CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Klopfenstein testified that there will not be storage tanks on the property, and will not be spraying on the property. With respect to visual concerns, Mr. Klopfenstein testified that the concern of the property being an "eyesore" has been addressed by a berm and planting trees. With respect to parking issues on the easement, Mr. Klopfenstein testified that there will no longer be parking by his workers in the easement, and that he is committed to being a good neighbor to his neighbors' farming operations 12. Courtney Reed testified in opposition to the Application. Ms. Reed testified that the surrounding areas in which there are farming operations also have homes that are impacted by the noise at the Subject Property arising from the proposed conditional use. Ms. Reed testified that she is aware of the typical noise of a farming operation, including tractors and harvesters; however, the noise that is associated with the Applicant's operations far exceeds the anticipated and typical farm noise. Ms. Reed testified that the decibel level of the grinder and the excavators is exceedingly high and precludes quiet enjoyment of her property. Ms. Reed stated that her children and family are unable to be outside during noisy operations. Ms. Reed also questioned the actual time of active grinding as vague. Ms. Reed inquired whether the "four times per year" suggestion meant four days per year or four weeks per year. Ms. Reed also addressed her concern that the noise from the operation would impact property values to the detriment of surrounding properties. 13. Roger Weddle, Appellant, testified at the hearing. Mr. Weddle has lived near the Subject Property for over thirty years. Mr. Weddle inquired about the direction that the proposed conditional use would expand on the Subject Property. Mr. Weddle stated his concern for the high value soils in the area being impacted by the dust, water, and noise created by the proposed activity that could occur about 100 feet from his property. Mr. Weddle testified that the extreme property noise rattles his windows. Mr. Weddle testified that he does not believe that the vegetative berm will not protect his family from possible disease from tree debris from diseased trees. Mr. Weddle stated that the Staff Approval did not consider the impacts on surrounding properties. 14. Nicholas Rhoten, attorney for Adelman Peony Gardens, LLC, and Steve Adelman, presented his client's objections to the Application. Adelman Peony Gardens is located across Brooklake Road from the Subject Property. Mr. Rhoten raises four arguments: (1) The Application lacks a sufficient connection to farm uses and is not essential to the practice of farming. (2) The proposed activity is not as characterized by the Applicant and is actually a commercial, non -farm use of the property in which the mulching operation is secondary. (3) The Application fails the Farm Impacts Test. (4) The Application should be denied based upon ongoing violations that would not be cured by approval of the Application. 15. Steve Adelman testified at the hearing. Mr. Adelman, member of Adelman Peony Gardens, LLC, operates the farming operations across Brooklake Road from the Subject Property. Mr. Adelman testified that noise from the activities at the commercial operations are audible over one-half mile away. Mr. Adelman states that the noise from the Subject Property impacts nearby farming operations. Mr. Adelman also addressed negative impacts of use of accessways by Applicant's vehicles. Mr. Adelman submitted the CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 6 Page 11 of 26