Village staff presented an update on code enforcement activities and draft performance standards intended to regulate noise, vibration, external lighting, odor, visible particulate emissions and hazardous pollutants. The presentation combined historical complaint data, a review of existing municipal nuisance code, and draft ordinance language that would create objective performance standards in the zoning code.

Will, the code enforcement official, summarized complaint dispositions for 2024–2025. He said the most common nuisance complaints were noise, odor and light; many complaints were substantiated and resolved without citation, and staff reported a high clearance rate when a violation notice was issued. Will explained common outcomes as “unfounded,” “unsubstantiated,” “substantiated,” and “administrative closure,” and said most substantiated nuisance complaints were brought into compliance without escalating to citations.

Joel explained the distinction between a public nuisance and a private nuisance and cautioned that state and case law require stronger proof for declaring a public nuisance in court. He and Will showed draft performance‑standard options: calibrated Class‑1 sound meters for objective noise thresholds; vibration meters for measurable vibration limits; light meters (lux/nit measurements) for glare and spill‑light limits; olfactometers (field odor meters) for odor quantification; and particulate monitors (purple‑air sensors) for particulate matter. Staff noted equipment costs range widely (examples cited: Class‑1 sound meters $3,500–$11,000; olfactometer devices $2,000–$2,500; purple air monitors $200–$250) and that devices and protocols require calibration, training and maintenance to produce evidence admissible in court.

Trustees questioned whether the village should buy and maintain monitoring equipment and train staff or instead contract third‑party experts on a complaint‑by‑complaint basis. Several trustees favored relying on outside experts because the equipment is specialized, calibration requirements change, and the village would not frequently use expensive instruments. Others recommended adding clearer numeric references to state standards where available (for odor and particulates) to avoid repeated ordinance changes.

Staff recommended the village proceed cautiously: the existing nuisance and noise code is used effectively on a complaint basis, but adopting industrial performance standards would set objective enforcement thresholds and require additional resources. The board made no ordinance change at the meeting; staff said adoption of performance standards would require a planning‑commission hearing and public process if the board wished to pursue it.