Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Noise ordinance revision fails on 5–5 tie after debate over exemptions and enforcement
Summary
Council considered a substitution to the noise code that would expand allowed hours for lawn and construction equipment, add property-specific exemptions and raise fines from $100 to $250; the ordinance produced a 5–5 tie and failed after lengthy debate about measurement and exemptions.
The Middletown Common Council considered a proposed substitution to the city's noise ordinance on Aug. 5 that would extend allowable hours for some lawn and construction activities, add property-specific exemptions, and increase penalties.
Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell presented the substitution, which would have amended Article II, section 206-3 (exemptions), extended the allowable window for engine-powered lawn equipment from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m., extended weekday construction hours to 8 p.m., and added named exemptions for several River Road and DeCovin Drive properties with later nighttime hours. The substitution also included an exemption for refuse, recycling and solid-waste collection between 4 a.m. and 8 p.m. and signaled an intent to increase the penalty for violations from $100 to $250.
Debate focused on two central questions: whether the city can reliably measure decibel levels at contested sites and whether certain venues or properties should be carved out of the ordinance. Council members cited the police chief's confirmation that the department has professional handheld devices capable of measuring decibel levels and said staff would explore noise-camera technologies where appropriate. Opponents argued the proposed property exemptions would effectively place some venues beyond normal noise limits and that the council should not rewrite the code to accommodate private contracts without fuller public vetting.
Councilman Vincent Lofredo, among others, said he would not support the ordinance as presented because it appeared to provide blanket exemptions and because he worried about environmental and community quality-of-life effects; his remarks emphasized wildlife and neighborhood impacts. Councilwoman Blackwell defended the measure as a carefully deliberated effort to balance economic activity and neighborhood peace, and she said staff and the police would be tasked with enforcing decibel thresholds.
When the council voted following discussion, the result was five in favor and five opposed, a tie that meant the substitution failed. Council instructions at the meeting indicated the council will continue work on the ordinance in future sessions and pursue clarifications about enforcement methods and exceptions.
Quotes from the meeting: "We have a professional handheld decibel device that can measure the decibel levels at 245 DeCovind Drive," Councilwoman Blackwell said in response to enforcement questions. "I won't be supporting the ordinance as presented," Councilman Lofredo said, citing concerns the exemptions would remove accountability for some venues.
Ending: With the ordinance failing on a tie, the status quo remains in effect; council members said they would return to the issue with refined language, clarified enforcement plans and any needed staff input before attempting new action.
