No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 10.02.2006BOCC 10102106 Fl PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT I OWNER REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION PROPERTY SIZE WATER SEWER ACCESS EXISTING ZONING Special Use Permit for a Kennel Frank & Jeannie Donofrio Dan Kerst, P.C. (Kelly Cave) 303 Piedmont Road in Chelyn Acres (Four Mile drainage) 3.65 acres Well ISDS CR 117 ARRD I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION The Applicant requests the Board approve a Special Use Permit for a Kennel on their property in the Four Mile drainage. The County defines a kennel as follows in Section 2.02.311: An establishment other than a pet shop or veterinary clinic, in which more than four ( 4) adult dogs or domesticated animals are housed, groomed, bred, boarded, or trained, with or without fees being charged for services and no more than two litter of dogs or domesticated animals are bred in any one calendar year. Presently, the Applicant operates a "Yorkie Terrier" breeding, showing, and selling business in the ARRD zone district on a property of 3.65 acres. The primary location of these dogs is indoors. Note, the Applicant's business is a zoning violation because a Kennel requires a SUP in the ARRD zone district. They have submitted a SUP application on the hope that the Kennel regulations are changed to allow more than one dog per acre. The operation presently has 25 dogs and proposes no more than two litters per year to be consistent with the kennel definition. II. REFERRAL COMMENTS Staff referred the application to the following referral agencies and I or County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received have been incorporated throughout the memorandum and have also been attached to this memorandum. A. City of Glenwood Springs: No Comments received B. Garfield County Sheriff: No Issues with proposal III. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS The proposal for a Special Use Permit requires the Application to satisfactorily address the following standards. Regardless if a Special Use Permit is required or not, all kennels are required to meet certain performance standards I criteria which are set out here from Section 5 .03 .15: ( 1) All kennels shall be completely enclosed within a building that prevents any sounds from emanating from the property boundary in excess of the Residential Zone District standards contained in CRS § 25-12-103, with the exception of CRS § 25-12-103 (2) & (3), that no noise in excess of 55 db(A) from sunrise to sunset and 50 db(A) from sunset to sunrise will be allowed. Sunrise and sunset shall be based on the official time as determined by the Old Farmers Almanac charts of sunrise and sunset for the location of the kennel. A kennel may have dogs outdoors if the noise from the kennel does not exceed the noise standards cited previously and complies with other Garfield County regulations as provided in Section 1.07 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. Staff Response The Application states that the dogs spend approximately 90% of their time indoors for a variety of environmental reasons. They are allowed on the two decks and in the fenced in back yard when outside. As stated above, kennels allow outside areas for dogs so long as the noise from the kennel does not exceed the noise standards. (That no noise in excess of55 db( A) from sunrise to sunset and 50 db( A) from sunset to sunrise.) This is a performance standard that would always be in effect if this operation is approved. As the BOCC is aware, noise is a primary concern for kennel operations which the County can regulate. Conversely, the Colorado Depai1ment of Agriculture also regulates kennels and breeding operations where they require licenses to operate which are updated every year and also periodically inspect facilities for compliance. The State does not regulate noise. The Application contains a letter signed by several of the surrounding property owners asserting that they have not been impacted by the operations to date on the property. (2) No dust, noise in excess of the Residential Zone District standards contained in CRS § 25- 12-103, with the exception that no noise in excess of 55 db(A) from sunrise to sunset, and 50 db(A) from sunset to sunrise as defined above will be allowed, odors or source of filth shall emanate from the property. Staff Response There would not be any dust generated from the proposed kennel I breeding operation as 90% of the dogs' time is spent indoors for a variety of environmental reasons. However, should the use be approved, Staff suggests this be a condition of approval. ( 3) An individual sewage disposal system capable of handling all feces and urine waste from the kennel or the feces and urine waste shall be stored in a sealed container, capable of being 2 pumped to allow a commercial hauler to dispose of the feces and urine waste at an approved solid waste disposal site. Staff Response The Application states the feces I urine from the dogs is basically flushed down the toilet into the existing 1,500 gallon septic system on the property. Additionally, the Applicant's have the tank pumped once a year by a commercial hauler for proper disposal at a land fill. Thi s is a permitted method to deal with dog waste as the standard states above. Staff discussed the ISDS and associated uses with the County Environmental Health Office. The additional wastewater associated with the breeding operation comprises additional wash loads for the bedding as well as discarding the 5-gallon buckets of bleach water and di scarding of feces into the system. Generally, this additional water would be similar to a household of 4 to 5 adults which is handled adequately by the existing ISDS. The only note of concern is hydraulic loading of the system with intens ive use on one day. The preference is to spread usage out over a number of days so as not to over load I saturate the soils on a particular day. Secondly, the Applicant s hould research pouring large amounts of high- concentrated bleach water into the system. Staff s uggests the Applicant contact the County Environmental Health Office to see if other alternatives might be available to as to not impact the biological function of the system. (4) All lqUl an solid wastes, as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Fa c ilities Act, CRS § 30-20-100.5, shall be st o red and removed for final disposal in a manne r that protects against sUJface and groundwater contamination. Staff Response A s mentioned above, th e breedin g operation, similar to the residential use of the property currently us es an ISDS that appears to be suitable to handle the wastewater I solids generated from the structure so long as annual pumping continues. There are no s treams or ponds on the property that could be affected by the system. (5) No p ermanent disposal of any waste shall be permitted at a s ite. This does not include those wastes specifically excluded from the d efinition of a solid waste in CRS §30-20-100.5. Staff Response No was te , out side of the use of the ISDS, i s permanently disposed of at the property. (6) Special events that attract more than 25 participants shall be prohibited on a s ite, unless approved as a part of the original pennit and th e proposed special events are well d efined as a part of the permitting process. · Staff Respon se The operation does not include any events that would attract 25 parti cipants . 3 (7) Animal and food wastes, bedding, debris and other organic wastes shall be disposed of so that vermin infestation, odors, disease hazards and nuisances are minimized. Such wastes shall be removed at least weekly, or more frequently, from the facility and hauled by commercial hauler to an approved solid waste disposal site. Staff Response The operation includes regular washing of bedding, cleaning of dog waste and an annual maintenance of the ISDS. The operation is annually reviewed by the Department of Agriculture and presently is permitted as a "Breeder" with the State with the most recent inspection and approval occurring in March, 2006. This approval is based on the operation meeting the state's regulations regarding environmental conditions. The State's regulations are as follows: 1. Cleaning of Pet Animal Enclosures ( 1) Dogs shall be protected from exposure to water or chemical solution used in cleaning the primary enclosure. All surfaces of occupied primary enclosures shall be cleaned and sanitized as often as necessary to reduce disease hazards and odors, and to maintain sanitary conditions. (2) Hard Surfaced Runs and Pens. Cleaning shall be accomplished by washing all soiled suifaces with a detergent, followed by a safe and effective sanitizer. (3) Runs, Pens, and Exercise Areas. Gravel, sand, or soil shall be sanitized by removing the soiled gravel, sand, or soil and replacing it when the material is permeated with urine and/or fecal matter that is not removable without removing the material, or when odors are present. b. Housekeeping. Premises (building and grounds) shall be kept clean and in good repair in order to protect the animals from injury and to facilitate the prescribed husbandry practices. Premises shall remain free of accumulations of trash. c. Waste Disposal. Animal and food wastes, bedding, dead animals, debris and other organic wastes shall be disposed of so that vermin infestation, odors, disease hazards, and nuisances are minimized. Such wastes shall be removed at least weekly from the facility. As to dead animals, the licensee may wish to refer to § 25-1-612, C.R.S., as amended and any local ordinance or rules and regulations concerning proper disposal. d. Pest Control. Insects, parasites, and avian and mammalian pests shall be controlled. e. Storage. Supplies of food and bedding shall be stored off the floor or in waterproof closed containers and protected against infestation or contamination by vermin. 2. Whelping Areas/Nursery a. Whelping areas and nurseries shall be kept clean and sanitized to minimize disease spread by infectious agents. 4 b. When a separate whelping area/nursery is provided, only a visual inspection by the Department will be conducted if whelping is in progress or if the nursery is occupied. If entry is deemed necessary by the inspector, then unused, clean protective clothing and footwear must be worn. (8) No more than one (1) dog per acre of land on the property permitted for a kennel, with a maximum of 60 dogs on a single property. Staff Response In 1995, the BOCC required kennels to obtain a Special Use Permit in the ARRD zone district. Subsequently, kennels were required to maintain a canine density such that no more than one ( 1) dog per acre of land on the prope1ty permitted for a kennel, with a maximum of 60 dogs on a single prope1ty. The present operation has 25 dogs on 3.65 acres. This standard is obviously not met. Again, the discussion around kennels has primarily been focused on noise from barking dogs and dog waste management resulting in unhealthy situations as well as odor. It remains unclear as to the origin I discussion that resulted in the "one dog per acre" rule other than it appeared in 2002 and was required by Resolution 2002-85 by the BOCC. Perhaps, the "one dog per acre" may have come from the fact that Mr. Pinkham had 40 dogs on 40 acres that primarily live outdoor a large part of the year. As with any potentially impacting Ia.nd use, proper mitigation of the impacts on neighboring uses is achieved through effective standards. In this case, the first seven standards or criteria in Section 5.03.15 are intended to deal with odor, noise, environmental and animal health issues. The number of dogs per acre appears to be irrelevant and arbitrary if the impacts generated from a "kennel" are properly mitigated through the already approved standards. Presently, the operation does not meet the standard. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS I. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested patties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit is not in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is not in conformance with Section 5.03.15(8) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 5 v. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend s the Board deny the proposed Special Use Permit as it does not conform to the canine density of I dog per acre. Should the Board amend this sta ndard suc h that the canine den sity is allowable on th e property, Staff s uggest s the Board approve the request with the following conditions: ----~"\. \z~''""-'\ \) c_:~l~: . ,,;.(!!) (1:\/ ~ I. Restrict th e numb er of dogs a llo wed on th e ir prop ert y t ~ 2. Limit th eir breeding operation to two litters per year in accordance wi th the c urren t Lan d Use Co de's ke nn e l de finiti on in Section 2.02.31 1. Agree to su bmit a text amendment to revi se the curren t Code to properl y di s tinguish a kennel ve rs us a breeder. Limit the time th e dogs are allowed outside of t he ir home. --9. ~o t W\HV ~GI\ 5. Provide access lo th e ir home for mo nthl y or yea rly inspec lion s. 6. 7. All kennels shall be completely enclosed within a buildin g that prevents any sounds from emanating from the property boundary in excess of the R esidential Zone Distri ct standards contained in CRS § 25-12-103, with the exception of CRS § 25-12-103 (2) & (3), that no noise in excess of55 db(A) from sunri se to sunset and 50 db(A) from sunset to sunrise will be allowed. Sunrise and s un set shall b e based o n the official tinie as detennined b y the Old Farmers Almanac charts of sunrise and sunset for th e location of the kennel. A kennel may have dogs outdoors if the noise fr om the kennel d oes n ot exceed the noise standards cited pre viously and complies with o ther Garfield County regulations as provided in Section 1.07 of the Ga1fie ld County Zoning R eso lution of 1978, as amended. No dust, noise in excess of the Residential Zone District standards conta in ed in CRS § 25-12-103, with the exceptio n that no noise in excess of 55 db(A)Jrom sunrise to sunset, and 50 db( A) from sunset to sunrise as d efined above will be allowed, odors or source of filth shall emanate from th e prope rty. 8. An individual sewage disp osal system capable of handling all feces and urine waste from the kennel or the f eces and urine waste sh all be stored in a sealed c ontaine r, capable of being pumped to allow a commercial haule r to disp ose of the feces and urine waste at an approved solid waste disposal site. 9. All liquid and solid wastes, as defined in the S olid Wastes Disposal S ites and Fac ilities A ct, CRS § 30-20-100.5, shall be stored and removed for.final disposal in a manner that protects against s i11face and groundwater contamina.tion. 6 JO. II. 12. 14. No p ermanent disposal of any waste shall be permitted at a site. This do es not include those wastes specifically exclud ed from the definition of a solid waste in CRS §30-20- 100.5. Special events that attract more than 25 partic ipants shall be prohibited on a site, unless approved as a part of the original permit and the p roposed special events are well defined as a part of the p ermitting proce ss. Animal and food wastes, bedding, debris and other organic wastes shall be disposed of so th a t vermin infestation , od ors, disease hazards and nuisances are minimiz ed. Such wastes shall b e removed at Least weekly, or more frequ ently, from the faci lity and haule d by comniercia~lia r to an approved solid waste disposal site. ~ \.( No more than gs shall be allowed on a property having at Least 2 acres of land. No more than two Litters shall be allowed to occur on th e property in any one calendar year. 15. The Applicant s hall present the Breeder Li cense approved from the Department of Agricultural every yea r to the County. 16. This Special Use Pe rmit shall only be va lid under the c urrent ownership of Frank and Jeannie Donofri<Y.]Once the property is sold, the Special Use Permit is vo id on this property. C 4.... .fw ~.,.! ,, k - .,/ . i 6 \)J'ir ~t,1w \ -~~ ~J I l+, S1 ,rvt vnJl f l j;<H q)VhAH' )-~r/v } ./ ._/' It \J~l{NV) _: \--f v c ·"'~dr ~ ? ·~t; --vP· CV\ * ~~-----\::---f r I ()J • e;Jf -h ~\ \!J ~ "·~ ~ l~ ( t I 5t \ z,o l{I~ r' d" 7 I « J~1)( l )" -_/ '/ NJ.l ,,,....--2::' ,, . d:d_· 7 .JI) (f'ft ~ \) I .~~ Fred Jarman From: Sent: To: Subject: Jim Sears Friday, September 15, 2006 2:43 PM Fred Jarman Do nofrio S UP ) Fred: After reviewing the Donofrio SUP, the Sheriff's Office d oes no t have any conce rn s. James H . Sears Emergency Ops Commander Garfield County Sheriff's Office 1 EXHIBlli j ~ ' I J ATTORNEYS DAN KER ST dan@dankerstpc.co m KELLY CAVE kel I y@ dan kerst pc. com Fred Jarman Garfi e ld County DAN KERST, P.C. A PROFESS IONAL COR PO RATION ATTORNEY AT LAW 823 BLAKE A VENUE, SUITE 202 G LENWOOD SP RI NGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (970) 94 5-2 447 TEL ECOPIER: (970) 945-2440 September 15, 20 06 ) I PARALEGAL ELISABETH GETZEN egetzc nl@.dankerstpc.c om B uilding & Planning De pa11ment I 08 8'11 Street , S uite 20 I Gl enwood Sprin gs, CO 8 160 l Via Email [fredjarman@garfield-county.com] EXHIBIT F Re: Proposed Additional Provisions for Donofrio Special Use Permit Application Dear Fred: Tha nk you for s peaking with me tod ay regarding the upcoming B oard of Coun ty Commi ss io n er m eeting o n Monday, Octo be r 2, 2006. I h ave spoken w ith m y clie nts, Frank and J eanni e Donofrio, a nd they are wi lling to restri ct th e ir special use permit to minimize their impact o n the community. The Donofrios a re willing to: l . R estrict the numbe r of dogs a llowed on the ir property to 30. 2. Limit the ir bree ding operation to two litte rs per year in accordance w ith the c urrent Land Use Code's kennel d e finition in Section 2.02.31 1. 3. Agree to s ubmit a tex t amendment to r evise the curr ent Code to properly distinguish a ke nnel versus a breed er. 4. Lim it the time the dogs a re a ll owed outside of th e ir h ome. 5 . Prov id e access to th e ir ho m e for monthly or yearl y in spections. 6. Compl y wi th a ny o th e r r easo n ab le res tricti o n s tha t you o r the B oard of County Comm issio ne rs m ay d etermine. P lease contact m e if yo u h ave a ny quest ions. Th ank you for you r ass istance in thi s m atter. EXHIBIT Fred Jarman I ~ From: Charlie [chwpc@juno .com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:05 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Donofrio Dog Kennel app li cation Dear Sir or Madam, My wife, Maureen , and I ow_n a residence at 39 Sunlight Drive in Sunlight View Subdivision. We oppose the application for a dog kennel as it does not fit the neighborhood. Anyone who has purchased a home in this area does so for a variety of reasons but I am sure that one of those, as it was with Maureen and I , is for the peace and quiet of the area. Chelyn acres is directly across 4 mile road from Sunlight View I & II. We live in I. thi s area of Four Mile is a narrow valley floor with high mountains on either side. Chelyn acres is on the "west" hillside and Sunlight View is on the "east" hillside. As such any and all loud noises can qe heard by one subdivision from another subdivision as well as within each subdivision. In the s ummer, most homes are not air conditioned and have their window s open to allow the cooler night air to cool down the homes as well as to hear normal night sounds. This is broken by a single dog barking throughout the night when its owners do not control the dog or leave it oYt overnight for whatever reason . If o ne multiplies thi s by the many dogs in a dog kennel both the d ay time and ni g httime tranquility of a highly populated but nevertheless quiet neighb orhood will b e dis turbed. A dog kennel should be reserved for areas which are much more rural th an thi s part of the Four Mile Vall ey. Please deny this application. Thank you for your kind attention to this email. Charlie Willman Charles H . Willman, P.C. Attorn ey at Law 811 Blake A venue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8571 x 15 TE (970)945-4981 fax chwpc@juno.com 9/28/2006 EXHIBIT; I W Fred Jarman From: DeeDee [ddfisher@rof.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7 :24 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: 4-Mile Dog Kennel To whom it may concern; We are residents of Sunlight View subdivision and have been for 14 years . We are unable to attend the meeting in person because of work, so we are sending this e-mail to vo ice our concerns about the possibil i t y of a dog kennel being approved in our neighborhood. Some of the many reasons are; First of all , it's a residential neighborhood with many houses and famil ies being effected by this. Second, the Four Mile corridor is a small valley and the noise carries from the east side of the va lley t o the west side and visa versa , as if it ricochets off the mountains , so the noise wil l def initely be an issue. Third, due to the no ise issue , we believe our very desirable neighborhood would suffer and the va lue of our homes wi.11 go down. Pl ease consider what this cou l d do to our neighborhoods up Four Mile . Would you want a dog kennel in y our back yard? We are asking that y ou consider ou r concerns and please deny the request for the dog kenne l. Sincerely, Tony & DeeDee Fisher 0029 Meadowood Rd. Glenwood Springs , CO 81601 9/28/2006 EXHIBIT I ::C Fred Jarman From: M. Bettsffurnaround Transcribing , Inc.[ttrans@sopris.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:14 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Meeting of 10/2 re: kennel Dear Fred: We have some home owners in our neighborhood who may not be able to make the meeting on 10/2 re: the dog kennel that someone is wanting to have in our neighborhood. If you could send me a BOCC packet ASAP so that I can get thi s out to everyone, I would appreciate it. We as homeowners are very, very concerned about having a dog kennel in a residential neighborhood . The whole reason we moved up to Sunlight View II was for the country feel and quiet atmosphere that we enjoy and a dog kennel definitely would ruin that, not to mention it may shy some people away from purchasing a home in this area. I know that I would not have built up 4-mile if I knew there was a dog kennel here and could here the noise from dogs barking. We already have complaints of individual homeowners' dogs being heard at night barking and during the day keeping children awake and waking up people that have to work. Again, if you could send that packet to me, or if I could come by and pick it up I could do that also. Just let me know where. Tom & Mandy Betts 210 Meadow Wood Road Sunlig ht View II (970) 947-1853 9/28/2006 ) EXHIBIT I~ Fred Jarman From : Charlie [chwpc@juno.com) Sent : Friday, September 29, 2006 4 :43 PM To : Fred Jarman Subject : Re: Donofrio Dog Kennel application Fred, Thanks for the informa tion. I h a ve reviewed thi s a nd would withdraw my objection to this application with (assuming the zoning change is made upon which I have no comment) an add ition a l conditi on that there be no dogs outside after sunset. It is the nighttime barking that i s the m ost offensive from all dogs --not these in particular. Thanks for your attention to thi s. Charlie Willman Charles H. Willman, P.C. Attorney at Law 811 Blake A venue Gl e nwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8571 x 15 TE (970)945-4981 fax chwpc@juno.com 10/2/2006 ' I I EXHIBIT I~ Fred Jarman From: GREGORY DENNEY [gdenney0370 @msn.com] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1 :29 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: hearing on 10/2/2006 1 :1 Spm dear sir, this is to provide input on the zoning hearing for the dog kennel in Chelyn Acres. once you give the varience, better known as changing the rules, that becomes the new standard for the rule. this change may not be such a big mater with the kennel for small dogs, unless you live nex t door to the yappers. the concern is the ne x t guy wanting a varience for a kenne l, maybe not for a small breed of dog and now the board has set the new standard with the prior rule change. this may not effect you personally, but maybe the ne x t guy in your seat in the future that has to deal with this proposed ruling and the long term implications. I certainly expect you to uphold the standards that were in place when we chose to move, build and live in the county. we bought and built within the existing guidelines, and it only seems proper that we have expectations of your support to not allow a possible activity that would disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of our property by a commercial breeding enterprise being brought into the area. a second area of concern is that the persons in authority of the county, now knowing of the violatons of the ordiance, with the presence some 25 dogs alledgely on the property, are not immediately directing the zoning ordiance enforcement staff to take proper investigative and enforcement action. thank you for your support and consideration, Gre gory Denney 370 meadowood rd 319 6287 10/2/2006 Fred Jarman From: Sent: To: Subject: ne bu la@sopris.net S unday, October 0 1, 2006 1 :4 0 PM Fred J a rm an Kenn e l in Che lyn A cres To Garfield County Commissioners, Please DO NOT APPROVE a special use permit for a kennel in Chelyn Acres. EXHIBIT L- ,, Sound travels far in this area and noise pol lution from barking dogs is already a constant probl em. We do not need a kennel to add to this nuisance . Thank you for your consideration of this message. Bruce Neumann 100 Horne Place Glenwood Springs CO 81601 This message was sent from Sopris Surfers Webrnail 1 www.sopris.com ' ) EXHIBIT .' h.· RECEI I--""-/;\._ A rthur G S teuerwa ld 505 Van Dorn Dr Glenwood Spgs, CO 81 601 September 28, 2006 To whom it may concern RE: Frank & Jeannie Donofrio Special use permit #12445 0 2006 e 1\R FJI:LD C.-O'J!!qy BUWJNG&PLAJ ~.J.x; In reguard to the special use permit that the Donofrios are applying for, as Jong as it's for their use only and can not be deeded to the property in a land use permit I am ok with it. I would like to see a restrictions of dogs to remain at the level they are at now and if things get too noisy up there a way to repeal the permit. Sincerely, ) Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Martha Heim [heim @rof.n et] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:23 AM To : Fre d Jarman Subject: Donofrio Special Use Pe rmit Request T o the County Commi ss ioners: I would appreciate it if you would co nsider my co ncerns rega rdin g the specia l us e permit req u es t ed by the Dono fri o's in Chelyn Acres. I un derstand that this will be discussed at the County Commissioners ' meeting tod ay. I live at 120 Laird Lan e in th e Sun light View 11 subdivi sio n. Rega rdle ss of whethe r it is ri ght or not, this area up Four Mile Road is no longer ran ch land. It is now densely populated re sident ia l neighborhoo ds. To allow a family to open a kennel , in addition to their b usiness which is already vio lati ng zoning laws, wo ul d have numerous negative r ep urcuss io ns. We already have a problem with dogs barking at all hours o f th e day and nig ht which has been add ressed in letters to th e edit or. There are many fami li es w ith sma ll children (we have t hree), and I would be extremely concerned abo ut dogs getting out and running around. We would hate to have mo re dog biting in c idents in th is town! Th ank you for taking into co n sid e rati on my neighborly concerns. S ince rely, Ma rth a H e im 10/2/2006 ) October I , 2006 Board Of County Commi ssione rs 10 8 8111 Street G lenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear County Commissioners, My wife and I are opposed to the request by Donna and Frank De nofrio for a special use approval for a kenne l and an amendment to a ll ow m ore than one dog pe r acre. As res id e nts of Chelyn Acres, an area of Four Mile that is relatively narrow, noise travel s easily a nd dogs can often be heard barking. Adding a kennel wou ld only exacerbate thi s problem . We understand that thi s would be for their famil y dogs, even so it sets a presid ent to a ll ow others to have up to 30 dogs of another breed. Thi s is a concern to us. The approva l of any ke nne l with that numbe r of dogs would be comp lete ly out of character and not appropriate for our neighborhood. Furthermore, we be lie ve zoning re g ulation 5 .03.15 should remain unchanged or at the very least conservatively adjusted. We hop e th a t there is s ome so lution that can m eet the needs of all invo lved. ~~ s ~?- Angie impso n