Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates noise limits and third-party monitoring for new industrial projects
Summary
A presenter recommended decibel limits, year-round continuous monitoring and third-party reporting to make compliance transparent; commissioners agreed legal review is needed before any requirement is adopted.
Commissioners spent significant time on the proposed noise and monitoring sections of the CUP revisions, focusing on measurement points, numeric limits and who would perform compliance checks.
The presenter argued monitoring should be continuous with regular public reports and performed by an independent firm with Kansas credentials, paid by the industry. "Submit annual or quarterly reports. That way, it's open to the public. There's nothing being hidden," the presenter said. The presenter emphasized hiring a third party so "the county, the county commissioners, our board, nobody is held liable."
Commissioners asked technical questions about measurement locations (property line vs. dwelling) and when curfews or special exemptions might apply. Several members said they supported clear, even-handed standards but requested staff seek legal counsel and technical guidance on enforceability, instrumentation and cost implications.
No vote was taken; commissioners directed staff to continue refining language and to bring legal and technical recommendations to a future meeting.
