Comment on interpretation of City Noise Ordinance

October 17, 2007 by Sue Bryant.

As the chair of Planning and Zoning at the time the noise ordinance was amended in 2005, I am surprised to see latest interpretation of the Ordinance by the current city council.  The intent of the provisions is clearly related to noise, not construction.   First, this is readily evident in the April 27, 2005, city council’s “Agenda Item Information” in the first line – “On April 7, 2005, the Rollingwood Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend amending the City’s noise ordinance as it relates to construction noise.” [emphasis added] Second, it is also clear that the intent is to refer to noise in that there are no less than three references to these provisions as:      Specifically, the Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending the addition of a provision to the noise ordinance. . . [2nd paragraph]      In addition, the Commission is proposing to modify the noise ordinance. . . [3rd paragraph]      Attached are the proposed amendments to the noise ordinance. . . [4th paragraph] Third, the minutes of the city council during which council first considered the ordinance specifically indicated that then city manager Don Ferguson “outlined details of the proposal which prohibits commercial construction related NOISE [emphasis added] outdoors between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and on weekend and holidays.”   Fourth, the council’s “Agenda Item Information” of May 18, 2005, reaffirmed this understanding, and it was during this meeting that the council approved the current version of the ordinance. And fifth, by amendment, these provisions are specifically amending two items which were already within the list of those items incorporated within the noise ordinance.      This change was recommended and approved by P&Z because of complaints regarding very noisy building construction in the evening and on weekends.  However, in order to avoid unduly restricting a homeowner or tenant from doing routine or regular maintenance or lawn work, the two provisions were clearly separated such that one refers to professional contract or subcontract work and the other refers to work done by ”any homeowner or tenant.” Please note that there is a clause in the old provision (14) that is no longer in ordinance.  The omitted clause is “in such a manner that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance.”  The omission of this clause may have been inadvertent or, more likely, it wasn’t considered critical since the provision was already in the Noise Ordinance and, taken in context of Subsections (a) and (b), wasn’t needed.  Subsection (b), which includes (14) and (18), is specifically tied to Subsection (a) by language in the ordinance, and Subsection (a) states that “It is unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued, any noise disturbance.” Provision (14) is not a stand alone provision related to construction per se, but rather a provision under Subsection (b) which is specifically tied to Subsection (a) and therefore cannot be interpreted correctly outside the context of Subsections (a) and (b) within the noise ordinance.    

Therefore, the current ordinance was not designed to restrict construction but to prevent the irritation of noise that may be caused by construction.  

Posted in In The News, Government | No Comments »