Noise Ordinance Defeated in Committee
As many of you may know, the proposed Noise Ordinance was heard before the Public Safety Committee this Tuesday and failed to be approved. I attended the meeting and spoke about the ordinance, but I am not a member of the committee and had no vote. You may watch the meeting online here.
The ordinance itself is complex, and the actions at the meeting were lengthy, so there is some confusion and misinformation regarding what happened. You may read the account that Commerce Lexington sent to its members here. Their version concludes that the ordinance was defeated in committee by a 9-1 vote. While that conclusion is factually accurate, the final vote by itself does not reflect levels of support for the overall ordinance. More specifically, the final vote does not reflect that supporters of the ordinance voted against a version of the ordinance that had been amended in an unacceptable way.
More details about the proposed ordinance prior to amendment are included in italics at the end of this post.
Here is how I saw the discussion and the final outcome.
At the Public Safety Committee meeting on Tuesday, three amendments were offered to the ordinance that was prepared by a Task Force that had been working for 3 years.
The first amendment added a 9th standard to the list used to determine whether or not there had been a violation. This standard required consideration of “the nature and land use of the area from which the noise emanates; in considering this standard, due regard shall be given to distinctions between those noises that are associated with the normal and reasonable operation of a business, and those noises that are unnecessary or excessive.” I believe this amendment provided reasonable balance between the needs of business and the rights of residents. This amendment passed.
The second amendment offered created an exemption for complying with the noise ordinance for any “noise caused by activities in industrial, business, economic development and professional zones which are: (I) Authorized by the applicable zoning regulations for those zones; (II) Consistent with the standard practices for the business, office or industry involved; and (III) Necessary or appropriate for the business, office or industry involved.” My interpretation of this amendment is that it would set an unfair burden of proof for residents and in effect would all but exempt all businesses from complying with the ordinance. This amendment failed.
The third amendment offered deleted all language providing for a noise board to review complaints, and vested the power to grant variances to the Mayor. It also deleted a provision requiring that existing industrial or commercial properties comply with the ordinance within six months. I believe deletion of the noise board places an undo burden on resident because it leaves them no recourse for appeals except the courts. This amendment passed.
In summary, the final version of the ordinance that came before the Committee for a vote was significantly weakened and substantially different from the ordinance drafted by the Task Force. It was so different that it forced those that supported it at its inception to vote against it in the end. Therefore, a number of the nine votes against the ordinance did not indicate opposition to the overall noise ordinance but rather opposition to the noise ordinance as weakened through amendment.
Despite the defeat of the ordinance as amended, I believe there is still the possibility of developing an ordinance that will be acceptable to a majority of council, one that strengthens the existing ordinance by providing more protection for residents without jeopardizing legitimate business functioning and interests. I will keep you posted on where it goes from here.
Again, more details about the proposed ordinance prior to amendment are included below.
The most relevant details for the proposed ordinance:
The proposed ordinance prohibited “any unreasonably loud, excessive, harsh, unusual or unnecessary noise which either disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood, or which endangers or injures personal or real property, or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivities residing in the area, or which otherwise injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of others.” It eliminated the definition of dwelling unit and dwelling unit boundary because it was no longer needed. It listed 6 specifically prohibited activities including sounding horn, loud speakers for commercial advertising, operation of a vehicle producing excessive noise or out of repair, and model vehicles and repairing vehicles between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. It also lists 4 activities (music, loading between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am or any time that it would annoy a reasonable person, animals, and mechanical devices operated by compressed air unless muffled) that might be violations. There would be 8 standards used in determining if these are violations. These standards were volume, frequency, and intensity of the noise, intensity of the background noise, proximity to a residential area, time of day, duration and whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant. It established a noise board and a more detailed variance process. It allowed pre-existing industrial and commercial facilities a 6 month period to comply and included a provision to allow additional time if there was a showing of a good faith effort.
