Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Ordinances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wake Forest approves codification of town ordinances after resident objects to noise rules
Summary
The Board unanimously approved recodification of Wake Forest’s ordinances despite a public request to remove the item so specific noise complaints near an industrial zone could be aired; town officials said the codification does not change substantive ordinance language and individual provisions can be addressed separately.
The Wake Forest Board of Commissioners approved a recodification of the town’s ordinances after a resident asked the board to remove the item from the consent agenda and consider specific noise concerns separately.
Resident Janice Davis asked the board to remove item 5B (recodification) and to hold a public hearing on proposed code updates because she and neighbors report early-morning noise from front-end loaders and dumpsters near an adjacent light-industrial zone. "The noise from front end loaders emptying several metal dumpsters located as close as 50 to 60 feet from our property lines sounds like car crashes and is enough to shake the ground under our houses as early as 05:15 on weekday mornings," Davis said, citing Chapter 14, Article 3 (noise) provisions in the existing code.
Town officials responded that the item before the board was a structural codification of ordinances — assembling and indexing existing ordinances — and did not change substantive law. One official stated: "The things that are in this codification are in the code of ordinances. Correct? They're already there as this was being developed." Staff told the board that if the town later proposes substantive changes to specific ordinance language (for example, to add noise maximums for industrial zones near residences), the town would hold public hearings as required.
Commissioner Shackleford moved to recodify the ordinances; Commissioner Zielinski seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Officials said individual ordinances can be discussed or amended later and that removing the codification from the consent agenda had allowed Ms. Davis to request a separate hearing on particular provisions in the future.
Ms. Davis had also requested the item be moved because she said the property in question lies in the town’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) but that the town still has responsibilities to nearby residents. Town staff acknowledged the ETJ status while reiterating that any future ordinance changes would be subject to public notice and hearings.
