Minutes - 20041122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

He continued explaining the articles. He said that the zoning ordinance does have a performance standard noise arrangement, and that is when different businesses are permitted by special use permits and are supposed to act within certain noise and vibration standards and other standards. It would be good to have the overall countywide ordinance match as closely to the performance standards in the zoning ordinance as possible. Chair Jacobs clarified that the impetus of this public hearing had nothing to do with the Town of Chapel Hill's discussion of leaf blowers. This has been an ongoing concern of citizens. Commissioner Carey asked where the noise would be measured on the receiving property and Craig Benedict said that it would be on the property line at a height of four feet, and about ten feet away from any walls, barriers, or obstruction. Commissioner Gordon asked Geof Gledhill how this would work with regard to the modifications. Geof Gledhill said that the first thing that is different about this ordinance is that it is not an ordinance under North Carolina law that requires a public hearing. The County Commissioners have free reign to work through the options. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the definitions and said that the first one is a little hard to follow. She suggested taking the best of both definitions. Chair Jacobs said that the first definition is like Durham's definition (page 4}. He wonders if a normal person would know what a decibel level is. He said that Alamance and Durham Counties use a more generic definition. He wonders what kind of enforcement history these counties have in using that kind of a definition. He also does not know how the person making the noise is going to know the decibel rating of the noise that they are making. He thinks it might be more reasonable to have a generic definition that a reasonable person can react to and not increase the penalties, so that there is some flexibility. Chair Jacobs said that maybe the Sheriff could address this about an alarm sounding for a certain length of time. Sheriff Pendergrass said that sometimes alarms go on for about an hour until the owner of the residence can come to the residence. Chair Jacobs asked Sheriff Pendergrass to comment on the ordinance. Sheriff Pendergrass said that they are not having many problems with music noise or parties, and when they do, they just ask the person to stop and they comply. In some areas there are noises from vehicles and they do not have anything to work with regarding this. He thinks the changes suggested will give them something to work with. John Link made reference to page 11 and said that the "alternative" language sounds better in terms of defining noise than the "suggested revision." On page 12, the "suggested revision" seems better than the "alternative." Also, the "alternative" and the "suggested revision" are reversed on pages 11 and 15 with regard to the decibel levels. He asked that there be a consistent line of thinking. Craig Benedict said that the "alternative" is the abridged version - it is shorter and the noise levels are stricter. He thinks that they might take the best of both alternatives to come up with the simplest method. Regarding page 15, the zoning ordinance allows some higher decibel levels, so he thinks the zoning should be separated out from the rest of the countywide noise ordinance so there is no confusion. Geof Gledhill said that the more stringent level is the permitting one and would prevail, so there would be consistency. Commissioner Gordon read some suggested language for the "suggested revisions" on page 11, Article 1: "Any unreasonable loud and disturbing sound or sound which is substantially incompatible with the time and location where created, which is perceived by a person of ordinary sensibilities as interrupting the normal peace and calm of the area." She then read her suggested language far "alternative" as follows: "Any unreasonable laud and disturbing noise of such character, intensity, and duration as to be detrimental to the health, safety, ar welfare of any individual." PUBLIC COMMENT: James Singleton said that the definition of reasonable, detrimental, and irritation is all in the ear of the beholder. He lives on US 70 near the golf course and he finds it soothing to hear the leaves being cleared on the golf course. Some people may not find it that way. He said that