Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press council on veterinary clinic; council tables zoning request from Dr. O’Brien
Summary
Residents raised health, odor, disposal and traffic concerns about a proposed veterinary clinic for large animals at 3147 Bonham Street. Applicant Dr. James O’Brien said the clinic would primarily serve horses and follow EPA disposal rules. After extended public comment, the council voted to table the item to give neighbors and the applicant time to meet; item is scheduled to return June 8.
The council opened a public hearing on a zoning petition by James O’Brien to change 3147 Bonham Street from single‑family to general retail with a specific use permit for a large‑animal veterinary clinic (item 15). Planning staff said the planning commission recommended approval 6–0, but neighbors raised multiple objections.
Wanda Ashcraft McFadden, who identified herself and neighbors as strongly opposed, asked how the clinic would handle procedures such as castration and euthanasia, how medical waste and carcasses would be disposed of, and whether residents would be exposed to odors. "Will they be buried? Will they be incinerated?" she asked, seeking regulatory assurances and follow‑up answers.
Other neighbors expressed concerns about school bus stops and increased traffic on the street, and some said they had not received the same mailed notice as others. Richard Thompson, who lives across the street, noted the lot is commercially zoned and said development is likely; he urged the council to consider a controlled commercial use rather than a potentially higher‑impact option.
Dr. O’Brien, the applicant, told the council he lives across the street and said he would not do anything to depress home values. He said the clinic would likely focus on horses and that EPA rules prohibit on‑site burial of carcasses: "Anything that comes in goes out," he said, and he described plans to serve both large and small animals under the required permit.
Council members asked staff whether technical questions had been answered; staff said the applicant’s representative had reviewed technical details in the planning meeting and in follow‑up office meetings. Given neighborhood concerns and remaining questions, council members moved to reopen the hearing and then table the item to a June meeting to allow the applicant and neighbors to discuss remaining issues. The motion to table carried 6–0; the item is scheduled for discussion on June 8.
