Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and company spar over noise limits as planning commission reviews Geneva Rock sound study
Summary
Clyde Companies presented a sound study and mitigation plan tied to a conditional use permit for a proposed Geneva Rock concrete batch plant; neighbors pressed the commission on how intermittent "peak" noises would be measured and mitigated. The commission said it could not take final action because of pending litigation.
Bill Gammel, a vice president at Clyde Companies representing Geneva Rock Products, told the Daniels Planning Commission that the company's conditional use permit requires a sound study and mitigation plan and that the firm's model shows the site can meet a 55-decibel one-hour LEQ at the south property line if proposed mitigation is installed.
Gammel said the staff's reference to OSHA in the packet was incorrect and that the 55-decibel figure cited in federal guidance is an EPA recommendation measured as a day-night average, not an OSHA worker-exposure limit. He described the study's measurements of ambient noise, modeling of equipment (compressor, blower, bin vents, loadout, loader, backup alarms) and mitigation steps including a 15-foot berm with a solid decorative wall on top, 8- to 10-foot sound barriers around key equipment, replacing piercing backup alarms with white-noise alarms, and using aggregate stockpiles as a shield.
Residents and nearby property owners pushed back, saying the project's modeled averages mask intermittent peak noises'notably the loader bucket "bang" that residents say has already woken some neighbors. One resident said the peaks "wake us up" and warned that neighbors would pursue legal remedies if loud peaks occurred after construction. Gammel said the model accounts for worst-case scenarios and that the mitigation package reduces both average levels and the documented peaks when modeled together.
Commissioners and members of the public repeatedly asked how compliance would be measured on a standing basis, who would enforce hourly limits, and whether limits should be defined as an LEQ average or a strict maximum. Gammel said the CUP's follow-up study requirement calls for a verification study after mitigation is installed and that the town retains authority to require additional mitigation or revoke a permit if conditions are not met.
Chair (speaker 1) told the room that the planning commission had been advised by the town attorney that, because of pending litigation related to the site, it could not take final action on the CUP at this meeting. Commissioners nevertheless used the session to question the study and ask the company to revise conditions and mitigation language to make monitoring and remediation clearer for both neighbors and the town.
Next steps: the commission will not vote while litigation is pending. Staff and the applicant are expected to refine mitigation language and monitoring plans and bring updated documentation to a future session after legal constraints allow formal action.
