BOA minutes 110915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 1/11/2016 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 21 of 48 are done normally to try to control the higher frequency part of the sound actually make the building weaker down in the base 1 range. A common example of this is when you build a wall that’s got a cavity in it, like your common stove wall. Whenever you do 2 that, you’re creating a situation down at the low base frequencies where that wall has a frequency of which it tends to vibrate and 3 will pass sound through. Now, above that frequency it does a better job of blocking the sound. 4 5 So you can improve the sound blockage from speech and higher frequency sound but, you’ve weakened it down at that base 6 range. So, if you don’t do something like that and you’ve just got, say, a solid piece of material. Well, heavy masonry is great but 7 I’ve not heard anything about heavy masonry here. I do see a tin roof, a metal roof, I don’t know what’s under that roof. I don’t 8 know if there’s a ceiling down there, a heavy ceiling with a big air space that would help out or not. I don’t know, I haven’t seen any 9 evidence to show me what has been done to assure that the base is contained in this building. When you do a cavity construction 10 with a set of large cavity, if you make your layers of material heavy enough and you make your cavity big enough you can shift that 11 resonance down to a very low frequency that’s below the frequency of the music. That’s what you have to do if you’re going to do 12 that kind of construction. You’re two basic options are that or very heavy construction. One or the other to block that base. We 13 have experienced cases, one of the case of a church where the music from that church was loud enough that it was literally 14 shaking the walls of homes nearby, 300-500 feet away. It can be a difficult problem, I’m not saying that they haven’t, don’t or won’t 15 be able to control it. I think it can be controlled, if you do the construction right. But, I haven’t seen any evidence presented, to 16 show me that they’ve got control of the situation. And my fear is that what you will have is, in the evening, the neighbors hearing 17 the constant thump, thump, thump. Which can be, you’ve probably heard these boom cars that go by sometimes, maybe not quite 18 as bad as some of them, but persistent through the evening. And, with regard to this kind of thing is really, can be irritating. We get 19 calls from neighbors of these types of facilities and of churches and other facilities that have music too, that have these problems. 20 Some of these things don’t happen all the time, they’re not continuous. Like this would be primarily Friday and Saturday. And if 21 somebody comes to buy a house in the community, they come look at it on a Thursday afternoon, they have no idea what’s 22 happening on Friday or Saturday. 23 24 So we always get these calls too, from the people who have bought something next to something that’s a problem and that’s the 25 story, “It wasn’t there when I came to, I had no idea it was there”. Still, they hear it. So it’s a difficult situation but, my main thought 26 on the whole thing is I don’t see the evidence and I’ve come here before on behalf of applicants I’ve had to show what was being 27 done to contain the sound. And I haven’t seen that demonstrated here tonight. The local ordinance, noise ordinance, has some 28 measured level limits in it, that you have to meet. With the distances involved in this case, it’s possible they would probably need 29 those. But, those are limits that are intended for broadband, sort of, steady sounds, that are non-distinctive, that sort of blend in 30 like traffic and so forth. When you get distinctive sounds that are attention getting, and music is very much a sound that is intended 31 to get your attention and to convey information. Those kinds of sounds tend to be a disruption and an interference to people, if 32 they simply hear. Especially hear it clearly. That’s just the experience that we have and it’s something that’s recognized in the 33 acoustics community. That is more of a signal to noise ratio where the noise is the background sound and the signal being clearly 34 heard over it. The ordinance further says that it prohibits any sound which is substantially incompatible with the town and location 35 where created, which is perceived by a person of ordinary sensibilities as interrupting normal peace and calm to receiving land. 36 This is an area where the land is peaceful and calm. That may be attractive for a venue like this but, the venue itself is disturbing 37 that peace and creating a different environment. And, as I say, I think it could potentially be done in a way that it’s more compatible 38 but, I don’t see the evidence presented to demonstrate that it’s being done. 39 40 David Rooks: That’s all the questions that I have. 41 42 Karen Barrows: Further members of this hearing? Matt? 43 44 Matt Hughes: When you evaluated this permit, or this proposal, what evidence did you evaluate to come to your conclusion? 45 46 Noral Stewart: First of all, my visit to the site, which told me what was there and so forth. And then, the evidence in the packages 47 that I was provided, which I’ve gathered there may be some additional details in some of the stuff that was submitted to you that I 48 may not have had in my package. But what I saw in my package showed me no details of the construction of the building other 49 those exterior drawings that showed metal roof, of ---- siding. It didn’t show me the full construction of the wall or the full 50 construction of the roof, what the details of the window construction were and so forth. So it did not provide me the evidence to 51 show that they’ve done their homework, to properly control things. I did not take the position that I had to, myself, prove that it 52 wouldn’t work. But, my position is that they have not proved that it will. 53 54