Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scofield council hears public concerns on proposed nuisance ordinance, closes hearing
Summary
At a May 19 public hearing, Scofield Town Council heard public comment on a draft ordinance addressing noise, quiet hours, nuisance lighting and dust; speakers raised enforcement limits, dust from the mine and ATVs, and the draft’s noise-distance provision. The council closed the hearing and directed further review.
Scofield — The Scofield Town Council on May 19 took public comment on a proposed ordinance to regulate noise, quiet hours and nuisance lighting, and to expand the town’s nuisance definitions to cover dust, debris and material storage. Residents at the hearing raised enforcement concerns, asked whether the town would hold its own properties to the same standards, and pointed to dust from a nearby mine and ATV traffic as specific problems.
The hearing opened at about 6:30 p.m. and was attended by multiple council members who conducted a roll call before taking public input. Council members and attendees said portions of the draft ordinance will be sent to the town attorney for review; the council then voted to close the public hearing and proceed to further consideration.
Why it matters: The draft would broaden the town’s ability to define and act on nuisances — including accumulation of sand, gravel, concrete or other debris on private property or the public right-of-way — but several commenters and council members emphasized that enforcement presents practical limits. Speakers said enforcement may require county cooperation, additional staff work and could ultimately rely on fines that prompt court action.
Discussion highlights
- Scope and examples: Council discussion and public comments repeatedly pointed to a stretch between Railroad Avenue and the railroad tracks where exposed soil produces dust. Attendees also raised ATVs as a local source of noise and dust. Council members said the draft is intended to address both residential nuisances and industrial dust where the town has jurisdiction.
- Enforcement and jurisdiction: Multiple speakers said getting county authorities to act on private-property violations has been difficult. A council member noted that Scofield does not have its own sheriff’s office or justice of the peace and that prosecutions through county channels can be slow; the transcript records that town staff had “reached out to the lawyer” and that sections of the draft would be reviewed with the attorney.
- Remedies discussed: Comments and council discussion listed several potential responses short of immediate fines, including sending warning letters, hiring or assigning town staff to handle complaints, applying gravel or watering dusty strips, and asking the railroad to address dust on its right-of-way where practicable. One attendee suggested the town could coordinate with the railroad and, for town-owned areas, perform gravel or dust-control work.
- Noise standard in draft: The draft ordinance as presented includes a numerical noise limit phrased as “60 decibels” measured at a specified distance. An attendee or council member said the draft currently references 1,500 feet and argued that 1,500 feet is “too far,” suggesting a much shorter distance (about 100 feet) would be more appropriate. The council did not adopt a change at the hearing and indicated that the attorney would review numerical standards and related wording.
Public comment
- A resident identifying herself as Stacy asked whether the ordinance would hold properties inside town to the same standard as external industrial sources, saying, “are we gonna hold them to a higher standard that we hold the properties in town to?” Council members acknowledged the point and discussed practical enforcement limits.
- A resident identified as Joe Smith spoke briefly during the hearing and introduced himself by name.
Formal action
- The council made and seconded a motion to close the public hearing on “public input regarding nuisances” scheduled for May 19, 2025. The council chair called for a vote and, after the motion received a second, asked “All in favor?” The council indicated approval and closed the hearing; no roll-call vote tally was recorded in the transcript.
What’s next: Council members repeatedly said parts of the draft ordinance will be forwarded to the town attorney for further review and refinement, particularly the numerical noise provisions and several nuisance definitions. The council did not adopt the ordinance at the hearing and left open follow-up action pending the attorney’s input and further council consideration.
