Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bedrock Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission orders research on bedrock removal and noise mitigation; adds requirement to research need for removal
Summary
After sustained public concern about noise from on-site bedrock removal, the commission approved a project charge directing staff to research other jurisdictions' approaches, numerical/noise metrics, enforcement feasibility and to investigate whether applicants have feasible alternatives to bedrock removal.
The Planning Commission on Sept. 18 approved a project charge to study regulations and enforcement practices for bedrock removal and on-site processing (including chipping and blasting), responding to repeated public complaints about noise and disturbance from recent local projects.
Staff summarized the new rules the commission adopted in recent LDR amendments and explained how a Bedrock Removal and On-site Processing Plan must be submitted when bedrock removal is necessary or reasonably foreseeable during development review or when blasting is required. Staff noted a de minimis exception that currently allows hydraulic jackhammering up to 40 total hours per project without a formal bedrock removal plan; commissioners and members of the public raised concerns about that threshold and its effect in dense neighborhoods.
Why it matters: multiple members of the public described sustained, high-decibel drilling and chipping at nearby development sites and argued the city’s noise ordinance and the new bedrock rules do not currently protect public health, safety or welfare. A public commenter pointed to standards developed by the Vermont Environmental Board under Act 250 and urged the city to adopt comparable numeric limits for sensitive receiving locations such as homes, schools, day cares and parks. Commissioners and staff agreed the issue requires technical study—noise metrics, measurement protocols, enforcement feasibility, cost impacts and industry best practices—and that staff should consult worker-safety, building- and demolition-industry sources and other municipalities.
Action taken: the commission approved a project charge to research three areas: (1) other municipalities and industry best practices (including worker-safety standards); (2) the use of numerical or quantifiable limits for noise and vibration and how those would be measured and enforced; and (3) feasibility and enforcement implications (staffing, cost, technical review). Commissioners also accepted an amendment to include research into how applicants could demonstrate that bedrock removal is truly necessary (for example, whether site design alternatives or foundation design alternatives were considered). The motion carried unanimously.
Staff cautioned the regulations are new and untested locally; no bedrock removal plans had yet been submitted under the new rules at the time of the meeting. Staff said the DRB or administrative officer may require independent technical review of submitted plans.
