Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges testing before Leesburg council changes noise ordinance; hearing set for April 8
Summary
A Leesburg resident urged the Town Council to require testing before adopting proposed noise ordinance changes, warning that decibel meters do not capture perceived loudness and recommending the town keep the "plainly audible" enforcement standard.
A resident speaking during the petitioner section of the May 20 Leesburg Town Council meeting urged the council to require sound testing before adopting proposed amendments to the town’s noise ordinance and recommended retaining the current “plainly audible” enforcement standard.
The speaker, identified in the meeting record as Mr. Norcox, told the council he had submitted written comments and asked that the town attorney receive a copy. He recommended that the council require testing before agreeing to any changes, citing a 2014 test of a 70‑decibel proposal as evidence that tests are necessary before setting a numerical threshold.
Norcox said decibel meters measure amplitude but can miss other components of perceived loudness, such as frequency, and that readings taken at street level perpendicular to the sound source may not capture noise that projects upward or carries through alleys. He recommended keeping the plainly audible standard in place and, if the council insists on a decibel threshold, conducting additional testing before finalizing a new ordinance.
The council’s agenda identifies a public hearing on noise ordinance changes scheduled for April 8; Norcox’s remarks were presented as a caution ahead of that hearing. No action on the ordinance was taken at the May 20 meeting; the speaker’s comments were part of the petitioner (public comment) section.
What was said
- Mr. Norcox (petitioner): urged testing before any change; noted that decibels do not measure perceived loudness and recommended retaining plainly audible enforcement. He referenced a 2014 test of a 70‑decibel proposal and suggested the town “test, test, test” before adopting numeric limits.
What the council did not do
- The council did not vote on or modify the noise ordinance during the May 20 meeting. Norcox’s comments were recorded; the formal hearing process remains scheduled as posted on the council agenda.
Context
- The petitioner’s remarks were made during the public comment portion of the meeting. The transcript indicates the council’s public hearing on noise ordinance changes is set for April 8 (as referenced by the speaker); the town manager and council will follow the town’s public hearing procedures when the ordinance returns to the council for consideration.
