Appellant to Purcellville board: "My home has never been prepared as a kennel"

Dylan Miller, the appellant in zoning appeal ZV-26-01, told the Purcellville Board of Zoning Appeals that town staff incorrectly applied the ordinance's kennel definition by focusing on a numeric threshold instead of how the property is used. "My home has never been prepared as a kennel," Miller said, arguing that the word "prepared" in the ordinance requires active configuration for commercial boarding.

Miller told the board he maintains eight to ten dogs at times (he acknowledged the number fluctuated and that earlier filings referenced seven), that every animal is his personally owned companion, and that he receives no compensation and holds no business license. He quoted the town ordinance and pointed to a separate definition of "foster home" that he said better fits his situation, asking the board to apply Virginia law that resolves ambiguous zoning language in favor of the property owner.

In his five-point presentation, Miller argued that treating any residence with more than five adult dogs as a kennel would produce an absurd result inconsistent with the R-2 district's stated purpose of single-family residential development. He also said town staff's brief conceded the definition is ambiguous and cited state law principles and case references to support his interpretation.

Board members questioned Miller about dog counts, whether he had sought information before purchasing the home, and his mitigation steps; Miller said he had installed a privacy fence, supervises dogs during sensitive hours, and generally operates at personal financial loss rather than for profit.