Laserfiche WebLink
the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act nor that the requested <br />increase in permitted noise levels would be compatible with <br />Minnesota Environmental Rights Act requirements. <br />6. The Club has failed to show a substantial change of <br />circumstances and ambient noise levels at the Club's property line <br />from the conditions that existed at the time the Special Use <br />Permit was issued and the 40dB limitation was accepted by the <br />Club. <br />7. The Club did not challenge the 40dB limitation at the time the <br />Special Use Permit was issued, and thereby assumed the risk of not <br />being able to operate and waived the right to challenge the <br />reasonableness of the limitation. <br />8. While the test data of the Shekeda Study may have been <br />scientifically taken as to recording of meter readings, though the <br />City never was asked and never agreed on the methodology as to <br />location, time, and metering of ambient conditions, the proposed <br />conclusions to be derived from the data obtained do not establish <br />the ambient noise levels at the Club's property lines, nor does <br />the Study prove that the noise level in the Special Use Permit is <br />unreasonable. <br />9. To protect the quietude of the area and under the <br />circumstances that exist, the 40dB noise level limitation at the <br />Club property line is not unreasonable. <br />10. Many residents and surrounding landowners oppose raising the <br />permitted noise level limitation giving annoyance, loss of <br />property values, and detriment to health and welface as some of <br />the reasons. <br />11. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the <br />application of the Club for the reasons set forth on pages 49 and <br />-7- <br />