Laserfiche WebLink
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 19, 1985 <br />PAGE; TWO <br />Mr. Kelso indicated that Mr. Perez does have a point <br />in principle in that the double standard could make <br />enforcement difficult if a court is asked to rule on <br />which standard applies, however, he felt comfortable <br />that the Leq would prevail. <br />3. Should someone (receiver) build a home in the range <br />of a producer of noise and violation of state <br />standards, then the proposed new standards would make <br />the receiver the violator of the standards, not the <br />producer. <br />The proposed new standards provide that the party <br />causing the violation, whether it be the producer <br />or the receiver, is culpable. The existing rules <br />have been interpreted and enforced similarly, <br />however, do not clearly state that to be the case. <br />The proposed new rules would clearly state that as <br />being the fact. Mr. Kelso further stated that this <br />is an issue of contention and might be revised r/ <br />pending the results of the public hearing they will <br />hold on the proposed new rules. <br />Essentially, it would appear that this is the chicken <br />versus the egg issue requiring Judgement on the part <br />of the enforcing agency, but would appear to be <br />reasonable. A good example in Mounds Viuw would be <br />County Road ,7. Should someone purchase property <br />fronting on County Road J, build a house, and then <br />complain about the noise, who should be held <br />responsible for the fact that they, and only they, <br />are having to put up with noise levols in excess <br />of State Standards? <br />Based on my re-evaluation of the proposed amendments to the <br />State's Noise Standards and the results of my conversation <br />with Mr. Kelso, I find that my initial recommendation of <br />April 3, 1985 is still valid. <br />DFP/mjs <br />Attachment: <br />91 <br />