SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY APRIL 18, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor pro tem Lee Pavão called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Bill Strom, and Jim Ward. Mayor Rosemary Waldorf and Council Member Wiggins were absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Police Captain Everett Johnson, Planner Phil Mason, and Acting Clerk Toni Pendergraph.
Mr. Waldon introduced Mr. Mark White of the consulting firm of Freilich, Leitner, & Carlisle, who presented the Annotated Outline of the proposed new Development Ordinance. He discussed the procedure being followed for completion of the final draft of the Ordinance:
Actions to Date:
· Comprehensive Plan adopted May 8, 2000
· Diagnosis Report received October 18, 2000
· Contract for consulting services with Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle presented in January 2001
· Initial meeting January 22, 2001
Plan Policies
· Focusing development within corridors and mixed use areas
· Low-impact development and stormwater management—bioretention, reduction in impervious surfaces, 50-year storm
· Affordable housing—how to institutionalize requirements
· Mixed Uses—how to encourage vertical mixed use
· Parking—including maximum requirements
· Tighten standards to encourage predictability for developers and neighborhoods
· Reduce adversarial nature of development process by providing Town Council input up-front
Mr. White presented a brief outline of the structure of the new Ordinance:
Ordinance Outline
· Article 1. Purpose & scope
· Article 2. Use patterns
· Article 3. Zoning districts
· Article 4. Procedures
· Article 5. Design and development standards
· Article 6. Special regulations for particular uses
· Article 7. Non-conforming uses and vested rights
· Article 8. Administrative agencies
· Article 9. Legal status
· Appendix A. Definitions
· Appendix B. Use Matrix
· Appendix C. Application submittal requirements
Mr. White said the next step would be to prepare a draft of the entire Ordinance, and finally, adoption and implementation.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy said the Planning Board looked forward to the details about the outline for the new Development Ordinance, as they are made available, and hoped to remain involved in the planning process. She said that most of the remarks outlined in the Planning Board’s memo were questions.
Transportation Board Chair Loren Hintz reported that the Transportation Board met last evening and went over the Outline. He said they had some questions in the areas of Retail Retrofit, and had a suggestion for adding, after 5.12, a reference, number 5.13, to an employee, resident, and client Transportation Management Plan and how it could be developed. He added a possible number 5.14 related to Transportation Construction Management with some specific requirements.
Historic District Commission Chair Betsy Pringle reported that at its meeting most of the discussion involved questions, and they would probably be addressed at the next level. She said one of the questions was how the new district would impact the Historic District process.
James Carnahan said he was present on behalf of a group of citizens known as the Village Project, which had as its mission creation of more walkable communities and preservation of the rural landscape, necessary for environmental, fiscal, and public reasons, and was desirable for restoring and increasing the vitality and intimacy of the communities. He quoted from Page 100 of the September 1999 draft of the Comprehensive Plan regarding automobility, and said the transportation nodes must be clearly identified, and the Ordinance must prescribe for walkable development at these nodes. Mr. Carnahan sited the downtown area of Franklin Street as a model to look to for guidance. He said the Village Project recommended for areas he mentioned: restoration of on-street parking; establishing the strictest possible parking maximums, and charging a fee for exceeding the maximums; requiring a 20-foot wide promenade sidewalk; requiring that buildings be set to the edge of the promenade; requiring that parking be sited at the rear or side; encouraging residential use in the upper floors of the buildings in these areas; and, replacing only if necessary some of the displaced parking in structures.
Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, thanked the Council for providing the meeting opportunity earlier in the day, of several of the constituencies and Boards with Mr. White, the consultant. He said the Chamber had submitted several questions and suggestions for Mr. White’s and the Council’s consideration.
Phil Post said he wanted to speak directly to the Concept Plans, and when it was submitted to the Council, he asked that the Community Design Committee (CDC) and the Council review it the same month that it was submitted, in order to speed up the process. He said that by doing this, the CDC would be able to return with a resubmission in the second month, without staff input at that stage. He urged the Council to vote approval or disapproval at this stage.
David Bleicher, a member of the Village Project, said it was necessary to look at improving the transit system, so that by the time the Development Ordinance is set up it will have a transit system to back it up. He said the Village Project wanted to see bus service at least 16 hours per day, 7 days a week; better connections to Durham, the Research Triangle Park, and the Airport; passenger rail to Chapel Hill; and, walking made easier by building and repairing sidewalks.
Council Member Evans stated several questions and suggestions:
Council Member Brown asked where the new Development Ordinance would apply, since there was very little Town land left to develop. Mr. Horton said in essence the Ordinance would apply Town-wide, and this was one of the reasons that the proposals regarding retrofitting, infill development, and redevelopment were important.
Council Member Brown said she felt that the citizens of Chapel Hill had made it very clear that their concerns were with infill development and redevelopment in the Town. Mr. Waldon said there were several geographically specific concepts in the draft, but some of the other concepts in the Ordinance would not be specific, and it would be up to the Town as a zoning action. Mr. White concurred with Mr. Horton and Mr. Waldon, and added that in some of the developed areas where there were large parking lots, there was an economic incentive for redevelopment some of the properties, following the policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Foy asked how this would work in the new Development Ordinance, would the old zoning definition apply or would the new definition apply, if a change were to be made in redevelopment. Mr. White said it was more of a legal question, but the proposal was not to change the underlying zones, just the regulations that applied within the zones.
Council Member Foy asked if Article 3.5 would be the place where the developer would go for the standards. Mr. White said this was correct, adding it would depend on the specifics within the neighborhoods, and neighborhoods could be protected with a Neighborhood Conservation District.
Sara Bruce, Chapel Hill citizen, thanked the consultant and the Council for consideration of parking maximums and zoning minimums. She listed things she did not want in her backyard: a dump, a parking lot, a Wal-Mart or similar big box store, a free-standing fast food joint, a pharmacy, a gas station, a large intersection or interstate on-ramp, a road with two or more lanes that did not have a vegetative median and on-street parking lot. She listed the things she did want in her backyard: a school, a neighborhood-scale grocery store, places to shop and eat out, a community garden, a library, a publicly-owned greenway, recreation area or open space, and a transit stop.
Council Member Strom asked, regarding Article 3.11, Water Quality Overlay District, if Mr. White proposed to write this following the existing Watershed Protection District. He asked that this be written with an option that would extend the Watershed Protection District Town-wide, and take into consideration some of the other comments received that the existing 25-Year Storm approach was not adequate from an environmental perspective. Mr. White said that on the consulting team was an engineering firm, which had a stormwater engineering specialist, who had met with the Town’s Public Works and Engineering staff to go over the standards and to apply them Town-wide.
Council Member Bateman asked if there were any changes to Article 3.14, Airport Hazard Overlay District. Mr. White said none had been specifically requested. Council Member Bateman suggested that the consultant look at the model of an overlay district, taking into account some newer FAA regulations implemented in the State of Washington. She asked how the Town might address the loopholes in the current Small House Ordinance, and how the Small House Ordinance might apply to all new residential development, not just subdivisions.
Council Member Ward said that redevelopment guidelines were a key part of what the new Ordinance needed to address. He asked the consultant to look into how the Town could apply payment-in-lieu legally beyond parks and recreation. Council Member Ward asked about the Resource Conservation District (RCD), and if the Town could be more protective of these areas. Council Member Ward asked if there were ways to make it possible for people on foot or on bikes to connect dead ends. He asked how the phrase “safe passage” would be defined through the Development Ordinance. Council Member Ward said he would find it helpful to have visual aids incorporated throughout the Development Ordinance, as well as an electronic format to get it out to as many people as possible.
Mr. Waldon said that the process was on schedule, and could be readied for a public hearing scheduled for June 18, 2001, on the first draft of the Ordinance. He said that the advisory boards would be invited to make comments on the draft at this meeting. After that meeting, he said, it was hoped there would be another draft ready for presentation in September, and that there will be some new concepts for change in the Ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND REFER THE COMMENTS TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND THE TOWN ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Item 2 – Wilshire Place: Application for Special Use Permit Modification
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper said the applicant was seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) Modification of property in the 100 block of South Estes Drive, between South Estes Drive and Conner Drive, west of Chapel Hill Professional Village and east of The Center development. She said the proposal includes construction of a four-story, 14,500 square foot residential building, with 12 dwelling units. Ms. Culpepper said the site received an SUP in 1977, which encumbered 4 lots, but the fourth phase, which was approved for office use as well, was never built. Ms. Culpepper said the applicant had acquired frontage on Estes Drive and would like to modify the SUP to expand the boundary of the Permit, develop a residential apartment building, and subdivide phase 4 from phases 1-3. She said the key issues were that this would modify an existing SUP, and the applicant was asking for some unique access features, which the staff supported, but would also like to see a pedestrian connection to Estes Drive. Ms. Culpepper said one issue was parking, and that, with 12 residents parking, the Town’s minimum parking requirement was 1.5 parking spaces per unit, which would be about 20 parking space, rather than the 30 spaces being proposed. She said the staff’s preliminary recommendation was that the Council approve 26 parking spaces, under the building. Ms. Culpepper said the staff recommended approval of Resolution A.
Applicant Bob Anderson of Community Planning and Architectural Associates (CPAA), expanded on the comments made by Ms. Culpepper, and indicated in an overhead presentation where the proposal to modify the existing SUP would change the last segment from office to residential use. He said there was an old building, structurally sound, on the property involved, which the applicant would offer to any organization, such as Habitat for Humanity, for removal to another site. Mr. Anderson said the zoning of the property was principally OI-2, with a small bit of commercial space that gave frontage on Estes Drive, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property. He said the access to the property was through two principal easements, and the project would plug into the easement system at two points on the property.
Mr. Anderson described the design proposed for the project, 12 apartments/condominiums. He said the applicant had not thought of the parking as being public, and the bays were large enough so that two cars could park, one behind the other, in each bay. He said each bay would be sold with each unit, to be used by the owner for parking or storage. He quoted from the Zoning Ordinance regarding parking, and said that from that definition these bays did not qualify as parking spaces. He said four visitor spaces, including one handicapped space, would be built outside of the actual building, and two other handicapped spaces were being proposed on each side of the elevator. Mr. Anderson said this total of 18 spaces would satisfy the requirement of the Ordinance for this type of project.
Mr. Anderson pointed out the sidewalks throughout the project, in regard to the comments by the Bicycle nd Pedestrian Advisory Board, and the recommendation of that Board for a sidewalk to Estes Drive would be incorporated into the proposal. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the traffic from the building would generate about 50 to 70 trips per day, the peak hour would generate about 5.8 trips, and there would be at least five or six points where the traffic could enter or exit the site, and would have little impact on the traffic pattern.
Council Member Strom asked if Mr. Anderson and his partner, Mr. Haken, had explored any possibility for affordable housing in this project. Mr. Anderson that the building would be a very expensive building, and the units would not be very affordable, but the proposal had accomplished many of the other goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant would be interested in a “payment-in-lieu” contribution to other projects for affordable housing.
Council Member Foy asked if Mr. Anderson had discussed affordable housing with the staff. Mr. Anderson said he had discussed it with the staff, but at that time there were no actual numbers available for the applicant to react to.
Council Member Foy said the Council’s goal for affordable housing was 15% of new residential units. He said he could not consider the project without an affordable housing component, since it was one of the Council’s goals, and he did not feel that the application was complete without it. Ms. Culpepper said Mr. Anderson had been made aware of the affordable housing component according to the Comprehensive Plan, and the staff also made him aware of the possibility of a contribution to Orange Community Housing Corporation, but did not suggest a specific amount for his consideration. Mr. Anderson said the applicant was amenable to a standard amount of a contribution.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy said that the Planning Board had voted 9-0 to approve the Special Use Permit Modification in Resolution B, which differed from Resolution A, by recommending 30 parking spaces instead of 26.
Bob Reda, a member of the Planning Board, emphasized what Ms. Eddy had said, that the fact that the 26 parking spaces were under the building should be taken into account when considering the parking and the impervious surfaces. He said one item that should be considered was that there needed to be some place for a delivery service to park.
Council Member Bateman agreed with Council Members Strom and Foy about having some kind of affordable housing component built into the application.
Council Member Ward urged Mr. Anderson to have a conversation with Orange Community Housing Corporation to ascertain what kind of numbers would translate into the amount of money would be for complying with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for affordable housing. He said he felt the applicant had demonstrated a willingness to comply with the other goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Ward said he viewed the bays as he would a driveway, and he supported the 14 spaces under the building, and 4 outside, and space for delivery service. He asked Mr. Anderson to comment on what amenities were being made for bicycle storage. Mr. Anderson said there was a storage space, locked, on one side of the elevator, L-shaped, about 15 feet by 20 feet, the L-shaped portion about 4 feet square. He said this was one of the stipulations in the staff recommendations.
Council Member Evans said she was very excited about the prospect of this residential project, and felt that people would enjoy living there.
Council Member Foy said he thought the parking space under the building could be reconfigured, but he felt that the way the applicant had put together the number of parking spaces requested argued in favor of the request, which he said he could support. He suggested that the applicant discuss the “contribution in lieu” for affordable housing with the staff and decide upon an amount as a contribution to the Housing Loan Trust Fund to leverage more affordable housing in other areas.
Council Member Strom noted that the staff had taken an innovative approach to stormwater management, and he appreciated it and looked forward to seeing the outcome.
Mayor pro tem Pavão said he thought the proposal would be an asset to the area.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR WILSHIRE PLACE (2001-04-18/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit Modification for Wilshire Place, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit application to be that property described as follows:
All properties adjacent to the site.
This the 18th day of April, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND RECESS UNTIL MAY 7, 2001. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Police Chief Gregg Jarvies said the Noise Ordinance Study Committee was charged with investigating various types of noises and evaluating methods of reducing levels of noises determined to be particularly disturbing. He said in September of 1999, Environmental Noise Consultants, Inc. (ENC), Drs. Larry and Julia Royster, were contracted to conduct a comprehensive review of the Town’s Noise Ordinance, recommend changes, and prepare a draft of a new ordinance for future consideration. Chief Jarvies said the hearing tonight was to provide citizens an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Noise Ordinance, and was a work in progress. He said there would be a final proposal for the Noise Ordinance in the fall.
Chief Jarvies said there were issues which had been discussed during meetings with citizens and the Town staff such as: sanitation collections hours; sound levels in certain areas of Town, when zoning of the property where the noise was produced differed from the zoning of the property where the sound was heard; and, tighter restrictions on times and days when a permit could be issued to allow groups to exceed allowable sound levels.
Dr. Larry Royster gave the background for the development of a Noise Ordinance:
Criteria for developing a Noise Ordinance
· Speech communications
· Impact on sleep
· General annoyance
· Background noise level
Four-part noise prevention and control program
· Proposed new noise code
· Preventive Strategy—boundary noise predictions
· Community noise awareness program
· City internet site—noise educational information
Dr. Royster indicated the map locations for noise measurements in Chapel Hill—measured and proposed dB(A) day sound levels—residential. He pointed out the maximum sound level limitations at the property boundary-plane by zoning category, dB(A) for various times of day and night, and by locations. Dr. Royster said what he was proposing was a completely new ordinance and a program to prevent problems.
Justin Young, UNC Student Body President, introduced the two students who would be working with the Council during the next year, Frances Ferris and Scott Jones. He said that the basic concern was that the University would be targeted and alienated from the rest of the Town. Mr. Young said when the fraternities and sororities celebrated they do so responsibly and would continue to do so.
Frances Ferris, UNC student, raised some concerns regarding permit restrictions, and said she felt the new proposals were too extreme, by restricting them to only daylight hours on Friday and Saturday.
Scott Jones, UNC student, said that 50 decibels was an average tone of voice. He said the community was falling under the 60 measurement decibels presently and felt they would continue to do so, and by reducing the level to 50 decibels would make some people a potential law-breaker. He said that currently Chapel Hill’s noise level was already lower than any other place, and setting it below 50 decibels level was extreme. Mr. Jones said he thought 50 feet for sound systems being detectable was too restrictive. He suggested that realistic, reasonable people could be violating the law under this proposed set of standards.
Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber had four points to make relating to the proposed noise ordinance:
· Request that any Noise Ordinance adopted not be made retroactive.
· The sound level permitted be based upon the noise zone in which the noise is being created.
· Not changing the hours for trash collection.
· Not create an ordinance based on decibels, which most people did not understand or know what a level would be.
Milton Heath, a member of the Noise Ordinance Committee, thanked the students, the businesses, and the consultants for their participation. He noted that he and the Committee felt that if there was to be a modern Noise Ordinance, there should be a set of modern enforcement provisions. Mr. Heath said he had prepared a proposal, page 46 of the memo, for enforcement of the proposed Noise Ordinance and highlighted some of the changes to the existing Noise Ordinance, pointing out existing Noise Ordinances in Greenville and Raleigh, and his proposed civil penalty. He also pointed out that the use of the word “unnecessary” in section 11-39.1 was held by one court to be unconstitutionally vague, and recommended deletion of the word.
Bruce Runberg, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities at UNC, and a member of some of the past Noise Committees, pointed out that the University had tried to be a good neighbor to the Town over the years, especially since the University, according to State law, did not have to be in compliance with the noise regulations of the Town. He said the University was pleased that the recommendations did not have a retroactivity requirement. Mr. Runberg questioned the 45 decibels at night time proposed under Residential, on the graph on page 4 of the memo, which he felt was very low. Mr. Runberg invited the Council and the Mayor to attend a meeting next Tuesday, to Earth Day Ceremonies from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Estelle Mabry, resident of Pritchard Avenue and close to the business “He’s Not Here,” and she wanted to talk about noise at night from that business and other parties. She said these parties should not be allowed an exemption, and, if permitted, the neighbors should be informed before the exemption was issued.
Matthew Dresnick, UNC student, said the fraternities did not have measurement equipment so they had no way of measuring how loud the noise was. He said fraternities were social groups and therefore had social parties. Mr. Dresnick pointed out that some of the fraternities had been in the Town for over one hundred years, and the neighborhood had grown around them.
Ed Harrison, member of the Noise Ordinance Committee, said he had lived in the Town for 11 years and for almost 5 years the noise in his backyard has been the dominating environmental issue in his life. He said that noise needed to be regulated at the local level. Mr. Harrison said the noise violated the current ordinance at night and would violate both the average decibel and the range of frequency standards, listed on page 16-17 of the memo. Mr. Harrison said he did not think that he and his wife should have to deal with these violations through the court system, when the Town had ability to deal with them through local regulations. He said that in mixed-use developments the noise problems should be mitigated up front, at the beginning of the process of the buildings’ construction. Mr. Harrison requested that if a court was mentioned in the final document, that the Durham Court also be mentioned.
Jay Anhorn, Director of the Greeks at UNC, urged the Council to look over where the zoning between mixed-use and neighborhoods would balance out. He asked if the fraternities’ noise level was separated out, and how it was measured. Mr. Anhorn asked what was meant, on page 20 of the memo, Article 11-40, section 7, by the language “all-University event.” He agreed that the neighborhoods should be informed when an event was being planned.
Rob Simon, UNC Junior and member of the UNC Greek system, said he questioned the decibel levels required on Friday and Saturday evenings. He said many or the noises were produced by police, fire trucks, and ambulance sirens, and other noises which were necessary in people’s lives. Mr. Simon said that fraternities contributed a great deal to the Town of Chapel Hill—alcohol free events, community service, trash pick-up before 8:00 a.m., and they had come a long way from the “Animal House” stereotype. He said evening events were necessary for fraternities, and were an important element in the Greek system, and establishment of the 50-feet noise limitation or the removal of a Special Use Permit would prevent a positive contributing factor of the University system from existing.
Emily Olson, UNC student and member of the Greek community, said the Greek community was working to correct the strained relations with the neighborhoods. She said her main concern was that there were no exceptions to obtaining permits on Friday and Saturday nights in the new proposed ordinance, as there was in the existing ordinance, because many of the events took place in the evening, such as recruitment.
Baird Grimson, President of the Westside Neighborhood Association and member of the Noise Ordinance Committee, thanked the Roysters for an excellent job performed. He said there would be more and more problems with noise with the proposed new building at the Horace Williams Tract and other sections of Town. Mr. Grimson said the Town needed to listen to the consultants’ recommendations. He asked the Council to pay particular attention to the retroactivity recommendations, and to make sure that existing noise-producing factors be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance.
Council Member Brown asked the consultants to explain the definition between “daytime” and “nighttime” on page 17 of the memo. Dr. Royster said the Ordinance was broken down into two parts, voices or students hollering fell in the nuisance section, which was already in the current Ordinance. He said that the other noises pertained to noise such as bands, air conditioners, and things of that nature, so the idea of limiting voice to 50 decibels was not correct. Dr. Royster said that 50 feet was what most states used to control boom boxes, and www.nonoise.org was the site where the Council could go look up numerous cities’ noise ordinances. He said the definitions of “daytime” and “nighttime” was not significantly changed from the current Ordinance.
Council Member Brown asked whether the decibels were arbitrary. Dr. Royster said they were not, but were standards throughout the country.
Council Member Brown asked Dr. Royster to identify what the various sound levels would sound like. Dr. Royster said it could be identified by their range, such as in a piano keyboard—by the pitch.
Council Member Brown said some residents of Ridgewood had left letters, to be distributed to the Council, in support of the Noise Ordinance.
Council Member Evans asked if the noise level would be louder than allowed by traffic and people on Franklin Street at 12:30 a.m. Dr. Royster said that traffic noise could only be regulated by the State. He said the background level was what was measured, adding that the noise level on Franklin Street was not very high.
Council Member Evans asked if the proposed Ordinance would allow street noise, such as music being played, to be above the regulated decibel level. Dr. Royster said if the band players did not exceed the levels of their boundaries, they could have all the music they wished, as long as they did not interfere with other music players in other nearby places.
Council Member Evans said that the Town wanted the good things about the community to continue, and the negative noise in the community to be eliminated. She asked about the effect of wind direction on the noise level. Dr. Royster said that wind direction and temperature inversion have an effect on propagation in the community, but it must be in the nature of 400-500 meters for it to occur. Dr. Julia Royster said that the current Ordinance did not allow outdoor-amplified sound without a permit. She said the proposed Ordinance did not differentiate, and if the amplified sound were within the permitted level, a permit would not be needed.
Council Member Evans asked how the mixed-use would be measured, such as movies being shown outside, and would that be allowed. She asked if she would be allowed to do sanding or such like-sounding activities outside, if she lived in close proximity to other houses. Dr. Royster said that would come under the Nuisance section of the Ordinance, as it is in the current Ordinance. He said the current Ordinance was very narrow in scope, but the proposed Ordinance would allow noise without a permit as long as it didn’t exceed the decibel limit of the area.
Council Member Evans asked what the level of 55 decibels would be. Dr. Royster said his voice as he was speaking from the podium was about 50 decibels. Council Member Evans felt it was not reasonable to limit occasional events by the Greeks, which exceeded the noise level limit. Dr. Royster said that would fall under the Nuisance section, which was in the current Ordinance, and if there had not been any trouble under the present Ordinance, there would not be any trouble under the proposed Ordinance.
Council Member Bateman asked for some proviso to be written into the proposed Ordinance that would allow neighborhoods being affected by the noise to be informed of the intended noise event before it happened.
Council Member Foy asked if the consultants had any comment on the previous consultant’s recommendation for a different kind of enforcement mechanism. Dr. Royster said that part was left the way it was because that would be a decision the Council would make in terms of how strongly it wished to enforce the Ordinance. He said there had to be some way to stop groups from creating noise violations, which continued to do so after being warned.
Council Member Ward asked for a clarification of what the consultants meant by “retroactivity,” and what the recommendations were. Dr. Royster responded that if, by putting “retroactivity” into the Ordinance meant that the problem would not be solved and would continue, he would not be in favor of it. He said he would like to see the Ordinance adopted, and would not be in favor of any issue in the Ordinance that would prevent this.
Council Member Ward encouraged Dr. Royster to look at ways the Town could address the problem that would be palatable to the broad range of perspective that he was aware of. He asked if the Ordinance would forbid permits on Friday and Saturday nights. Dr. Royster said anybody making noise on the level of 10 dB(A) or above could apply for a permit. Dr. Julia Royster clarified this as daytime hours going to 11:00 p.m. during the week and until 12:00 midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. She said permits could not be issued on weekday nights in the new proposal.
Council Member Ward said it was not clear whether the University was included in the program for education in the local schools. Dr. Royster said it was a whole educational system.
Council Member Ward asked about the noise levels permitted leaf-blowers. He said he wanted some relief. Dr. Royster said if the Council wished to address leaf-blowers as an issue it could be included, and the issue was included in other city ordinances.
Council Member Evans said, in Section 11-40 Exemptions, #1, local Town parks should be included in the list.
Council Member Strom said he felt the consultants had done an excellent job with some very complex issues. He said that an Internet posting that told people that there was a permit being applied for was not enough in some cases. Council Member Strom asked for a way to address the issue of how the neighborhood could be notified personally, whereby the neighbors could say if this would not be a good thing for them, because of certain circumstances. Dr. Royster said there was a section in the Ordinance that dealt with that situation and how it would work, and this issue could be incorporated.
Council Member Ward asked how much time would people need to get a permit before the event happened. Dr. Royster answered 48 hours. Council Member Ward said one way to address this problem of notification would be to require a longer time period in advance of the event to obtain a permit.
Mayor pro tem Pavão asked Mr. Horton what the next step would be in the process. Mr. Horton said the staff and the Roysters would work on the comments from this evening, work during the summer on the revisions and additions, and bring back a follow-up report in the fall, with a recommendation for action on the Ordinance.
Mayor pro tem Pavão asked if there was some way to give some relief to Mr. Harrison’s problems before that time. Mr. Horton said that problem could be considered under the Retroactivity issue, and, to the extent that that could be considered, that the Council had made its interest known.
Council Member Strom added that there needed to be some way for the people in Mr. Harrison’s situation to seek relief.
Council Member Brown said this was an important issue, and would have to be dealt with by the Council.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.