Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/1998

Home

Z.B. June 25, 1998 -- Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I about noise said the proposed use wouldn't exceed the maximum allowable noise levels, the commission couldn't properly deny his request based on noise concerns. The commission asked the court to dismiss Swain's appeal. DECISION: Appeal dismissed. The commission properly denied Swain's application based on the adverse noise impacts. Swain correctly argued that nothing contradicted his expert's testimony -- that the noise levels would fall below the levels allowed by the city ordinance -- but compliance with that ordinance had nothing to do with the standard for a special use permit. The city's zoning regulation allowed the commission to consider noise as a factor in granting or denying a special permit, but it neither incorporated nor referred to the city noise control ordinance. Nothing required the commission to find an applicant was automatically entitled to a special permit because the noise levels fell below the maximum permitted. The commissioners simply didn't believe the projected levels of noise would be acceptable. People had their own concepts about acceptable noise levels in certain circumstances, and no particular expertise was needed to aid them. The commission was fully aware of the surrounding uses, and although they consisted of commercial or industrial operations, it wasn't unreasonable for the commissioners to find that the noise generated by the rock crusher would adversely affect even those uses. There was no evidence that any of the surrounding uses generated significant noise. see also: Feinson v. Conservation Commission, 429 A.2d 910 (1980). Subdivision -- Neighbor says town approved subdivision without considering impact on access roads Citation: Rattner v. Planning Board of West Tisbury, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. 97-P-0684 (1998) Smith-Burke and Hart (developers) owned an 81-acre parcel on Martha's Vineyard island in Massachusetts. Rattner owned a 31-acre abutting parcel. The developers sought permission from the town to subdivide their parcel into four lots. Three of the lots would each have one single-family house, and the fourth would have two houses. Two private dirt roads provided access to the developers' property. One (the southwest road) also provided the sole access to Rattner's property. The developers didn't propose, and the town planning board didn't consider, that the southwest road would be used to access the subdivision. Rattner complained residents of the proposed subdivision would use his road (the southwest road) for access to the subdivision, and the southwest road wasn't suited to the extra traffic. The board approved the developers' subdivision plan, waiving strict com- pliance with its regulations relating to road improvements. The board could