Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scofield council reviews draft noise, lighting and nuisance ordinance; sends key sections to town attorney
Summary
Council members discussed a proposed ordinance setting quiet hours, dB thresholds, lighting controls and nuisance standards but did not adopt it. The draft will be revised and returned to the attorney for legal review before further action.
The Scofield Town Council reviewed a draft ordinance on May 19 that would regulate noise, quiet hours, outdoor lighting and other neighborhood nuisances. Council members discussed specifics of the draft but did not adopt it; the council directed further legal review and revisions.
The draft ordinance (cited in the packet as Ordinance 5-19-2025) sets out objectives and definitions for regulating noise, lighting and nuisances. Planning and Zoning had prepared and recommended portions of the draft, which the packet shows draws on model language and Utah code references.
Key provisions discussed by council and planning commissioners in the meeting included: - Quiet hours: a draft quiet-time window of 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. was discussed. Council members noted the draft lists 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. as quiet hours. - Noise limits (percentile-based): the draft lists daytime and nighttime weighted sound pressure levels (residential/commercial daytime 60 dBA / nighttime 50 dBA; agricultural daytime 70 dBA / nighttime 60 dBA). Planning and council members discussed purchasing a sound meter to collect local baseline readings before finalizing thresholds. - Lighting controls: the draft requires new outdoor lighting to be shielded so light exits downward only, limits color temperature to 3,000K, and contains exemptions for holiday or safety lighting; commercial canopy lighting and some commercial limits were flagged for attorney review to avoid unintended hardship on businesses. - Enforcement and penalties: the draft cites Utah Code (the packet references Utah Code 10-3-703) and provides enforcement options including criminal penalties (Class B misdemeanor as noted by the attorney's guidance), civil fines of up to $1,000 per day, injunctive relief and a staged enforcement process involving courtesy notices and escalating action. Council members noted the town currently relies on Carbon County/Sheriff enforcement for some matters and that costs and court steps require attention.
Council members asked staff to return the ordinance draft to the town attorney for legal edits on several sections (commercial/industrial decibel levels, canopy lighting standards, nuisance definitions and penalties). Commissioners and council members said certain sections should be narrowed and tied clearly to health and safety to improve enforceability.
No final vote to adopt the ordinance took place on May 19; council members said they expect a revised draft after attorney review before scheduling a public hearing or adoption vote.
The transcript records multiple references to local conditions (train horns, highway traffic on Highway 96 and semi‑truck noise) and notes that several noise or lighting items will be excluded or excepted where the town lacks jurisdiction (for example, federally regulated railroad operations and some state highway items).
