The Planning and Zoning Commission continued consideration of a modification to Special Permit 12‑16 for a contractor yard at 284 New Canaan Avenue, directing staff to obtain a legal opinion about how the municipal noise ordinance’s emergency exemption applies and to return modified conditions addressing noise monitoring, operational limits and screening.

What the applicant sought and why neighbors objected
The applicant applied to expand the previously approved contractor yard and to modify stormwater management. Neighbors and commissioners focused discussion on noise (frequent impulse events such as truck tailgate slams), dust, lighting and 24‑hour operations. Staff and a third‑party acoustic consultant identified the tailgate slam as the primary impulse event most likely to exceed the ordinance’s daytime impulse threshold; backup alarms and other equipment measured lower on the consultant’s logs.

Proposed and draft mitigation measures discussed
- Time limits for noisy operations: applicant proposed limiting screening/sifting to weekday daytime hours (applicant suggested roughly 8 a.m.–5 p.m.).
- On‑site monitoring: commissioners and staff discussed requiring camera systems with audio capability or automatic logging that would detect and record impulse noise events above a specified decibel threshold.
- Nighttime operations: staff proposed a condition that, after a final nighttime emergency response, trucks remain parked on site and any noisy unloading or sifting be deferred until standard operating hours (commonly 6:30 a.m. or similar). The draft also includes standard dust suppression and covering provisions.
- Moving noisy equipment: applicant proposed relocating bins and siting the sifter to reduce neighbors’ exposure; commissioners debated whether placing the sifter inside the largest bin would reduce noise or limit on‑site capacity.
- Neighbor screening: commissioners proposed asking the applicant to offer vegetative screening (native species) to adjacent homeowners where feasible.

Legal question and next steps
Commissioners asked staff to obtain corporation counsel’s written guidance on two related legal questions before a final vote: (1) whether the noise ordinance’s emergency exemption applies only to work at the site of the emergency (for example, a utility repair at the same address) and does not allow the yard to routinely exceed limits simply because its work is emergency response elsewhere; and (2) whether the commission may place site‑specific, more restrictive noise or impulse‑event limits as special‑permit conditions without conflicting with the municipal noise ordinance.

Action recorded
Motion: continue deliberation and request corporation counsel opinion on applicability of the noise ordinance emergency exemption and on permissible special permit conditions to address impulse events and other operational impacts.
Mover: Lou
Second: Tammy
Outcome: continued unanimously (show of hands)

Ending: Staff will return a revised set of conditions, including suggested monitoring language (audio‑capable event logging), clarified operating‑hour limits for sifting and screening, and recommended language describing when expansion of yard area could occur (for example, only after demonstration of compliance with noise, dust and lighting conditions). The commission signaled it expects to see enforceable monitoring and reporting requirements at the next hearing.