Change comes after discussion of puppy mills; any use would require unlikely variance
OCEAN CITY — City Council approved an ordinance Jan. 23 that would allow the city to issue mercantile licenses for various kennel uses on the island, however unlikely that is because all of the uses are prohibited.
After a discussion, council voted 4-2, with President Pete Madden abstaining, on second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter XI, “Kennels and Pet Shops.” The ordinance changed the wording on kennel licenses from “prohibited” to “reserved.”
It means that should the Zoning Board approve a use variance for someone who applied for a kennel use, the city would now be able to grant the mercantile license to allow it to operate.
The ordinance was approved on first reading Jan. 9 without comment. This time, Councilmen Keith Hartzell and Jody Levchuk talked about their opposition to puppy mills and concerns with having kennels in certain areas of the city.
City Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson said hypothetically if individuals wanted to open a kennel or a doggy day care, although she cautioned that latter term may not be correct, that person would have to go to the Zoning Board, show the proposed location, parking and that they are in compliance with land use law and would be entitled to a variance. If they got the variance approved, they still would not be able to get a mercantile license to operate without the change.
She told council the ordinance does not permit kennels or doggie day cares. All it says is that a mercantile license would be issued if someone were legally allowed to open that type of establishment.
Hartzell said if the definition of kennel includes breeding, he was against that and would never vote for anything to do with supporting puppy mills.
McCrosson said the definition in the zoning of a kennel is a building or lot on which more than four or more domesticated animals more than four months of age are housed, bred or boarded, trained or sold for commercial purposes. She noted the next sentence in the law is that kennels are prohibited in all zones.
“So if someone wanted to do something that falls under this definition, they’d have to go to the Zoning Board, explain exactly what they wanted to do and where they wanted to do it,” she said. “It could be anything that falls under the definition. If it goes to the Zoning Board, it would be on public notice and individual mailed notices would go to property owners within 200 feet. The Zoning Board could get input from neighbors on what would be permitted there.”
As Hartzell continued to say he wouldn’t vote for anything to do with puppy mills, she responded that wasn’t before council.
“All that’s before you is if a kennel use is approved by the Zoning Board, they can get a mercantile license,” she said.
Madden said the Zoning Board is the entity that decides the use.
McCrosson said the application could be a puppy mill or a boarding service, but anything that falls under the definition of a kennel can’t get a license.
“There is nothing in here that says puppy mill. The definition is in the zoning ordinance. That’s not before you now. What’s before you is a licensing ordinance,” McCrosson said.
After again saying he can’t support any type of sale of puppies from puppy mills, he asked if the solicitor was “100 percent positive” that wasn’t in the ordinance.
McCrosson reiterated that all the uses under kennel remain prohibited uses under the zoning law. It’s up to the Zoning Board to grant variances.
“This ordinance does not approve puppy mills,” she said.
Levchuk asked if the city could limit kennel uses to commercial properties, but the solicitor said they are currently prohibited in every zone, residential and commercial.
He said that meant someone could have a dozen dogs next door to neighbors who want to quietly enjoy their property.
“Theoretically, yes,” McCrosson said, but explained “it’s a heavy lift to get a use variance. Chances are a reasonable applicant wouldn’t apply.”
To open a business, a person would have to apply to the zoning officer, who would check to see if it is a permitted use. The answer, she said, would be no. Then the person could appeal the decision before the Zoning Board and ask for a variance.
When Hartzell again said he wouldn’t support puppy mill breeding or sales, she told him that wasn’t before City Council.
“If you want an ordinance prohibiting the sale, it’s already on the books,” she said.
Levchuk suggested that allowing mercantile licenses could give more hope for a puppy mill owner, that all they had to do was get through the Zoning Board.
McCrosson explained how difficult that would be.
“There is no such thing as a simple use variance,” she told him. “You were on the Planning Board. When there is a use that affects the neighbors and they’re opposed to it, they come out in droves, and the board is responsive to their concerns.
“Take what you saw at the Planning Board and multiply it by 10 to 100-fold because what you saw at the Planning Board, those were permitted uses. This would be a use that’s not permitted. It is much, much more difficult to get. But I’m not trying to talk you into this.”
The board then voted 4-2 to approve the ordinance. Only one member of the public spoke about the issue during public comment, asking the council first to adjourn the meeting because public notice wasn’t posted in time and until there are better definitions of kennel and doggie day care.
– By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
