Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201100006 Executive Summary 10.5.11COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Noise (Chapter 7, Health and AGENDA DATE: Safety) October 5, 2011 SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: ACTION: INFORMATION: Set a public hearing to consider amending the noise regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Newberry and ATTACHMENTS: Yes Ms. McCulley REVIEWED BY: LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: Before comprehensively amended in 2009, the County's noise regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code (the "nuisance noise regulations ") were primarily based on a standard that prohibited noise levels that were loud, disturbing or raucous so as to disturb or annoy the reasonable person (the "reasonable person standard "). The 2009 amendments replaced the reasonable person standard with an audibility standard. The amendments were necessary because of a Virginia Supreme Court decision earlier that year in which the Court concluded that Virginia Beach's reasonable person standard was unconstitutionally vague. During the zoning text amendment to the County's farm winery regulations pertaining to outdoor amplified music (County Code § 18- 5.1.25) earlier this year, there was significant discussion as to whether sound produced from outdoor amplified music at a farm winery was subject to not only the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, but also the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7. There are differences between the two regulatory schemes. The zoning noise regulations use a decibel -based standard (the exception being outdoor amplified music at a farm winery, which uses an audibility standard) and are enforced by the zoning administrator in a civil proceeding. The nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 use an audibility standard (the exception being a catch -all provision prohibiting sound that is 15 or more decibels above the ambient sound levels) and are enforced by the police and may result in a criminal prosecution. When the Board amended the noise regulations for outdoor amplified music at farm wineries in May, 2011, it reaffirmed that sound produced from land uses authorized under the Zoning Ordinance should be regulated under the zoning noise regulations. However, it became apparent to staff that the change in the nuisance noise regulations from the reasonable person standard to the audibility standard in 2009 may have blurred the line as to when the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance or the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 applies in certain situations. DISCUSSION: The purposes of this ordinance are to better distinguish which sounds are regulated under the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 and which are regulated under the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, and to eliminate any perceived overlap between the two. To accomplish this purpose, this ordinance would amend County Code § 7 -103 to expressly state that the nuisance noise regulations will apply only when the activity producing the sound is not subject to the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance also would amend County Code § 7- 106(A) to add outdoor amplified music at a farm winery as an exempt agricultural activity (sound from outdoor amplified music at a farm winery is regulated under the Zoning Ordinance in County Code § 18- 5.1.25(e)). Finally, this ordinance would make minor housekeeping amendments to County Code §§ 7- 103, 7 -105 and 7 -106. BUDGET IMPACT: No budget impact is expected. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board set the attached ordinance for a public hearing on December 7, 2011. ATTACHMENTS None COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Noise (Chapter 18, Zoning) SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Public hearing on ordinance to amend County Code § 18 -4.18, Noise STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Kamptner, Newberry and Ms. McCulley AGENDA DATE: November 8, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: Before they were comprehensively amended in 2009, the County's noise regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code (the "nuisance noise regulations ") were primarily based on a standard that prohibited noise levels that were loud, disturbing or raucous so as to disturb or annoy the reasonable person (the "reasonable person standard "). The 2009 amendments replaced the reasonable person standard with an audibility standard. The amendments were necessary because of a Virginia Supreme Court decision earlier that year in which the Court concluded that Virginia Beach's reasonable person standard was unconstitutionally vague. During the zoning text amendment to the County's farm winery regulations pertaining to outdoor amplified music (County Code § 18- 5.1.25) earlier this year, there was significant discussion as to whether sound produced from outdoor amplified music at a farm winery was subject to not only the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, but also the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7. There are differences between those two sets of regulations. The zoning noise regulations use a decibel -based standard and are enforced by the zoning administrator in a civil proceeding. The nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 use an audibility standard (the exception being a catch -all provision prohibiting sound that is 15 or more decibels above the ambient sound levels), are enforced by the police, and may result in criminal prosecution. When the Board amended the noise regulations for outdoor amplified music at farm wineries in May, 2011, it also reaffirmed that sound produced from land uses authorized under the Zoning Ordinance should be regulated under the zoning noise regulations. However, it became apparent to staff that the change in the nuisance noise regulations from the reasonable person standard to the audibility standard in 2009 may have blurred the line in certain situations as to when the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance or the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 applies. DISCUSSION: The purposes of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) are to better distinguish which sounds are regulated under the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance from those which are regulated under the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7, and to eliminate any perceived overlap between the two. To accomplish these purposes, the proposed ordinance would amend County Code § 18- 4.18.01 to expressly state that the zoning regulations will apply to those uses expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. Corresponding changes are proposed to be made in the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7. A copy of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 7 is included as Attachment B for the Commission's information. The Commission need not act on Attachment B. The proposed ordinance also would amend County Code § 18- 4.18.05 to update the language of the exemptions so that it is consistent to the extent possible with the language of the exemptions in County Code § 7 -106 adopted in 2009. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — Proposed ordinance amending the zoning noise regulations (Chapter 18) Attachment B — Proposed ordinance amending the nuisance noise regulations (Chapter 7) �rRGtNI'' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Phase 1 Noise Regulation STAFF: McCulley, Burbage, and Kamptner Amendment Work Session PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2013 SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Work Session — Discuss Amending County Code Chapter 18 (Zoning) §4.18.05 and Chapter 7 (Health and Safety) §7 -106 to Clarify Agricultural Exemptions BACKGROUND: When the Board amended the noise regulations for outdoor amplified music at farm wineries in May, 2011, it reaffirmed that sound from land uses authorized under the Zoning Ordinance should be regulated under the zoning noise regulations. On October 5, 2011, the Board adopted a resolution of intent to direct staff to develop ordinance amendments to better distinguish which sounds are regulated under the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 (enforced by Police) and which are regulated under the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance (enforced by Zoning) {Attachment A). On November 8, 2011, the Commission deferred the public hearing from this amendment (ZTA 2011 -006 Noise), for staff to further consider several comments and issues. As the Commission is aware, the issue of noise impacts on neighbors and enforcement of noise complaints has arisen several times since this date. Staff has learned through recent experience with farm winery events, that benefits can be realized through a) pre - planning with a sound professional and b) onsite self- monitoring of sound levels by event organizers. The expected benefits include reduced impacts on and issues with neighbors, as well as reduced uncertainty in the application review process. Noise has been identified in Comprehensive Plan discussion as an issue to be further addressed in the Rural Areas, particularly with any broadening of uses such as special events involving outdoor amplified music. All of these issues relating to noise regulation and enforcement will be part of a second phase of noise regulation amendment (Attachment C). This Phase I Noise Regulation work session is focused on the exemption relating to agricultural activity. Based on our experience, there appears to be a lack of clarity as to what constitutes a "bona fide agricultural activity," leading to differing opinions as to which agricultural activities can enjoy this exemption. It is clearly the County's intent through the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and related regulations, to promote and protect legitimate agricultural activity. There have been at least two instances of noise complaints by citizens in which outdoor amplified music was claimed to be an exempt agricultural activity. In one case, music was played for farm workers at a volume that impacted neighbors. In a second case, music is played to both train horses and riders and to condition /desensitize horses, even when the riders and horses were not being actively trained. In this second case, the music could be clearly heard within homes adjacent to the property to the extent that the Police found it to constitute a nuisance. However, when the case went to court, the Judge deemed all of the activity to fall within the agricultural exemption, based on the current language of the regulations. Currently the agricultural exemptions to the two regulations are not consistently worded. They are as follows: Zoninq Ordinance Section 4.18.05 states the following agricultural sounds are exempt from the regulations: J. Silvicultural or agricultural activities. Sounds generated during lawfully permitted bona fide silvicu/tural or agricultural activities including, but not limited to, logging activities and sounds caused by livestock. Noise Regulations Phase 1 Planning Commission Work Session June 11, 2013 County Code 7 -106 states the following agricultural sounds are exempt from the regulations: A. Agricultural activities. Sound produced during lawfully permitted bona fide agricultural activities. DISCUSSION: A commercial stable is an agricultural use; therefore, the regular activities associated with this use should enjoy the agricultural exemption from noise regulation. However, the current agricultural exemption is overly broad so as to possibly apply to activities that are not customary agricultural practices, such as the playing of music for farm workers or for livestock at rest. To research common practice involving the use of music for horse training, staff discussed it with two local commercial stable owners as well as the Farm Bureau, in addition to researching online. We did not find that playing amplified music to condition horses (that were not being actively trained) is a common practice. The Farm Bureau suggested considering advisory language about directing speakers away from adjoining properties and specifying hours for the use of amplified music. They also expressed concern that people could complain about the noise from farming machinery and equipment, such as tractors. Based on our conversations with local stable owners, we learned that customary use of outdoor amplified music or a public address system for active training or organized events typically concludes by late afternoon or early evening. FOCUSED DISCUSSION: In addition to establishing consistent language between the two regulations regarding the agricultural exemption, we would like to clarify what qualifies as bona fide agricultural activity. For example, operation of farm equipment and machinery such as tractors, will be listed as an example of bona fide agricultural activity. While we agree with the Farm Bureau's suggestion about directing speakers away from adjoining properties, making this a regulatory requirement can be problematic because it is not a clearly measurable standard. This could be advisory language similar to ordinance language stating that lighting should be directed away from nearby residences. Language such as this on its own, will be difficult to take to an enforcement action, should the need arise. Staff recommends the following for the Commission's consideration: 1. Clarify that the use of outdoor amplified music for farm workers is not exempt as an agricultural activity. 2. Clarify that the agricultural exemption relating to the use of outdoor amplified music and public address systems for working with livestock (horses, cattle, etc.) be limited as follows: a. The exemption from the noise regulations for bona fide agricultural activity ends at 8 pm and the applicable maximum sound levels apply at that time; b. The exemption only applies when it is related to 1) actively training livestock and /or handlers /riders or 2) an organized event such as a show. This sound should not be exempt when the animals are at rest and not being actively worked or as part of an organized event. Staff hopes to keep the Phase II Noise Regulation amendments to a manageable scope so we can complete it in a reasonable timeframe and prior to implementing the new Rural Areas uses. If the Commission has issues or comments for consideration during Phase II in addition to those listed in Attachment C, please share those with us. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that after the Commission provides direction to staff, that we draft the ordinance and set Phase I Noise Regulations for public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: A: Resolution of Intent Adopted by the Board October 5, 2011 B: Policy Regarding Agricultural Use C: Noise Regulation Amendment - Phase II Issue Identification Noise Regulations Phase 1 Planning Commission Work Session June 11, 2013 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2011 -06 Phase I Noise Ordinance Amendments SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Public Hearing to Amend County Code Chapter 18 (Zoning) Section 4.18 to Clarify the Agricultural Exemption for Outdoor Amplified Sound STAFF CONTACT(S): Amelia McCulley, Amanda Burbage, Lisa Green and Greg Kamptner AGENDA DATE: July 16, 2013 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: The regulation of noise in Albemarle is currently addressed in two sections of the County Code and is enforced by two different agencies, Zoning and Police. Noise generated by land uses, such as farming equipment, is regulated through the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 4.18) based on a maximum decibel- standard. Zoning staff administer and enforce this regulation. Nuisance noise generated primarily by vehicles, people and people's activities (such as loud parties), is regulated by the Police Department based on an audibility standard within Chapter 7 of the County Code. (See the two existing noise regulations in Attachment E.) Origin of this Amendment: Board of Supervisors' resolution for zoning text amendment (Attachment A). At the same meeting, the Board agreed to set the Chapter 7 Health and Safety noise regulation amendment for public hearing. Proposal: The Phase I Noise amendment is narrowly focused on the use of amplified sound (music and public address systems) in conjunction with agricultural uses. Work on a broader Phase II Noise regulation amendment will follow (see last page of Attachment B). Public Purposes to be Served: 1) To better clarify what constitutes bona fide agricultural activity that should be eligible for an exemption from the noise regulations; 2) To provide consistent exemptions for both noise regulations (Chapter 18 Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 7 Health and Safety (the two regulations)); and 3) To clarify which regulations apply where there is overlap between the two regulations. Ordinance Amendment Criteria: Based on prior Board direction, staff reviews ordinance amendment impacts under the following additional criteria: Administration / Review Process: Consistency between the two regulations and clarification of applicability will improve their administration. Housing Affordability: There is no discernible impact on housing costs. Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: These amendments will potentially save staff some time, although the amount is probably limited. 1 STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy; and Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: The Commission discussed this amendment in work session on June 11th (Attachments B and C). The general consensus was to apply the same standard for amplified music associated with farm wineries to that for other bona fide agricultural activities. There was concurrence that playing music for farm workers without actively training livestock and /or riders should not qualify as a bona fide agricultural use exemption. The draft ordinance (Attachment D) provides the following: A definition of "agricultural activity." This definition mirrors the definition of "agriculture" in the Zoning Ordinance; A new exemption listing for "animal- related training and animal - related events: outdoor amplified music or outdoor public address systems." This listing limits the exemption to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. In addition, it clarifies that it only applies to "lawfully permitted active animal training, active animal handler training, active animal riding training, or for animal shows, competitions and other similar events;" Revised listing of exemptions consistent with Chapter 7; Clarified language as to the applicability of either the Zoning Ordinance or Chapter 7 noise regulations. In addition, the draft ordinance codifies the practice of Police enforcement of noise complaints in "places of public entertainment" such as night clubs and dance halls. It also provides a definition for this term in the Zoning Ordinance that is consistent with the one in chapter 7. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no increased budget impact expected as a result. As noted under "Implications to Staffing," we expect a limited staff time saving that will result from these amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance found in Attachment D. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this Zoning Text Amendment: Move to recommend approval of the draft ordinance in Attachment D. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this Zoning Text Amendment: Move to recommend denial of the draft ordinance in Attachment D. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution of Intent — October 5. 2011 by Board of Supervisors Attachment B: Staff Report — Planning Commission Work Session Phase I Noise Amendment June 11th Attachment C: Action Memo from PC Work Session on June 11th Attachment D: Draft Zoning Ordinance Noise Amendment Attachment E: Existing Noise Regulations — Chapter 18 Section 4.18 Zoning and Chapter 7 Health and Safety 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2011 -06 Phase I Noise AGENDA DATE: August 6, 2013 Ordinance Amendments Deferred at staff's request from July 16, 2013 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Public Hearing to Amend County Code Chapter 18 (Zoning) Section CONSENT AGENDA: 4.18 Regarding the Agricultural Exemption for ACTION: INFORMATION: Amplified Sound ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Amelia McCulley, Amanda Burbage, Lisa Green and Greg Kamptner BACKGROUND: Origin of this Amendment: Board of Supervisors' resolution for zoning text amendment (Attachment A). At the same meeting, the Board agreed to set the Chapter 7 Health and Safety noise regulation amendment for public hearing. The existing Noise Regulations are found within Attachment F. Proposal: The Phase I Noise amendment is narrowly focused on the use of amplified sound (music and public address systems) in conjunction with agricultural uses. Work on a broader Phase II Noise regulation amendment will follow. (A list of identified issues for Phase II is found within Attachment B.) Public Purposes to be Served: 1) To better clarify and address amplified sound associated with bona fide agricultural activity; 2) To provide consistent exemptions for both noise regulations (Chapter 18 Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 7 Health and Safety {the two regulations)) for those other exemptions; and 3) To clarify which regulations apply where there is overlap between the two regulations. Ordinance Amendment Criteria: Based on prior Board direction, staff reviews ordinance amendment impacts under the following additional criteria: Administration / Review Process: Consistency between the two regulations and clarification of applicability will improve their administration. Housing Affordability: There is no discernible impact on housing costs. Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: These amendments will potentially save staff some time, although the amount is probably limited. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy; and Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: The Commission discussed this amendment in work session on June 11th (Attachments B and C). The ZTA 2011 -06 Phase I Noise Amendments PC Public Hearing August 6, 2013 general consensus was to apply the same standard for amplified music associated with other bona fide agricultural activities as is used for farm wineries. There was concurrence that playing music for farm workers without actively training livestock and /or riders should not qualify as a bona fide agricultural use exemption. Since the Commission work session, staff has conducted additional research with local commercial stable owners about the practice of using amplified sound and with the Police Department about enforcement using the audibility standard. We are focused on not obstructing bona fide agricultural operations, treating similar activities similarly, and on establishing clear enforcement standards. There is a broad range of opinion on the use of amplified sound to condition or train horses for competition. None of those consulted can imagine or would want their use of amplified sound to detrimentally impact neighbors. Given the broad range of opinions as to whether the use of amplified sound constitutes a legitimate training activity, it becomes difficult to legislate and regulate when it might be associated with a bona fide agricultural use (such as training horses). There is an issue when amplified sound, regardless of its purpose, becomes a nuisance to neighbors. The goal of treating similar activities similarly leads us to suggest that we treat playing music loudly at the barn or riding ring the same as if it were being played at a residence. In the latter case, it falls within chapter 7 as a nuisance activity and is enforced by the Police Department under an audibility standard. We are recommending that amplified sound associated with an agricultural use not fall under a complete noise regulation exemption under chapter 7. To do so would require a problematic judgment call for enforcement staff given the varied philosophies and practices of different agricultural operations. The Officer would have to determine if that amplified sound is associated with a bona fide agricultural use while in the field responding to the call. In addition, while we wish to promote and protect agricultural uses, we do not intend to do so at the expense of noise impacts on neighboring uses which could also be agricultural in nature. Finally, this is a move towards treating amplified sound nuisances similarly, regardless of its purpose. (Please keep in mind that farm wineries are treated uniquely as an agricultural use under the Virginia Code with specific provisions on the regulation of noise.) The draft Zoning Ordinance amendment provides the following: A definition of "agricultural activity." This definition mirrors the definition of "agriculture" in the Zoning Ordinance; A new listing of outdoor amplified music or outdoor public address systems (Section 4.18.05 {H)) that clarifies which of the two noise regulations apply; Revised listing of exemptions consistent with Chapter 7; Clarifying language as to the applicability of either the Zoning Ordinance or Chapter 7 noise regulations. In addition, the draft ordinance codifies the practice of Police enforcement of noise complaints in "places of public entertainment' such as night clubs and dance halls. It also provides a definition for this term in the Zoning Ordinance that is consistent with the one in chapter 7. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no increased budget impact expected as a result. As noted under "implications to Staffing," we expect a limited staff time saving that will result from these amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance found in Attachment D. A compare to the prior draft is provided in Attachment E. 2 ZTA 2011 -06 Phase I Noise Amendments PC Public Hearing August 6, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this Zoning Text Amendment Move to recommend approval of the draft ordinance in Attachment D. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this Zoning Text Amendment: Move to recommend denial of the draft ordinance in Attachment D. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution of Intent — October 5, 2011 by Board of Supervisors Attachment B: Staff Report — Planning Commission Work Session Phase I Noise Amendment June 11th Attachment C: Action Memo from PC Work Session on June 11th Attachment D: Draft Zoning Ordinance Noise Amendment Attachment E: Draft Zoning Ordinance Noise Amendment — Compare Version Attachment F: Existing Noise Regulations — Chapter 18 Section 4.18 Zoning and Chapter 7 Health and Safety 3 ZTA 2011 -06 Phase I Noise Amendments PC Public Hearing August 6, 2013 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2011 -06 Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Amendment to Noise Regulations in County Code Chapter 7, Health and Safety SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Public Hearings to amend County Code Chapter 18, Zoning, Section 4.18 Noise; and County Code Chapter 7, Health and Safety, Article I, Noise STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, McCulley, Burbage, Green PRESENTER (S): Ms. McCulley LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: September 4, 2013 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Introduction: The regulation of noise is currently addressed in two sections of the County Code. Noise generated by land uses, such as a sawmill, is regulated through the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18, Section 4.18) based on a maximum decibel standard. Zoning staff enforces these regulations. Nuisance noise generated primarily by vehicles, people and people's activities, such as loud music at parties, is based on an audibility standard in County Code Chapter 7, Health and Safety. The Police Department enforces the Chapter 7 noise regulations. The existing noise regulations of both County Code chapters are found in Attachment A. History: • On June 14, 2000, the Board adopted an ordinance to comprehensively amend the noise standards in the Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance amendment (ZTA 2000 -06) was based on input from a Noise Task Force that included citizens, a representative from UVA, the Chamber of Commerce and several other members. Among other things, the amendment established decibel standards rather than using a complex standard for decibels based on frequency of the sound wave. • On December 2, 2009, the Board adopted an ordinance to amend the standard for nuisance noise in Chapter 7. The prior standard prohibited noise levels that were "loud, disturbing or raucous so as to disturb or annoy the reasonable person" (i.e., nuisance noise). The current standard prohibits sound levels that are audible from a specified distance or location. • On May 5, 2010, the Board adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance amendment to codify the state legislation relating to the regulation of farm wineries. This amendment (ZTA 2009 -003) established an audibility standard for outdoor amplified music associated with farm wineries. • On March 9, 2011, the Board adopted an ordinance to amend the noise regulations for outdoor amplified music at farm wineries. This amendment (ZTA 2010 -08) changed the standard for farm winery outdoor amplified music from an audibility standard to the decibel -based standard applicable to other land uses under Section 18 -4.18. • On October 5, 2011, the Board adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Noise Zoning Ordinance (Attachment B) and set the Chapter 7 Health and Safety noise regulation amendment for public hearing (See Attachment C for October 5, 2011 Executive Summary). The primary purposes of these amendments are to better distinguish which sounds are regulated under the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 and which are regulated under the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and to eliminate any perceived overlap between the two. • On November 8, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and indefinitely deferred action on the pending Noise Zoning Ordinance (ZTA 2011 -06). The Commission raised several issues for further consideration. • The issue of noise impacts on neighbors and enforcement of noise complaints has arisen numerous times since the November 8, 2011 Commission meeting. Noise was identified in a Comprehensive Plan discussion as an issue to be further addressed in the Rural Areas, particularly with any broadening of uses such as special events involving outdoor amplified music. All of these issues relating to noise regulation and enforcement will be part of a second phase of noise regulation amendment (See Attachment D Phase II Noise Issues). • On June 11, 2013, the Commission held a work session on the Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance amendment and primarily focused on the exemption relating to agricultural activity (See Attachment E for June 11, 2013 PC Report). There have been at least two recent instances of noise complaints by citizens in which outdoor amplified music was claimed to be an exempt agricultural activity. In one case, music was played for farm workers at a volume that impacted neighbors. In a second case, music is purportedly played to both train horses and riders and to condition /desensitize horses, even when the riders and horses are not being actively trained. In this second case, the music could be clearly heard in homes adjacent to the horse - training property under the Chapter 7 audibility standard. However, when the case went to court, the Judge ruled that all of the activity fell within the agricultural exemption under the current language of the Chapter 7 regulations. On August 6, 2013, the Commission held a public hearing on the Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance amendment and recommended that the Board adopt this amendment (See Attachment E for August 6, 2013 PC Report and Attachment F for August 6 PC Action Memo). The Commission's comments regarding the amendment to Chapter 7 will be addressed under "Discussion." Proposal and Public Purposes to be Served: The Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 7 amendments are narrowly focused to: 1) better clarify and address outdoor amplified sound, including that associated with a bona fide agricultural activity; 2) provide consistent exemptions in both the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 7 noise regulations; and 3) clarify which regulations apply where there is otherwise possible overlap between the two Chapters. Ordinance Amendment Criteria: Based on prior Board direction, staff has reviewed the ordinance amendment impacts under the following additional criteria: Administration / Review Process: Consistency between the two regulations and clarification of applicability will improve their administration. Housing Affordability: There is no discernible impact on housing costs. Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: These amendments will potentially save staff some time, although the amount is probably limited. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy; and Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance amendments are the first of two phases of amendments to the noise regulations proposed for Chapters 7 and 18. Following is a summary of the proposed amendments in Phase I: Chapter 7 Noise Regulations The proposed amendments to Chapter 7 would make the following key changes: • Clarify applicability: The proposed ordinance would clarify the circumstances when the Chapter 7 or the Chapter 18 noise regulations apply. • Standardize exemptions: The proposed ordinance would ensure that the exemptions in Chapters 7 and 18 are consistent with one another. • Exemption for agricultural activities amended: The exemption for agricultural activities will continue to exempt all sound produced by an agricultural activity. However, under the proposed ordinance the exemption will no longer extend to any sound produced during an agricultural activity (Attachment I, County Code § 7- 106(A)). Although this amendment narrows the scope of the exemption, it preserves the exemption for any sounds produced by an agricultural activity. An example that illustrates the distinction is as follows: the sound from a tractor while it is working the fields such as plowing or cutting hay, is exempt as a sound produced by an agricultural activity; and amplified music playing from speakers attached to the tractor is not exempt because it is sound produced during an agricultural activity. • New class of prohibited sound: In conjunction with the amended exemption for agricultural activities, the proposed ordinance would add a new class of prohibited sound — outdoor amplified music and public address systems. (Attachment I, County Code § 7- 105(B)(5)) A violation would exist if the sound was audible from within a dwelling on an off -site parcel. Outdoor amplified music from farm wineries and outdoor amplified sound produced in conjunction with an outdoor music festival authorized by special use permit under Chapter 18 of the Code would continue to be regulated under the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment I, County Code § 7- 106(H)). Chapter 18 Noise Regulations The proposed amendments to Chapter 18 would clarify the applicability and standardize the exemptions as similarly proposed for Chapter 7. In developing these regulations for both chapters, staff has focused on: (1) not obstructing bona fide agricultural operations and the sounds that they may generate; (2) treating similar activities similarly; and (3) establishing clear enforcement standards that the Police Department can easily administer and enforce in the field. In developing the proposed regulations to ensure they would not adversely affect agricultural activities, staff consulted with the Farm Bureau and several local commercial stable owners. The Commission recommended approval of the Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance. The Commission also expressed two concerns for Board consideration with the Chapter 7 amendment: 1) instead of determining audibility from inside of a dwelling unit, consider determining audibility from inside of a "habitation unit," to include habitation of other structures, such as barns; and 2) expand the audibility standard to include adjacent outdoor space to the dwelling, such as decks or patios. While staff understands these concerns and does not intend for the regulations to allow noise to drive residents indoors and limit their use of their exterior spaces at home, staff does not support the Commission's recommended expansion of the standard. Zoning staff met with Police to discuss the amendment and the Commission's concerns and offers the following: 1. Sound travels some distance, even in the country. It is not reasonable to expect that a person will not hear sounds produced by neighbors at any time while on decks and patios. 2. Chapter 7 violations are enforced in a criminal proceeding and staff recommends that this standard be drafted as narrowly as possible for now, and staff can evaluate the proposed standard with existing standards as part of the Noise Phase II amendments. 3. Audibility from "inside a dwelling" is consistent with the other audibility standards in Chapter 7, which makes it easier for the Police to administer and enforce. 4. Some Rural Areas properties encompass decking and /or patios and other outdoor space. This could significantly extend the audibility standard for those properties. Alternatively, an alternative standard, such as audibility from a specified distance from the dwelling, would be problematic to administer and time - consuming for Police to enforce. The increased time spent on those calls could reduce the availability of Police and increase response times for higher priority calls. See Attachment J for a comparison of the existing and proposed noise regulations. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no increased budget impact expected as a result. As noted under "Implications to Staffing," staff expects a limited staff time saving to result from these amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearings, staff recommends adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment (Attachment H) and the proposed Chapter 7 amendment (Attachment 1). ATTACHMENTS: A — Existing Noise Regulations B — Board Resolution of Intent for ZTA adopted October 5, 2011 C — October 5, 2011 Executive Summary regarding Setting Chapter 7 Amendment for Public Hearing D — Noise Phase II Amendment Issue Identification E — PC Work Session June 11, 2013 F — PC Report for Public Hearing August 6, 2013 G — PC Action Memo for August 6, 2013 H — Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment I — Proposed Chapter 7 Noise Amendment J — Comparison of Existing and Proposed Noise Regulations