Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Kennel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Columbia County planners postpone kennel rezoning after neighbors cite restrictive covenants and noise
Summary
After residents described recurring barking and cited recorded restrictive covenants, the Columbia County Planning Commission postponed a request to rezone a Harlem Grove Town Road property to allow 20-dog boarding; the applicant said facilities and cleaning practices are in place.
The Columbia County Planning Commission postponed a rezoning request for a dog-boarding business after multiple nearby residents urged denial, citing recorded restrictive covenants and persistent noise. Planning staff had introduced a request that would allow the applicant to operate a boarding facility for up to 20 dogs, above the county code baseline of five dogs.
Applicant Daniel Boyd Fraser Zayed, who identified himself at the podium as the property owner at 5594 Harlem Grove Town Road, told the commission that renovations are complete and ‘‘We essentially already have the facilities necessary to, facilitate the 20 board or 20 dog boarding, business.’’ He described a cemented interior floor and routine scooping and cleaning so that ‘‘there's never any, leftover dog feces or of any kind.’’
Several residents said recorded covenants restrict businesses in the Uchee Creek development. Resident Ben Blevins read from the recorded declaration and argued that ‘‘when there is a conflict between county zoning regulations and the restrictive covenants, the more restrictive provisions shall apply,’’ and asked the commission to recommend denial. Paula Bowyer, another long-term resident, recounted a prior court case to remove a business from the neighborhood and said, ‘‘Covenant rules matter.’’ Nearby property owner David Eastman said barking began daily around 7:30–8:00 a.m. and recurred in the afternoon.
Commissioners noted that covenant disputes are civil matters between property owners and not enforced by the planning commission; Blevins and others said enforcing the covenants would likely require civil litigation by tract owners. After public comments, a commissioner moved to postpone file RZ260703 to the August 20 planning commission meeting; the motion was seconded and the commission voted to postpone the item.
The commission did not make a substantive ruling on the rezoning at the session; the item will return for further consideration with additional information on the covenant/status and any accompanying documentation.
