Current Conditions
39°F - CLEAR
(348) (142) (98) (55) (51) (50) (19) (12) (10) (9) (6) (3) (2)
One of three board members, Bradford Duvall, opposed without explanation the special exception granted to kennel operator Jonas J. Esch.
And after the two-hour meeting, a group of angry residents vowed to appeal the board's decision in Commonwealth Court.
"I'm shocked, but we'll be exploring all our legal options," township resident Julie Nettke said. "There's a really good group of committed citizens here."
Esch's case has been hotly contested since April by about two dozen people after he applied for a special exception to continue operating his kennel at 170 Truce Road, New Providence.
Esch's kennel was previously licensed by the state to house up to 500 dogs over a year's time. Esch's 2009 license is pending state approval.
Board solicitor Kim Carter Paterson closed testimony after lengthy hearings in April and May. But on Tuesday, residents requested more time to research Esch's previous operating patterns and potential violations of state and federal regulations and consider retaining an attorney to represent them.
Although the board unanimously decided against reopening testimony or giving residents more time to make their case, board members were unusually lenient in procedure Tuesday, allowing residents to interrupt their deliberations with procedural questions, comments and arguments against their reasoning during deliberations.
Resident Kelly Charles said she looked into the township ordinance and found a passage stating that the applicant must not have been in violation of township ordinances before being granted a special exception.
Although Esch admitted at earlier hearings that he operated his kennel without township approval since 2003 because he didn't know approval was required, Paterson countered that the township had never filed zoning violations against Esch because township officials didn't know his business existed.
According to inspection records from the state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, which inspects kennels and enforces business practices, Esch has been warned as recently as April 7, when he was cited for not vaccinating two dogs for rabies. At the same inspection, the warden ordered Esch to get immediate medical care for two dogs — one with an ulcerated eye and a closed eye; the other for an eye condition and an abrasion.
Esch testified at the April hearing that he had received a clean April inspection but he had not yet received the bureau's report confirming he hadn't been issued any warnings or citations.
Residents told the board it should deny Esch a special exception to operate based on such inaccuracies in his testimony and his history of unethical business practices.
But Paterson and the board maintained their job is simply to interpret and enforce township zoning ordinances.
"(Esch) has testified that he can comply with (state dog laws)," board member Ralph Dubree said. "There have been violations, but he has corrected those violations. He should know the standards to running a business and then make sure he keeps up with them."
Duvall, who cast the board's dissenting vote, said before voting that he struggled with his decision.
"I've put more thought and consideration into this hearing than probably any other in the 11 years I've been (on the board)," he said.
Residents have 30 days to appeal the board's decision to Commonwealth Court.
E-mail: slindt@lnpnews.com
