Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues decision on proposed business kennel, sets conditions for return
Summary
The Decatur City Board of Zoning Appeals continued Thomas Rambo's petition to operate a business kennel in an R1 zone, outlining required contingencies including an approved waste-disposal plan, staff inspection of constructed facilities, and a complaint-based revocation mechanism; a tentative follow-up target was discussed for March.
The Decatur City Board of Zoning Appeals continued a petition from Thomas Rambo on Nov. 18 seeking a special exception to operate a business kennel at 704 Line Street in an R1 residential zone.
Board members questioned operational details including intake/drop-off procedures, the number of animals (the applicant discussed housing about 12 cats), daily cleaning frequency, and how animal waste would be handled. Members emphasized that city ordinance does not permit disposal of animal litter in regular city trash and that a documented disposal plan is a prerequisite for approval.
The board discussed timeframes for holding animals while seeking adoption or release; members suggested planning benchmarks ranging from six to twelve weeks depending on the applicant's network and capacity. Staff and board members encouraged the applicant to develop an adoption/outreach network and to document materials and construction plans for the proposed shed and run.
Possible contingencies described by the board that would be required for any approval included: a documented waste-disposal plan in compliance with city code, a staff inspection to verify the constructed kennel and operational readiness before commencement, and an enforceable revocation mechanism triggered by nuisance complaints from neighbors. The board said it would leave the petition open and place the item back on the calendar upon the applicant's request; staff indicated a tentative goal of returning the item to the agenda at the board's second meeting in March but allowed the applicant to request earlier placement.
Board members encouraged the applicant to coordinate with planning staff (including Kurt and Brad) on materials, setbacks, and permitting. The board reiterated that, while it sought to be cooperative, the applicant remains subject to existing city code and any candidate approval could be revoked if the operation created nuisances or code violations.
