The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08 26 1997 PC Minutes8-26-97 AUGUST 26, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 26, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Nitchmann. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. Mr. Keeler briefly summarized actions taken at the August 20th Board of Supervisors meeting. ------------------------------------- WORK SESSION -.Proposed Noise Regulations Ms. McCulley presented the staff report. She explained how staff had proceeded after the last work session and the changes which were made. She said the proposed NOW.- regulations were simplified so that they will be reasonable to understand and enforce. Two distinct areas of noise generation were identified: (1) People -generated noise (primarily a police issue); and (2) Land -use generated noise (a zoning issue). So that the regulations can be aggressively enforced, it was determined it must be based primarily on the prohibition of "nuisance noise" with an allowance for sound meter readings when appropriate. Sgt. Ernest B. Allen and Officer Roger Mathias of the County Police Department, who had worked with staff on the development of the proposed regulations, were both present at the meeting. They answered questions about how noise complaints are presently handled and how they will be better handled after the adoption of these proposed regulations. Both believed the use of the noise meter which the Police Department presently owns is more of a hinderance than a help. The equipment is not useful because there is only one meter for the entire department; the meter must be calibrated and certified before each use; the person operating the equipment must be certified to use it; three different measurements must be taken, etc. However, both felt the proposed regulations will enable the Police Department to deal with these complaints more efficiently and effectively, and the meter may be helpful at times to enhance police evidence in a particular case. There was some discussion about exemptions and waivers. In a discussion about agricultural uses, Mr. Kamptner said it might be desirable to add an "exemption that would refer to land use waivers that are granted so the owner of the property would l�� cm M 8-26-97 2 be exempt from criminal prosecution but that would not foreclose any civil nuisance action brought by a neighbor." Referring to the term "public space receiving zone," Mr. Finley asked if the exemption applied to "Operation of a Public Facility." Ms. McCulley replied: "It wasn't intended to. Public receiving zone anticipates there will be certain areas where we are trying to keep a quiet zone because of the nature of the use, e.g. schools, hospitals. " Ms. McCulley said she could not envision any instances where there would be complaints about noise from uses such as hospitals, libraries, etc., but if a compliant should arise, "we will have to work with that neighbor if the complaint is legitimate, but if not, the complaint is probably not founded and it is one of those situations which should be exempt." Mr. Finley said there may be people who would complain about school and church bells. Referring to the definition of "public space receiving zone", Ms. Huckle asked if these regulations would address noise from tractor trailers. Ms. McCulley said if the tractor trailer noise was such that it disturbed, for instance, learning within a school, the ordinance could address that. Mr. Finley asked if pre-existing uses will be exempt from the regulations. Ms. McCulley said existing uses will be allowed to continue at the present level, but would not be allowed to increase noise levels. Mr. Kamptner said the reference to pre- existing uses was really trying to address industrial types of machinery. There was some discussion about the exemption for animal noise, such as barking dogs. Ms. McCulley said: " I exempted barking dogs based on the Board's decision not to adopt a Barking Dog Ordinance." Officer Mathias said the Police Department gets many complaints about barking dogs, but there is very little they can do. He suggested that the proposed noise regulations might want to include some regulation if the problem is "continuous," i.e. several complaints are received about the same situation. He said if animal noise is not exempted, police officers will have more authority to investigate these situations. Mr. Dotson said that the Board may not have wanted to "single out" dogs with a special regulation, but it should not be taken for granted that this type of noise should be exempted in a more comprehensive type of noise ordinance. Mr. Loewenstein said the exemption of barking dogs seems to be overlooking a very obvious type of nuisance noise. Commission comments and suggestions were as follows: --Further clarification of the difference between people noise and land -use noise is needed. --Prior to the public hearing on the proposed Noise Ordinance, it would be helpful to have information (and examples) showing how certain existing noise situations are being handled now (step by step) vs. how they would be handled with the new regulations. Examples of situations where police officers must use their judgment would be helpful also. r& 7 8-26-97 3 --Mr. Loewenstein thought it would be helpful to the public to have a table showing current land use situations and how the proposed regulations would effect those uses. --It would be helpful to show a comparison of existing regulations vs. the proposed regulations and an explanation of why staff feels the proposed regulations are an improvement. --Mr. Dotson suggested the definition "Residential receiving zone" should be changed to "Residential/Agricultural receiving zones." --Regarding the question of whether or not to measure noise levels with the noise meters, Mr. Dotson thought there should be a discussion of the options. The officers have said the present practice --"always measure" --is not workable. These regulations seem to be proposing no measurement is required (or is optional) if police officers are involved. He wondered if there is a middle ground, e.g. "measure unless certain circumstances are present, or measure only if certain circumstances are present. Mr. Kamptner said he has been considering this question also and one way of looking at it may be if it exceeds certain decibel levels it is considered a "nuisance per se," whereas in other situations it may be an objective determination. He said there are going to be judgment calls on the part of the police officers. Mr. Dotson said he understands this is a difficult situation and he would not want to hinder the police department's investigation, but he also did not want to create a "loose cannon." Perhaps officer training is a way to ensure that noise determinations will be handled in a consistent manner. Ms. McCulley said she envisioned the Police Department, when dealing with people -generated noise, would only use the sound meters to supplement a judgment if it is needed as more evidence. The Zoning Department, when dealing with land -use noise, will probably use the meter. Mr. Dotson said a distinction might need to be made between "acute vs. chronic" noise. Though not a public hearing, public comment was invited. Mr. John Horniff addressed the Commission. He stressed that there is a difference between sound and noise. He said the chart included with the staff report lacks a measurement of "ambient" noise. He gave the following example: If noise levels were measured outside a nightclub at 68 decibels, that is only twice as high as a quiet suburban area (34 decibels). But in the physics of sound, that represents a factor of 100 (100 times as loud), not a factor of 2 (twice as loud). He said he is very much in favor of the nuisance factor of the ordinance, but in considering certain categories, it may be wise to consider some noise measurements with the meter. (Mr. Keeler said staff has a report from HUD about noise levels and will include that with the Board's packet.) It was the was the uniform consensus of those Commissioners present to move the proposed ordinance on to the Board (after making whatever changes are deemed necessary as a result of the Commission's comments at this meeting), so that staff can proceed to schedule public hearings. No formal action was taken. /& 8-26-97 OLD BUSINESS 4 A Commission canoe trip on the Rivanna Reservoir was announced, to take place Friday, October 3rd (rain date October 9th), at approximately 11:00 a.m. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Tice asked the County Attorney to look into the question of whether or not a zoning text amendment may be needed to make it possible for a "temporary bridge" to be used during logging operations without a special permit. He pointed out that logging can take place, and streams can be forded, without the use of a bridge, and with no permit required. The requirement for a special permit creates a disincentive for landowners to carry out a Best Management Practice. There is a similar situation with streambank restoration projects. Mr. Kamptner said staff will look into this question. The term "temporary" will have to be defined. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. M 91: cm V. Wayn Cilimberg Se etary 16 /