The Council heard a report to amend the “Agriculture -Exception Twenty-Six (A-E26) Zone” bylaw for 2214 Pleasant Valley Road to allow for the construction of a kennel, and redefine ‘hobby farm’ to include a principal source of income for the home.
“We did receive some letters of support, and some letters of opposition’ Burton said.
The owner, Elo Martin, and the property were reviewed at the April 7th meeting.
“The clerk and I visited that property last week.” Burton said. “Very clean, very good building.”
He said they would support the development, and encouraged that the owner go through Site Plan control.
Councillor Jackson expressed concern at the wording on the old report.
Burton said that there was ‘no requirement for a change of use permit.’
“We’re gonna see more and more of small farms makin’ a living off this.” Councillor Dave Mackay said. “There’s a lot benefitting from this. I’ve seen the area, and I think it’s a perfect fit four our county.”
Reeve Regier agreed, and thanked Planner Burton for the pictures.
“I don’t think it’s something we should be limiting.” Councillor Nicholson said. “Without the context from the 2006 decision, we can’t limit this.”
He expressed concerns of allowing this leading to ‘puppy mills’, producing puppies for sale en masse under terrible abusive conditions.
CAO Trembley said that the Council was “not in the business of animal cruelty”, and that serious concernsof animal cruelty needed to be reported to the provincial hotline.
“We do not have the resources to pursue this.” he said. “We do not have the expertise to handle this. It’s a provincial matter. We are just here to enforce the particulars of our little bylaw.”
Councillor Daryl McLaughlin asked what would happen if the owner chose to sell to another.
“The zoning would exist and would exist potentially forever. If there’s any signs that the welfare of the animals is not kept accordingly, they should be reported to the province, and they’ll send an inspector.”
CAO Trembley also said that they would need a new Site Plan for the scope of use if they changed it, as well as Kennel license and annual inspection.
Councillor Nicholson asked why they don’t “force a license for any other kind of animal” rather than the $80 for the dog kennel license.
CAO said that it was related to licensing dogs in the County, and that the $80 “covers the inspection”.
The motion was carried.
