Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14 Comments (2)Correspondence submitted during Public Hearing from Sheila Pinner April 2, 2014 Thank you for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission- My name is Sheila Pinner and I am here tonight with my husband Jack Pinner. We are residents of Laurel Grove Rd. We are very close (across the street and within sight) of the proposed indoor boarding kennel. We are also here tonight to express our concerns and opposition to th proposed kennel. I Since receiving Ms. Neff s letter of March 10, 2014 regarding her proposed indoor boarding kennel, I have been researching the effects the proposed kennel would have on us as property owners. I have been focused on a debate going on in neighboring Clarke County involving the proposed approval of a dog kennel. In an article written in the Winchester Star, • supervisor and realtor A. R. Dunning "Pete" Dunning read a letter from the county Commissioner of Revenue, Donna M. Peake, who said homeowners there would lose 15 to 20 percent of the value of their homes if the kennel is built next to their properties. I do understand that this involves a different property. I immediately began contacting local realtors and county offices for information. I would note in addition there are thousands of sites on the internet from every state which address devaluing of property by having a kennel near your property. I was speechless when I 1• over and over again that a kennel could have a negative effect of anywhere from 15 to 50 •. on property values. The realtors I •• did •i• the i• • view that my property would be devalued. No one can guarantee that my property value will • •. affected. Two questions which I would like to have an answer to: Will the property • conditional •. transfer if the property is sold? I have been told VA (Frederick County) would require a new •. Is this correct? Could a new property owner expand the business on a renewal of the same permit? I understand from realtors I asked that VA (Frederick and surrounding counties) !• • have a nuisance disclosure requirement if you sell your property. Is this correct? My understanding is that VA has a disclosure form which states on it that you do not have to disclose a neighboring nuisance if you sell your home. But, word of mouth would travel. Realtors know what i's located in a • Most • would speak to neighbors to find out about the area. One • made the comment "who could sell a home next ••• to a kennel? Common sense tells me most folks would look elsewhere". My other • are obvious: Noise (you can easily hear more than one dog as far as V2mile — what about 28 dogs? Traffic — Rt. 629 has been close to completely paved in the last few years — this has added more traffic traveling all hours of the day and night (neighbors have had mail and paper boxes constantly destroyed due to traffic increase). This will only increase with an operating business on the road. What hours would the kennel have for drop off and pick up? It is proposed as a 24 hour operation. 28 dogs and 28 owners in 28 vehicles that could travel on our residentially zoned road in one morning and a new group of 28 owners In 28 vehicles with 28 dogs dropped off that afternoon would be 56 additional vehicles on the road in a day, extreme but possible, What arrangements have been made for parking .9 Would this face the front of the property? 1Vii' hat about the odor of taking care of this number of animals? Are thei-4-- proposals for adequate disposal of waste .9 Will there be a septic system? Will there be runoff?. What are the county requirements if any? Will the entire facility be fenced or just the walking and exercise areas What is required? I Has there been a noise impact study .•9 1 have read much on the proper authorities coming out to investigate a barking dog and measuring the noise levels.9 What recourse 'i'• s open to property owners once the permit is issued? Is this just the first phase of a proposed kennel.9 What are the restriction• s as far as expansion? Are their required site visits from county or state .9 Who regulates the conditions of the permit .9 What kind of precedent would thi's set for other proposed money making •0 businesses in a rural, residential area .9 Fourteen (14) kennels for 28 dogs. Is this Just the start? My husband and I feel that this is not a local need. There are other kennels in the area offering the same service. No amount of convenience is worth the detrimental effect to surrounding homes. Ms. Neff states in her letter that this is a dream of hers to work with and help animals. My husband and I have had a dream since we built on family property over 4J, years ago. Most of our neighbors have been •on •Laurel Grove as long as we have or longer. We •dreamed •of having • a wonderful retirement and •being abl to enjoy the serenity and the beauty of nature surrounding our home. I do no believe looking out from any front facing window in my home to a dog boarding kennel would add to this serene environment. Sheila Pinner 408 Laurel Grove Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 869-4476 To: meheran e,co.frederick.va.us; rhess ,feva.us; rshickle@fcva.us; cdehaven@feva.us; fisher @feva.us; rwells(a�fcva.us; lofton a,fava.us; ecollins(a�fcva.us Subject: BOS 4/23/14 Public Hearing on CUP 02-14 -- Opposition of Scott and Bethanne Berman to Conditional Use Permit #02-14 ("CUP")/Jessica M. Neff To: Members of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors (`BOS") and the Frederick County Planning Staff From: Scott and Bethanne Berman Our home is located at 247 Laurel Grove Road, TM # 7383 as shown on the attached Planning Department Map created March 11, 2014. We have resided in our home for 15 years. Based on the scale of the attached Map, our home is approximately I,890 feet from the proposed site of Jessica Neff s Kennel. The proposed Kennel site and our home are both located on a ridge of essentially equivalent elevation, meaning that noise from the proposed Kennel will readily travel to our home. Consistent with comments presented at the April 2 Planning Commission Hearing, we oppose the approval of a CUP for the Kennel based on the following concerns: The Kennel, clearly a commercial use increasing vehicle traffic on Laurel Grove Road, will be a use inconsistent with the residential nature of the neighborhood. 2. The presence of the Kennel will reduce the value of our property and of our neighbors' properties. The Kennel, as presently planned consistent with the Planning Commission's "Conditions," will constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood. We respectfully submit that no CUP, regardless of the "Conditions" imposed, should be granted for the establishment of the Kennel. If, however, a CUP is to be granted, then, as set forth on Page 3 of the Staff Report to the BOS, the Zoning Ordinance requires that this proposed Kennel be subject to "performance standards" to assure the mitigation of the negative impacts which will result to us and our neighbors. Further, Page 6 of the Staff Report suggests that the Commissioner of Revenue apparently has "no issues" concerning devaluation of properties located near kennels with approved CUPs. This establishes that protection against devaluation of our and our neighbors' properties is dependent upon this Board adopting specific, enforceable Conditions to mitigate the damaging effects of the proposed Kennel. We understand that the Planning Commission has recommended only the following eight (8) Conditions, which we respectfully suggest must be substantially strengthened and made more specific: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. We believe the only significant agency comment to be the Health Department's statement that "Applicant may not dispose of canine waste via the septic tank drainfield on site." Page 6 of the Staff Report states merely that "The Applicant has contacted a company for the disposal of dog waste." We understand that while there may not be established regulations for average waste produced per dog per day, nevertheless we understand there to be a "low" estimate of 5 gallons per day per dog and a "high" estimate of 10 gallons per day per dog, which would produce a range of 140-280 gallons per day of wastewater assuming the Kennel operates at the Planning Commission's maximum of twenty-eight (28) dogs. We request that the Board, as a Condition of any CUP, require the Applicant to provide a written plan confirming: a. projected wastewater usage for the Kennel under maximum capacity; b. proiected system for containing and storing both wastewater and solid waste; and C. the frequency of waste pumping/waste removal, with confirmation of a contract with a waste hauler. 2. No more than twenty-eight (28) dogs shall be permitted on the property at any given time. Given the waste containment and disposal issues of Condition 1 above and the control and noise issues of Condition 5 below, we submit that the maximum number of dogs not be permitted to exceed at any given time. This CUP is solely to enable the boarding of dogs on this property. The Applicant's Application notes the desire to operate the Kennel "for those going on vacation and need a temporary home for their dogs while away." Therefore, we request that this Condition be expanded to provide that no dogs shall be maintained in the Kennel for a time period exceeding 28 consecutive days. No employees other than those residing on the property shall be allowed In order to assure the performance of Conditions 5 and 6 below, we request that there be a Requirement that at least one person residinLr on the property shall remain on site at all times that any dogs are housed in the Kennel. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking. As we understand it, Section 48-23 "Unreasonable noise unlawful" of the Frederick County Code provides merely that it shall be unlawful, after written notice by the Sheriff to the custodian of a dog for such custodian to allow such dog to make unreasonably loud noises as are plainly audible to adjoining residents for property owners so as to unreasonably annoy or disturb such residents or property owners. Since Section 48-23 requires prior written notice from the Sheriff, and since this Section contains no specific criteria assisting its enforcement, the Board must set specific Conditions on the proposed Kennel. 2 Pages 3 and 6 of the Staff Report note that the proposed 20 x 30 square foot fr ee-standing garage that is to serve as the Kennel will be constructed with wider than normal walls to provide noise insulation. However, while the Planning Commission noted concerns for noise abatement. Condition 5 provides no standards. Obviously, noise mitigation of dog barking (both inside and outside of the kennel structure) must be achieved, in order to make Condition 5 meaningful and enforceable. To assure performance, we suggest: a. specific noise -abatement construction standards, with the use of specific sound absorbing materials, must be imposed upon the proposed kennel garage structure since the facility apparently will not consist of concrete walls or a standard wood type roof construction. The type of construction should provide at least a nominal 50-55 STC performance which equates to a nominal 45-50 dBA noise reduction at the typical dog bark frequency range Further, the buildine requirements should address the "composite performance" provided by walls, roof, doors, windows and any ventilation openings, as typically windows and doors represent the "weakest path" to abating noise Noise emanation from the facility should be addressed by reducing openings represented by windows, doors and/or ventilation systems. b. a specific size/dimension should be imposed on the "exercise yard," and a fencing Requirement of a minimum of six (6) feet in height, with all fencing to be maintained throughout the life of the CUP. C. general experience establishes that individual dogs under control of a person generally do not bark. Generally, one dog or a few dogs under the control of individuals during outdoor activities may not bark, and if barking occurs, the dogs could be brought indoors. Therefore, we suggest a Limitation as to the number of dogs that will be permitted to be outside of the kennel structure at any one time should be established, along with a Requirement that the dogs be supervised/controlled while outside. We suggest that no more than 5 supervised dogs be permitted to be outside at any one time, and that no more than 2 unsupervised dogs be permitted to be outside at any one time. 6. All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m. Without strengthening Condition 5 as suggested above, this Condition literally permits the Applicant to maintain 100% of the dogs outdoors, everyday, during the 13 hour period of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The Board must impose specific Requirements tai avoid the creation ofa nuisance. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size and five (5) feet in height. No comment, other than the Zoning Ordinance defines a "Cottage Occupation" as "an occupation or profession customarily carried on in a dwelling unit or an accessory building which `...is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes."' The presence of twenty-eight (28) dogs (each generating a fee on a daily basis), 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, "stretches" the logical definition of a "Cottage Occupation," and makes the residential use of Ms. Neff s property (and the residential use of our and our neighbors' properties) incidental and secondary to the Kennel itself. 8. Any expansion or modification of this use will require the approval of a new CUP. In addition, we sulZaest that any CUP be restricted solely to the Applicant (Jessica M. Neff), and that the operation of the Kennel under the CUP not be transferable to any other person or entity without the prior approval of the Board as an amendment to the CUP Conditions. Page 3 of the Staff Report references a 400 foot distance as being required for a "no screen Category C Buffer." Page 5 of the Staff Report notes comments of PIanning Commissioners that the Kennel location is buffered by corn fields and large stands of trees. Given, however, that there is no guarantee of the continued existence of the corn fields or the trees, and given the siting of the Kennel on the ridge, we su2LYest that supplemental screening through Applicant's plantinz of Everareen trees along the southeastern boundary of Applicant's property be required. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns, which we look forward to discussing further during the April 23 Public Hearing. Respectfully submitted, Scott and Bethanne Berman M:1Berman, Scott& BethannelBerinan Opposition 4-21-14.docx