Polk County denies conditional‑use permit for Cross Paws Pet Rescue kennel after extended de novo hearing

Polk County commissioners voted to deny a conditional‑use permit that would have authorized kennel uses at 3656 Cable Avenue (LDCU‑2025‑35), a case brought to the board as a de novo land‑use hearing. The hearing included a staff presentation recommending denial for compatibility reasons, testimony from the applicant's representatives and Cross Paws leaders who described the site as the "forever home" for owner‑owned dogs, and multiple residents who described persistent barking, odor and safety concerns. After public comment and deliberation, the motion to deny passed on a roll call/voice vote.

Land development planner Ian Nance summarized staff's recommendation of denial, citing setbacks, LDC compatibility standards and the challenge of monitoring activities and noise. "Staff's recommendation of denial stands for this hearing. Simply, staff finds it difficult to deem it compatible with surrounding uses," Nance said. (SEG 806–916)

Applicant representative Sarah Case and Cross Paws vice president Erin Galacco and owner Stephanie Badillo testified that the property was purchased with private donations, that the use was intended to be low‑impact and non‑public, and that the dogs on site are registered to Badillo and considered "forever dogs." "This request is not about expanding operations. It is not about increasing activity. It is simply about allowing these dogs to remain in the home they already know," Galacco said. (SEG 1036–1049; SEG 1052–1064)

Opponents, including neighbors who said they had documented continuous barking and odor, presented photos and recordings and described repeated code enforcement complaints. Organized opposition argued the site had been promoted online as a rehabilitation center and showed structural photos with dogs in kennels. Code enforcement said there is an active case and that dogs were moved to the site in July 2025 and that noise complaints were received thereafter. (SEG 2156–2213; SEG 1700–1703)

Commissioners debated whether the application met the compatibility test under the comprehensive plan. Several members said the decision was a land‑use determination, not a reflection on the rescue's mission, and concluded that the property was not compatible with nearby residential uses as a kennel. Commissioner Trautman said the case "does not stop in any way what Cross Paws Pet Rescue is doing" but that compatibility is the board's basis for the land‑use decision. The motion to deny carried. (SEG 2860–2868; SEG 2910–2919)

The denial was framed as a land‑use action; staff noted the active code enforcement case and that enforcement remedies remain available. The board left open the applicant's ability to seek alternative compliance paths or to modify the proposal and return for review.