Directors might put teeth into dog regulation http://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/
By Colleen Dane
Record Staff Writer
Aug 25 2006
They may all be family pets, or they may be cared for without any commercial gain for the dogsitters.
It doesn’t matter what the reason is — if new regulations recommended by the community services committee go through, having four adult dogs on one lot will make that location officially a dog kennel and subject to increased restrictions in the eyes of the Comox Strathcona Regional District.
That was made clear as electoral area directors debated proposed amendments to the current regulations on dog kennel use during Monday’s meeting.
“One of the biggest issues/problems I have in my area is a person who has seven or eight dogs, but does not have a kennel,” said Area A (Baynes Sound) director Suzanne Murray, trying to clarify the extent of the proposed regulations.
“She may not call herself a kennel, but under this, we will call her a kennel,” said general manager of community planning services Carlos Felip.
Becoming a kennel in the electoral areas, formally or informally, isn’t without consequence under the proposed regulations either.
Once it’s determined that one location has four or more dogs aged more than four months old, the operator is required to have a permanent residence on the property, obliged to have the dogs indoors between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., as well as during a breaktime of noon to 2 p.m.
They’re also required to have someone on the property with the dogs at all times to make sure that the CSRD’s noise control regulation bylaw is not contravened.
The recommended changes came following a review of the dog kennel regulations by George Penfold, who suggested that zoning bylaws be changed to restrict the locations of any new operations.
At a meeting where kennel operators reviewed the recommendations, it was suggested there be two sizes determined — small scale (four to 10) and large scale (more than 10) — and that they be restricted to minimum 4.9 acres and 9.84 acres respectively.
An SPCA review added that someone should be on the property at all times and that the dogs should have the afternoon indoor break.
Debate arose at the committee level over the minimum parcel size, with some directors saying it was still not enough to stop dogs from disturbing neighbours.
Felip explained, though, that the regulations should minimize any problems through a combination of larger parcels, minimum setbacks to neighbouring homes and by requiring that someone be on site to stop barking when it occurs.
Concerns about overregulating conscientious dog owners were also raised, although staff pointed out that if someone has four or more dogs and noise is not a problem, the regional district would probably never know there is a “kennel” by definition on the lot.
These regulations, said staff, would allow them to deal with problem sites.
“Having this language in here gives us the tools and the opportunity to talk to the owner,” said planner Rob Milne.
If approved, the parcel size and setback restrictions would not be imposed on kennels, but the operational regulations would.
It’s a complicated problem, agreed staff and directors, but these regulations may be the best they can do at this point to address constant noise complaints.
The committee approved first and second reading for the zoning amendments and forwarded it to the board for final approval. If the full board of directors supports the committee’s recommendation, the issue will have to go to public hearing next.
reporter@comoxvalleyrecord.com