Despite a last-minute wave of protests, the Cook County commissioners voted 4-1 May 12 to accept the recommendations of the kennel committee, putting in place an ordinance governing kennel operations. However, the board promised to rework or redefine some of
” its zoning classifications in an effort to clear up the issues left unresolved by the new dog ordinance.
The ordinance as adopted is the same version previously approved by the planning commission. Notably, a 600-foot lot line setback is “encouraged,” but not required; a 100-foot setback will be required from the property line of protected waters; a conditional use permit (CUP) will not be required for areas zoned Forest Agriculture Recreational-1 (FAR-1), but all new kennel operations proposals in Forest Agriculture Residential-2 (FAR-2) and FAR-3, and Resort Commercial/Residential (RC/R) must go through the CUP process. The ordinance does not allow kennels in the Lake Shore Residential (LSR) zone, and uses the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s standard for noise monitoring.
Planning Director Tim Nelson also recom- mended to the board that the new ordinance be adopted, and lauded the efforts of the citizen kennel committee.
Nelson said the process was a fairly expedient one due to the six-month moratorium which the county board put in place, and which resulted in a “wellbalanced set of recommended provisions for inclusion into the current ordinance.”
The new ordinance language is not the most intense set of regulations for kennels in comparison to a few other counties, said Nelson, however, since the vast majority of rural counties have no kennel regulations whatsoever, Cook County would join the more highly regulated counties in the state with regard to kennel operations. Also, said Nelson, since the zoning ordinance is organized into regulating activities within zone districts, future comprehensive land use planning efforts should include some discussion as to the possibility of delineating more “kennel appropriate” areas of the county from other areas such as the lower West End that also contain substantial amounts of FAR-1 lands, but may not be adequately situated for the placement of kennels.
Most of the public comments offered Tuesday centered on noise and setback concerns, and the provision that kennels continue to be allowed as a “permitted” use within the FAR-1 zone district. In a nutshell, citizens said they would’ve liked to have some sort of notification and chance to comment before a new 40-dog kennel was located on Pike Lake Road (zoned FAR- 1); allowable noise can be heard two and three miles away, and neighbors shouldn’t have to listen to constant dog sounds and suffer a loss of peace and quiet; and there was no consideration of population density.
Nelson said the committee was sensitive to the noise concerns, but determined dealing with that was beyond the scope of what it could do; such regulations are usually decided by the county’s comprehensive plan, not a vote of neighbors. Furthermore, he said the committee didn’t wish to single out a particular group or noise (in this case, dogs) from others, such as loud vehicle engines, music or chainsaws. Nelson did point out that residents are still protected by the state standards, which call for decibel levels to be measured at the property line. “That’s the only way to objectively enforce it,” he said.
West End Commissioner Bruce Martinson expressed concern that some residential areas in his district adjacent to FAR-1 zones would be adversely affected if kennel operators did not have to go through the CUP process. “That’s really the problem,” he said. “We shouldn’t assume mushers won’t want to go to the West End…they do have access to the trails.”
Commissioner Jan Hall said that if West End residents are that “panic-struck” about eventual kennel proliferation, they can change their zoning. “We shouldn’t change one section to appease another,” she said.
Commissioner Bob Fenwick said he believed the zoning questions could be solved. “Let’s not treat FAR-1 differently in Hovland than we do in the West End,” he said. Instead, Fenwick suggested the creation of a different zone for those areas designated FAR-1 that are near or adjacent to residential areas.
“This is one of the best reports I’ve ever seen,” Fenwick said of the kennel committee’s work. “And I believe we should accept it, but then take a look at how to deal with the FAR-1 zones in the West End, and whatever else we need to deal with in the comprehensive plan,” he said.
The board went along with the suggestion by adopting the kennel committee’s revised ordinance, with a provision that the outstanding zoning concerns be addressed in the near future. Commissioner Jim Johnson cast the lone “no” vote, arguing that the noise concerns were not adequately addressed, and the ordinance in general was not specific enough as it did not cover noise mitigation options or site plans.
Leave a Reply