Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, August 25, 2022 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Russell Edwards, Chair Commissioner Jesse Houle Commissioner Carol Myers Commissioner Ovita Thornton *Arrived at 1:34 p.m. Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Niki Jones, Assistant Manager Doug Hansford, Building Permits & Inspection Sherrie Hines, Chief Assistant Attorney Sarah George, Recorder Lisa Pappas, Assistant Attorney Deputy Chief Harrison Daniel, Police Department Commissioner Edwards called the meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. A. Approval of Agenda: The agenda was approved by unanimous consent. B. Approval of Minutes: The August 4, 2022 minutes were approved by unanimous consent. C. Public Input: No public input was received. Commission Identified Items of Interest: D. Investigate the noise ordinance, specifically machines, vehicles, and amplified noises Assistant Manager Niki Jones introduced the topic and shared that staff was asked to come to the next meeting with background information on the existing noise ordinance. Doug Hansford provided an overview of the existing noise restrictions. He explained that landscaping noise is generally prohibited in residential zones between 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Landscaping noise is prohibited in agricultural residential zones between 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. He also shared that construction noise is prohibited between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. He clarified that this does not mean that construction is prohibited during those times, rather construction noise cannot be audible beyond the property lines during that timeframe. Doug Hansford also noted that there is not a specific noise level or distance for construction or landscape noise within the ordinance; the noise cannot be plainly audible, which Code Enforcement interprets to mean a human can hear it. Doug Hansford shared that they do receive around six to eight complaints a year, generally from residential areas, regarding construction noise, and he explained that he cannot recall a situation where a contractor has not altered their schedule after a noise complaint was brought to their  attention, and they usually receive compliance after informing the contractor of the restriction in the ordinance. Commissioner Wright inquired about the details regarding residential noise and how the ordinance differentiates it from downtown, like in the case of a loud party. Doug Hansford explained that type of noise would be enforced by the police department. Commissioner Wright requested staff provide details on the ordinances enforced by the police department pertaining to noise at the next meeting. Commissioner Houle inquired about how many of the 11 noise complaints were construction related. Doug Hansford explained that he will need to go back and confirm the number of complaints, because the construction noise complaints come through their building inspections division. He noted that he will obtain clarification on that number and provide it to Assistant Manager Jones to share with the Committee. Doug Hansford also shared noise restrictions for industrial areas that are adjacent to residential areas and those that are not. For industrial areas, the noise restriction is based on decibel levels. He provided an overview of Code Enforcement’s approach to enforcement, and he explained that Code Enforcement officers contact the alleged ordinance violator to inform and issue a warning notice. Citations are issued for continued violations or multiple violations at the same location or by the same person/company. He also shared examples of two cases pertaining to noise complaints when Code Enforcement officers went out to investigate the noise with a decibel meter to measure sound. In both cases described, the noise was below the maximum threshold, and the cases were closed, as they were in compliance. Commissioner Houle inquired about which calls do and/or should come to Code Enforcement from other sources, like 911 dispatch. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that, it would depend on the situation, but, as a matter of practice, if it is something that Athens-Clarke County Police department (ACCPD) typically would enforce, they will send an officer out to investigate the noise. If not, they may just make a notification. Commissioner Edwards explained that he believes 6:00 a.m. for construction noise is early, and he would be open to adjusting it. He shared that he has received complaints from constituents regarding this issue. Commissioner Myers inquired about how many complaints have been made regarding construction noise. Commissioner Wright explained that she believed that tackling this topic would lead to some consistency in timeframes of enforcement. She also noted that, given the heat of the day, it might be helpful to consider seasonal changes, if feasible. Commissioner Houle asked Doug Hansford to explain more about the waiver process. Doug Hansford explained that a request for a waiver will be made to him, the Director of the Building Permits & Inspection Department, and the ordinance requires requests to include:  The reasons that support a claim of urgent need based on specific loss or inconvenience for such a variation from the allowable work hours;  The impact that the denial of this request would have on the applicant’s project and the surrounding properties;  The steps which have been taken by the applicant to communicate those needs and impacts to owners of surrounding and nearby properties;  The steps that have or will be taken to limit the impact of the proposed activity upon surrounding and nearby properties; and  The possible risks to public health and safety. Doug Hansford explained that the ordinance does provide him some discretion in granting waivers; however, he would not recommend that we assume that people could use a waiver very Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 08252022  often. Commissioner Houle asked if Doug Hansford would see a value in having the approval process include approval for a range of time or multiple dates rather than just a specific date. Doug Hansford shared that he could see the value in something like that, especially if the waiver can be revoked if a lot of complaints are received. Commissioner Houle inquired about where in the ordinance it mentions heat or weather-related conditions. Doug Hansford explained that it currently does not mention it specifically. Commissioner Houle noted that if the Committee is looking to make adjustments, they would suggest ensuring the waiver process will work. Commissioner Edwards agreed and expressed interest in considering approval for multiple dates. Doug Hansford explained that he does not recall ever receiving a waiver request for construction within a single family neighborhood, and he does not believe he would ever approve a waiver request in a single family neighborhood; typically, waiver requests come in for large projects. Commissioner Myers explained that she understands the desire for consistency; however, we do not currently know what activity would be happening between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. if the Committee were to explore adjustments to the timeframe. She shared that she has not received complaints on this issue, and she expressed interest in somehow checking in with contractors to understand how an adjustment to the time would impact their business. Commissioner Myers explained that, because we do not know how many complaints have been received related to this issue, it is not clear yet if this is a problem. Commissioner Houle agreed, and they noted that the topic was mainly brought forward because of noise-generating irritants that occur throughout the day. Deputy Chief Harrison Daniel explained that either the Police Department or Code Enforcement can enforce ordinances, so the differentiation between which department enforces which ordinances is primarily based on logistics and which agency can more easily enforce a prohibited act within the ordinance. Typically, the Police Department responds to calls about loud parties, amplified sound from vehicles or stereos on property, and sometimes human-produced sounds prohibited depending on the circumstances; these often occur after hours or late at night, which is why the Police Department responds. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that ACCPD receives an average of about 1,900 noise complaints per year, and the majority of complaints happen on the weekends. He noted that a little over half of these complaints occur during the day/evening hours, when the ordinance restricts noise to 300 feet. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that, given the Committee’s interest at the last meeting in the noise camera in Knoxville, TN because of the decibel meter, he also researched some other local ordinances in the state, including Forsyth County, City of Sandy Springs, and City of Marietta. Forsyth County had averaged around 300 complaints per year, and they shared that they received about 160 noise complaints for the year now. Commissioner Houle inquired about whether or not the data reflected individual calls or individual incidents. Deputy Chief Daniel explained the data reflects individual calls. Commissioner Houle inquired about whether or not we were receiving complaints about landscaping-related noise. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that he did not have with him the complaints by type of noise, but he could look into it. Commissioner Edwards expressed interest in having the data categorized by noise source. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that the department does not currently categorize it in that manner, and they would have to look at it line by line based on the narrative of the call. Commissioner Thornton inquired about current options for repeat offenders that consistently cause noise complaints. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that the officer could write a citation and, depending on the circumstances, could require the individual appear in court, where the judge Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 08252022  could use discretion on the penalty based on the case. Commissioner Houle requested data on the number of citations issued by the Police Department. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that he would provide that data to the Committee. Deputy Chief Daniel explained the typical approach to a noise complaint would be to inform the individual of the violation and educate them on the regulations, provide a warning if necessary, and then take enforcement action. Commissioner Wright explained that education and outreach is important to let people know the brackets of time that are restricted. Deputy Chief Daniel also pointed out that the existing noise ordinance also provides for within residence enforcement, which is helpful for apartment complexes if noise is plainly audible between units. Deputy Chief Daniel researched the noise camera in Knoxville, TN, and he explained it is an acoustic camera device that detects decibel levels and then records the activity. It was implemented in February of 2022, and it seems like they are trying to manage muffler exhaust noise in the downtown area. They are only using it to inform policy, and they are not using it to issue citations or for enforcement. It is not yet known how they certify or calibrate the device, as he has not heard back from them yet. Commissioner Edwards explained that he believes it is nice to collect data, and he is open to exploring a similar device here. If the Committee is interested, he expressed interest in exploring the cost of the device. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that, if we were interested in using it as an enforcement device, we would need to ensure the device was certified and calibrated to make sure it is admissible in court. He also noted that, in addition to the cost of the device, but there would also be cost associated with training and/or certification of officers. That said, Deputy Chief Daniel noted it would provide an objective measurement rather than the subjective measurement of what constitutes plainly audible, which may be dependent on the hearing of the officer. Commissioner Edwards explained that he envisions this process as exploring the acquisition of the tool, figuring out how to calibrate it, and then use it to collect data on the issue downtown. He shared that any intent to allow it to inform policy would be later down the road, and, at that time, we could explore the other associated costs related to training of officers, etc. Commissioner Thornton inquired about why it would need to be limited to downtown. Commissioner Edwards explained that he is open to discussion and that it would largely be a cost issue. Commissioner Wright expressed interest in learning more at the next meeting about what money would be involved. She also noted that she does not want to also forget about human-generated noise using amplified devices. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that, in regard to speech on the public right-of-way, the Police Department would typically err on the side of caution if first amendment rights may be impacted, and they would not do anything that may infringe upon that right. Chief Assistant Attorney Sherrie Hines advised that what we would do is impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions regarding noise that would apply to everyone equally. If someone violated that ordinance, we would ask them to turn it down or they could be cited for violating the ordinance; this is not because of the content of their speech but because of the noise ordinance that applies to everyone. Chief Assistant Attorney Hines also expressed concern with the value that any camera system would have, given that she does not know that we have the ability to implement such a system. She advised it might be worthwhile to consider what the Committee would intend the camera system to do. She explained if it is being used to deploy the police, it might be helpful; however, if it is in the goal of having some sort of ordinance in the future, it might not be fruitful. The Committee discussed whether or not it would be helpful to use the camera system to identify hot spots for noise that could later be used for enforcement. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that the tool could be helpful for enforcement activities. Commissioner Houle inquired as to whether or not it would be possible to receive complaint data by location. They also requested clarity on who would get cited for noise violations under the current ordinance. Deputy Chief Daniel explained that it would depend on the circumstance. For Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 08252022  a party, it would be the responsible party that would be cited, usually a property owner or tenant. Assistant Manager Jones asked the Committee what they are hoping to address related to noise. Commissioner Edwards explained the Committee is hoping to decrease the amount of per capita noise complaints. Commissioner Myers added that she would also want to look at enforcement for repeat offenders to ensure complaints from residents are being addressed. Commissioner Thornton agreed with Commissioner Edwards that the goal would be to reduce the number of complaints. Commissioner Edwards inquired about what in the existing ordinance could be enforced against an extremely loud vehicle. He requested staff think about this before the next meeting. Chief Assistant Attorney Hines shared language within state law pertaining to vehicle exhaust, and she noted that it prohibits selling vehicles with modified exhaust; however, it does not discuss or pertain to possession or noise. She advised that she would need to research whether or not there may be a possible pre-emption by state law. Commissioner Edwards expressed interest in exploring what might be able to be put on the books regarding enforcement. Commissioner Houle agreed that understanding if something can be done legislatively to regulate what is not already being regulated would be helpful. E. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 2:22 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 08252022