Broken Arrow Board of Adjustment Meeting - August 10, 2026
Broken Arrow Board of Adjustment Meeting - August 10, 2026
The Board of Adjustment met on August 10, 2026, to consider Appeal 002946-2026 filed by D&B Processing LLC challenging three zoning violation citations related to noise and operations in an Industrial Light district. After a public hearing, the board voted 2-2, which resulted in the citations being upheld.
Consent Calendar
- The board unanimously approved the minutes of the July meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Lois Richards submitted a letter stating that her family experiences objectionable noise and vibration from D&B Processing and should not have to endure it.
- Sandy Laney submitted a letter describing a previously quiet environment disrupted by D&B Processing's loud noises and banging, noting that other companies in the industrial park follow the rules.
- Pam Schultz, a neighbor, spoke in opposition to the appeal. She played a video recorded on June 5, 2026, showing the noise from D&B Processing. She stated that the noise and vibrations are heard inside her home and at a distant property on 225th Street. She disputed the appellant's characterization, saying the noise is from dropping, dragging, and pounding steel plates. She noted that other nearby industrial businesses, such as Molded Products, do not cause such noise.
- Appellant's representative Tad Bogan rebutted, arguing that the Schultzes' recordings were made with windows and doors open and in a garage, which amplifies sound, and that the actual decibel levels are low (56.8 dB peak, comparable to a dishwasher). He also stated that D&B Processing has spent $300,000 on an 8-foot concrete wall and other mitigations.
Discussion Items
- Appeal 002946-2026 – D&B Processing LLC Zoning Violations: Staff presented the case: three citations issued June 9, 2026, for violations of Industrial Light zoning code (Section 2-1-2D) regarding operations not entirely within an enclosed building and producing objectionable noise/dust/vibrations. Staff recommended denying the appeal, citing the record and evidence.
- Appellant's representative argued that all manufacturing occurs inside, outdoor storage is permitted, the city's citations were arbitrary (issued for all three parcels without specific evidence per parcel), and that the noise standard is unconstitutionally vague. They presented a noise assessment from BD Hyduck Acoustics showing 56.8 dB at the property line, and noted that the city allowed the Broken Arrow Amphitheater to produce 56 dB at the same neighbor's house.
- Board members questioned the appellant about the noise study duration (about 5 minutes over two days), the operation hours (24 hours with two shifts ending at 5 a.m.), and the steps taken to mitigate noise (adding AC to keep doors closed, moving dumpster, firing employees for noise violations). The appellant admitted that doors had been open intermittently for air flow but have since been closed consistently.
- Pam Schultz was allowed additional time to rebut, insisting that the noise is audible far away and that the family only records when the noise is bothersome inside their home.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to grant the appeal and deny the citations was made and seconded. Roll call vote: Michelle Bergwall – Yes, Rebecca Hinkle – No, George Jessquire – Yes, Judd Hatch – No. The vote was 2-2. Therefore, the motion failed, and the zoning decisions (citations) remain in place.
- The appellant was informed of the 30-day appeal window to district court.
- The board adjourned.
Meeting Transcript
I'll take it. Thank you. No. Okay, we'll call the uh this meeting of the Broken Arrow Board of Adjustment to order. Roll call. Michelle Bergwall here. Rebecca Hinkle. Here, Kamara Washington. George Jessquire. Here. Judd Hatch. Here okay. First item is the consideration of consent agenda for the minutes of our July meeting. Anyone have any questions? I don't think so. We have a motion to approve. I motion to approve. Second. Michelle Bergwall. Yes. Rebecca Hickel. Yes. George Jessquire? Yes. Judd Hatch. Yes. Okay. We are ready for the public hearing portion. Uh item 4A. Good evening, board members. Appeal number 002946-2026 is an appeal of three citations related to zoning violations. The numbers are included in the title up on your screen and in your packet for violations of the industrial light zoning district rules and regulations issued on June 9th, 2026. Each of these violations pertain to a separate parcel, uh, where D processing LLC conducts their business operations and include 21,900 East 96th Street, 9600 South 219th East Avenue, and 9750 South 219th East Avenue, as shown on the attached location map. There were initially four uh zoning violations and citations. However, citation number four four six four five three was voided, and the zoning violation case ZON-02539-2025 was closed as resolved when it was determined that no manufacturing is occurring on this parcel. The City of Broken Arrow received numerous complaints in 2025 and 2026 from a property owner who lives in the vicinity of D processing LLC. The complaints included objectionable noise, dust, vibrations, and indicated that not all manufacturing was being conducted within an enclosed structure stemming from the industrial operations. Code enforcement and building inspection staff conducted an inspection of the property that revealed the existence of conditions that violate the City of Broken Arrow zoning code related to commercial and industrial districts. This section of the code states that uses within the industrial light district are to conduct all operations entirely within an enclosed building and cannot produce airborne emissions, objectionable noise, glare, odor, vibrations, or dust associated with the industrial operations. The appellant filed a previous notice of appeal, however, it could not be heard by the Board of Adjustment because it was deemed untimely. So new uh citations were issued, and the appellants subsequently filed the current appeal related to the zoning violations. The City of Broken Arrow Zoning Ordinance, Section 6-3-5.3B1A states that all administrative decisions or any order requirement permit decision determination refusal or interpretation made by the director in interpreting and or enforcing the provisions of this ordinance may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, this appeal of the community development department director's decision to cite the business owner for zoning code violations is before this board for consideration. The appellant states that DB processing has taken measures to address the violations that include moving materials to the opposite side of the building away from the nearby residential use, prohibiting the playing of music, prohibiting the dumping of scrap materials at night, limiting the use of forklifts at night, purchasing a water truck to reduce dust, monitoring noise levels, and changing other practices as outlined in the attached notice of second appeal. The appellant on the behalf of DB processing requests that the zoning notices or citations be overturned due to D's compliance with the applicable zoning ordinance. And that D and B processing measures noise from its operations and has hired B D Hyduck, if I'm saying that correctly, acoustics LLC to conduct a noise assessment in the area where DMB processing is operating. And that noise assessment is included as an attachment to this staff report. DB processing has constructed an eight-foot-high concrete wall to help in mitigating that potential noise. The Board of Adjustment will need to determine if the administrative decision was appropriate, given the record of the case and the evidence presented, and that the decision reflects the requirements contained in the zoning ordinance. Further, Section 6-3-5.3C of the Broken Arrow Zoning Ordinance explicitly states that a decision on an appeal decision cannot grant or issue a variance as referenced in section 6-3-5.3C2.
openpublica.com