Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCheryl Anderson (Aberdeen Kennels) - Information - BackfileCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 TO: County Attorney j�� FROM: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administratory "� '\ SUBJECT: Cheryl & Mark Anderson, Aberdeen Kennels DATE: May 16, 1996 I was recently contacted by Mr. Mark Stivers, attorney for Cheryl & Mark Anderson who operate Aberdeen Kennels. He advised me that the Andersons desire to establish an apartment on the second floor of the kennel and that they do not want to have to go through the procedure of applying for an amended conditional use permit. His position is that if I will not permit them to get a building permit and establish an accessory dwelling in the kennel, he would appeal my decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals in an attempt to acquire authorization for the apartment. Background: The Andersons received approval of a CUP in 1986 to operate a kennel at the current location. This original CUP was amended in 1990 as a result of their request to increase the size and scope of the kennel. The approval letter which lists the conditions approved during the amended request hearing is at attachment 1. Following the establishment of a veterinary hospital/office in the kennel without authority, I required the Andersons and the veterinarian, Dr. James Casey, to apply for a CUP for this function. This request was approved by the Board of Supervisors in January 1995. A copy of the approval letter for the vet clinic is at attachment 2. In February 1995, a complaint was received that the Andersons had an apartment above the kennel and that someone was living there. During the initial investigation, Mr. Anderson lied about the apartment and said it was a storage room. It was later determined to be an illegal apartment after a search warrant was obtained and Mr. Anderson was confronted. Following this disclosure, we had a meeting with the Andersons' attorney and the County Building Official. They were advised of what actions were required on their part to take care of the violation that had been committed. They agreed to vacate the apartments and to provide me with a letter that acknowledged the violations and confirmed that they understood that any further violation of their permit would result in loss of their conditional use permit. This letter is at attachment 3. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Anderson Memo Page 2 May 16, 1996 Mr. Stivers is alleging that the Andersons should be allowed the accessory residence under the provisions of section 165-26 C. of Chapter 165, Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance (see attachment 4). They believe that denying them a permit for an accessory residence would. be in violation of the referenced section and they would therefore be able to appeal my decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. I contend that condition 5 of their amended kennel permit (attachment 1) does not permit the expansion without an amended conditional use permit. If this is the case, the condition on the permit was placed there as a legislative act of the Board of Supervisors and, therefore, is not appealable to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Request your opinion on this matter so I can put it to rest as soon as possible. A written response would greatly assist me in giving the interested parties the correct information. WWM/cg COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-565I FAX 703/667-0370 October 31, 1990 Mark & Cheryl Anderson P.O. Box 220 Stephenson, Virginia 22656 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Anderson: This letter is to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of October 24, 1990. Amended Conditional Use Permit #001-86 of Mark & Cheryl Anderson was approved for expansion as per Site Plan #047-90. This property is located on the north side of Route 836 in Stephenson, in the Stonewall Magisterial District and is identified as parcel 100 on tax map 44. This amended CUP is approved with the following conditions: 1. If the use of the property changes, this conditional use permit shall expire and a new conditional use permit will be required. 2. All animals will be locked inside at 9:00 p.m. 3. A site plan shall be submitted for review and approval, meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Any expansion of or buildings used for the kennel shall require a revised site plan to be submitted for review and approval. 5. Any expansion of the buildings used for the kennel, beyond the floor area of the buildings shown on the site plan submitted with this application,] shall require a new or amended conditional use permit. Such a new or amended conditional use permit shall be obtained following the procedures prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance for a new conditional use permit. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 Page -2- Anderson CUP October 31, 1990 If you have any questions regarding the conditions of the approval of this conditional use permit do not hesitate to'call this office. Sincerely, ;��144-474— Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 678-0682 February 6, 1995 Mark Anderson & James Casey 667 Walter's Mill Lane Stephenson, VA 22656 RE: CUP #012-94 OF MARK ANDERSON & TAMES CASEY;PIN 44-A-100 Dear Mr. Anderson & Mr. Casey: This letter is to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of January 25, 1995 Your Conditional Use Permit, #012-94, veterinarian hospital/office, has been approved by the Board of Supervisors with the following conditions: 1. Any expansion of facilities to accommodate this use will require revision of the orginial kennel site plan. 2. Any expansion of buildings orfacilities beyond that approved by the orginal site plan will also require a new or amended conditional use permit If you have any questions regarding your Conditional Use Permit please feel free to call this office. Sincere' W. Wayn Miller Zoning Administrator WWM/bah cc: Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of Revenue 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 O"o�9 -�// 3 /,1 MARK E. STIVERS ATTORNEY AT LAW 261 LICK RUN CROSSING STEPHENSON, VIRGINIA 22656 703-662-3501 Uo need in VA & PA Wayne Miller Frederick County Zoning Administrator 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Anderson, Mark and Cheryl 667 Walters Mill Lane, Stephenson, VA Dear Mr. Miller: As you requested, this will acknowledge receipt of notice of violation of the Frederick County Zoning Code and failure to obtain requisite approval for an accessory use of the said building space for employee living quarters. Please be assured that the said space will not be utilized in the future for human occupancy without first obtaining the necessary approval of the county. It is understood that such future use of the said space as employee living quarters without the approval of the county would be considered a willful violation of the zoning code and would negatively impact the building's current use resulting in loss of the conditional use permit of the kennel. As you know, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson plan to utilize the said space for kennel related purposes. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, Mark E. Stivers MES:ms cc: Mr. and Mrs. Anderson Acknowledgments: �- -/- Ula Cheryl An �rson ,4 o `2 § 165-26 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-26. 'Accessory uses. § 165-26 Secondary uses that are normally or typically found in association with the allowed primary use shall be allowed on the same parcel or lot as the primary use. A. Agricultural accessory uses. The selling or processing of agricultural products produced on the premises shall be considered to be accessory to an agricultural use. On bona fide, operating farms, temporary or permanent housing for workers actively working on the farm shall be an allowed accessory use. B. Accessory dwellings. One (1) accessory dwelling shall be allowed with any single-family dwelling as long as the following conditions are met: (1) The floor area of the accessory dwelling shall be no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross floor area of the primary residential structure on the lot. (2) In the RP Residential Performance, MH1 Mobile Home Community and R4 Residential Planned Community Districts, accessory dwellings shall only be allowed if they are attached to the primary residential structure. '(3) In no case shall a mobile home be allowed as an accessory dwelling in the RP Residential Performance District, R4 Residential Planned Community District and R5 Residential Recreational Community District. [Amended 6-9-19931 C. Dwellings in a business. One (1) accessory dwelling shall be allowed with any business or industrial use only so long as it is occupied by the owner of the business or industry, an employee or a watchman. D. Child day-care services. Child day-care services and facilities shall be allowed in the M1 Light Industrial District as an accessory use to any allowed use or group of allowed uses in an industrial park. [Added 8-8-19901 E. In no case shall a mobile home or temporary trailer be allowed as an accessory use, unless it is used for temporary or permanent housing on a bona fide, operating farm. [Added 6-9-19931 16530 10 - 25 - 93 - 3 - business office center. Along with extensive. restrictive covenants, Mr. Butler said that arrangements have been made to use underground power lines, curb and gutter. He added that the 70 foot wide entrance road will be enhanced by an island.' Mr. Wilson commented that the Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions was stamped, "preliminary draft for discussion only" and the text of the covenant stipulated that, "...the connecting road between Victory Lane and Route 50 will be complete within 18 months." .Mr. Wilson was concerned that this statement might be deleted from the draft at a later date. He felt that since the master plan was approved with the road, he did not want to see development without the road connection in place. The Planning Commission noted that restrictive deed covenants could not be enforced by the Planning Commission. They also noted that there was nothing in the ordinance that would require the applicant to extend the road to undeveloped land. Mr. Butler assured the Commission that development would not take place in the interior of the development until a road was in .place. However, he felt that his clients should not be given a deadline for the road to be completed. Mr. Wilson felt this project would be a great 'asset to this area of the County and moved for approval. This motion was seconded by Mr. Romine. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the Final Subdivision Plat of the Airport Corporate Center for one lot (30.0000 acres), zoned M-1, for business and industrial uses. This property is located on US Route 50 East in the Shawnee Magisterial District. PUBLIC HEARING Amended Conditional Use Permit #001-86 of Cheryl L. Anderson for the addition of 40 kennel runs to her existing kennel in the Stonewall District. Action - Denied Mr. Watkins noted that this item was tabled from the last Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit an informal site plan and kennel design for noise control and screening. Mrs. Cheryl Anderson, the applicant, noted that a site plan had been submitted to the Planning staff as requested by the Commission. Mrs. Anderson also introduced Mr. Keith Williams, with Keith Williams & Associates Architects, who prepared a detailed report on sound and noise levels. Mr. Keith Williams, of Keith Williams & Associates Architects, 2786 f - 4 - explained the report he prepared on the acoustics situation in relation to the neighbors. Mr. Williams' report suggested building provisions to minimize noise transmission and also attempted to prove that the neightbors' complaints, ie. that the dogs' barking was becoming a mental nuisance, were unfounded and unsubstantiated. According to his studies, Mr. Williams felt that the neighbors could not be hearing the Anderson's dogs after 9:00 p.m. when they were locked inside the kennel. Chairman Brumback called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition and Mr. Esten Rudolph III, resident of the area, came forward. Mr. Rudolph said that he has lived in the area since 1971 and last summer was the first summer that he could not sleep at night due to dogs barking. Mr. Rudolph said that he did not want 40 additional dogs at the site. Mr. McDonald asked for a traffic count on Route 836 during peak periods. Mrs. Anderson said she made a, traffic count using the months of June, July, August and September, for a total of 122 days. She said that this averaged approximately four cars per day going in and out of the kennel. She said that there were 45 days with more than four cars per day and 77 days with less than four cars per day. Mrs. Anderson said that there were two big days, July 25 and August 15, with 14 cars and 15 cars respectively. It was noted that Mrs. Anderson had upgraded and maintained the road to the kennel. Mrs. Anderson felt neighbors who were complaining of dogs barking were hearing dogs running at large in the neighborhood and not dogs in her kennel. Mrs. Copenhaver felt that this particular kennel was the best in the area and that this service was needed in Frederick County. Mrs. Copenhaver added that when the Commission first approved this conditional use permit, the Commissioners.felt this was an ideal location because it had quarries on two sides and because it was located quite a distance away from other houses. Mr. Stiles said that he did not have any question about the quality of this facility. Mr. Stiles said that every time dog kennels have been proposed for an area, the Commission has always considered the opinion of the neighbors. In response to letters in the newspaper, Mr. Stiles said that he had no personal grudge against Mrs. Anderson. Mr. Stiles said that the previous two times that Mrs. Anderson had come before the board requesting a kennel, he had voted in favor of her request. Mr. Stiles felt that the limit on the number of dogs at this location had been reached. Mr. DeHaven said that the neighbors feel they can accept the 30 dogs currently at the kennel, but did not want to have any additional dogs at this same location. Mr. DeHaven moved for denial and this motion was seconded. by Mr. Stiles. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby deny Amended Conditional Use Permit #001-86 of Cheryl L. Anderson for the addition of 40 kennel runs to her existing kennel. This property is located at the dead end of Route 836 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. 2787 mm The vote on this request was: YES (TO DENY): NO: Stiles, Sherwood, Golladay, DeHaven, Wilson, Romine Copenhaver, McDonald, Brumback SANITATION AUTHORITY REQUEST FOR A WATER MAIN EXTENSION ALONG ROUTE 277 Mr. Watkins said that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, at the request of the developers of Wheatlands and the Virginia Department of Corrections, has requested that a proposal to extend a 12-inch water line along Route 277 to the Frederick County line be reviewed by.the Planning Commission to determine whether it is in accordance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The Authority also proposes to construct a 400,000 gallon elevated storage tank near the intersection of Routes 277 and 641. Mr. Watkins said that the adopted Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the extension of public water lines; however, the adopted Capital Improvements Plan does contain a project to extend sewer service along Route 277 to Sandy's Trailer Court, but not at the full length requested by the Authority. Mr. Watkins said that the staff's opinion is that the proposed water extension should be considered for adoption into the proposed update of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that in the meantime, however, it is difficult to determine that it is in conformance with the current plan. It was the staff's opinion that the proposed water tank was in conformance with the Plan. It was noted by the Planning Commissioners that the Board of Supervisors had already approved this request. Mr. Stiles said that the Board of Supervisors' reaction was that the Route 277 water line was in the Capital Improvements Plan and, therefore, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the land beyond Sandy's Trailer Park is already zoned for development. Mr. Stiles explained how the line would be paid for, as follows: The County and the Sanitation Authority are paying to run the line to Sandy's Trailer Park. Beyond that point, Mr. Glaize and Mr. Bowman are paying to run the line to their property (Wheatlands), down Route 277. At some point off of the Bowman and Glaize property, the State, through Camp 7, is going to pay to run a lateral extension off of this line. By Bowman and Glaize running this line to Wheatlands, they are allowing service to be provided to residents of the area, that could not be provided any other way. It was noted that it was not cost effective for the Sanitation Authority to provide the service in this area. The installation of a water tower east of Stephens City is a part of this project for several reasons. It will provide pressure for the Route 277 line; but more importantly, it will solve the pressure problems experienced in the Lakeside/Fredericktowne area. Whether the Route 277 water line is extended or not, the Sanitation Authority has stated that it needs to build a water tower at this location and cannot afford to do so without the participation of the other parties. 2788 -5- 1,000 feet north of the. Winchester Corporate limits in the Gainesboro District. Conditional Use Permit #013-88 of Cheryl L. .Anderson for an off -premise sign in the,Stonewall District. Action - Approved Mr. Tierney noted that the proposed location for the sign is within the state's right-of-way. Mrs. Cheryl Anderson, the applicant, said that the sign would be located 40' from the side of Route 11 and 25' from the side of Route 836. She added that the proposed location would be 15' east of Potomac Edison Company's power poles and right-of-way. Mrs. Anderson said that she has applied for a permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation to put the sign in the state's right-of-way. The Commission and staff discussed whether or not an off -premise sign needed business zoning. It was noted that county regulations allow off -premise signs in all zones; however, state regulations prohibit off -premise signs along some primary roads without the proper zoning. The staff noted that secondary roads and some others do not require commercial zoning according to state regulations. No one else was present to speak in favor or opposition to this conditional use permit. Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve conditional use permit #013-88 of Cheryl L. Anderson for an off -premise sign to be located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Routes 11 and 836 in the Stonewall District, with the following conditions: 1. This will be a one-year permit to be reviewed and renewed annually by the staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. 2. If the use, occupancy, or ownership of the property changes, this conditional use permit shall expire and a new conditional use permit will be required. 3. All necessary local and state permits need to be obtained. Conditional Use Permit #001-89 of Charles and Nancy Thompson for a Cottage Occupation for garden supplies and rentals, 2854 MEMO FOR RECORD RE: ABERDEEN KENNELS SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 8/08/90 Larry Ambrogi - Anderson's site plan should be accepted by staff for approval or disapproval. 8/02/90 Planning Staff - Memo to Larry Ambrogi to ask if we are obligated to accept site plan application. 9/11/89 Planning Staff - County position for issuance of building permit has not changed. No building permit issued until revised CUP is approved. 8/25/89 Tom Schultz - County should issue a building permit as a "revised CUP" is not required. 8/18/89 Planning Staff - County letter to Tom Schultz informing Mr. Schultz that Planning Dept. requests guidance from Frederick Co. Planning Commission due to significant expansion of kennel. C:)8/16/89 Planning Commission at which the Commission meted .the staff to require a revised CUP; including public hearings for proposed addition. 8/16/89 Tom Schultz - His firm represents the Andersons. Mr. Schultz feels that condition # 2 "use, occupancy, or ownership" of property has not changed in any way since the original CUP was issued. ()8/09/89 Planning Staff - Memo to Planning Commission requesting guidance as to whether or not the proposed addition is substantial enough to require an amendment. 8/03/89 Mark Anderson - Letter to planning staff requesting cancellation of revised CUP. 1/24-89 Planning Staff - Letter to Cheryl Anderson stating that "the addition you describe is a significant change in use and would warrant a revision to existing CUP". 10/2/88 P/C Meeting: a) Andersons submitted informal site plan and kennel design for noise control and screening and a report from Keith Williams and Associates Architects regarding sound and noise levels. c 4 page -2- Memo/Aberdeen September 18, 1990 b) Neighbors (Esten Rudolph III) complained about noise. c) Mr. Stiles felt that the limit on number of dogs at this location had been reached. d) Mr. DeHaven felt that the number of dogs had been reached and moved for denial (seconded by Mr. Stiles) e) VOTE - Yes (to deny) 6 No 3 0 259 Ilpon motion marle by Robert M. "hories, seconded by C. William nrnrloff, Jr. and passers unanimously, rezoning application number n15-87 of Battle- field Partnership, c/o Pichard r;. Hardison, P. n. nox 7834, Winchester, Virginia, to rezone 6.79 acres from 9-3 ( Industrial Transition) to 11-2 (Rusiness r-eneral) for the State Farm Insurance Adjuster's office and other business uses was approved. This property is located on Route 11 Couth of Winchester, across from the Department of PAotor Vehicles, and is identified as Parcel 11 on Tax "Aap 75 in the r)perluon 'lagisterial District. CONDITIONAL I1SF PFRIIAIT 000146 OF rHFRYL L. ANDERSOm - AAr. Watkins stated that the Planning Commission, at their meeting on July 1, 1987, approved this conditional use permit renewal with conditions. Air. Tom Louthan, Attornev, appeared before the Roarri on hehalf of ftArs. Anderson. RAr. Stiles stated that if anv complaints are received from the neigh- bors, there would he no guarantee that this permit would he renewed. 11pon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Pohert ^A. Rhndes and passed unanimously, the renewal of conditional use permit number 001-86 of Cheryl L. Anderson was approved. rOMMITTFE REPORTS FIRF AND RESrIIE rOMMITTFF REPORT Air. Orndoff, Chairman of the Fire and Rescue Committee, presented the following report and stated that it was for the Rnard's information only and no action was necessary: The Fire and Rescue Committee met on 1Aondav, June 15, 1987, at 7:30 P.RA., in the North NAountain Fire Companv facility. All lire Companies, except r'nmpany 17 from Star Tannerv, were represented. Also attending were r. William Orndnff, Roarrl KAemher and Stephen F. Owen, Assistant County Administrator. The following items were discussed: Draft Fmergencv operations Plan Air. Owen provided each Fire Company with a draft Fmergencv operations Plan. tIe asked that each company review the draft plan and he prepared to discuss problem area, at the next meeting. Maintenance Code AAr. Owen advised that a maintenance code for residential and cnmmer- cial huildings had been recommended by the Public"forks Cnmmittee and would - 4 - approved. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission has hereby determined that a conditional use permit is not required for a family cemetery plot and, therefore, Conditional Use Permit #012-88 of Pat Himelright should be dropped and the application fee refunded. Amended Conditional Use Permit #001-88 of Cheryl L. Anderson for the addition of 40 kennel runs to the existing kennel, located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Tabled for 30 Days Mr. Watkins said that this facility requires State Water Control Board approval rather than Health Department approval because it involves animal or industrial waste. Mr. Watkins said that he spoke with the State Water Control Board and they confirmed that the Andersons have a separate septic drainfield system for the animal facility. Mr. Watkins presented a letter from Mr. Charles B. Kelly, an adjoining property owner, who had requested a 30 day extension of the request because the property is jointly owned by his son in Houston', Texas, another son in Dallas, Texas, and himself, from San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Watkins said that Mr. Kelly has requested the extension in order to coordinate a joint position of the three owners. Mr. Watkins also presented a petition from residents in the area who were opposed to 40 additional kennel runs. Upon motion made by Mr. Golladay and seconded by Mr. Stiles, the Commission unanimously agreed to make the letter and petition a part of the official record, as follows: 2768 - 5 - September 26,1988 3939 Fredericksburg Rd. G-5 San Antonio, Tx. 78201 Mr. Robert W. Watkins, Director Dept. of Planning and Building County of Frederick ;.9..Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 Subj: Conditional Use Permit #001-86, Mark and Cheryl Anderson. Your letter of Sept. 21, 1988,recieved Sept. 24, 1988. Ref: Telephone converation between Mr. Watkins and Mr. Kelley.: Sept.26,1988. ., Dear Mr. Watkins: Our property, adjoining the property referenced in Conditional, ..Use Permit 001-86, is jointly owned by ourselves in San Antonio, "...a son in Dallas, and a son in Houston. In order to coordinate our joint position on the above permit, we respectfully request an extension of 30 days, so,we may J fairly consider the opinions of all involved. Any information you can provide us that will assist in our determination will be most welcome. Your cooperation, and response to our request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Charles B. Kelley 2769 y�4^. 6 - PETITION the Planning Commission We the undersigned residents of the Stephenson Area wish to protest the construction of 40 additional kennels for Cheryl L. Anderson, Application number CUP 001-86 for October 5, 1988 at 7:30P.M.. Our objections is the high noise level of the current installation. 1. iP c� 2 3. % 5.� 6. 8. /) 9.� CLG� 10. 11 (/f% 12. ,{ p� 13. �%pp Il 15. 17 ,6r ,J ti OCT 988 0 4�O�flm 2770 - 7 - Mrs. Cherly L. Anderson stated that she wanted the additional kennels to handle the overflow of dogs that needed to be boarded in the county. Mrs. Anderson said that she caters to people who care dearly about their dogs. She said that she provided a clean, odorless facility and explained that all the animal waste goes into a septic tank and not onto the ground or into a lagoon. Mrs. Anderson said that from the time she opened her kennel in November.until last week, she had serviced several hundred people in the community. She said that the kennel has been full the entire summer. She explained that if she was not permitted to have the additional 40 kennels, which is actually the number that she has had to turn away during the 4th of July and Labor Day weekends, she was afraid it would be detrimental.to her business because clients would go, elsewhere for the service. Mrs. Anderson pointed out that the majority of kennels in the area are substandard. She also noted that she has tried to operate the kennel as professionally as possible and has joined the Winchester - Frederick County Chamber of Commerce and the Business and Professional Womens League, as well as the American Boarding Kennel Association. Mrs. Anderson presented a petition consisting of 136 names of residents from the Stephenson/Clearbrook/Brucetown area and clients who were in favor of the additional 40 kennel runs. Upon motion made by Mr. Golladay and seconded by Mr. Stiles,. the Commission voted unanimously to make the petition a part of the official record, -as follows: 2771 - 8 - ,.: r. 96 N w 64 - S� �7G W�n��� i%q — G6Z 7Q70 17 'y/� �p„►, ,�Rpclda�kJ� CJ:���le,rFu ,l� �•b• P_o�t c?/.S p;vjckes4eCt l/k,lz6 k_? J-36P a5 �.L.�.53�,,�1VJl ZZb ��.o�as b? —7 6, 7- A �� l A'' 97--- z- . -- /Mb -- - —.1 plc 38�7g,���`1//r'f l -3iyz �.i Tv ,F57� 1� ��� 77.S 9� �&/s= 3213 27 22 . . to Le 1�- o ?-- -47) - 9 - 61 �� air it Ph 4 i A Ile v AS+ -cq Loos W -c tq,S� - � 33 - k- z I u <) 0 - s � - 0- r- -L-.l - L 7771 \JA 66) &6 9 - �51� ti No A/� 10 - � 1) ft�C� la I) I � ,,'7,I�_,, AAin. n At Ll 77 7-3azo 0� T— it) l�1 - I6 ds)-- - -- -- - - - 2775 -12- od-s apor4--a-f AioerdmiA 4c-re-S dre-SX '11011it I!!!!!, PI tj L/,q 2-3 lilt 12 -34, Ab 2776 Jk� I Y)- IMIA/r."we If7 OX Q i f,? 6,-JJ' (f - co & 7-6TJa- e6X sow-�%Ca ��4�%���0 ,����'�'�' �a�c�a5�� y�4 P 71 - 4,-� gcl� Ilk z %- 2 �v,N l/ rh, 6"� -Y6� 2,s—Z2 &J, 66:2—Wks 3V Vyl Z '2 'el .$) C�.��- %, 7�;c� �.?°�� /` ,�jao2 � l vim.-________ _ � �� .� �.sp� �_ ��1 �/,��-a�-- ''� l�f. 1 le. aa_- -,trvt a _ L al 2 777 14 - y �� ZI 2778 — 15 — Mr. Peter Schmitt, a practicing veterinarian in Winchester, felt that Mrs. Anderson's facility was head and shoulders above other kennels in the area, as far as cleanliness, operations, conditions for the animals, and.the care of the animals, Mr. Schmitt said that the service she provides to her clients, as well as his own clients that he refers to the facility, is top—notch. Mr. Schmitt added that he has heard no complaints. Ms. Beverly Grimes, past board member of the SPCA, said that while a member of the board, she visited various kennels in the area. Ms. Grimes noted that some kennels she visited were substandard. She said ,that she would recommend Mrs. Anderson's kennel to anyone. Mrs. Grimes felt this was an operation that was needed in this area and the county residents should not have to take their dogs out of the area for service. Mrs. Janice Miller, a.resident of Frederick County, also came forward to speak in favor of the kennel, for the same reasons as previously mentioned. Chairman Brumback called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the kennel and the following persons came forward: Mrs. Betty Bragg,_ property owner to the south of the Anderson's property, said that although she did not reside at this location, she did have concerns about the additional traffic that would be generated. Mrs. Bragg said that this road is one—laned in most places. Mr. Esten Rudolph, III said that he lived approximately one eighth of'a mile from the kennel and he was opposed to the kennel addition because of the noise from the barking dogs. Mr. Rudolph said that he has heard dogs barking until 11:00 and 12:00 at night during the past summer. Mr. Rudolph said that he, as well as the people who signed the petition of opposition, were opposed to any growth of this facility. Ms. Faye Carter, adjoining property owner, was present to represent both her husband and herself and other residents of the area. Mrs. Carter -felt that the request for the additional kennels should be denied. She said that the dogs bark early in the morning, late at night and on and off during•: the -day.. Mrs. Carter was concerned about the increase in noise 'and traffic. Regarding the traffic on the road to the kennel, Mrs. Anderson said that she has already widened the road along Mr. Kelly's property. She said that she had received permission from Mr. Charles Kelly to remove the old fence line and has replaced it with a new fence line, in exchange for allowing the Andersons to go onto his property to widen the road. Mrs. Anderson said that she has also received permission from the property owner along the creek to cut back trees along the road. She said that this will increase the width of the road by approximately two to three feet and will allow two vehicles to pass along the entire length of the road. 2779 - 16 - Regarding the complaints of noise, Mrs. Anderson felt that the barking was coming from other dogs in the area. She said that she had plans to erect screening with a woven fence and/or trees. She also noted that she had 11 inches of insulation installed on the ceiling of the kennel building. Mr. Esten Rudolph, Jr., resident of the area, commented on the 15 foot egress/ingress right-of-way, which he has privy to. Mr. Rudolph felt the road needed to be widened. Mr. Rudoph was also concerned about the noise from barking dogs, especially around 11:00 and 12:00 o'clock at night. Mr. Rudolph was opposed to enlarging the facility because of the increase in noise it would generate. Mrs. Anderson said that the road to the kennel was not even passible with one vehicle when they first moved there. Mrs. Anderson said that they have personally shouldered the expense, approximately $25,000-$30,000, for improving the road with excavation, widening, culverts and gravel.' Mrs. Anderson added that she was anticipating putting a shingled roof on the kennel runs to keep the runs dry and she also felt it would help in reducing noise. Mrs. Anderson said that she was willing to do whatever was needed as far as screening was concerned. The Commissioners were interested in seeing a site plan with Mrs. Anderson's construction plans and screening for controlling the noise problem before taking action on this request. The Commissioners were concerned that 70 dogs at one location may be too many. Upon motion made by Mr. Stiles and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table Conditional Use Permit #001-88 of Cheryl L. Anderson for 30 days and requested the applicant to submit an informal site plan and kennel design at least one week prior to the next public hearing. OTHER The Commission and staff scheduled a Planning Commission worksession on October 24, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r�rik. H. Brumbac -,'-Chairman Robert W. Watkins, Secretary 2780 z 194 that he did not agree as this was a request -for land to be rezoned from what it is presently zoned. Mr. Ambrogi stated that the Board needs to use their discretion, they do not have to approve every rezoning request just because water and sewer is available in that particular area. Mrs. Ambrose stated that reference had been made several times to the Regional Plant and she wondered if this request could be delayed until this plant has been completed. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Throckmorton and seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox to deny rezoning application number 009-85 of Ronnie Ward, P. O. Box 207, Winchester, Virginia_ to rezone 3.4 acres on Route 657 from A-1 (Agricultural General) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family residences. This property is identified on Tax Map Number 65 as Parcel Number 29 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Aye - Rhoda W. Maddox and Thomas B. Throckmorton. Nay - Kenneth Y. Stiles, Will L. Owings, Robert M. Rhodes and C. William Orndoff, Jr. Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes and seconded by Will L. Owings, to approve the rezoning application number 009-85 of Ronnie Ward. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Aye - Kenneth Y. Stiles, Will L. Owings, Robert M. Rhodes and C. William Orndoff, Jr. Nay - Rhoda W. Maddox and Thomas R. Throckmorton. CUP #010-85 - CHERYL L. ANDERSON - BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Riley presented this conditional use permit request and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mrs. Anderson appeared before the Board to answer any questions they might have. After discussion by the Board, they felt the dogs that would be housed at this kennel should be brought inside by 9:00 P.M. and not let out before 8:00 A.M. Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the above condition to the conditional use permit of Cheryl L. Anderson was approved. Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, conditional use permit number 010-85 of Cheryl L. Anderson, P. O. Box 264, Stephenson, Virginia, for a kennel on the East G 4( 0 195 side of Route 600 was approved. This property is identified on Tax Map Number 50 as Parcel Number 16 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER RENUMBERING SECTION 1-2 AS PARAGRAPH 1-1-9 AND SECTION 1-3 AS PARAGRAPH 1-1-10 - APPROVED Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously,, the above Ordinance amendment was approved. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTEI 10, FIRE PROTECTION; ARTICLE I, BURNING OF LEAVES, BY THE DELETION OF SECTION 1-4, INCLUDING PARAGRAPH 1-4-1 - APPROVED Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the above Ordinance amendment was approved. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 10, FIRE PROTECTION, BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE 11, GENERAL FIRE PROTECTION - APPROVED Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Throckmorton and passed unanimously, the following Ordinance amendment was approved: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 10, FIRE PROTECTION, BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE 11, GENERAL FIRE PROTECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE 11 GENERAL FIRE PROTECTION 2-1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2-1-1 PURPOSE - The purpose of this standard is to consolidate into one document the necessary requirements for the prevention or minimizing of loss of lives and property that may result from fire in Frederick County. 2-1-2 SCOPE - The Code requirements in this Article shall be administered by the Frederick County Director of Planning and Development or his designated representative. The Director or his designated representative shall interpret this Section, where necessary, and that interpretation shall be binding and final. This Article shall apply to all developments that are required to submit a site development plan under Chapter 21 of the Code, and; other nonresidential developments as determined necessary by the Director of Planning and Development of his designated representative. 2-2 DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS - Words defined in this standard are intended for use only with sections of this standard. Definitions set forth in any document referenced by this standard shall be the acceptable definitions for use of that document only. Words not specifically defined in this standard or other referenced documents shall be interpreted as being the ordinary usage of the word as set forth in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, as published by the G & C Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1966. 2-2-1 APPROVED - Acceptable to the Frederick County