opposed to animal boarding in principle but was concerned about the potential for continuous barking if the operation functions as a kennel. "I just wonder what animals would be there in general... The only complaint I would possibly have would be if it's dog boarding and doing a dog panel with 24/7 barking," Roden told the commission.
Bentley said the applicant was unable to attend because of a doctor's appointment but that, based on a conversation the applicant had with staff, the proposal sounded closer to a home‑based grooming or occasional boarding service rather than a full commercial kennel. Commissioners asked for the applicant to appear so members could hear details and stipulations directly. Max Phillips made a motion to roll the item to the next meeting; Josh Rogers seconded. The motion passed on a recorded vote (seven in favor, none opposed).
Commissioners noted that if they approve a use permit in the future they can impose stipulations (for example, limits on hours of operation or maximum numbers of animals). The public hearing was closed and the item was continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting so the applicant may attend and answer commissioners' questions.
The record does not specify the applicant's name or the precise operational details (maximum number of animals, hours, or specific noise‑mitigation measures); those details were requested by several commissioners for the continued hearing.
