PORT TOWNSEND – Martin Mellish, a neighbor of Frog Mountain Pet Care, has filed a lawsuit challenging county approval of expansion plans for the pet boarding business.

Mellish says that a Jefferson County hearing examiner’s approval of the plans on June 18 violates county code.

He filed a lawsuit on Aug. 10 in Clallam County Superior Court against Frog Mountain owners Harold and Jane Elyea and Jefferson County, claiming that the county’s hearing examiner, Mark Hurdelbrink, erred in granting a variance and conditional use permit.

No construction has begun. The Elyeas still must obtain building permits from the county Department of Community Development.

All the parties will be in court for an initial appearance on Sept. 14.

Jefferson County Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez said he will defend the hearing examiner’s decision.

“I think we will be able to successfully defend the permit,” Alvarez said.

Mellish is most concerned that expanding the business from 30 kennels to 45 will mean more noise from barking dogs.

“The decision violates [Jefferson County Code] because the granting of the variance is injurious to the Mellish property because it allows a 50 percent increase in the allowed number of dogs, and it generally allows a significant increase in noise on these dog runs caused by the increased average number of dogs using the dog runs,” the suit says.

Mellish will represent himself.

He has lived for about two years on property adjacent to Frog Mountain Pet Care, which is separated by a fence that the Elyeas put up.

The Elyeas have owned the pet business for about two months longer than that, but the business has been in operation for the past 16 years, which makes it a grandfathered business – meaning it can have a variance from county code.

The Elyeas said Mellish knew he was moving next to a pet boarding business when he bought the property and that he should have expected some noise from animals.

Also, Jane Elyea said, the plans are meant to mitigate the noise by building features that limit the dogs’ excitement, such as relocating the place where food is prepared to prevent the dogs from seeing food and barking.

In a public hearing in May that drew about 60 people, Mellish was one of a handful of neighbors who spoke against the expansion plans.

The majority who spoke were clients who board their animals and wanted to give support for the expansion plans.

Elyea said she doesn’t believe the appeal Mellish filed will put a stop to the plans.

“Twice Mr. Mellish has been told the county feels we should be issued the conditional-use permit and variance,” Elyea said, referring to the hearing examiner’s decision and a motion for reconsideration Mellish filed that was denied.

“It’s just one more step we have to address. It’s just more busy work, more time wasted and more money spent.”