Full Text
Public Hearing Date: June 9, 2014 Appellant: Sherry Boling 1515 W. 19th Avenue Kennewick, WA 99337 City of Kennewick Staff Contact: Wes Romine, Development Services Manager Background: On April 3, 2014 the City issued a determination to deny a request from Sherry Boling to keep one additional dog beyond the allowed number of three, for a total of four dogs to be kept at 1515 W. 19th Avenue. Ms. Boling disagrees with accusations in written testimony from the neighborhood and findings number 6, 7, & 8 of the decision letter. Once it was reported to her that dogs have jumped the fence she said she has rectified that problem and now keeps her dogs in the kennel which also keeps them from “charging and crashing” the neighbors fence. January 9, 2014 Animal Control contacted the City’s Code Enforcement and reported the owners at 1515 W. 19th were keeping 6 dogs on their property. Code Enforcement sent a correction letter which prompted the Additional Animal application. Staff Analysis of Proposal & Discussion: Per KMC 18.12.040 Animal Keeping, “In R and HMU districts, dogs and cats of the age of 10 weeks or older, rabbits, guinea pigs, fowl, pigeons, chickens (excluding roosters) and similar small animals may be kept so long as no more than three of each kind or a combined total of six are kept”. KMC 18.12.040 goes on to say, “Animals and birds must not roam or fly to adjacent properties. Animals and birds and their surroundings must be maintained to prevent a nuisance due to noise or smell”. An increase in the allowable number can be permitted upon issuance of an additional animal land use permit. KMC 18.42.080 states that depending on public comment the Planning Director may allow an increase in the number of additional animals if he finds: a) All cages, pens, runs, and similar structures can be constructed in accord with Chapter 18.27 (building permits may be required); b) Odors and smells can be contained in accord with Section 9.52.060(noise); c) The facilities must be in accord with accepted standards of animal care; and d) The facilities must not allow animals to roam or fly to adjacent properties. The request for an additional dog through Additional Animal Permit AA 14-01/PLN-2014-00403 was denied April 3, 2014. The application was denied based on findings 7 and 8 which state that it has not ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FILE NO: APPEAL 14-01/PLN-2014-01025 1 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- been demonstrated that the applicant has kept the dogs from roaming to adjacent properties and it has not been demonstrated that noise has been contained in accord with KMC 9.52.060. Notification of the Additional Animal permit application was sent to five adjacent property owners for comments. During the comment period the City received a letter from the owner of 1915 S. Quincy with comments from four additional neighbors attached. Four of the five people that provided statements said there are problems with noise from barking dogs at the subject property at 1515 W. 19th Avenue. The other statement said her daughter had been chased by the applicant’s boxer twice and bit her daughter’s backpack one time, but has not seen the boxer since talking to the owners. Another statement said she called animal control after her husband was almost attacked by the boxer. May 28, 2014 I made a site visit and observed the applicant’s property from W 19th Avenue and from the back yard at 1915 S. Quincy Street. The dogs were confined to the “kennel” area of the applicant’s property and did not seem to be able to roam to adjacent properties, however when I was in the back yard of 1915 S. Quincy the dogs were barking. The following photos are from W. 19th Avenue and from the back yard at 1915 S. Quincy looking at the back yard and kennel area of 1515 W. 19th Avenue. 2 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- Per KMC 18.54.040(2), “When the Hearing Examiner reviews the decisions on the record, the appellant has the burden of showing that the Planning Director has made an error of law, acted outside his authority, or made a decision that is clearly erroneous”. Since the owner’s dogs have been kept in the kennel area of the property the argument can be made that the dogs are not currently roaming to adjacent properties, however there are four written statements that the dogs are barking at different times of the day so the finding cannot be made that noise has been contained in accord with KMC 9.52.060. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the City’s decision letter to deny the additional animal request, the neighbor’s written statements and lack of evidence that city staff made a decision that was clearly erroneous, staff recommends the appeal be denied and the decision issued on April 3, 2014 be upheld. Exhibits: 1 Additional Animal Permit Decision AA 14-01/PLN-2014-00403 2 Statements from Adjacent Properties dated March 2, 2014 3 Appeal Letter dated April 11, 2014 4 Notification of Mailing 3 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 2 Page 1 of 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 2 Page 2 of 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 2 Page 3 of 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 3 Page 1 of 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 3 Page 2 of 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 4 Page 1 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 4 Page 2 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 4 Page 3 of 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT 4 Page 4 of 4