Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Amelia County to revisit vehicle and ATV noise rules
Summary
James Hagen told the board he has repeatedly been fined under vehicle-noise subsections he says use distance-based standards; county staff confirmed the code uses 100- and 200-foot audible thresholds and said they will review whether vehicle/amplified-sound rules should match the 10 p.m.–6 a.m. time window used elsewhere in the code.
James Hagen, a county resident, told the Amelia County Board of Supervisors during public comment that existing vehicle-related noise provisions have resulted in enforcement actions on private property and asked the board to consider aligning those rules with the county’s standard time-based noise restrictions.
Hagen said, “For the last 8 years, I've been told that the timeline was 10PM to 6AM for noise ordinance,” and described multiple instances—some during daytime hours—when officers cited vehicle-mounted radios and ATVs on private property. He asked the board to “put [the vehicle/amplified-sound subsections] under the same 10PM to 6AM law” so ordinary daytime private-property activity would not trigger the same penalties he has faced.
County staff and supervisors responded that the vehicle provisions are currently distance-based. A staff member read the code language aloud, describing two vehicle-related subsections that treat operating or mechanical noise as unlawful when it is “highly audible at a distance of 200 feet or more” and when sound-amplifying equipment is “plainly audible at an operating distance of 100 feet from the vehicle.” Staff acknowledged the ordinance has not been reexamined recently and asked Hagen to provide contact information so staff could follow up and study whether the language should be clarified or updated.
Why it matters: The complaint highlights how overlapping or technically phrased code sections can produce enforcement disparities—especially in rural areas where residents expect more outdoor activity. Aligning definitions (distance-based versus time-based restrictions) could change enforcement practice or require clearer guidance for deputies and the public.
What the board said and next steps: Supervisors agreed it would be useful for staff to review the ordinance language and explore options to clarify enforcement. The board asked staff to gather the relevant code references and consider bringing a draft clarification or recommendation back to the board for future consideration. No change was enacted at the meeting; staff committed to follow up with Hagen and place the subject on a future agenda.
The board’s procedural action: The public comment prompted a staff commitment to study and report back; it did not produce a vote or ordinance change during the meeting.
