TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Recommendations on Revision of Noise Ordinance
DATE: April 18, 2001
The purpose of tonight’s public hearing is to provide citizens an opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the Town’s Noise Control Ordinance.
The Council established a Noise Ordinance Study Committee in May of 1997. The Committee was charged with investigating various types of noises and evaluating methods of reducing the levels of noises that were determined to be particularly disturbing.
On September 13, 1999, the Council authorized the Manager to contract with Environmental Noise Consultants, Inc. (ENC) of Raleigh to conduct a comprehensive review of the Town’s noise ordinance, recommend changes and prepare a draft of a new ordinance for future consideration.
Larry and Julia Royster of ENC agreed to conduct a several phase project that would include:
The current noise ordinance has an established decibel level for both daytime and nighttime sounds. The levels are consistent throughout Town without regard for the type of property from which the sounds originate. Within current standards, and with the equipment now used to measure sound levels, it is difficult to accurately measure sounds emanating from mechanical sources. The current standards are not intended to measure a broad band of sound octaves nor are they appropriate for measuring sounds of a long duration. With few exceptions the current ordinance has been used only for the enforcement of violations involving amplified sound, violations that make up less than twenty percent of our total number of reported violations.
Prior to developing the draft noise control ordinance the Roysters met with members of the Noise Ordinance Study Committee to discuss issues raised during the Committee’s eighteen months of work. They also met with representatives of the Town’s police, planning and engineering departments to discuss noise ordinance enforcement issues and questions regarding bothersome sounds resulting from mechanical systems, particularly those systems located at institutional and commercial buildings.
The Roysters presented their initial report to the Council on January 22, 2001. (Please see the attached report). This report summarized the data collected during their preliminary research. It also contained a proposed four-part noise prevention and control program. One part of the program recommends adoption of a revised noise ordinance. The program also includes recommendations for: educating citizens about noise prevention; and, formulating a preventive strategy to ensure that new noise sources within the Town, especially those arising from new construction and development, would be in compliance with the revised noise ordinance, if adopted.
The Council received the report and scheduled tonight’s public hearing to seek public comments on the report.
To develop the baseline of Town sound levels the Roysters visited 45 sites during various hours of the day and night. Approximately 550 sound samples were taken in residential, commercial and institutional locations.
The draft ordinance (Pages 12-22 of Attachment 1) has several key differences from the current ordinance:
The draft ordinance includes provisions that would allow for the measurement of a broader spectrum of sounds. Unlike the current ordinance, the provisions outlined in the draft take into account the fact that noise levels vary in different types of neighborhoods. Levels in areas zoned commercial and institutional are generally higher than those experienced in residential areas. Therefore, the draft ordinance contains sound limits higher for some areas than others. However, the draft also contains provisions requiring entities producing these higher sound levels not to cause levels in neighboring residential areas to exceed that area’s lower standards.
Should provisions similar to those contained in the draft be adopted, we would recommend using the Town’s current zoning districts to establish the acceptable sound levels for each area of Town. We anticipate that occupancies in commercial or institutional zones adjacent to residential districts (e.g. the Ridgefield neighborhood and University Mall, or the Westwood community and the University property along Pittsboro Street) may experience some problems in meeting applicable noise limits. However, according to the ENC consultants, these problems are likely to be minimal and could be resolved through agreements among the affected parties.
The following chart illustrates the current and proposed sound levels for each of the Town’s zoning districts.
|
ZONING |
CURRENT |
PROPOSED |
CURRENT |
PROPOSED |
|
DISTRICT |
LEVEL (DAY) |
LEVEL (DAY) |
LEVEL (NIGHT) |
LEVEL (NIGHT) |
|
Town Center |
60 |
65 |
50 |
55 |
|
Community Commercial |
60 |
70 |
50 |
65 |
|
Neighborhood Commercial |
60 |
65 |
50 |
55 |
|
Office/ Institutional 3 |
60 |
65 |
50 |
55 |
|
Office/ Institutional 2 |
60 |
65 |
50 |
55 |
|
Office/ Institutional 1 |
60 |
65 |
50 |
55 |
|
Industrial |
60 |
70 |
50 |
65 |
|
Residential |
60 |
50 |
50 |
45 |
|
Rural Transition |
60 |
70 |
50 |
65 |
The draft ordinance stipulates that when the zoning of the property where the noise is produced differs from the zoning of the property where the sound is heard, the lower level will apply for the purposes of determining the acceptable and enforceable sound levels.
No Retroactivity Requirement
The consultants recommend against including a retroactivity requirement in a revised noise ordinance. We agree with this recommendation.
The practical and fiscal implications of requiring retroactive compliance could be significant. For example, retrofitting or replacing heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) systems to meet stricter standards could cost homeowners and business owners thousands of dollars. However, the Town could choose to require compliance with the stricter standards should that mechanical system ever be renovated or replaced.
Enforcing a retroactivity requirement would likely be a selective process and difficult to enforce. For example, if zoning district boundaries were used to determine acceptable sound levels, a business adjacent to a residential property would be more likely to have to replace or retrofit its HVAC system than would a business in the Central Business District with the exact same system
Issues Raised During Meetings with Citizens and Town Staff
Prior to tonight’s forum several groups of citizens requested an opportunity to meet with the ENC consultants to discuss particular issues contained in the January 22 report and draft ordinance. These groups included representatives from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Commission, the Noise Ordinance Study Committee, the UNC Student Government, and the Town Public Works Department.
The issues raised during these meetings, and the impact of the draft ordinance on these issues, are noted below.
1. Noise resulting from leaf collection, leaf blowers and mowing
Sound coming from landscape maintenance equipment may exceed the standard levels provided the equipment is operated between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. (between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends); and provided the equipment is not operated for more than fours hours per day at any single property; and provided that the noise levels do not exceed the standard level by more 10 decibels.
Sound coming from construction operations may exceed the standard levels provided that the operations take place between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. (between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends). Sound coming from emergency construction and maintenance operations is exempted from the provisions of the ordinance.
3. Commercial garbage collections started prior 7:00 a.m.
Sound coming from sanitation operations prior to 7:00 a.m. would have to meet the lower standards in effect for nighttime hours.
Citizens may still receive permits to exceed standard sound levels by 10 decibels. Permits will allow for exceptions to the sound levels only during daytime hours on Friday and Saturday.
The consultants recommend against including a retroactivity requirement in a new noise ordinance.
The nuisance section of the ordinance has changed little from the current ordinance. Loud stereos and noisy parties would still be violations of the ordinance. One proposed addition to the nuisance section would prohibit the sound from boom boxes and car stereos from being audible at more than fifty feet from the source.
8. Disparate impact on some properties
Listed below are some key issues to be considered in evaluating the consultants’ proposal.
The ENC consultants believe that few existing sound sources within the Town would exceed the limits proposed in the draft ordinance. According to the Roysters, only those sounds which “significantly exceed sounds levels ordinarily heard within that same zone or neighborhood” would likely violate the proposed limits.
The draft ordinance proposed by the Roysters takes into account the fact that the environments in commercial and institutional areas are typically louder than other areas, thus higher sound limits than those currently in effect would be appropriate. The ordinance also recognizes that noises originating in such zones should not be allowed to interfere with the lower sound levels expected in the quieter environments of residential areas.
The Roysters recognize that their proposal represents a significant change to the current ordinance and is not without its advantages and disadvantages. However, they believe that it represents a fair and comprehensive method through which current and future sound levels can be managed.
We anticipate that a recommendation for adoption of a new noise ordinance will be presented for the Council’s consideration in the fall.
We recommend that the Council receive comments from the citizens and forward those comments to the Manager for future consideration in the development of a revised noise ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Report from Environmental Noise Consultants, Inc.(begin new page 1).
2. January 22, 2001 Council Agenda Item #9 (without attachments) (p. 41).
3. Memorandum from Milton Heath, Noise Committee, (p. 46).