Appraiser tells Carroll County board he found no systematic drop in nearby home prices tied to kennels

An appraiser hired by the applicant testified June 16 that a county‑wide paired‑sales review of homes near existing kennels did not show a systematic decrease in sale prices attributable to kennel proximity. Thomas A. Weigand, managing member of Treffer Appraisal Group, told the Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals he examined sales adjacent to several kennels and compared each nearby sale with a matched sale farther from the kennel to isolate a location‑based difference.

Weigand said he analyzed 30 paired sales tied to six kennels (Pet Quest, Sandy Springs, Misty Ridge, Wagon Around, Fairway Kennel and others listed in his report) and adjusted for time‑of‑sale, size and condition. He summarized the paired‑sales results as mixed: 22 of the 30 pairs showed positive adjustments and eight showed negative adjustments, yielding an average impact of roughly $6,009 (about 1.1% of average sale price) and a median effect of about $5,299. He concluded, in his professional opinion, that he did not find evidence of an overarching external obsolescence — i.e., a repeatable decline in neighboring property values tied to kennel operations in Carroll County.

During questioning, board members and residents repeatedly challenged the comparability of the sample. Opponents noted the applicant’s proposed facility could reach a much larger scale (the applicant previously referenced up to about 150 dogs when combining overnight and day‑camp capacity), while Weigand’s comps reflected kennel operations commonly in the 20–50 dog range. Weigand acknowledged that closer or more exact matches — a kennel with the same scale and the same proximity to adjacent homes as the subject site — would strengthen confidence in the results. He also said his paired‑sales exercise included sales stretching out to roughly a half‑mile and beyond in some pairs, and that a majority of his sample (about 15 of 30 sales) were within a quarter‑mile.

Residents asked whether Weigand examined on‑site mitigation such as buffers, sound walls, or hours of operation; he said he drove to each facility but did not systematically catalog site‑level noise abatements, buffering acreage or operational schedules and that his work did not include days‑on‑market or a detailed appreciation‑rate analysis. He also said he attempted a limited survey of listing agents and received nine substantive replies indicating no effect on transaction prices, but he considered the response rate too small to be statistically conclusive.

Weigand said his methodology follows appraisal‑industry guidance for external obsolescence when no broad national studies exist, and he recommended paired‑sales analysis as the preferred approach. He also conceded his report had limitations that the board could weigh — notably a lack of near‑identical high‑capacity kennel comparables and few adjacent sales located within 200–600 feet as some legal standards for standing sometimes reference. The BZA continued the hearing to July 28, giving opponents an opportunity to bring additional data and giving the board more time to weigh the appraisal findings against traffic and safety testimony.