Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201000008 Legacy Document 2011-06-28 (3)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2010 -008 Farm Winery Sound Regulations SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Amend Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 5.1.25, relating to the Noise Standard for Outdoor Amplified Music at Farm Wineries STAFF CONTACT(S): McCulley, Cilimberg, Newberry, Kamptner AGENDA DATES: Planning Commission: March 1, 2011 Board of Supervisors: March 9, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: On May 5, 2010, the Board amended the zoning regulations relating to farm wineries to bring our local regulation into accord with the Virginia Code. Zoning Ordinance Section 5.1.25 (e) established the following standard for sound from outdoor amplified music: Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not be audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the farm winery on which the device is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit. In accordance with the limitations imposed by the Virginia Code, the current regulations are applicable only to sound generated by outdoor amplified music. The sound regulations relating to farm wineries prior to the May 5, 2010 amendment applied to all farm winery events and activities involving the public and utilized the standard Zoning Ordinance maximum decibel levels for the Rural Areas of 60 daytime and 55 nighttime. Issues relating to the new sound regulation arose last summer and fall with an Albemarle winery's wedding events. On December 2, 2010, staff held a public roundtable to receive input from representatives of the farm winery industry, the public and others as to how the new regulations were working after the first season in effect. The participants requested that we revisit the sound standard, its implementation and enforcement (Attachment A within attachment to Planning Commission Staff Report). On January 5, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to revisit these sound regulations (Attachment B). The Planning Commission held a work session and took public comment on January 18, 2011. The Commission asked staff to provide further information to address a) the need for more immediate and direct enforcement, including through the Police Department; and b) a lower sound level than the current Rural Areas decibel levels that would better limit nuisance noise. On February 8t ", the Planning Commission directed staff to proceed to public hearing with an audibility standard that would be enforced by the Police Department. This would be accomplished by reference to the general noise standards in Chapter 7 of the County Code rather than from within the Zoning Ordinance. On February 9t", the Board discussed having a decibel -based enforcement ordinance and set a public hearing date of March 9t". The County Attorney indicated that they would draft text amendments for both an audibility standard that would be enforced by the Police Department (Attachment D and E) and a decibel -based enforcement ordinance (Attachment F). PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: Establish a sound standard that is reasonable, effective and efficient in its administration and enforcement. This standard and process should better address both the needs of the farm winery industry to preserve its economic vitality and the effect of outdoor amplified music on residents living near farm wineries. DISCUSSION: While there are some benefits to an audibility standard and Police enforcement of outdoor amplified music at farm winery events, these benefits do not overcome the costs and difficulties. Staff opinion is that the most appropriate, effective and efficient way to enforce this regulation is using a decibel -based standard with Zoning enforcement in a civil process. The issues pro and con, are outlined in Attachment C, a matrix about sound standard and type of enforcement. Staff will address the three criteria to consider for all Code amendments: Administration / Review Process: An audibility standard is more difficult for a winery to determine if they will be in compliance and to obtain compliance (because it is a higher standard). Police enforcement of an audibility standard is consistent with their enforcement under the general noise standards in Chapter 7. Changing to a decibel -based sound regulation restores consistency with other land -use sound regulations and it will be easier for Zoning to administer and for a winery to follow. As with the other land -use sound regulations, an applicant's engineer can evaluate a proposed site for compliance prior to commencing the outdoor amplified music. Housing Affordability: There are no identifiable impacts on housing affordability caused by either of the attached amendments. Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: Changing the enforcement to the Police further burdens a department that is currently understaffed and whose priority is public safety even above public welfare. Because a decibel -based standard is less restrictive than an audibility standard, we expect fewer violations of this standard — resulting in lower staffing costs for administration. Zoning already has the necessary equipment to measure decibel levels, so this is not a new cost. BUDGET IMPACT: Staff does not have projected costs for the budget impact of transferring this enforcement responsibility to the Police Department. The result could be a slower response time for higher priority calls, due to limited Police staffing. There are no new or additional costs associated with Zoning enforcement of a decibel -based ordinance. We currently own the sound meter and have associated requirements for regular calibration and training as a result of the existing land -use sound regulations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of ZTA 2010 -08 as provided in Attachment F, which establishes a decibel standard enforced by Zoning. Should the decision be to instead utilize the audibility standard enforced by police, the necessary text amendment language is provided in Attachment E (revised as noted in the Planning Commission meeting). If the Board chooses the latter approach, this item will need to be deferred until the Chapter 7 amendment can be heard. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A: ATTACHMENT B: ATTACHMENT C: ATTACHMENT D: ATTACHMENT E: ATTACHMENT F: Staff Report for January 18, 2011 PC Work Session, including Public Input Resolution of Intent Comparison Matrix — Sound Standard and Enforcement Pros and Cons Draft Ordinance — Audibility Enforced by Police Draft Ordinance — Revised Audibility Enforced by Police and recommended by Commission Draft Ordinance — Decibel Standard Enforced by Zoning 2