Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Noise And Project Escrow topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident cites state noise rules as city amends escrow for Cannon Valley Fair track project
Summary
A Cannon Falls resident told the City Council the Cannon Valley Fair track may be operating contrary to Minnesota noise rules; separately the council approved, as part of the consent agenda, an amendment to an escrow agreement for the track project that raises the escrow from $30,000 to $100,000 and allows reimbursement for staff time.
Jan Fennern, a Cannon Falls resident, told the City Council on May 20 that state noise rules mean the Cannon Valley Fair’s racetrack activities must meet residential noise-area standards if they can be heard at homes nearby. “Noise area classifications are based on the land use at the location of the person who hears the noise, which does not always correspond with the zoning of that area,” Fennern read from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidance, and warned that the fair “has been operating illegally” if its events produce residential-level noise at nearby houses.
The issue was raised during the meeting’s public input period; the council did not take formal action on Fennern’s statement at that time. The council did, however, approve its consent agenda — which included an amendment to an escrow agreement tied to the track project. Council member Jeff moved to approve the consent agenda, Diane Johnson seconded, and the motion carried on an affirmative voice vote.
City staff explained the escrow amendment during the consent-agenda discussion. According to staff, the original escrow amount was $30,000 and “we've spent over $20,000 of that right now. We actually do likely have outstanding invoices related to that expense. We have received the full $30,000 for that escrow. We'll definitely be using all of it.” Staff said the amended escrow increases the total to $100,000, expands the types of reimbursable costs beyond consultant fees to include staff time, and is intended to avoid repeated requests for additional funds as the project moves forward: “Going to a hundred thousand is hopefully just saying, hey, we want to make sure that we don't have to come back and ask again.”
Fennern cited Minnesota rule 7030.003 and MPCA guidance in arguing that local governments must prevent approval of land uses that will violate state noise standards “immediately upon establishment of the land use.” Fennern also read an adjusted wording emphasizing that “noise from association fairgrounds near residential areas is held to the residential housing standards if it can be heard on a residential property.”
The council’s consent-agenda vote covered multiple items at once, including the escrow amendment identified in the agenda packet as item F. No separate roll-call tally for the escrow amendment was recorded in the transcript; the consent agenda passed by general voice vote after a motion by Jeff and a second from Diane Johnson.
No formal council action was recorded in response to Fennern’s claim about compliance with MPCA rules. The transcript records no staff legal opinion or subsequent referral on the MPCA citation during the meeting; Fennern’s remarks were heard during public comment and the council proceeded with the consent agenda.
