COLUMBUS, Ind. — The Bartholomew County Board of Zoning Appeals has denied a farm couple permission to breed dogs in a converted semi trailer northwest of Hope for the second time in three years.
Aaron and Lena Oberholtzer of 9173 E. County Road 950N, Hope, had asked for a conditional use request for a permit to operate a home-based business involving dog breeding. The request was denied Monday night with a 4-1 vote, with city/county planning staff noting the facility was currently operating in violation of zoning rules.
Aaron Oberholtzer told BZA members he had eight male and 13 female canines that would annually produce about 35 to 36 puppies inside a semi-trailer on his residential property.
But when questioned about what government agency would regulate his at-home business, Oberholtzer said he was unaware of any specific agency that has that authority. As board members asked for specific numbers regarding his proposed operation, Oberholtzer said there are many unknowns and he was “just giving a rough number idea.”
During the public hearing, one of the 12 speakers who spoke through either a telephone or video conferencing said she was bothered by Aaron Oberholtzer’s lack of specificity.
“He hesitated or mumbled when he was asked if he knew the regulations that are in place for the state and county,” Marion Kessens said.
Two Columbus attorneys who both represent different groups were the first to speak during the public hearing. Jeff Rocker elaborated on the reasons why city/county planners had recommended that the request be denied.
The Oberholtzers have already been illegally operating a kennel out of a semi trailer for about four years, which does not appear to be permanently attached to the ground, Rocker said. All of that is in violation of local laws and regulations he said. In addition, it does not appear any part of the dog-selling is taking place in the home, which is required for a home-based business, the attorney said.
During his presentation, Rocker read part of a letter from the U.S. Humane Society that states the Oberholtzers should be required to have a license if they have more than five breeding females. The couple have more than twice that number, but currently have no license, according to those who oppose the facility.
“We additionally have a history of violations that gives me a fairly low level of confidence that (the Oberholtzers) will comply, whether (the BZA) approves them or not,” Rocker said.
The other attorney, Lia Elliott, is also a board member for CARE (Community Animal Rescue Effort, Inc.). In her testimony. Elliott said there were thousands who signed an online petition in opposition to this type of dog breeding operation. She also pointed to local ordinances and restrictions that state that neither onsite sales or accessory structures are permitted for a home-based business.
While Elliott said this particular case might deal with animal welfare issues, as well as a potential for consumer deception and tax evasion, she also told the board she wanted to keep her focus only on zoning-related matters.
“Once you strip away all the emotion and passion that animal welfare and commercial breeding can ignite, I think we are left with a simple issue of an applicant who is asking you for special treatment,” Elliott said. “And the opposition is urging the board not to go down the special exemption path, and instead take the simpler route based upon applicable zoning ordinances.”
This was not the first time the Oberholtzers appeared before the board to request permission to run a dog breeding operation. About 300 opponents showed up in opposition in January 2018, when the couple sought conditional-use approval to breed up to 100 small dogs a year on their 55-acres of farmland not connected to their home.
That application was rejected by the BZA with a 4-1 vote. The consensus among board members in 2018 was that a large dog kennel is not the best use of land zoned as prime agricultural.
The third speaker during Monday’s public hearing was Bartholomew County Humane Society shelter manager Kirsten VantWoud, who described this type of dog breeding as an “unregulated, growing and often cruel business model that’s being seeded into Bartholomew County.”
According to VantWoud, the number of licensed dog breeders in Indiana has grown from 272 in 2018 to 412 this year. At the same time, the number of puppy brokers has grown from just two in 2018 to 32 this year.
“Our nonprofit Humane Society has complied with county ordinances in the past, and it’s only reasonable to expect for-profit businesses to have to do the same,” VantWoud told the BZA. “However, in this case, the property owners have failed to even attempt to comply for over three years.”
After claiming the proposed kennel could harm property values, neighbor Julie Essex estimated that the family is making at least $46,800 annual from selling dogs.
“I would challenge Mr. Oberholtzer to turn over his tax returns to let us see how much he is paying in sales tax,” Essex said.
Another speaker, Nancy Ray, said if the BZA allowed the couple to run their kennel from a semi-trailer outside their home, it would establish a bad precedent that several others would exploit in the future.
Kate O’Halloran brought up a published article in which Aaron Oberholtzer had described his dog-breeding business as a “family hobby.” Several speakers said the family was charging from $1,200 to $2,000 each per puppy being sold. O’Halloran said it is conceivable their annual earnings could rise as high as $120,000.
“I don’t think the IRS calls that a family hobby,” O’Halloran said.
Other key questions brought up during the public hearing dealt with several levels of accountability, a potential health risk from canine waste, and veterinary care.
Besides the dozen speakers, the planning department also received seven letters and three emails. All but one was in opposition to the dog breeding facility.
Following the public hearing, board members Eric Scheidt and Arnold Haskell debated several minutes on whether raising and selling dogs should be classified as agriculture. The matter was settled by assistant city/county planner Melissa Begley, who read part of an ordinance that establishes that raising and selling canines is not considered agriculture in Bartholomew County.
Scheidt was the only BZA member who voted in favor of the couples’ request in the 4-1 decision. The Oberholtzers cannot make a similar request for at least a year, Begley said. If the couple make significant changes to their request and submit the paperwork, it will be up to board members whether they will hear the new proposal earlier than one year, she said.
