Source: Reading Eagle
Board voted unanimously against zoning relief for the plans for a kennel that would breed English bulldogs.
Controversial plans for a dog breeding kennel in Tulpehocken Township hit a roadblock when township officials rejected the property owner’s request for zoning relief.
The township zoning hearing board voted unanimously Nov. 20 against a request by Michael and Katrina Oberholtzer for relief to build a 4,000-square-foot kennel on their property.
The ruling was met with applause and cheers from the crowd of nearly 70 in attendance — none of whom spoke in favor of the kennel.
About a dozen spoke against the plans, voicing concerns over the impact that barking dogs would have on noise levels, the effects of dog waste on protected streams that pass through the property, and the owner’s lack of breeding experience.
The Oberholtzers’ land is in the township’s agricultural preservation district, where kennels are not allowed as a typical use but can be permitted if certain conditions are met.
The Oberholzters sought that permission by special exception, as well as relief from zoning rules that require a minimum wetland buffer, a protective zone that reduces the negative impacts of land development on the environment.
The plans called for building a driveway that would encroach 100 square feet into the wetland buffer.
Project engineer Brynn Schaffer of Carta Engineering, Bethel, said placement of the driveway is not expected to have any negative impact on the surrounding wetlands.
He said placing the driveway into the buffer zone is the only feasible way to create a viable entrance and exit to the kennel.
Schaffer also said the kennel’s location was chosen to create as minimal of an impact as possible on neighboring properties without encroaching into environmentally protected areas.
The kennel would contain indoor and outdoor space for 30 adult English bulldogs, which weigh 40 to 60 pounds, according to Michael Oberholtzer.
Experience questioned
Oberholtzer said he hoped to breed the dogs to produce 150 to 180 puppies per year.
Oberholtzer said he had minimal experience raising and breeding dogs.
“Mainly because I wanted the correct facility to do it, if we were going to do it,” Oberholtzer said.
He said the number of dog he aimed to raise was calculated to produce an income that would allow him to leave his full-time job, but that he would only breed as many dogs to meet demand.
Several residents said the number and breed of dogs proposed didn’t make sense, given Oberholtzer’s lack of experience with dog breeding.
“They (English bulldogs) are a very difficult animal to breed,” said Stacie Gulley. “The fact that you don’t seem to have any experience with this breed at all concerns me.”
Oberholtzer said he was seeking assistance in setting up his operation from multiple experienced breeders.
Resident Matthew Schrack, who lives near the Oberholtzers, cited an old proposal from 2016 when a resident aimed to build a kennel with 10 breeding dogs.
“Obviously, we don’t have that kennel in our township,” Schrack noted. “The zoning board declined to allow that.”
Schrack also questioned whether dog kennels have any place in the modern world, where thousands of animals remain without a home.
“If I had a way to stay at home and make an income, I would want to do that, too,” Schrack said. “But I don’t think our township should be a part of it. With the treatment of the dogs, and the noise levels for our community.”
Kevin Frantz noted that one dog’s bark can easily set off a chain reaction of yipping that could be unbearable to neighbors.
Others also voiced concerns about Oberholtzer’s lack of a stated plan for handling deceased animals or providing veterinary care for English bulldogs, a breed which they said is predisposed to health issues and largely requires birth by C-section.
Oberholtzer said he would comply with all laws for dog breeding, including those that require kennels to apply for a license that needs to be renewed annually.
He said he would work out further details as the planning and approval process progressed.
Waste issue
Another common complaint was the impact that dog waste would have on the surrounding area.
Jason Shueler, another neighbor of the Oberholtzers’, said zoning rules exist for a reason.
He and others said allowing the kennel driveway to breach the buffer zone could leave the waterways even more vulnerable to waste from the kennel operation.
“How much more can the land take before it seeps into the wetland?” Schueler said.
Oberholzter noted the kennel would be surrounded by trees and vegetative growth, would be built with noise-buffering materials and minimal lighting.
The building would be heated and air conditioned, and dogs would only be allowed outside from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Solid waste from the kennel would be stored in a holding tank, while liquid waste would be washed into another tank and potentially distributed as fertilizer on the Oberholtzer’s field.
He said he uses seven acres to grow hay and grazes sheep on his property, uses he said would continue if the kennel were approved.
Kennel appointments would be booked via phone or website, and the kennel would have one part-time employee at most, but mostly be family operated, Oberholtzer said.
Another concern was that letting one kennel in via zoning exceptions could set the precedent for more.
Vicky Reid said she used to work in Lancaster County, which was known as “the puppy mill capital of the U.S.”
“It started with a waiver here, a waiver there,” Reid said.
Although they offered no comment at the meeting other than to ask general questions of the Oberholzters, the zoning board appeared receptive to residents’ concerns. They voted unanimously to deny the requested zoning relief.
The Oberholtzers have 30 days to appeal the zoning ruling to Berks County Court.