HOPE — In a case that sparked protests among animal rights advocates, dogs that were bred and their puppies sold for profit by a rural Hope couple are no longer on their property.
That’s according to Bartholomew County Compliance Officer Bill Klakamp, who on Tuesday inspected the home and farmland owned by Aaron and Lena Oberholtzer at 9173 E. County Road 950N.
Two semi-trailers that county officials say violated ordinances by serving as outbuildings have also been moved, Klakamp said. While one trailer was placed on the couple’s 55-acres of farmland that is separate from their residence, the compliance officer said he found no evidence canines were still being kept on the property.
Nevertheless, the couple remain defendants in separate lawsuits filed April 15 in Bartholomew Superior Court 2.
Following a Feb. 22 hearing, the Bartholomew County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4-1 against a requested variance that would have allowed the couple to raise and sell a limited number of dogs as a home-based business. A majority of BZA members concluded that raising and selling dogs for commercial purposes isn’t considered a proper use for prime agricultural-zoned property.
But this case reflects religious and cultural differences — not necessarily a simple matter of good or bad, retired Bartholomew County Humane Society shelter director Jane Irwin said earlier this year.
While the BZA and traditional farmers don’t consider raising dogs as legitimate agriculture, the Oberholtzers are members of the Mennonite faith, a Christian group that has traditionally regarded canines as livestock, Irwin said.
When the public was allowed to speak at the February hearing, attorney Lia Elliott outlined other local ordinances and restrictions she believed the couple was not following including that neither onsite sales or accessory structures are permitted for a home-based business. Besides practicing law, Elliott is also a board member for CARE (Community Animal Rescue Effort, Inc.)
Using a semi-trailer that wasn’t permanently attached to the ground to house nearly two dozen canines was considered another violation, according to those who opposed the dog breeding business.
Two days after the conditional use variance was denied, BZA attorney James Shoaf notified the couple they had until March 10 to cease all dog-breeding business and remove the semi-trailers.
But when that date arrived, the couple was still not in compliance, Klakamp reported. On March 21, Shoaf drove by the property and saw the semi-trailers were still there, online court records state. Three days later, the Oberholtzer’s right to appeal the BZA decision expired.
On April 15, Superior Court 2 Magistrate David Nowak sent the couple a written order that warned they were facing an $8,000 fine, as well as $173 in court costs. Nowak also ordered the Oberholtzers to appear in his Small Claims Court for trial on June 11th.
After the written order was issued, the trailers and animals were moved a short time later, right after Bartholomew Animal Control Officer Mark Case went to check on the welfare of the dogs.
While the Oberholtzers did not meet deadlines, they did eventually come into compliance with the BZA ruling. And since there are religious and cultural differences involved, judicial officials say the case may be resolved with an out-of-court settlement prior to the trial date, Klakamp said.
But another Columbus attorney, Jeff Rocker, told the BZA last February the Oberholtzers have been illegally operating a kennel out of a semi trailer for about four years.
“I certainly hope the county will assess the appropriate fine under the circumstances and not brush this under the rug,” Elliott said. “It would seem incredibly unfair not to hold the property owner to the same standards and consequences for non-compliance that any other resident would be held to.”
