Ben Tymann, legal representative for five King’s Highway residents, did not expect the case against the building of an asphalt concrete plant to last quite as long as it has.  Over the course of 11 sessions with the Rochester Planning Board in six months, Tymann and his clients have lost their case twice.

Now they are taking it to the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals.

During the Nov. 10 hearing with board, Tymann presented his case against the plant being built on King’s Highway in Rochester. He claimed the plant was in direct violation with zoning bylaw section four, which states that no permits will be issued to an industrial building that proves offensive to nearby residents or decreases their property values.

According to Tymann, the offensive nature of the proposed plant would be with the high noise level, odor and the traffic jams that the large trucks would cause.

The owners of the would-be plant, Edgewood Development Company, countered Tymann’s claims by stating that it is their intention to build the plant further away from the road, as well as the residents. Tim Higgins, Vice-President of Development for Edgewood, said that the approval granted by the Planning Board was based on 43 conditions the company would have to meet. Higgins said they have since met all of the conditions.

In terms of the loss of property value for the residents, Tymann said that based on real estate appraisals, the properties in question would lose about 15.9 percent of their value.

“This is beyond debate that there will be some reduction in value of the properties,” Tymann said. “Not a single piece of evidence submitted to the Planning Board by Edgewood addressed or accounted for that loss.”

Higgins countered by referencing the industrial complexes already located near King’s Highway, such as Shea Concrete Products on the adjacent Cranberry Highway.  He said that the property values of the nearby homes did not go down after other industrial plants opened in the area and they will not be affected by the Edgewood property.

For now the Board has put off making a decision in this case until Feb. 9, which members agreed would give them an appropriate length of time to look over all of the documents.