Resident correspondence raises multi-year construction noise, early-morning truck complaints; commission refers letter to town council
Loading...
Summary
A resident letter read to the Planning and Land Use Commission described three years of near-daily construction across from a home, early morning concrete truck arrivals and backup beeper noise; commissioners said the town nuisance ordinance does not cover construction timing and recommended sending the correspondence to the town council.
A letter from a resident describing prolonged construction noise and early‑morning concrete trucks was read into the record at the Oct. 9 meeting of the Town of Castle Valley Planning and Land Use Commission. The letter said crews have been working on two structures “for over 3 years” and that “this has become very disruptive” for neighbors.
The correspondent described a skid steer arriving at 7 a.m. with backup beeper and a cement truck “shortly followed” and noted multiple 7 a.m. cement truck arrivals in the preceding week. “There has been 0 consideration for the surrounding neighbors by construction crews this entire time,” the letter stated.
Commissioners and staff discussed whether the town’s nuisance ordinance covers construction noise timing. One staff member said the existing nuisance ordinance “doesn't apply to construction noise,” and commissioners described what they viewed as a loophole. The building permit agent had previously received correspondence from the resident and said the town clerk and mayor were also copied; commissioners suggested the resident submit the letter to the next town council meeting as public correspondence so the council can determine whether to begin an ordinance change.
Why it matters: the letter highlights recurring tensions between construction schedules and neighborhood expectations. Commissioners noted Town authority limits: building permits and compliance are handled with county coordination, and time‑of‑day restrictions for construction are not currently specified in the nuisance ordinance read by staff during discussion.
What was said in the meeting: the letter — dated Oct. 6 and addressed to Colleen, Jocelyn and Jasmine — recounted early starts, dust, backup beepers and an uncooperative foreman. “When we approached the project foreman about it, he was very defiant and mostly uncooperative despite our polite approach,” the correspondent wrote. Commissioners recommended the correspondent submit the letter as public correspondence to the council, and staff confirmed they had previously corresponded with the resident.
Next steps: commissioners agreed to move the correspondence to the town council for consideration; the building permit agent told the meeting she would “let him know” that the council can consider possible ordinance adjustments. No ordinance change or formal action was taken by the planning commission at the Oct. 9 meeting.