But the kennel's operators, Andy and Denise Reeve, strenuously deny there are excessive barking issues and expert opinion backs them up.
At a public hearing on the consent application last week, committee member Cr Kate Wilson told Factory Rd resident Ian Brown she did not think an overnight stay at his house was necessary, but she, Cr Andrew Noone and Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board member Bill Feather would visit the kennel and the neighbourhood before making a decision.
The Reeves, who also have up to 15 of their own Samoyed show and breeding dogs on site, have applied to the council for a partially retrospective resource consent for a commercial boarding kennel for 15 dogs and a cattery for eight cats on their Puddle Alley property.
The couple made the application last year after a neighbour complained about barking.
The barking that prompted the complaint was eventually traced to another property, but animal control informed the Reeves they needed to seek consent.
They were allowed to continue operating in the meantime because they were not creating any significant negative environmental effects.
Mrs Reeve burst into tears as she told the committee about her love of dogs.
She said she did not make a lot of money from the boarding kennel.
It provided a little extra to help with the Samoyed-related costs.
"People probably think I'm mental for what I'm being paid and what I do, but I do what I do for the dogs, because I love them."
She hated dogs barking persistently and worked to prevent it.
Speaking on the Reeves' behalf, consultant planner Don Anderson said there was no evidence the barking some of those opposed were concerned about was actually coming from the Reeves' kennel anyway.
The couple were also unhappy the council's consultant planner, Shane Roberts, recommended 17 conditions on any consent, when any noise issues could be resolved by a condition that the animal control department would deal directly with any complaints.
It was animal control that knew how to deal with animal behaviour, not a team of city planners, he said.
Mr Roberts' report to the committee said 35 submissions were received on the kennel application and noise was the main concern of the seven submitters opposed to the kennel.
The Reeves subsequently commissioned a report from a noise consultant, who did not visit the site, but calculated that, based on the level of noise 20 dogs vigorously barking at the same time made (let alone the more likely proposition that only one or two dogs might bark at the same time), the location of neighbours to the kennel and the geography of the site, the effects of the noise coming from the kennel would, by and large, be "less than minor" and within limits allowed under the district plan.
He concluded that any likely adverse effects of the kennel would be minor and could be adequately mitigated, and recommended the committee grant the consent subject to conditions.
A separate staff report showed the council's own noise testing near neighbouring properties last week could not conclusively say where barking was coming from.
Staff noted that on one visit, it was one of the dogs of the Reeves' near neighbour, Kevin Meehan, an opposing submitter, that was making the greatest barking noise nuisance, unprompted by any barking from the Reeves' kennel.
Speaking to his submission, Mr Meehan said his dogs would bark at someone parked at the mailbox and that the testing was done at the wrong time of the day.
He opposed the kennel because of the noise, because he was concerned there would be more than 15 dogs boarding, and because the consultation process had been flawed, he said.
Mr Brown said he and his wife, Eleanor, were opposed because of "continued and excessive" barking they believed came from the Reeves' kennel.
He was also concerned about run-off from the kennel and said he had had a nearby creek tested, which revealed a high level of contaminants.
Mr Anderson said the Reeves collected the dogs' waste and it was picked up from their property twice a month.
Cr Noone said the hearings committee had made a site visit and would continue its deliberations in private, as it was a matter that could be open to appeal.
