Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986.11.24 RESO 1986-0026RESOLUTION 1986-26 A RESOLUTION COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT REMANDING THE APPLICATION OF THE WHITE BEAR ROD & GUN CLUB FOR AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO MARE FINDINGS AND REASONS FOR DENIAL. BE IT RESOLVED: On June 20, 1986, the Minnesota Supreme Court remanded to the City of Hugo (the City) the matter of the application of White Bear Rod & Gun Club (the Club) to amend its Special Use Permit to make findings of fact and to give reasons to explain its decision to deny the application to amend the Special Use Permit to establish a reasonable noise level limitation at the Club's property line. The following Findings are based on the record compiled by the Hugo Planning Commission and the City Council in hearing and considering the Club's application on February 6, 1985, and March 6, 1985, and are made in compliance with the remand of the Minnesota Supreme Court. FINDINGS 1. The Club submitted a noise level study (Shekeda Study) to support its application to have the special use permit amended to permit sound levels at the property line higher than the 40 decibel level established in the special use permit. 2. A representative of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) recommended that methodology for establishing background noise levels be agreed in advance between the Club and the City; but there was no prior concurrence between the Club and the City as to the background noise level testing methodology although the Club had indicated a willingness to have prior agreement on testing. 3. The Shekeda Study did not take noise level readings at the property line of the Club. 4. The Shekeda Study took background noise level readings at diverse locations away from the Club property line, many of which were taken along traveled roadways. 5. The Shekeda Study and recommendations rely heavily on L50 scale readings rather than L90 scale readings which is recommended for measuring ambient noise levels. 6. No objective criteria exist in the State of Minnesota for testing and regulating impulsive noises. 7. By law the use of noise level standards attributable to nonimpulsive noise is prohibited in the consideration of impulsive noise. 8. By law the City has responsibility and authority to regulate skeet and trap gun clubs; and noise levels emanating therefrom. 9. The Shekeda Study failed to provide any noise level readings at times of day in the evening hours when background activity and traffic noises would be expected to be low and activity at the Club would be expected to be high. 10.. Councilman Potts and Planning Commission Member Atkinson provided background noise level metered data at locations near the -2- Club property that indicated a lower ambient background noise level than that suggested by the Shekeda Study. 11. The noise readings taken by Potts and Atkinson were made with meters provided by PCA and taken under procedures described by Mr. Kelso of PCA and making reading at ten (10) second intervals for double the time suggested by Kelso. 12. The Potts and Atkinson noise reading data was sufficient to put the conclusions to be drawn from the Shekeda Study in question. 13. The Shekeda Study failed to establish ambient noise levels at the Club property line. 14. A ten decibel increase of noise level at the Club property line over the ambient background noise level would be intrusive to surrounding property and persons. 15. An increase in permitted noise levels above the 40dB limitation would likely adversely affect property values of surrounding properties. 16. Prolonged impulsive noise levels above background noise levels are likely to cause emotional or mental annoyance responses in persons subjected to such noise levels. 17. Elevated noise levels may cause physical impairment of persons subjected thereto, such as elevated blood pressure and biological changes. 18. The primary policy of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan is that, -3- C "Hugo should maintain its rural environment, which is characterized by open use of land, large lot residential, protection of environmental areas and preservation of agricultural activities." 19. With the 40dB limitation in place, the Washington County district Court found that operation of the Club facility for trap and skeet shooting was contrary to protection provided by the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, and permanently enjoined operation of the Club facility, and such permanent injunction is still in effect. 20. The City has parallel concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court to regulate noise levels of trap and skeet shooting facilities, whereby the requirements of both the City and the Court must be satisfied before shooting activity can lawfully proceed. 21. The City is obligated to recognize the rural nature of the area surrounding the Club property and to protect the quietude of that area. 22. Many residents and many surrounding landowners have expressed opposition to raising the permitted noise level limitation - giving annoyances, loss of property values, and detriments to health and welfare as some of the reasons. 23. Permitted noise levels in excess of the limit set may constitute a nuisance under Minnesota Law. 24. The Hugo Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Club's application, made a transcript of the proceedings, and unanimously voted to recommend denial of the application, stating -4- reasons set forth on pages 49 and 50 of the transcript of the March 6, 1985, hearing. 25. .The Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance contemplates that gun clubs may exist in the City. 26. The Club assumed the risk of not being able to operate when it accepted the Special Use Permit conditions. 27. The Club admitted that shooting at the present facility would not meet the 40dB limit set in the Special Use Permit. 28. The Club did not establish that all possible methods and devices for noise abatement had been considered. 29. The criteria for granting an amendment to a Special Use Permit is the same as the criteria for granting a Special Use Permit, and is governed by Chapter 320-71 Subd. C of the Hugo City Code, which reads in part: ... The City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission if a report is filed, and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land, and the effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The Council may grant the applications, imposing such conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary, or it may deny the application." -5- RZFASONS Based on the record, the governing criteria of Chapter 320-7, Subd. C of the Hugo City Code and the foregoing findings we conclude the Club's request for amended Special Use Permit to establish higher permitted noise levels at the property line should be be denied for the following reasons: 1. The health, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding land will be adversely affected by amending the Speical Use Permit as requested by the Club from the 40dB limitation to higher levels as requested, since such an increase would allow the creation of noise readily perceived as loud and annoying, would be intrusive, would potentially have an adverse or deleterious affect on their emotional, mental and physical health, and would unreasonably interfere with their enjoyment of life and property. 2. An increase in permitted noise levels above the 40dB limitation would adversely affect property values of surrounding properties. 3. The proposed increase in permitted noise levels would not be compatible with the policy of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan for maintaining a rural environment and the implied protection of quietude. 4. The Club has failed to adequately demonstrate that all other possible noise abatement procedures, devices, or structures have been demonstrated to be unavailable to limit noise of shooting. 5. The Club has not demonstrated that the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act violation giving rise to the permanent injunction by Washington County District Court has been corrected, such that operation of the Club shooting facility would be permitted under -6- the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act nor that the requested increase in permitted noise levels would be compatible with Minnesota Environmental Rights Act requirements. 6. The Club has failed to show a substantial change of circumstances and ambient noise levels at the Club's property line from the conditions that existed at the time the Special Use Permit was issued and the 40dB limitation was accepted by the Club. 7. The Club did not challenge the 40dB limitation at the time the Special Use Permit was issued, and thereby assumed the risk of not being able to operate and waived the right to challenge the reasonableness of the limitation. 8. While the test data of the Shekeda Study may have been scientifically taken as to recording of meter readings, though the City never was asked and never agreed on the methodology as to location, time, and metering of ambient conditions, the proposed conclusions to be derived from the data obtained do not establish the ambient noise levels at the Club's property lines, nor does the Study prove that the noise level in the Special Use Permit is unreasonable. 9. To protect the quietude of the area and under the circumstances that exist, the 40dB noise level limitation at the Club property line is not unreasonable. 10. Many residents and surrounding landowners oppose raising the permitted noise level limitation giving annoyance, loss of property values, and detriment to health and welface as some of the reasons. 11. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the application of the Club for the reasons set forth on pages 49 and -7- 50 of the transcript of the hearing held on March 6, 1985, and the recommendation is adopted. THE APPLICATION IS DENIED. On motion duly made and seconded, the foregoing Resolution was passed the 24th day of November, 1986. Attest City C1 ?XV c � Mayor Voting For: Voting Against McAllister None Schwab Potts Peltier Hauer -8-