Neighbors press board over proposed 120‑kennel facility on Davis Road; applicant cites noise controls and community need

The Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals heard hours of testimony on a conditional‑use application to operate a commercial kennel at 6270 Davis Road, Woodbine. The applicant, Rayshan Mayer, asked the board to permit a facility with 120 overnight kennels and a day‑care program that she said could bring total on‑site dog counts to roughly 150 at maximum capacity; Mayer said her existing Mount Airy operation demonstrated the business model and mitigation methods she will use.

In opening remarks and in witness testimony, Mayer and her attorney, Kelly Schafer Miller, described a plan that places a horseshoe‑shaped, fully enclosed kennel building and an attached multiuse building in a bowl on the ~22.4‑acre parcel. Mayer said the design limits indoor‑outdoor “free runs,” places outdoor relief areas inside a courtyard backed by the hill, and relies on construction methods—rock‑wool and open/closed‑cell foam insulation, lower ceiling heights and sealed doors—to reduce emitted sound. “We will be open 7 days a week,” Mayer said, and described staffing of about 4 to 6 employees on site during operations and a valet drop‑off system for peak periods. She also testified that waste will be bagged and put into a dumpster for weekly removal and that site‑level engineering and permitting (site development plan and building permits) remain required if the board approves.

Opponents, led by attorney Grant Amadeus Gill, said the application does not satisfy the county’s conditional‑use criteria. Gill warned of traffic hazards on narrow, often single‑lane Davis Road, argued the use is incompatible with the Conservation zoning of surrounding parcels, and said the impacts to neighboring residents could be substantial. “The property values … will, presumably be reduced at least by a measure of 15 to 20%,” Gill told the board, attributing that estimate to the nature of the proposed use and its location. Neighbors raised additional issues: potential effects on private wells from increased water use, odor and waste management, the capacity of a 9‑foot driveway (the applicant seeks relief from the 18‑foot standard), and whether the applicant’s decibel data—taken with a smartphone app at the existing kennel—meets technical standards for noise analysis.

Mayer and supporting witnesses said their existing Mariah Bell Manor operation is highly regulated and that the proposed facility would replicate its sanitation and noise mitigation practices. Mayer testified that smaller rooms (about 10 dogs per room), rotational outdoor routines (five to seven dogs in a courtyard group at a time) and the hill‑backed siting reduce sound transmission. She acknowledged that her decibel recordings used an app rather than professional instrumentation: “This is downloaded … an app downloaded onto a tablet,” she said when asked about how readings were collected. A Mariah Bell employee and a long‑time client testified in support, describing clean operations and low observed odors at the existing site.

The applicant also presented a site‑survey expert, Mike VanSant, who testified that the parcel’s topography, forested buffers and an existing stormwater easement constrain buildable locations and that the particular configuration the applicant seeks makes the variances reasonable. VanSant recommended practical driveway improvements (pull‑overs and a minimum recommended travel width near 12 feet) rather than full 18‑foot paving for the entire access path to limit unnecessary impervious surface.

Board members and residents pressed for more technical evidence. Questions about trip generation, peak vehicle counts, and safety on Davis Road were deferred until a traffic engineer could testify; questions about wells and hydrology were flagged to be resolved through the site development plan and county permitting process. The board accepted documents into the record and voted to continue the hearing; the chair announced that the hearing will reconvene on June 26, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. for additional testimony, including the promised traffic study and technical witnesses.

The board’s next procedural step is to hear the traffic engineer and other technical witnesses at the continued hearing. The BZA will then consider whether the conditional‑use criteria are met and whether any approval should include conditions limiting operation, establishing monitoring or requiring improvements to access and stormwater management.