Bourbon County reviews draft noise ordinance; commissioners plan legal review before vote

The Bourbon County Board of County Commissioners spent substantial time at a special meeting reviewing a citizen-drafted noise ordinance that would create local enforcement authority and penalties for unreasonable or disturbing noise, while exempting normal farm operations and emergency activities.

The draft ordinance, presented to the board, defines "noise" as any loud, discordant, or unnatural sound that endangers health or disturbs the peace, and introduces the concept of "plainly audible" (a sound heard by an unaided ear at a stated distance). It proposes specific prohibitions, exemptions, and decibel limits keyed to zoning categories: residential, agricultural/rural, and commercial/industrial. The draft sets daytime and nighttime decibel thresholds (for example, 60 dB daytime / 50 dB nighttime in residential areas) and would place enforcement with the Bourbon County Sheriff's Department. Violations could be charged as misdemeanors with fines up to $500, imprisonment up to 30 days, or both; each day would constitute a separate offense. The ordinance would take effect after publication in the official county newspaper.

Commissioners and staff debated including precise decibel levels in the ordinance. One commissioner said including decibel thresholds requires investment in calibrated measuring equipment, training, and clear procedures for enforcement, and noted that some model county resolutions omit decibel figures to avoid creating technical enforcement burdens. County staff referenced sample ordinances from Atchison and Douglas counties and noted the EPA's noise guidance as a reference point but not a binding law.

Public commenters raised concerns about grandfathering and practical effects on longstanding local businesses. Zach Cross, identifying himself as a Garland-area resident and kennel owner, asked whether existing businesses would be "grandfathered" to avoid being cited by a new neighbor: "I own a kennel business in the South end of the county... somebody could move in and then report my kennel that's been there for 15 years," he said, urging careful wording to protect established businesses.

Several residents also asked the commission to consider duration and reverberation effects in addition to simple loudness measurements. Mary Ridge said she has "direct back access to this noise" and described repeated fireworks and shooting near her property; she asked the county to consider timeframes for certain activities and practical remedies for ongoing disturbances.

County staff and a commissioner suggested the draft resolution would give the county standing to seek injunctions or abatement in the future, but that broader legal issues — including whether the county is zoned and how to avoid overly litigable language — require review by the county attorney. Michael Hoyt (identified in discussion as providing KDHE materials) and the county attorney were already provided copies for review, and commissioners repeatedly asked that legal counsel examine the draft before any vote.

Commissioners asked that the draft be refined, that the sheriff's office be consulted about enforcement capacity and equipment needs, and that the county attorney review the draft for defensibility and appropriate exemptions. One commissioner said the item would return to the regular meeting on Monday for further consideration after legal input and possible public comment.

Ending: The board took no final vote on the ordinance at the special meeting. Commissioners asked staff to circulate the current draft to the county attorney and the sheriff for comment and scheduled additional consideration at the next regular meeting.