Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Red Oak council to clarify noise limits, contest sign citations and ask for enforcement follow-up
Summary
During public comment, residents urged the council to clarify an amended ordinance’s noise metric (dBA vs. dBz) over concerns about low-frequency noise from a nearby data center, reported allegedly targeted sign-code citations and raised neighborhood complaints about after-hours work and road configuration; staff said they would look into the citations.
Several residents used the meeting’s public-comment period to press the Red Oak City Council on noise limits tied to a nearby data-center development and to contest recent sign-code citations.
Katherine Hicks, who provided her Red Oak address, asked the council to clarify amended Ordinance 26-14 (Plant Development 191). Hicks said the amendment references both dBA (A-weighted sound) and dBz (raw, low-frequency sound) but that video of the prior meeting suggested the ordinance text may read "70 dBA or dBz" rather than "70 dBA and dBz." Hicks said the difference matters because using "or" could allow the data center to be legally compliant on one metric while producing loud low-frequency sound that residents can feel; "that was a meaningless addition if the word or was used," she said. She asked the council to amend or explain the language so the intended noise limits are enforceable.
Resident Sharon Cotton said she received a code-compliance notice ordering her to remove a yard sign within eight days and described the notice as appearing targeted amid intense local debate about data centers; she called the citation an "infringement on my First Amendment rights" and thanked Karen Stevens for responding to her inquiries. A third speaker, identified in the transcript as Mr. Ros., raised three neighborhood issues: the sign citations, alleged after-hours work at a local site (referred to in the record as "D Bank"), and questions about whether a nearby road is planned as two or four lanes and parking options.
The mayor responded to public comments by saying staff would be directed to look into the sign-citation concerns and to contact the residents. No formal action to amend Ordinance 26-14 was recorded at the meeting; the remarks were made during public comment rather than as an agenda action item.
The concerns raised center on how the city interprets and enforces noise metrics and on whether code enforcement actions were applied consistently; residents asked for clarification of the ordinance language and for staff follow-up on enforcement and permitted work hours. The council proceeded to other business after the public comments period.
