Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposed noise‑ordinance changes for downtown entertainment district
Summary
City staff proposed amendments to Chapter 30, Article 2 of the City Code to allow a separate downtown entertainment district (extended hours and slightly higher decibel limits), permit special‑event exemptions, and offer alternative measurement points; council favored measurement from the right of way and a trial period of warnings before citations
City planning staff presented a set of proposed revisions to Woodstock’s noise ordinance (Chapter 30, Article 2) at the Aug. 18 work session, asking council for direction on allowable decibel levels, measurement points and downtown exemptions.
"The City of Woodstock's noise ordinance can be found in Chapter 30, Article 2 of the city's Code of Ordinances," Ms. Menard told council and summarized staff recommendations, which included: making outdoor speakers interior to businesses where feasible, offering a measurement option from the property line or right of way, creating a distinct downtown entertainment district with a slightly higher noise limit, and allowing consideration of noise‑exemptions as part of special‑event permits.
Staff proposed treating the downtown entertainment district differently because of its mixed uses and frequent events: a district time range of 7 a.m. to midnight (rather than 10 p.m.) and marginally higher decibel limits for specified daytime/evening hours. Menard said a redlined draft was included in agenda packets and asked for council feedback before bringing an ordinance back for adoption.
Council members discussed enforcement mechanics, acoustical measurement points and the need for a trial enforcement period. One council member suggested using the right of way as the standard measurement point for enforcement because it is more easily identifiable for officers than private property lines and reduces conflict with complainants. Multiple council members proposed a 30– to 90‑day warning period after adoption before issuing citations to allow staff to collect data and refine limits.
Council did not adopt the ordinance at the work session; staff agreed to return with a final draft for formal adoption within a few weeks. Council’s direction included a preference for right‑of‑way measurement, removing the requirement that enforcement be initiated only by a complainant, and a trial period of warnings and data collection prior to issuing citations.
What’s next: Staff will revise the redlined ordinance to reflect council direction (right‑of‑way measurement, trial enforcement period, downtown district definitions) and return with a formal ordinance for adoption.
