CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Exhibit A Ms. Reed testified that the level of noise is not similar to typical farm noise of tractors and harvesters. The evidence indicates that the operation is not just grinding, but also includes chainsaws, and equipment to transport the logs and tree debris. Although the actual grinding is approximately four times a year and averages 40-60 hours, the record indicates that there are significant additional noise concerns that impact surrounding farms. The applicant also stated they installed rock and gravel on the site, which required significant compression. Testimony from neighbors states that this created very loud noises and shook their windows and was unbearable to listen to even while inside their homes. Applicant states that the noise produced by the Commercial Use does not exceed the type of noise ordinarily permitted in the EFU zone and that residential structures to the north and northwest are at a distance that the noise is unlikely to reach them. However, Mr. Adelman's statement indicates that the noise can be heard approximately one-half mile away and is more akin to a jet engine that anticipated noise from farm equipment. Applicants also conducted a noise study, taking measurements using a TopTes TS-501B decibel meter. Measurements were taken during active mulching operations then compared to measurements taken when no mulching was occurring. These were taken from a variety of areas around the subject property and from neighbor's properties and adjacent roadways to paint a picture of all the noise occurring in and around the subject property. This study showed that generally, the noise levels when no mulching occurred were either just above or just below the 65-decibel allowance for daytime noise provided by MCC 8.45.050(1)(b). When mulching activities were occurring, the decibels measured rose and, in all cases, exceeded the 65-decibel limit. This study shows how the noise generated by the mulching operation exceeds the noise allowed during the day time by county code and, therefore, does have a significant adverse effect on nearby land uses. Additionally, the applicant states that they used multiple large semis with trailers up to 48 feet long to haul logs and equipment to the site. These operate all year and at all hours of the day and night, according to the testimony from neighbors. This additional noise shall be factored into the analysis as it creates additional adverse impacts outside of when the mulching is occurring. The criterion is not met. (e) The use will not have a significant adverse impact on potential water impoundments identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and not create significant conflicts with operations included in the Comprehensive Plan inventory of significant mineral and aggregate sites. There are no nearby water impoundments or mineral and aggregate sites identified in the Comprehensive Plan which would conflict or be adversely impacted by the proposed use. The criterion is met. CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 10