ATTACHMENT 1
Excerpt of January 24, 2005 Town Council DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Item 2 - Public Forum: Consideration of Regulation of Leaf Blowers
and Other Powered Yard Equipment
Mayor Foy stated that anyone who wanted to comment on this issue should do so with the understanding that the Council was not considering banning leaf blowers, adding that was not on the Council’s agenda now nor would it be in the future. However, Mayor Foy said, what they would discuss this evening was any regulations that might be considered for leaf blowers or other powered yard equipment, such as the hours of operation or other issues.
Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos stated that the Council had received a report on this topic in November 2004, and at that time three issues were identified:
Mr. Karpinos said those three issues were the topic of the public forum this evening.
Sarah McIntee noted her family was a “pedestrian” family, and lived in the Estes Hills neighborhood. She distributed written material that described what she referred to as “auditory assaults” on her family while participating in outdoor activities. Ms. McIntee said that many of the noise instances she and her family had encountered were from leaf blowers, but had come in contact with noise from power clippers and other lawn equipment as well.
Ms. McIntee said the Town’s noise ordinance regulates “whistling, singing, or loud partying” if it disturbs the neighbors, but she can operate an 80 decibel leaf blower next to someone’s home at 7:00 a.m. She said under the Town’s ordinances, she could not have a 65 decibel rooster as a pet, but she could use 80-decibel, 2-cycle power clippers from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. Ms. McIntee said that time of the evening was “precious family time,” when they might like to eat out on their deck, but it is ruined if the neighbors are doing their “chores.” She said that, to her, is an assault. Ms. McIntee asked the Council to consider regulating the period of time that such equipment is used, and that a decibel level be set so that certain equipment could not be used early in the morning or during family time in the evening.
Ms. McIntee suggested that a permitting process be used if decibel levels would be exceeded, with the process including gaining permission from neighbors before the work took place.
Don Stanford, a practicing attorney and a life-long resident of Chapel Hill, lives on Mallette Street in one of the Town’s historic districts. He said he sees many pressures on the quality of life in Chapel Hill, and this is yet another one of those ways that we are assaulted. Mr. Stanford said leaf blowers are noisy, they bother neighbors, and create pollution. He said that typically, landscapers who use such equipment employ persons at a low wage and don’t always provide hearing protection for those employees.
Mr. Stanford suggested that if people would revert to raking their leaves, that possibly obesity would not be so rampant in our society because it would promote an active lifestyle. He said we should revisit the questions associated with the time, place, and the amount of noise that we permit in our community. Mr. Stanford said the noise ordinance was too broad and should be looked at closely.
Jane Meads, a resident of Lakeshore Drive, said that under the Town’s noise ordinance that if you wanted to have a party, you had to obtain a permit and notify neighbors within 250 feet of your residence. But, she continued, a “leaf blowing event” can last for as long as the operator chooses and for free, often at ten times the decibel level allowed for any other piece of equipment.
Ms. Meads said that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) directly linked the drop in State air quality to this type of equipment. She said that their 200 mph gas and lead-filled winds emit more toxic fumes in one hour that an idling car does in eight hours. Ms. Meads said that the EPA had certified that these winds suspend photosynthesis, creating the need for more maintenance, not less.
Ms. Meads stated that “leaf blowers do not manage turf and they do not landscape; they build and create nothing but havoc.” She went on to describe the effects of this type of equipment on those who use it and how it contributes to the “destruction of community values.” She noted that she believed this type of equipment contributed to the exploitation of employees. Ms. Means suggested it was appropriate to deduct an amount from her property tax bill because at times she is unable to hear sounds at a normal volume inside her home when such equipment is being used by her neighbors.
Aldo Rustioni, a resident of the Westwood neighborhood, said he represented the hundreds of friends and neighbors who were not able to attend tonight’s meeting to express their displeasure at the use of “gasoline powered leaf blowers.” He said leaf blowers in particular are a nuisance, and since there are alternatives, for instance electric leaf blowers, then maybe that is what the Council should be considering. Mr. Rustioni said he would suggest that gasoline-powered leaf blowers for use by individuals be banned, that the Town not use such equipment for municipal use, and that possibly such equipment should be restricted for use only at certain times of the year. He said he did not want to see the equipment banned by those who use it to make a living, but it should be restricted.
Ken Robinson, representing Williams Landscape Services, stated he wanted to respond to some of the comments made this evening. He said that they require all employees to use hearing protection when using any equipment, whether gasoline-powered or electric, and said he “resents terribly” the insinuation made earlier that his or anyone’s employees are “exploited” by the use of this type of equipment. Mr. Robinson invited the public to come and visit his business and see for themselves how protected his employees are, and to speak to the employees if they wished.
Mr. Robinson said they blow leaves because people hire them to, and it is cheaper for the customer. He said if they had a choice they wouldn’t blow, rake, or deal with leaves at all, because “you don’t make money moving leaves.” But, Mr. Robinson said, if you are hired to care for someone’s property then you have to remove the leaves. He noted that if it became too expensive, then people would not hire them. Mr. Robinson asked that the Council, in whatever action they eventually decide on, take into consideration the “dreaded consequences” for those people who cannot gather their own leaves. He said that many people pay others to care for their yards, and mentioned the elderly and single mothers as examples. Mr. Robinson said if you force those who cannot gather their own leaves to hire others to do it for them, then that is essentially an additional “tax” on those persons. He noted that the cost to a homeowner to hire someone to rake leaves is five times the cost of hiring someone to blow leaves.
Mr. Robinson said landscapers have no problem complying with a noise ordinance or with the regulation of hours of operation, noting that many times at the request of citizens they rearrange their work schedule around events that might be taking place in neighborhoods. He noted that limiting the noise of such equipment at 80 decibels was appropriate, adding that the newer model machines are now rated at 75 decibels, with some brands approaching 65 decibels. Mr. Robinson said that the statements made earlier about emissions of such equipment were erroneous, and asked the Council to “look it up for themselves.”
Mr. Robinson asked the Council to remember that blowers are used for many things other than just gathering leaves. He asked them to try to rake or sweep leaves, grass clippings, and debris from a gravel driveway, adding it just does not work. Mr. Robinson said a blower does a good job in a very short period of time.
Mr. Robinson applauded the Council’s decision not to ban leaf blowers, but asked that they not “throw the baby out with the bath water.” He asked them to regulate them if they must, but to be reasonable, so that reasonable people could deal with it. Mr. Robinson noted that Pasadena, California had recently rescinded their ordinance banning leaf blowers because it was, in their words, unenforceable.
Sue-Anne Solem noted that the sound of leaf blowers is the “new sound of autumn.” She said she could not be outside in October through January without being subjected to the noise of such equipment. Ms. Solem said if she stood outside her home and screamed at the same decibel level and with the same intensity and duration, no one would put up with it. She cited the Town’s noise regulations, stating that lawn equipment was allowed to operate on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., and on weekends from 8 a.m. until 9 p.m., adding there had been days when she has been subjected to such noise for an entire day.
Ms. Solem compared the permitting process for parties with the lack of such a process for the use of lawn equipment. She said this does not make sense to her. Ms. Solem suggested that there was no need to rake or blow leaves at all, and did not understand others’ “obsession” with removing leaves.
Jane Hudson, speaking for the Student Environmental Action Coalition and other concerned students at UNC, said she wanted to ask the Council to regulate the emissions of such equipment. She said they view such equipment as a serious public health threat, noting that such equipment must be regulated in order to ensure the safety of citizens and workers. Ms. Hudson said that properly regulating noise and emissions of leaf blowers would improve the quality of life for our citizens and the livelihoods of those in the landscape business would not be compromised.
Barbara Chaiken said she was disappointed in and wanted to challenge the Town’s decision to take no action on banning leaf blowers. She said that other cities had had the same concerns, but had persevered and were able to ban such equipment.
Ms. Chaiken read a list of ailments that could be attributed to exposure to noise. She said her specific concern was that the people who use this equipment don’t always use the proper protective gear, such as masks, safety glasses and earphones. Ms. Chaiken said that those people who attempt to enjoy the outdoors while such equipment is being operated don’t have such protection. She cited a publication that suggested what appropriate noise levels should be during daytime hours, and also the type of damage that emissions can cause to the environment.
Ms. Chaiken asked the Council to regulate as much as possible the use of such equipment, suggesting the hours of 10 a.m., to 3 p.m., and used only during the months of October and November. She added that any equipment that exceeded 65 decibels should be banned and those who use equipment that exceed that level be fined. Ms. Chaiken said the Town should not use such leaf blowers, nor do business with any companies that use leaf blowers.
Virginia Knapp, Associate Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, noted that the Chamber endorsed the triple bottom line of sustainability, which is social, environmental, and economic. She said these three priorities must be weighed and balanced in all decisions, and when this doesn’t happen then we can have unintentional consequences that sometimes outweigh the good. Ms. Knapp said the Council could play a leadership role by bringing together the diverse groups who have a stake in this decision to bring about a deeper understanding of the best balance for our community. She said the Chamber is prepared to work with the Council to include all those interested in such a dialogue.
Linda Convissor, Director of Local Relations at UNC, gave a brief overview of how leaf blowers are used on campus and their importance to the safety of their campus community. She said their primary use is to move leaves and debris to areas where they will not be a safety hazard and where they can be swept to a central collection point.
Ms. Convissor said if you were on campus this afternoon just prior to 1 p.m. during class change, you would have appreciated the necessity of keeping walkways clear. She said with literally thousands of student packing the walkways virtually once an hour every hour between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., keeping the paths clear is a safety issue. Ms. Convissor said the University uses many types of blowers to perform this work, such as handheld, walk-behind, backpack, mower-mounted and tractor-mounted blowers. She noted the reasons that battery or electric blowers were not feasible for use on the campus, such as the short battery life, the unavailability of outside electrical outlets, and the tripping hazard caused by electrical cords.
Ms. Convissor stated that as the University replaces its blowers, they are purchasing equipment with reduced emissions technology and with a 65 decibel rating, which is the best available for a commercial-sized backpack blower.
Ms. Convissor said the most important point she wanted to make tonight was that the University’s use of leaf blowers is markedly different from what residential areas require. She said that controls that would make sense in residential areas would create serious disruption and safety issues on campus. Ms. Convissor said limiting the use to daytime hours would be extremely disruptive, because “quiet” is most necessary during class time. She said where normally leaf blowers are used during daytime hours in residential areas, on campus their primary use is between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. to avoid noise during class times. Ms. Convissor said in the fall during leaf season, these hours are extended somewhat to complete the tasks, and it is always a “balancing act” to get the job done while keeping the noise levels down during class time.
Ms. Convissor said besides the use of leaf blowers by the Grounds Department, the Athletics Department also uses blowers extensively. She said after home games in Kenan Stadium, Fetzer Gym, Boshamer Stadium, Henry Stadium and other venues, blowers are used to remove the debris. Ms. Convissor said blowers are also used at Finley Golf Course and at all the fields and grounds around the athletic facilities to prepare the venues for events.
In summary, Ms. Convissor said limiting the use of leaf blowers on campus would result in facilities that are unkempt and unsightly, but most importantly unsafe for the thousands of faculty, staff, students and visitors that walk across their grounds daily. She mentioned that during the most recent snow event, leaf blowers were used effectively to clear the snow and ice from walkways.
Frank Loda said his wife had health problems which were exacerbated by the use of leaf blowers and other types of lawn equipment. He noted he had had to discontinue the use of such equipment at his home. Mr. Loda said he believed that limiting the use of such equipment was worth considering, particularly limiting them to seasonal use. He said that for many people this is a serious health issue, stating he may have to one day leave Chapel Hill because of its pollution levels.
Council Member Hill said he wondered what the accident rates on campus were prior to 1975 when leaf blowers were introduced. He said he would like to compare accident rates prior to 1975 with today’s rates to see if there really is a marked difference. Council Member Hill said leaf blowers were a modern invention, and to think that our lives would change with the absence of leaf blowers was to some degree “extreme.”
Council Member Hill said he runs early in the morning, usually around 6:15 a.m., starting from his home of Rosemary Street and through campus. He said that on his last run he could hear leaf blowers on campus during his entire run. Council Member Hill said that they were not disturbing classes, but they must have been disturbing those students who were sleeping in their rooms. He noted that students pay rent just as others do, and did not deserve to be awakened that early in the morning by leaf blowers.
Council Member Hill said it was clear to him that there was a problem with our noise ordinance. He said if you sing loudly or have a party you have to get a permit, but you can disturb a lot of people with lawn equipment without their permission. Council Member Hill said that is something he believes the Council can do something about.
Council Member Hill said that “the Town is not OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration],” noting that earlier comments about requiring the use of hearing protection devices was outside the Town’s purview.
Council Member Hill said that Barbara Chaiken had offered a number of good ideas tonight and believed they should be considered. He said that he believed tonight’s comments should be referred to the staff, and noted that other communities had put restrictions in place that were successful.
Mayor Foy agreed, and said all the comments made tonight should be taken into consideration as the Council thinks about what kinds of reasonable limitations that might be taken and how they might affect the community.
COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION REFERRING COMMENTS MADE AT THE PUBLIC FORUM ON LEAF BLOWERS AND AIR QUALITY ISSUES TO MANAGER AND ATTORNEY FOR FOLLOW-UP REPORT (2005-01-24/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council refers to the Town Manager and Town Attorney public comments made at the January 24, 2005, Public Forum on leaf blowers and air quality issues for a follow-up report and further consideration by the Town Council.
This the 24th day of January, 2005.