Land use law complicates kennel license revocation appeal

A hearing on an appeal of a dog kennel license revocation took some interesting twists and turns last week, with the kennel owner possibly facing more problems than he started out with.

Brandon Boltz, who breeds Presa Canario dogs, keeps four of the animals on his 9-acre property along Palmer Junction Road in rural Elgin. In general, kennel permits are required in Union County for people who have more than three dogs.

Boltz had a permit for that location, and also one for property he owns in La Grande. Since he moved to Elgin, his Palmer Junction neighbors have lodged numerous complaints about his dogs barking.

Boltz appealed. At his hearing before the board Union County Board of Commissioners Wednesday, he sprang a surprise.

He said he doesn’t care about the La Grande kennel license because he only has two dogs there. As for the Elgin property, he claimed he doesn’t need a license because the county animal enforcement ordinance says kennel licenses aren’t required in resource zones like the one he lives in.

That turned out to be true. But then, some state land use and zoning issues cropped up.

County Planning Director Hanley Jenkins told the board that while the local animal ordinance does allow kennels in resource zones, Boltz likely is in violation of state land use law.

That’s because state rules say an owner of property in a resource zone may expand or improve an existing kennel, but may not establish a new one on property where there are high-value soils. Jenkins said tests have shown there are such soils on the Boltz place.

The complications go even deeper than that. Boltz had applied to the county for a permit to build a pole barn on his property, saying he planned to use it for storage.

Instead, according to testimony from Union County District Attorney Tim Thompson, Boltz made the building into an indoor kennel, which is not a permitted use. Jenkins said Boltz used concrete for the building, which goes outside the criteria for pole barns.

According to other testimony taken by the board, the situation on Palmer Junction Road is a rancorous, long-running one, with Boltz and his neighbors unable to come to terms.

Neighbors Kay Anicker and Elsie and Allen Williams testified that the barking is an ongoing problem that Boltz has done little to remedy.

Boltz disagreed with that.

“I’ve gone to great lengths to accommodate the neighbors,” he said.

While he does breed and sell dogs and advertise them via his website, he is not using the Palmer Junction property for his dog breeding business, he added.

“I’m not trying to run my business out of the Palmer Junction address. I am simply trying to enjoy my passion, which is my animals,” he said, adding that he owns and keeps dogs at a number of locations in the United States.

Ahead of the hearing, Boltz wrote a letter to the board, saying he had taken numerous steps to fix the problems, including building an indoor-outdoor kennel far from his nearest neighbor. He also said he made several efforts to talk to his neighbors and work the problems out.

Maddock testified that a nuisance barking complaint lodged against Boltz when he lived in La Grande was dismissed.

She said that a second complaint, concerning barking at the Palmer Junction site, ended in a conviction after Boltz failed to live up to conditions spelled out by a justice court judge.

At first, the board of commissioners considered upholding Boltz’s appeal of the revocation of the Palmer Junction license, while county staff works on the land use, zoning and noise issues.

“The hearing on the appeal is largely decided,” said Commissioner Mark Davidson. “He doesn’t have to have one in a resource zone, and he isn’t contesting the La Grande one. This issue is settled and we’ve got to have staff look at other issues.”

But then, Maddock asked that both the La Grande and Elgin licenses be revoked anyway, so Boltz would not qualify for fee reductions that come with the license.

The board agreed and revoked both licenses. Board Chair Steve McClure, like Davidson, said he doesn’t think the matter is fully settled.

“I don’t think this solves the issue and it will continue to go forward. There are still three issues out there,” he said.

In other business Wednesday, commissioners approved the fire prevention agreement for the Mount Emily Recreation Area worked out by Union County and the Oregon Department of Forestry.

The agreement extends the use period beyond what would normally be required during regulated use closure.