04/03/2007 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 Ruth Stanbridge, 4835 66th Avenue, argued that she was probably a member of the Planning and Zoning Board when it was decided that kennels could go on agricultural lands but they never conceived of that many dogs on that small property. She was concerned for the area in question being zoned Agriculture (1 umt per 5 acres) and the current intent to have a facility for eighty dogs on less than 5 acres. She thought it was a zoning flaw that should be corrected in the ordinance. She urged the Board to deny application. Mr. Vitunac offered to address some of the concerns of the neighbors. He presented testimony from Gary Steel, "principals at the Kernel", who talked about he need for a kennel in the area and the desire to satisfy a demand. Mr. Vitunac also invited Mandy Kerr, Riding Instructor, to present evidence to refute opinions/claims that barking dogs would frighten the horses and become a noise factor. Mr. Vitunac asked Director Boling to expand on prior comments (made at P&Z meeting) that this applicant had done more than some commercial kennels. He again defended his Client's right to have the kennels in the subject area and urged the Board to think before they deny this application because of unfounded speculations. He addressed legal arguments regarding a condition in the Ordinance (that allows P&Z to deny an application because of lack of adequate mitigation of noise) and felt the Courts could consider that portion of the ordinance unconstitutional. He presented case law in support of his arguments. He concluded his arguments stating that to be denied without guidance from the ordinance seems unfair when they have met all the criteria required. Chairman Wheeler wondered why they had to readdress this matter that was already decided at P&Z. Mr. Vitunac replied that even this body is held to a quasi-judicial standard. He did not see any real evidence that their property would spook horses or create noises and hoped April 3, 2007 27 OK 1 2P. 651