We have an applicant who wants to open an emergency clinic for animals. The clinic will be owned in common by regional vets and will only be open when the regular clinics are closed (weekends and overnight). The emergency clinic is to be located in a zone that does not permit "veterinary hospitals or kennels", which seems to me to be the closest use to the proposed use. However, the applicant is challenging this based on the following points:
1. Our zoning does not contain a definition of veterinary hospital or kennel.
2. The applicant says that the industry defines emergency clinic as different from a veterinary hospital.
3. The proposed vet er will not have kenneling facilities, something a vet hospital usually does have.
4. In the past, human outpatient facilities have been permitted in this district (which does allow professional offices) although human hospitals are not permitted in the district.
I think think this whole line of reasoning is silly, and to top it all off, the proposed location is completely inappropriate for this type of use. However, the applicant will not take no for an answer and are now appealing to the ZBA. So I am appealing to all of you - can anyone help me bolster my argument that this use is in fact closer to a vet hospital than a doctors office or outpatient clinic with humans as patients? Or, if I am completely crazy and the applicant is the sane one, please tell me so before I have to go to the ZBA?
Thanks very very much.