Athabasca County Council passed a proposed kennel bylaw nearly two years after the process began.
On August 25, council hosted a hearing asking for public input on an amendment to Land Use Bylaw 6-2002, which would regulate all operations that host four or more dogs within the county. Eight residents attended the hearing.
This was the second public hearing on the same matter.
The story began in October of 2009, when the previous council began looking at revising the land use bylaw to include kennels, which led to the creation of a kennel committee in January of 2010. The council originally intended the bylaw to address concerns over barking and at-large dogs.
Elaine Leeuw, manager of planning and development, explained that kennels were only mentioned under the intensive agriculture land use section, and therefore needed further consideration.
That committee, made up of three residents and three county administrators, was tasked with reworking the document to suit the community's needs.
In late December of 2010, the previous council struck down a proposed bylaw amendment, after hearing the concerns of Vicki Stafford, representing the kennel committee.
Stafford said the amendments were far too restrictive in calling for regulations on when dogs could be let outside, requiring the use of shock collars, and having consent to operate from adjacent landowners.
At the time, Stafford, who runs Sammy's Pet Boarding west of Athabasca, recommended that the restrictive pieces of the bylaw be removed.
But at the public hearing last Thursday she took similar issue with the new amendment, which passed first reading on July 28.
First, in her address to council, she questioned why nobody that sat on the kennel committee was involved with drafting the new bylaw.
"It looks like a completely different document from before, " she said.
She explained that the apparent "micromanagement " of kennel facilities would impede the growth of business.
She particularly took issue with the setbacks clause, requiring 300 to 800 metres between facilities and their nearest neighbour, depending on the class of facility that is determined by the number of animals it holds. The bylaw also includes setbacks of 60 to 150 metres from property lines.
She said the setbacks were unreasonable, adding that overall, the regulations would make it difficult for new businesses to establish themselves, therefore affecting the economic growth of the community.
Angela Betts, owner of the Dog Cottage boarding kennel, also thought the amendments were too restrictive.
"You don't see any other type of business getting this kind of attention, " she said, adding that the county should deal with problem animals on a case-by-case basis, not with overarching regulations negatively impacting local businesses.
Leeuw soothed some of the business owners concerns by informing them that the amendments would not apply to current business owners.
She explained that only new or expanding businesses would have to fall in line with the land use bylaw, if it was passed.
Jan Pysyk, another resident who attended the meeting, who may be looking into opening her own kennel business in Grassland, said this bylaw could affect those future plans.
She explained that most kennel owners are in control of the pets they service.
"A lot of this is stemming from irresponsible pet ownership, " she said, adding that the county should think about putting together a committee to educate the public on the issues. "It doesn't have anything to do with kennels. "
Overall, council seemed to have some work to do before making the bylaw official.
"This is information gathering, that's what the public hearing is for, " said Councillor Doris Splane, who sat as deputy reeve in the absence of David Yurdiga. "Council will be reviewing it, in the mean time we'll have some stuff to look at. "
Councillor Kevin Haines explained council's balancing act on the need to have some sort of regulation in place to protect citizens from the potential impact of such facilities, while appeasing business owners.
"We're close to being done with it, just needs some more tweaking, " he said, adding that the bylaw should go back to the Municipal Planning Commission for adjustment.
Councillor Mike Demko said that regardless of tweaking, the bylaw would never satisfy everybody.
"One sector will like it, and another won't, " he said, adding that he believed council properly addressed the public's concerns.
Although it first seemed like council would be sending the amendment back to the Municipal Planning Commission for further review, Councillor Denis Wilcott made a motion to put the amendment through second reading after lunch. The third reading motion was made by councillor Mike Demko.
Both motions were passed with yes votes from all councillors except Kevin Haines. Councillors Allen Balay and Reeve David Yurdiga were not present at the meeting.
