Committee debates and amends noise ordinance; multiple technical changes passed and bill tabled for law‑department redrafting

The Amherst Police & Fire Committee spent an extended March 17 session debating revisions to a proposed noise ordinance (Item 8-25-05). Committee members, the police chief, the law department and a Republic Services representative discussed enforceability, decibel thresholds, time windows and exemptions. The committee approved several substantive amendments but ultimately tabled the ordinance for the law department to reconcile language and definitions.

“Certain things that had come forward in the proposed ordinance probably wouldn't be in the best interest of enforcement,” said Police Chief Chip Coffin, describing practical limits on how officers could take sound measurements and urging a shorter measurable duration than some proposed time-weighted averages.

Council President (identified in discussion as council president) proposed simplifying the ordinance to one short enforceable window and one decibel level. She said she and the chief discussed “reducing this to something that's very simply enforceable, and that's reducing it to a very, very short window of time. And just have 1 number and 1 period of time.” The chief and the assistant law director backed a move toward a simpler, enforceable standard.

After debate and competing amendment proposals, the committee approved amendments that: strike the two initial decibel-duration “charts” and replace them with a single approach; set enforceable triggers tied to short durations; change a 15‑minute enforcement averaging period in the draft to 15 seconds for field practicality; and remove the word "homeowners" from a roster of exempted equipment so municipal property‑maintenance and contractor equipment can be clarified by the law department. Committee members also added an exemption for “municipal services performing municipal duties” (covering city-contracted refuse collection and similar services) and removed a separate section that constrained refuse collection near residential zones. Several members said those changes aim to avoid unintended enforcement consequences for routine municipal services.

Chief Coffin and Assistant Law Director Ward recommended an enforceable short-duration standard and a decibel threshold in the 80‑dB range for a short interval; committee members discussed varying proposals but ultimately adopted language to simplify enforcement (the committee’s drafting process favored striking multiple tables and consolidating the rule to a single, enforceable standard). The committee then directed the law department to clean up the draft language and definitions (for example, whether “property‑maintenance equipment” rather than “homeowners’ outdoor equipment” should be used) before returning the ordinance to committee. Republic Services’ representative asked that refuse-collection duties be clearly exempted to avoid unintended penalties for routine municipal trash collection.

The committee voted to table the ordinance after approving the technical amendments so the law department can reconcile language and ensure the exemptions and measurement procedures are enforceable and consistent with existing code.

Key action summary: - Committee approved amendments narrowing enforcement to a short measurable window (committee discussion settled on 15 seconds as a practical field standard for officers) and consolidating the multiple charts in the draft into a single enforceable standard. - Committee removed “homeowners” language from the property‑maintenance equipment exemption and asked the law department to recast that section to cover relevant equipment and contractors. - Committee added an explicit exemption for municipal services performing municipal duties and removed a separate restriction on refuse collection near residential zones to avoid conflict with necessary municipal operations. - After those changes, the committee tabled Ordinance 8‑25‑05 so the law department can produce a revised, consistent draft.

Committee members and staff said the aim was a narrowly enforceable ordinance that will be practical for police to apply and more likely to stand up in court; they asked the law department to return a consolidated draft that incorporates the committee’s technical directions.

Votes at a glance: - Multiple procedural and substantive amendments passed by majority votes during committee; the committee voted to table the ordinance pending law‑department redrafting (vote to table reported by chair; roll-call results recorded in committee minutes).