Local groomer seeks special-use permit for small boarding facility on Good Hope Church Road

Shannon Lillard, a dog groomer who said she has worked in the trade since 2002, told the Madison County Preliminary Development Review Committee she wants to build a separate grooming and boarding facility on her 59‑acre parcel on Good Hope Church Road and apply for a special‑use permit to operate lawfully.

The request was presented as an exploratory SUP (special‑use permit) discussion. Chair (S1) said the parcel is zoned A‑1 and cited county code provisions that list kennel uses as a special permit in the A‑1 district. Lillard told the committee she currently grooms from home, recently had a child and would like a dedicated space. “I started grooming in 2002,” she said. “We just had a son…main thing is just to get a space built because right now I actually work in my home.”

Committee members asked for operational details that will be required at formal review. Lillard said she generally takes overnight stays and would keep boarding small and residential in character rather than installing large outdoor runs, estimating she would board up to about 15 animals at peak times. She described using spare bedrooms and baby gates rather than banked kennel cages and said client vaccinations would include rabies and parvovirus; she indicated standard vaccination requirements would be enforced.

Staff and stakeholders outlined next steps and regulatory considerations. The chair and planning staff said the applicant must submit a site plan that will be sent to VDOT for any entrance evaluation based on projected traffic. A county staff member reminded the applicant that the state building code will apply to any constructed facility, including accessibility and restroom requirements. Emily (county health/staff) advised that a commercial‑type wastewater system will likely be needed and recommended an on‑site soil evaluation and engineer‑level wastewater characterization; she noted that the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) does not regulate animal feces but urged the applicant to consider neighbor impacts.

Committee members recommended Lillard present clearer building dimensions and a proposed maximum number of animals before the Planning Commission review and suggested an inspection or site visit to check layout and buffering. After discussion, a committee member moved to recommend the applicant submit an SUP application and forward it to the Planning Commission; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The chair said staff would contact Lillard about filing the application and scheduling the Planning Commission review.

The committee’s action was a referral to the Planning Commission for formal consideration; the committee’s voice vote was recorded as in favor but no numeric roll‑call tally was provided in the transcript. The applicant was told how to proceed with site‑plan, health and VDOT review as the next procedural steps.