Print
Comment
Rate
Dogs come between Pearce neighbors: S.A.F.E. Humane Society seeks homes for 29 dogs
By Terri Jo Neff/For the Arizona Range News
A public hearing about the number of dogs housed at the SAFE Humane Society in Pearce pitted neighbors against neighbors last week, with a decision by the District 3 Board of Adjustment (BOA) that may change how the Cochise County Planning Department enforces a guideline on the number of dogs allowed on a property.
More than three dozen people packed a Benson courtroom for the March 11 appeal of a Planning Department finding that Ken and Janet Galaida violated a department policy by having more than 10 dogs on their property. The County had also notified the Galaidas they needed a permit to operate what officials determined was an animal husbandry facility.
While many attending the hearing commended the couple's dedication to the 29 dogs residing there, most also spoke of a desire to reduce the impact on the rural neighborhood's peace and quiet.
Several neighbors complained of noise, especially during the summer when they want windows open to enjoy the evening breeze or to sit outside to watch the sunset. "We can't enjoy living in our home," stated a neighbor whose property abuts the Galaidas' 19 acres. "We're tired and frustrated from dealing with the noise day after day."
Ken Galaida explained SAFE began operating in 1997, before many of the surrounding homes were built. He pointed out that several neighbors have dogs, so the barking isn't coming only from his property. "They're being dogs," he explained. "When one dog starts, others join in. It's not just our dogs." Galaida estimated there are at least 22 dogs on the properties across from and adjoining his.
Galaida said many of the dogs at SAFE are hard-to-adopt because of age or medical conditions. He also noted the no-kill facility has had no complaints from the County's Animal Control officers or health inspectors.
Susana Montana of the Planning Department confirmed there have been no issues about improper treatment of the dogs. The issue is that the County feels there are too many dogs on the property.
Montana noted that although there is no zoning regulation about the number of dogs that can be legally kept on a property, the department has had an internal policy since 2005. Then-Planning Director Jim Vlahovich established the policy after attempts to adopt a zoning regulation failed due to strong opposition.
The internal policy serves as a guideline for department staff handling cases involving large numbers of dogs. Under the policy, seven dogs are allowed on fewer than two acres, and no more than 10 dogs are allowed on two or more acres. Having more dogs can be deemed a zoning violation and may also be considered operation of an animal husbandry business, which requires a special use permit in most areas of the County.
Montana said the 2005 policy has been applied throughout the County on a case-by-case basis, resulting in varying enforcement.
The Galaidas paid a $150 fee in order to appeal the Planning Department's notice of violation. They objected to the legality of the 10-dog policy, as well as the County's determination that SAFE needed a permit to operate as an animal husbandry facility, which is defined as "care, raising, and breeding of animals."
In addition, the couple argued that even if the policy were enforceable, it could not be applied retroactively, since SAFE opened years before the policy was written in 2005.
Despite concerns about the number of dogs at SAFE and the noise impacts to neighbors, BOA chairman Bill Lanham conceded there is no zoning regulation on the subject, and enforcement of the internal policy would likely end up appealed to the Superior Court.
In an effort to mitigate impacts to neighbors, the board moderated an agreement with the Galaidas. Without agreeing to the legitimacy of the 10-dog limit, the Galaidas agreed to limit the number of dogs to the current 29 and agreed to begin efforts to reduce the number of dogs through advertising and adoption. They also agreed not to replace any dogs that are adopted or die.
The Galaidas also agreed to relocate some of the pens, use other structures on the property as sight buffers, keep some of the louder dogs in the house at night, and agree to monthly inspections by County animal control officers.
In return, the BOA voted 3-0 to uphold the Galaidas' appeal, overturning the Planning Department's violation finding and refunding the $150 hearing fee. Left unanswered by the BOA decision was the legality of the 10-dog policy, whether SAFE could be required to abide by a new zoning policy, and whether rescue facilities like SAFE fall under the animal husbandry provision.
However, it was the second time in recent months that a Board of Adjustment rejected enforcement of the dog guideline.
For information on adopting a dog from the SAFE Humane Society, call Ken or Janet Galaida at 520-826-3299.
More than three dozen people packed a Benson courtroom for the March 11 appeal of a Planning Department finding that Ken and Janet Galaida violated a department policy by having more than 10 dogs on their property. The County had also notified the Galaidas they needed a permit to operate what officials determined was an animal husbandry facility.
While many attending the hearing commended the couple's dedication to the 29 dogs residing there, most also spoke of a desire to reduce the impact on the rural neighborhood's peace and quiet.
Several neighbors complained of noise, especially during the summer when they want windows open to enjoy the evening breeze or to sit outside to watch the sunset. "We can't enjoy living in our home," stated a neighbor whose property abuts the Galaidas' 19 acres. "We're tired and frustrated from dealing with the noise day after day."
Ken Galaida explained SAFE began operating in 1997, before many of the surrounding homes were built. He pointed out that several neighbors have dogs, so the barking isn't coming only from his property. "They're being dogs," he explained. "When one dog starts, others join in. It's not just our dogs." Galaida estimated there are at least 22 dogs on the properties across from and adjoining his.
Galaida said many of the dogs at SAFE are hard-to-adopt because of age or medical conditions. He also noted the no-kill facility has had no complaints from the County's Animal Control officers or health inspectors.
Susana Montana of the Planning Department confirmed there have been no issues about improper treatment of the dogs. The issue is that the County feels there are too many dogs on the property.
Montana noted that although there is no zoning regulation about the number of dogs that can be legally kept on a property, the department has had an internal policy since 2005. Then-Planning Director Jim Vlahovich established the policy after attempts to adopt a zoning regulation failed due to strong opposition.
The internal policy serves as a guideline for department staff handling cases involving large numbers of dogs. Under the policy, seven dogs are allowed on fewer than two acres, and no more than 10 dogs are allowed on two or more acres. Having more dogs can be deemed a zoning violation and may also be considered operation of an animal husbandry business, which requires a special use permit in most areas of the County.
Montana said the 2005 policy has been applied throughout the County on a case-by-case basis, resulting in varying enforcement.
The Galaidas paid a $150 fee in order to appeal the Planning Department's notice of violation. They objected to the legality of the 10-dog policy, as well as the County's determination that SAFE needed a permit to operate as an animal husbandry facility, which is defined as "care, raising, and breeding of animals."
In addition, the couple argued that even if the policy were enforceable, it could not be applied retroactively, since SAFE opened years before the policy was written in 2005.
Despite concerns about the number of dogs at SAFE and the noise impacts to neighbors, BOA chairman Bill Lanham conceded there is no zoning regulation on the subject, and enforcement of the internal policy would likely end up appealed to the Superior Court.
In an effort to mitigate impacts to neighbors, the board moderated an agreement with the Galaidas. Without agreeing to the legitimacy of the 10-dog limit, the Galaidas agreed to limit the number of dogs to the current 29 and agreed to begin efforts to reduce the number of dogs through advertising and adoption. They also agreed not to replace any dogs that are adopted or die.
The Galaidas also agreed to relocate some of the pens, use other structures on the property as sight buffers, keep some of the louder dogs in the house at night, and agree to monthly inspections by County animal control officers.
In return, the BOA voted 3-0 to uphold the Galaidas' appeal, overturning the Planning Department's violation finding and refunding the $150 hearing fee. Left unanswered by the BOA decision was the legality of the 10-dog policy, whether SAFE could be required to abide by a new zoning policy, and whether rescue facilities like SAFE fall under the animal husbandry provision.
However, it was the second time in recent months that a Board of Adjustment rejected enforcement of the dog guideline.
For information on adopting a dog from the SAFE Humane Society, call Ken or Janet Galaida at 520-826-3299.
 |
 |
|
| Johnson, Klump and Donahue are in | Tales of Terror: Students hear stories of bigotry from Holocaust survivor Stephen Nasser |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of willcoxrangenews.com.
Bonnie Rodgers wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:58 PM:
" Hello,
When Don had the safe program I was his neighbor and had no problem with his dogs and he only had 20 acres and I had 20. I give these people credit for trying to help these dogs when no one else will. Dogs will bark when other dogs bark so maybe they should be more aware of their own dogs making noise so the safe dogs won't bark. "
When Don had the safe program I was his neighbor and had no problem with his dogs and he only had 20 acres and I had 20. I give these people credit for trying to help these dogs when no one else will. Dogs will bark when other dogs bark so maybe they should be more aware of their own dogs making noise so the safe dogs won't bark. "
Mike Jackson wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:36 PM: