An animal crematorium isn’t an “agricultural use” of land, the Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled.
Nor would a pet crematorium be legal in Elizabeth Township, a residential and farming community north of Dayton, the appeals court said in a dispute that pits kennel owners against township authorities.
In 2007, Michael Artz and his wife obtained a permit to operate a kennel on 11 acres they own. At the time, Artz disavowed any intention to operate a crematorium at the site, a possibility that enflamed some area residents.
However, township lawyer John Fulker of Troy said Artz had already purchased the equipment but denied plans to operate it because “he wanted to calm down the neighbors.”
“It’s agricultural and residential, and people want to keep it that way,” Fulker said.
According to Artz, a local woman had distributed 200 flyers “stating that I was going to spew dead animal ash over the township.” He said such a facility would “reduce pet carcasses to dust, and that it does not expel any ash from its stack.”
In 2008, his lawyer notified the township that Artz did plan to operate a pet crematorium after all. The lawyer said the facility would comply with Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Miami County Board of Health standards.
Artz testified that he intended to “take the dogs at a full life cycle from puppies all the way to cremation. And to operate a kennel, I thought that was the best way to give my customers a full range of things they could use.”
He denied that it would be a commercial operation, although Fulker said Artz acknowledged wanting to attract dead animals from sources other than his own kennel.
When Elizabeth Township insisted that the facility would be illegal, Artz and his wife sued. They contended that a zoning permit is unnecessary because the property is in an agricultural district and the proposed crematorium would be an agricultural use that’s exempt from local zoning regulations.
But a trial court judge agreed with the township and also said the site wouldn’t qualify legally as a cemetery because it didn’t have at least 40 acres.
The Court of Appeals also sided with the township and drew a distinction between the kennel and a crematorium.
“Breeding, raising and care of dogs constitute animal husbandry” — a recognized form of agriculture, Judge Mary Donovan wrote in the court’s unanimous opinion.
But “operation of an animal crematorium is not a necessary function or normal operation within the agricultural community consistent with the purpose of the agricultural district,” Donovan continued.
Fulker said the appeals court decision should end the dispute.
Lawyers for Artz didn’t return phone calls seeking comment.