Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental And Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ashwaubenon board opens discussion on performance standards; residents urge stronger enforcement on smells and noise
Summary
Trustees asked staff to refine a draft ordinance that would add industrial/commercial performance standards (noise, odor, vibration, lighting); residents urged the village to invest in enforcement equipment and stakeholder coordination before the code goes to Planning Commission.
The Village Board of Ashwaubenon on Feb. 25 reviewed draft zoning language that would add objective performance standards for commercial and industrial districts — covering noise, vibration, odor, lighting and visible emissions — and directed staff to gather stakeholder input and return with more analysis and recommendations.
Assistant Village Manager Joel (last name not specified) presented a draft amendment to Chapter 17 that would reference objective measures (including Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 429 for malodorous emissions) and add procedures for investigations. Joel and Public Safety representatives warned the board that some provisions — especially for hazardous pollutants and sound level enforcement — would require technical equipment, training, or involvement from state agencies (Department of Natural Resources or the Environmental Protection Agency) and might be difficult for village staff to enforce alone.
Several residents urged stronger enforcement and immediate action. Chuck Kurtz and Teresa Rosic told the board they had lived with persistent odors and intermittent low‑frequency noise for years and asked the village to develop a stakeholder process, a real‑time reporting app, and to invest in equipment and trained personnel. Affected residents described odors that interfere with yard use and business operations that produce intermittent noise or vibration, and said after‑hours incidents are a particular enforcement gap.
Board members expressed support for a deliberative process that would solicit input from business owners, affected residents and regional partners. Trustees asked staff to compile enforcement case data, assess costs for monitoring equipment and training, and compare municipal approaches used by nearby communities. The board voted to direct staff to prepare a final ordinance draft and related materials for Planning Commission review; members suggested forming a stakeholder group but did not create one immediately. The board’s motion to refer the draft to staff and plan commission passed on a voice vote.
Why it matters: residents said air and noise nuisances have reduced their outdoor enjoyment and raised public‑health concerns; staff said the draft creates clearer standards but warned that enforcement could be resource‑intensive and sometimes require state agency action. The board asked staff to return with cost estimates, examples from peer communities and a public engagement plan before proceeding to a public hearing.
