Laserfiche WebLink
even acknowledge its existence, let alone consider its merits. Instead, the Board arbitrarily <br /> determined that only 19 ft. of buffer was needed. <br /> 13. Arborvitaes planted 8 ft. apart plainly do not constitute an adequate visual screen or an <br /> adequate sound barrier. The conditioned second row of similarly spaced arborvitaes does not <br /> solve the problem. <br /> 14. The Board's Decision relied on an existing special permit by which the Town Water <br /> Department (an adjacent property owner) stores water department pipes and materials on the <br /> Subject Property, but neither the application for the Special Permit nor the plans submitted <br /> by the Applicant indicate continuation of the previously existing special permit alongside the <br /> instant Special Permit. <br /> 15. Given the industrial nature of the activity planned for the Subject Property, the conditioned <br /> operating hours of 6:30 am to 6:30 pm seven days a week will produce significant adverse <br /> impacts for Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs will not have a single day free from disturbance. <br /> 16. The Decision reflects that the Board gave no consideration to Attorney Senie's request — <br /> made on both hearing dates — for an analysis of acoustical impacts. A study of expected <br /> increase to ambient sound pressure levels is typically required when a proposed project runs <br /> the risk of distressing neighbors by the emission of greater sound pressures. No acoustical <br /> analysis was ever required by the Board or conducted by the Applicant, despite the <br /> Applicant's burden to demonstrate that his proposed use of the Subject Property will not <br /> cause excessive levels of noise. <br /> 17. The Board appears to maintain a practice of conditioning the grant of special permits on <br /> "approval" obtained from the Town's Consulting Engineer. As can be seen on page 4 of the <br /> Decision, approval condition # 7, this was done in the instant case: "Conditioned upon the <br /> applicant to obtain approval from Charlie Rowley, Consulting Engineer for the Town to <br /> review the subject plans. . . ." This is an improper delegation of the Board's authority, which <br /> was pointed out on the record by Attorney Senie. Such review by the Board's Consultant <br /> must be part of the public hearing process so all parties and the public have an opportunity to <br /> comment on the review. <br /> 5 <br />