My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1986.11.24 RESO 1986-0026
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
1986 CC Resolutions
>
1986.11.24 RESO 1986-0026
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2017 2:03:31 PM
Creation date
1/15/2015 1:09:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Resolutions
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RZFASONS <br />Based on the record, the governing criteria of Chapter 320-7, <br />Subd. C of the Hugo City Code and the foregoing findings we <br />conclude the Club's request for amended Special Use Permit to <br />establish higher permitted noise levels at the property line <br />should be be denied for the following reasons: <br />1. The health, safety and general welfare of occupants of <br />surrounding land will be adversely affected by amending the <br />Speical Use Permit as requested by the Club from the 40dB <br />limitation to higher levels as requested, since such an increase <br />would allow the creation of noise readily perceived as loud and <br />annoying, would be intrusive, would potentially have an adverse or <br />deleterious affect on their emotional, mental and physical health, <br />and would unreasonably interfere with their enjoyment of life and <br />property. <br />2. An increase in permitted noise levels above the 40dB <br />limitation would adversely affect property values of surrounding <br />properties. <br />3. The proposed increase in permitted noise levels would not be <br />compatible with the policy of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan for <br />maintaining a rural environment and the implied protection of <br />quietude. <br />4. The Club has failed to adequately demonstrate that all other <br />possible noise abatement procedures, devices, or structures have <br />been demonstrated to be unavailable to limit noise of shooting. <br />5. The Club has not demonstrated that the Minnesota Environmental <br />Rights Act violation giving rise to the permanent injunction by <br />Washington County District Court has been corrected, such that <br />operation of the Club shooting facility would be permitted under <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.