Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission weighs tighter noise rules, enforcement challenges
Summary
The county attorney outlined proposed revisions to the noise ordinance—tightening the audible‑sound standard, narrowing maximum numeric limits to business/industrial zones, revising firearms exemptions and adding barking‑dog thresholds—while law enforcement warned the commission about practical enforcement limits without calibrated meters and night/weekend staffing.
The county attorney presented edits to the county noise ordinance intended to simplify enforcement and align exemptions with state law. “It's basically the user of any instrument or machine for producing or reproducing sound where it's plainly audible within the dwelling of another person when the doors and windows are closed,” the county attorney said, describing a clearer, easier‑to‑measure standard the draft uses.
The proposed text limits numeric daytime/nighttime maximum sound levels to business and industrial zones rather than across all districts, and revises the firearms exemption to say lawful hunting, self‑defense or dispatch of nuisance animals remain exempt only where aligned with state code. The draft also adds barking‑dog thresholds: one audible bark per minute for 15 consecutive minutes during the day and one per minute for 10 consecutive minutes at night.
Several commissioners and staff asked about private‑financial implications of floodplain designations and whether the new standard could unintentionally affect mortgage or lending. The county attorney said those questions are a different consideration and would require follow up with banks.
A veteran law‑enforcement officer told the commission the ordinance may be hard to enforce in practice without calibrated measurement equipment and sufficient staff. “Your average citizen does not have a calibrated approved decimeter to give that reading,” the officer said, adding that deputies also lack the equipment and that the county lacks the staff to cover nights and weekends for enforcement. Commissioners discussed splitting residential nuisance enforcement (partly civil or animal‑control) from industrial noise (zoning/compliance) to improve feasibility.
The draft will return to the commission for final recommendations; the county attorney noted the commission has one more meeting to finalize recommendations before a June 30 board feedback deadline.
