Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 19 <br />zoning ordinance simply required: that a CUP applicant show that the <br />noise from a proposed use would not adversely affect neighboring proper- <br />ties; and that the use would not impact the neighborhood by intrusion of <br />noise. <br />Furthermore, the court refused to adopt—as August had urged—the <br />proposition that a governing body could consider the effect that noise <br />would have on surrounding properties only if the noise level surpassed the <br />sound level limits promulgated by the MPCA. Such a proposed rule of law <br />would place a governing body or property owner at risk for a Minnesota <br />Environmental Rights Act ("MERA") violation, said the court. The court <br />reasoned that if a government entity could only consider noise from a <br />proposed use that meets or exceeds the limits enumerated in the adminis- <br />trative rules or statutes then the entity could, by definition, only consider <br />noise levels that establish a prima facie MERA violation. <br />See also: Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod <br />and Gain Club, 257 N W 2d 762, 8 Envtl. L. Rep. 20002 (Minn. 1977). <br />Case Note: <br />August had also argued that the County Board of Commissioners had erroneously <br />considered neighborhood comments. The court rejected that argument, finding a <br />"a municipal entity may consider neighborhood opposition when it is based on <br />something more concrete than non-specific neighborhood opposition "—such as <br />detailed factual complaints from the neighborhood like August's neighbors' <br />descriptions of their personal experiences with the noise caused by all of the <br />rounds being fired each weekend. <br />Procedure/Comprehensive Plan— <br />County municipal development <br />commission adopts comprehensive <br />plan for neighborhood <br />Landowner and commission dispute whether <br />commission was required to establish township <br />advisory committees when adopting the plan <br />Citation: Fifty Six LLC v. Metropolitan Development Conm'n of Marion <br />County, 2015 WL 4753802 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) <br />INDIANA (08/12/15)—Among other things, this case addressed the is- <br />sue of whether a metropolitan development commission was required, <br />under state statutory law, to establish township advisory committees when <br />adopting a comprehensive plan for a neighborhood. <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />