BOA minutes 030810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/8/2010 Page 25 of 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 International, a standards writing organization. Just was informed last week, was very honored to be given an award from ASTM that has been only given to eight acousticians previously so it was a real shock and surprise. Nick Herman: Were you employed by Mr. Lonsway in connection with the Special Use Permit? Noral D. Stewart: Yes. I was. Nick Herman: Tell the board what you were employed to do. Noral D. Stewart: I was ask to look at the design of the kennel facility, the facility for boarding the dogs to help ensure it would contain the sound of the dogs to a reasonable level to the point that it would not be an interference to the community. Nick Herman: You have heard Mr. Whitaker’s testimony and these exhibits we have been showing the board. Have you seen all those exhibits? Noral D. Stewart: I believe so. Nick Herman: Were you asking to, in connection with your review of all those plans, to make any recommendations? Noral D. Stewart: Yes. I will go back and correct one thing, I have seen the building plans, site plans, and I think there was a document I may not have seen. Nick Herman: That was the applicant’s justification statement. Noral D. Stewart: I have not reviewed that statement. I reviewed the plans and upon reviewing the plans, my initial comments were that the basic building design was good. The walls were a good design, both the concrete block and the staggered stud upper walls with hardy plank side on the outside. The basic roof ceiling design was good. It was a good indication that they had a sound absorptive ceiling, a type of ceiling that would both absorb the sound of the dogs that would keep the sound in the kennel from being as loud and would help block the sound getting into the attic and out through the roof. Those were good positive aspects of the design. I identified four weaknesses. The primary first one being the windows needed improvement. Secondarily, the ventilation system for the space and the door on the opposite from the Southerland’s was a weak design. Finally, the attic ventilation was an area that could be a finishing touch to help a few more db off after taking care of those first three things. Nick Herman: Let me summarize that. You talk about a need to improve windows? Noral D. Stewart: Yes. The windows were in the basic plan were a common thermal window, typical small air space window. That is much weaker than the walls and with enough windows that would have been the weak link in the building. Nick Herman: Did you make a recommendation? Noral D. Stewart: Yes. We recommended they use a window that had about a three inch air space between the panes of glass. Nick Herman: You understand that recommendation to be accepted by Mr. Lonsway? Noral D. Stewart: That is my understanding. Nick Herman: What about this improved ventilation? Noral D. Stewart: This was not shown on the drawings, on the end of the south end of the building of the space that has the dogs, there is an exhaust vent where air is pulled out of the building and exhausted out. This is sort of a gable vent in the upper part of the gable end of the building and without some treatment of that duct leading to the outside, the barking sound,