Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198600082 BOS Minutes Special Use Permit 1987-02-03 SP-86 82 Caleb Stowe, Village Office Limited Partnership - Petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a commercial kennel - indoor only (24.2.2.11) on 1.041 acre of land zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the northeast side of Berkmar Drive, approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the U.S. 29 south-bound lane. Tax Map 61U-02, Parcel 4. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Deferred from December 2, 1986. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report explained that the applicant was requesting the permit on behalf of Mr. Michael Cronk, who would be operating the kennel on the site. Of primary concern in this review were issues of noise levels and the intensity of the proposal. The report included the following statements: "This proposal was deferred by the Planning Commission on December 2, 1986, until a certified acoustical engineer's report could be obtained on the construction and soundproofing measures proposed for the kennel. Since that time, the applicant has agreed to reduce the number of runs in the kennel to 86 total. A certified engineer's report has been submitted by the applicant which indicates that with the construction of the kennel as proposed the sound even at the nearest residential boundary would be either 26dBA (with gypsum board and acoustical ceiling construction) or 30 dBA (with acoustical ceiling only) . This is assuming a noise level based on the boarding of 100 dogs." Mr. Benish added that it had been determined that a maximum of 132 dogs could be at the kennel and the noise levels would increase 5 decibels, i.e. 26dBA would become 31 dBA and 30 dBA would become 35 dBA. The staff report concluded: "The staff has reviewed this petition for con- sistency with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the kennel would not be a substantial detriment to other properties in the area. The noise level at the nearest residential properties will be below the required 40dBA limit." The Chairman invited applicant comment. • February 3, 1987 Page 3 Mr. Andrew Boninti was present to represent the applicant. Also present was Mr. Caleb Stowe, the property owner; Mr. Stan Benstead, construction engineer; Mr. Mike Cronk, who will be operating the facility; Mr. Wildermuth, acoustical engineer; and Mr. Bob McKee, who designed the site plan. Mr. Boninti pointed out that several letters have been received from property owners in the Berkeley Subdivision who are in favor of the proposal. He offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Barry Dofflemyer, owner of Wakefield Kennels, addressed the Commission. He was concerned about the density of the proposal and he also felt the acoustical engineer's report did not explain adequately how the figures were derived. He felt the limit which had been imposed on his facility in 1978 had set a precedent for this type of use. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Wildermuth. Mr. Wildermuth explained that his calculations were based on measured data taken from several kennels. He added, "The calculations of the expected noise level at the site were based on a composite calculation of a 'noise insulation factor' of the entire building, assuming that the noise level would be 105 dBA." He pointed out that 105 dBA would be a worse case situation and likely would never be achieved. He also pointed out that his calculations had not taken into consideration the fact that there will be office area in the front of the kennel area which will act as a barrier and further reduce the noise. He explained that he had not shown detailed calculations because they are somwehat meticulous. In response to Mr. Michel's question regarding density, Mr. Wildermuth stated, "With this type of noise, density doesn't really have any bearing on it because the dogs do not bark at the same time." Mr. Dofflemyer again addressed the Commission and strongly disagreed, based on his experience, that dogs do not bark at the same time. 'The Chairman invited comment from the County Engineer. Mr. Armm felt the acoustical engineer's report "made sense" and that the noise reduction factors used were in agreement with what he had learned in limited research on the subject. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Benish if any of staff's proposed conditions addressed the issue of what would happen if the decibel level were exceeded. Mr. Benish explained that condition No. 2 (Compliance with 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance) requires that the facility stay within the specified decibel level. Mr. Horne added that if complaints were received, and the facility was found to be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, the owner would have to do whatever is necessary to come into compliance. It was determined an outside consultant would probably have to be hired to measure noise levels since the County staff presently has no one who is qualified to make this determination. February 3, 1987 Page 4 Ms. Diehl asked if staff had considered limiting the number of animals and not just the number of runs. Mr. Benish stated this had been considered but it would be very difficult to police. Ms. Diehl was concerned because the site plan did not show any restrictions either. Mr. Benish explained that the applicant's most recent revision of the plan shows 40 runs that are 3x4 and could accommodate only one dog, and based on this plan the total number of dogs would be 122. He stated that the approval could be conditioned on this most recent plan. It was determined staff's research had not been able to uncover any specific information as to minimum space required for each animal, other than that the dog should not take up more than 30% of the pen. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the Commission had set any kind of precedent with previous similar approvals (e.g. Wakefield Kennels which was restricted to 75 runs and 8,000 square feet) . Mr. Payne stated he could not recall the basis for that restriction. He added, "The real question is whether a limitation that you might impose would reasonably serve any proper objective. If the 75-unit restriction in a given case was appropriate because, based on the evidence before you then, it was the most reasonable way to limit production of noise in that case, it would have some precedential effect to the extent in that it probably wouldn't be appropriate to put some other number, either larger or smaller, unless there was some other change in the facts." He could not recall if there had been any relationship between the number and the noise issue. Mr. Payne confirmed that the Commission should review these proposals on a case-by-case basis and determine if they meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Horne added that the controlling factor in most cases is the noise level, which will clearly change depending on the location of the nearest residence, the construction of the building, the number of dogs, the terrain, etc. Mr. Payne pointed out that the number of dogs allowed could be related to factors other than noise, such as sanitation, health of the animals, etc. Mr. Keeler added that in the case of Wakefield Kennels, it had preceded the performance standards and 75 was the number of runs that Mr. Dofflemyer had requested. He recalled that the Berkmar Drive facility had had to comply with the limitation on the number of runs and the performance standards. He stated that he did not think that past limitations on runs had been based solely on noise considerations. Regarding a letter received from Dr. Richard Freedman, dated January 16, 1987, in which Dr. Freedman asked that the same restrictions be applied to this proposal as were applied to his special permit for a veterinary hospital in this same area, Mr. Keeler explained that Dr. Freedman's facility, a veterinary hospital, was different than a boarding kennel and also that his property had been zoned C-1 and not HC, and C-1 does not permit boarding kennels. February 3, 1987 Page 5 Mr. Cogan stated that if the applicant has demonstrated that he can meet the terms of the Ordinance and the Supplementary Regulations, then the use complies. The Commission invited comments from Mr. Cronk who will be operating the kennel. Mr. Cronk addressed the Commission and stressed that it was his intention to provide a first-class operation which would be an "attribute" to the County. He called the Commission's attention to the letters which were received attesting to his professionalism and reputation. Mr. Wilkerson stated he had visited Mr. Cronk's current facility on Fifth Street and had found it to be clean, well-maintained, and not excessively noisy. Mr. Bowerman stated the applicant had demonstrated that the proposal meets the requirements of Section 5.1.11 and moved that SP-86-62 for Caleb Stowe, Village Office Limited Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions. 1. Kennel shall be limited to 86 indoor runs, and layout labeled Exhibit A presented to Planning Commission February 3, 1987, and titled Berkmar Park Pet Motel, dated 1-20-87. 2. Compliance with 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Construction of the kennel shall be in strict accord with the proposed construction and soundproofing measures outlined in the acoustical engineer's report by Wildermuth and Associates, dated December 13, 1986. Soundproofing measure shall include gypsum board and acoustical ceiling construction, and all recommendations outlined in Section 8 of the report shall be incorporated into the construction of the building. Should windows be used in the building, all windows shall be sealed and non-operable. 4. This permit shall be limited to the proposed structure "A" on the Berkmar Park Site Plan by Robert McKee and Associates, dated November 2, 1986. 5. No outdoor runs or other confinements. 6. This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder is issued for a commercial kennel operated by Michael Cronk and is not transferable. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Gould stated he could not support the motion because he felt a special permit in this situation was inappropriate. The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Gould and Michel casting the dissenting votes.