Broken Arrow Board of Adjustment
06-08-2026
To: Chairman and Board Members
From: Development Services Department
Title:
title
Appeal (APPL-002751-2026) of four Zoning Violations (ZON-0025337-2025, ZON-025338-2025, ZON-025339-2025, ZON-025340-2025), D&B Processing, 21.3 acres, IL (Industrial Light), located one-third mile west of Evans Road (225th E. Avenue), one-half mile north of New Orleans Street (101st Street)
End
Background:
Applicant: D&B Processing, LLC through Tadd Bogan, Jones, Gotcher & Bogan, 3800 First Place Tower 15 East Fifth Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74103-4309
Property Owners: Industrial Developers of Oklahoma 5, LLC; Rogers Family Investments, LLC; Nunneley Investments, LTD; Furmanite US GSG, LLC
Business Owner: D&B Processing, LLC
Developer: NA
Surveyor: N/A
Location: One-third mile west of Evans Road (225th E. Avenue), one-half mile north of New Orleans Street (101st Street)
Size of Tract 21.3 acres
Number of Lots: 4
Present Zoning: A-IL (Annexed-Industrial Light)
Comp Plan: Level 6 (Regional Employment/Commercial)
APPL-002751-2026 is an administrative appeal of four Zoning Violation determinations (ZON-025337-2025, ZON-025338-2025, ZON-025339-2025, ZON-025340-2025) for violations of the Industrial Light zoning district rules and regulations issued on December 5, 2025. Each of these violations pertain to separate parcels where D&B Processing, LLC conducts business operations. These include 21900 E 96th Street, 9600 S 219th E Avenue, 9740 S 219th E Avenue, and 9750 S 219th E Avenue as shown on the attached Location Map.
The City of Broken Arrow received numerous complaints in 2025 from an adjacent property owner who lives in the vicinity of D&B Processing, LLC. The complaints included objectionable noise, dust, vibrations, and indicated that not all manufacturing was being conducted within an enclosed structure stemming from 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, Section 2-1-2 (D). 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 operation. The enforcement record includes staff observations, December 5, 2025 violation letters, information provided through verbal and in-person complaints, and photographs/videos submitted to the City by a nearby property owner. The videos and photographs were not created by the City but were reviewed by staff as art of the zoning enforcement record.
The letters of violation included a compliance date of January 5, 2026. Compliance was not met by this date, and a citation was issued on March 9, 2026, to appear in Municipal Court on March 24, 2026. Subsequently, D&B Processing, LLC’s attorney filed an appeal on March 17, 2026. Section 6-3-5.3.C.1 states that “an appeal of any order, requirement, decision, or determination shall stay all proceedings unless the Administrator certifies that a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property.” Thus, the citation was dismissed upon receipt of the appeal and is now before the Board of Adjustment. This appeal concerns only the administrative zoning determinations reflected in the December 5, 2025 zoning code violations.
The City of Broken Arrow Zoning Ordinance, Section 6-3-5.3.B.1.a 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. Accordingly, the question before the Board is whether the administrative zoning determinations reflected in ZON-025337-2025, ZON-025338-2025, ZON-025339-2025, and ZON-025340-2025 were appropriate based on the Zoning Ordinance and the record presented.
The Board is not being asked to approve a rezoning, grant a variance, approve a special exception, or adjudicate a municipal court citation. Section 6-3-5.3.C provides that a decision on an appeal does not grant a variance. The Board also should not treat this appeal as a proceeding to dismiss, reverse, or adjudicate the municipal citation referenced in the appellant’s First Amended Notice of Appeal. The appellant also raises a constitutional vagueness argument regarding the phrase “objectionable noise.” That argument is preserved in the appellant’s filing, but the Board’s role in this administrative appeal is to apply the Zoning Ordinance as adopted. The Board should not treat this appeal as a proceeding to declare any portion of the Zoning Ordinance unconstitutional.
Appellant states that D&B Processing, LLC 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 First Amended Notice of Appeal. D&B Processing is also proposing to construct a concrete sound wall to reduce noise impacts. Appellant, on behalf of D&B Processing, LLC, requests that the “zoning violations and citation be reversed and overturned due to D&B’s compliance with the Zoning Code.” The Appellant also states it has leased a yard outside the industrial park to reduce semi-truck traffic and noise and changed its method for loading I-beams to reduce noise. The First Amended Notice of Appeal further asserts that all manufacturing occurs inside enclosed structures, that outdoor storage is allowed with screening, that the complaining residence is outside the City limits, and that any alleged nonconforming use is not a violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
As noted previously, the citation has been dismissed. Section 6-3-5.3.A provides Specific Review Criteria for appeals (see Attachment 5, Zoning Ordinance Section 6-3-5.3). 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 6-3-5.3.C 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 6-3-5.3.C.2.
Staff has reviewed the record of this case, the violation notices, the evidence presented, and the First Amended Notice of Appeal. Staff concludes that D&B Processing, LLC’s industrial operations violated Section 2-1-2(D) of the Zoning Ordinance because the industrial operations produced off-site impacts associated with objectionable noise, dust, vibration, outdoor material movement, and related industrial activity inconsistent with the Industrial Light district Standards.
Staff Response to Appellant’s Claims:
1. Remedial measures do not establish that the zoning determinations were incorrect. The appellant’s listed remedial measures may be relevant to future compliance, but they do not require reversal of the December 5, 2025 zoning determinations. To the contrary, the measures described by the appellant confirm that D&B recognized operational impacts associated with material movement, scrap containers, forklifts, overhead doors, dust, truck traffic, and loading practices.
2. Approval of a proposed sound barrier wall does not equal a zoning compliance determination. A sound wall may be one potential mitigation measure, but plan approval for a wall does not determine that the underlying industrial operations comply with the Industrial Light district standards, nor does it require the Board to reverse the violation notices.
3. The appellant’s self-reported decibel readings are not dispositive. The First Amended Notice of Appeal lists several short-duration readings of 72, 65, and 68 decibels, each lasting less than ten seconds. The readings were not submitted as part of an independent acoustical report, do not establish a complete methodology, do not address all affected property lines or times of operation, and do not resolve the reported vibration, dust, truck traffic, loading, overhead-door, and outdoor material-handling impacts. Section 2-1-2(D) does not require staff to prove a specific decibel threshold before determining that an industrial operation is producing objectionable noise.
4. Locating machinery inside a building is not enough by itself. The Industrial Light standard requires more than simply placing machinery inside an enclosed structure. The operation also must not produce airborne emissions, objectionable noise, glare, odor, vibrations, smoke, or dust associated with the industrial operation. Based on the record, staff determined that D&B’s operations produced prohibited off-site impacts notwithstanding the location of certain machinery inside buildings.
5. Outdoor storage does not authorize outdoor industrial impacts. Although outdoor storage of raw materials and products may be permitted with proper screening, that provision does not authorize outdoor industrial operations or storage-related activities that produce objectionable noise, dust, vibration, or other prohibited impacts.
6. The location of the complaining residence outside City limits does not bar enforcement. The City is enforcing its Zoning Ordinance against industrial operations occurring within the City’s jurisdiction. The relevant question is whether the use inside the City complies with the Industrial Light district standards, not whether every affected property is also inside the City limits.
7. The appellant has not established a lawful nonconforming right that requires reversal. The appellant bears the burden of establishing any lawful nonconforming use. The fact that certain buildings or operations existed before an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance does not, by itself, establish a lawful right to continue, expand, intensify, or modify operations in a manner that produces objectionable noise, dust, vibration, or other impacts prohibited by the Industrial Light district standards.
Attachments: Location map
Comprehensive Plan Map
Zoning Violation Letters
First Amended Notice of Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Section 6-3-5.3
Recommendation:
Based on the City of Broken Arrow Zoning Ordinance, Section 2-1-2(D), Section 6-3-5.3, the record of the case, and the evidence presented, staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment deny APPL-002751-2026 and uphold the administrative zoning determinations in ZON-025337-2025, ZON-025338-2025, ZON-025339-2025, and ZON-025340-2025.
Reviewed by: Jane Wyrick
Approved by: Rocky Henkel