Dog kennel sparks debate over scale in residential neighborhood

By Valerie Cury

On Dec. 18, the County Planning Commission held a public hearing for Happy Paws K9, LLC, a dog kennel that has been operating in a Leesburg residential neighborhood, zoned Agricultural Rural-1 (AR-1), without the required zoning approvals. 

The applicants, Marcel and Beatriz Uttembergue, who live on a three-acre property on Oatlands Chase Place, previously housed up to 40 dogs without permits and are now seeking a Special Exception to legally operate a kennel with up to 35 dogs, in addition to four personal pets. 

County staff said they could not support approval at this time, citing scale and intensity and requesting that the application be deferred to a future work session.

As part of the application, the applicant is requesting approval to reduce the number of dogs from 40 to 35. However, when combined with the four personal dogs permitted on the property, the total number would still approach 40 animals. 

The request also includes a Minor Special Exception to significantly reduce required setbacks for the kennel facility—from 100 feet to 20 feet along the northern and eastern property boundaries and to 35 feet along the southern boundary.

The Loudoun County 2019 General Plan states that businesses within the Rural Policy Area must be compatible in scale, use, and intensity with surrounding uses. 

County staff noted that the residence is in close proximity to neighboring homes and that the proposed number of dogs, combined with reduced setbacks, raises significant compatibility concerns. As a result, staff recommended a further reduction in the number of dogs.

The kennel owners are utilizing up to 3,166 square feet of the existing residence for kennel operations, along with a 33,839-square-foot outdoor dog play area. 

County staff recommended a three-foot interior fence, while a six-foot-tall wooden perimeter fence already exists on portions of the property. 

According to the application, the kennel operates seven days a week from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. and offers both daytime care and overnight boarding services. A traffic study by Gorove Slade projects approximately 80 daily trips.

Due to the size of the property and the intensity of the proposed use, staff said there are limited options to mitigate noise impacts and the effects of housing nearly 40 dogs on the site. As a result, staff recommended reducing the number of permitted dogs. 

Staff also noted that similar applications approved in the past were located on significantly larger properties; for example, a 10.58-acre parcel was approved for 28 animals.

In the past, staff received 112 comments on the application, including 89 from current clients in support of the business. Of 21 neighbors who weighed in, 14 opposed the application over noise, odor, traffic, and health concerns, while seven supported it—four of whom were also clients.

Commissioner Dale Polen Myers (At Large) said the scale is concerning. “This is supposed to be an accessary use. The zoning is not for a commercial use. In this one it seems like commercial is going to become the primary use—then the living in the house is going to become the accessory use. So to me it looks like the scale that’s being used is also out of scale with the zoning …” 

Myers pointed out that it seemed like 75% of the property is used as commercial and 25% residential. Myers asked why Animal Control wasn’t involved if there was an overcrowding issue.

She also challenged the assumption that “there wasn’t a lot of unhappiness or a lot of concern with what was going on” because other complaints were not added to the file. Myers held up a stack of more than 100 email complaints.

Commissioner Ad Barnes (Leesburg) said, “I don’t know how they can have 35-40 dogs so close to the homes.” He asked how many dogs are on the property, and the applicant’s representative replied, “Up to 40,” noting the number fluctuates. Barnes then asked, “Do you have a permit to do that?” The representative answered, “No, that’s why we are here.”

Commissioner Madhava Madireddy (Dulles) said he would also like to see what Animal Control says.

Commissioner Robin-Eve Jasper (Little River) asked if the density was safe for the animals, humans and neighbors. “It’s important to me to understand what kind of criteria you looked at to determine what facilities you needed to manage this number of dogs in your home in a safe manner for the dogs—for the people.”

Uttembergue said that “people treat dogs like family members and that’s what we are trying to replicate.” 

Jasper said, “From what I’ve seen, there are challenges with indoor quality and the transmission of mostly airborne diseases.” She expressed concern with the land use issues of the application. 

Commissioner Mark Miller (Catoctin) asked whether the HVAC system in the home was commercial. The applicant’s representative said it was not, but that air filtration systems are installed in each room. They added that the applicant would be open to upgrading the system.

When asked by Myers if the applicant had conducted a noise study, Anna Ritter, Land Use Planner with Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC, responded, “We haven’t done a noise study at this time. We are hoping to do one.”

Myers said the recordings of barking from across the street were loud, and she expressed concern that the kennel may already be exceeding the limits set by the county’s noise ordinance.

Community speaks

There were approximately 41 people who signed up to speak. Benjamin Kota, a client of Happy Paws, spoke in favor of the business saying that “Happy Paws is part of our home … if it’s two dogs or 30 dogs—we haven’t noticed a difference.”

Patti Collins-Bliss said Happy Paws is an asset to firefighters who sometimes have unpredictable schedules. “This is the facility that makes us feel like it’s a second home.”

“Happy Paws treats our dog like family,” said Jackie Mauro. “It’s not a traditional kennel—It’s a home-based kennel.” Jennifer Brinn said the impact of the kennel is minimal and she hasn’t heard dogs barking. 

Georgia Nuckolls said her community has been turned “upside down by this operation.” She said there is reckless speeding, illegal passing, near misses with children on bikes, pedestrians forced off the road—these are daily realities. 

“Over a three-day period, the Sheriff’s Office issued 20 citations and dozens of warnings … 90% of those were directly related to Happy Paws K9.” Nuckolls said the traffic study is deceptive and pointed out that the drop offs and pickups coincide with school bus schedules.

“It isn’t compatible with our rural residential zoning. It’s a commercial takeover that increases risks, breaks rules and endangers lives”—all for profit, said Nuckolls.

Wendy Canzanese said the kennel has ongoing zoning violations and it is significantly incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. She reminded the Commissioners that the scale and intensity, setback reductions, noise impacts, odor and waste management are all concerns.

Tiffany Hargest said she didn’t approve of the commercial use in “this residential neighborhood.”

Bryce Armstrong said his three children go to the bus stop near Happy Paws and he supports the kennel. He said the traffic on the road is due cars cutting through the neighborhood.

Charles Givans said that his border collie loves Happy Paws—and said they send him pictures throughout the day. 

William Nelson said the application has “to be a reasonable scale.” He said the traffic study is inaccurate and he pointed out that there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood. He suggested a 12-dog limit and said that would be reasonable.

Dylan Arthur, who lives near Happy Paws, said the Special Exception of 30-40 dogs was unreasonable. He said he had been run off the road by customers, and noted there had been 20 citations given out to kennel customers. 

Duane Gassman said the discussion didn’t have anything to do with the care the owner gives his clients. “It really has to do with the location. We didn’t move to a rural location to be surrounded by commercial businesses. The ability to handle 30 to 40 dogs regardless is incompatible with the amount of land that is currently under Happy Paws.”

This was echoed by another neighbor who said the application is a land use issue. “Do we operate something illegally so we get it approved later?” she asked. She pointed out that she is only allowed to have no more than two horses and four dogs. She had to move her bedroom from the front of her house to the rear because the car lights shine in her windows at 6 a.m. when clients are dropping off their dogs.

Application goes to work session

Commissioner Jasper made a motion to deny the application based on scale, the intensity of the kennel use, and the incompatibility with the surrounding residential uses. She moved to send the matter to the Board of Supervisors. 

Myers recommended sending the application to a future work session and the motion passed unanimously.