Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Generators topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Warrenton adopts generator rules: 100‑foot setback and 60 dB property‑line limit
Summary
After extended public comment and technical testimony, the Warrenton Board of Aldermen amended and adopted an ordinance to regulate standby generators and data centers, establishing a 100‑foot minimum setback from adjacent lot lines and a 60 dB(A) sound limit measured at property lines; the measure passed unanimously 5–0 (1 absent).
Warrenton — The Board of Aldermen on Dec. 16 adopted an amendment to Chapter 405 of the municipal code that governs standby generators and information‑technology facilities, establishing a 100‑foot minimum setback from any adjacent lot line and a 60 dB(A) maximum sound level measured at the property line.
The ordinance grew out of a planning and zoning recommendation and drew several hours of public comment and council debate over how to rate and enforce generator noise, setbacks and fuel‑storage oversight. Mayor (speaker 3) opened discussion and the city attorney read proposed amendment language that would require a generator “to be placed not less than a 100 feet from the lot line of any adjacent property” and limit operation to “sound levels of 60 dB(A) ... as measured pursuant to subsection b.”
The ordinance’s key provision — the 60 dB(A) limit at the adjacent property line — reflects council direction that noise be measured where neighbors are affected and that applicants be required to mitigate through placement, enclosures or noise‑reduction equipment. Josh Chandler (speaker 9), a public commenter with prior technical comments to the council, told the board that manufacturers typically rate equipment at 3 feet and that setting a property‑line limit forces an engineering solution: “If you say 60 decibels and the generator is 85 decibels, you determine how loud it is at the property line by how far you separate it, or you put a better muffler on it or a scribed enclosure,” he said.
Council members pressed on multiple points — including tiered decibel standards for different zoning adjacencies and the need to inspect fuel storage — and voted down a motion to table the amendment. After further discussion, the city attorney offered the two amendments the council adopted: the 100‑foot setback and the 60‑dB(A) property‑line cap. The motion to adopt the amendments passed on roll call 5–0 with 1 member absent; the ordinance, as amended, then passed 5–0 with 1 absent.
The code now makes three compliance avenues explicit: setback, screening/barrier measures and the property‑line decibel limit. Legal counsel said that if, after those measures, a project still exceeds the decibel limit, the applicant must take additional engineering steps or be in violation of the code.
The council and staff repeatedly emphasized that the rules are minimum standards; conditional use permits (CUPs) can require stricter mitigation where site‑specific circumstances demand it. The city attorney said the changes were crafted as land‑use regulation tied to measurable effects at the property line, rather than equipment‑only standards.
Next steps: The ordinance will be published as required, and staff expects applicants for future industrial or data‑processing projects to present engineering plans showing how they will meet the 60‑dB(A) limit and the 100‑foot setback or secure a CUP with additional mitigation.
