HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2019-03-13Approved April 10, 2019 Pg. 1
TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of March 13, 2019 – 5:30 P.M.
1. Member Comments/Concerns – None
2. Approval of Minutes from February 13, 2019 COC meeting – Many changes were made and approved by the committee.
3. Continued Discussion on Town Noise Ordinance (Town Code Chapter 184)- The committee picked up with §184-8, to complete the section relative to garbage trucks. The main discussion was whether to have separate provisions for both types of garbage trucks (front loaded and side/rear loaded). The committee considered prohibiting all garbage trucks during night time hours, regardless of type. The discussion then focused on the difference in noise impacts between trucks in residential versus commercial areas. Susan B. thought that most municipalities that she was familiar with allow garbage truck pick-ups at 6am. She noted that the City of Ithaca does not address noise from garbage truck pickups in their law. The group surmised that this might be because they do their own pickups and do not contract out for it. One member asked about recycling trucks, which brought on more discussion on the matter. There were questions as to what times the local garbage collector companies go out to collect garbage and recycling; and whether they have quieter technology in their trucks that can be used. Chris offered to call the local companies and find out and will report back to the committee at the next meeting. The committee ultimately decided for simplicity to not distinguish between the types of garbage trucks in the noise law, and instead have a blanket prohibition on garbage and recycling collection during the night time hours as defined in the law. This would allow garbage and recycling collection of all types and in all zones between the hours of 7am and 9pm. The committee then moved on to §184-9 – Parties and other social or fund-raising events or gatherings. The group initially accepted Susan B.’s change to the title (deleting “social or fund-raising”) and then engaged in a brief discussion about whether the change in the title would limit non-profit or benefit events because they might interpret “parties and other events or gatherings” as not inclusive of their event. Susan reiterated that the goal was to have the law remain content-neutral, so the committee wordsmithed the titled further and ultimately decided to remove “and other” as well. The final approved title is “Parties, events or gatherings.” The Committee accepted the other redline changes in §184-9 A and B. There was a little discussion on whether B (3) was needed at all, since it implied a permit was obtained and
Approved April 10, 2019 Pg. 2
therefore the party would have permission under B (1). But the Committee decided to leave B (1) through (3) as written. As for §184-9 C, which specifically singled out parties with kegs, the committee decided to delete the entire paragraph. The committee thought that the language unfairly put responsibility on the person who purchased and registered a party keg, assuming that the keg and the person who bought it was completely responsible for any resulting party noise, when in fact there are many elements to a party that would contribute to noise, e.g. other alcoholic beverages, sound blasters, jello shots/alcohol in food, drugs, etc. Moving on to §184-10- Animals, the group wondered why this was section was in the noise law, since it only lists dogs when there were also other noisy animals e.g. guinea hens. It was noted that there are other Town Code provisions that regulate the keeping of animals (Chapter
112, titled “Animals”). The thought was that residents might look at the noise law first if they want to find the regulations about dogs; and that they would then see the cross reference to other animals if they wanted to find provisions for other animals. To clarify this section, the committee changed the title to “Dogs.” The committee then moved on to their review of Article III-Permits, starting with §184-11-Authorization for permit. Jumping to the redlined change that Susan B. made to §184-11 E, which included criteria for the Town Board to consider before issuing waivers for noise permits, Susan explained that there have been cases where the lack of criteria was criticized, so she added some language. But the proposed language created confusion and conflict with the first few sentences in the beginning of §184-11, which notes that the Town Board has the discretion to grant waivers to the noise ordinance if it is for a “valid purpose.” The committee questioned what a “valid purpose” was; particularly in relation to musical events, e.g. would it be a “valid purpose” to grant a noise waiver for the St. Catherine festival, or perhaps the Ithaca Beer events, or for PA system commentator noise for Ithaca College (IC) sports events? Bill G. noted that we would not be enforcing the law equally if we are not holding IC to the same standards as Ithaca Beer. A long discussion followed, with Bill noting that sound amplification for games and such would indeed fall under our noise law. The group discussed the IC PA system and Rich DePaolo noted that the Planning Board SEQR Findings Statement for the Athletic and Events Center included mitigating noise by restricting the decibel level, but that IC routinely exceeds it and nothing is ever done about it. Susan B. suggested taking out the “valid purpose” sentence located 5 lines down in the first paragraph under Article III. The committee suggested other changes to the paragraph, but the end result was determined to read a bit awkwardly: “The Town Board, in its discretion, is authorized to grant a permit for a specific waiver from the requirements of this chapter. Such waivers shall be granted only in those circumstances where the applicant demonstrates that, on balance, the need for and benefits of the waiver outweigh the needs and rights of the surrounding neighbors to a peaceable and quiet environment.” Susan R. thought the word “benefits” might cause issues because that is hard to balance. The group discussed moving the redlined criteria from §184-11 E to under that first paragraph, thinking that it would help tie everything together.
Approved April 10, 2019 Pg. 3
Bill K. suggested moving the criteria to the definition of “unreasonable noise,” noting that the two seemed to be similar, but that there were some differences. Bill G. stated that this was why we were thinking of making a blanket statement for businesses where commercial noise from typical business activities would be considered normal and they wouldn’t have to come in for permits (similar to what the city does for certain businesses). But Susan B. thought that the time, place and manner test would be difficult to prove without using a decibel limit. Eric provided an example: people who live on near the Ithaca Commons have an expectation of noise. The group tangented to a general discussion of the outdoor experience related to noise and music, the need for amplification for certain events, etc. Rich stated that a business shouldn’t have the right carte blanche to create noise, but that they should have the opportunity to make some accommodations. He didn’t know if a live band would be a bigger draw to sit outside and enjoy than having radio music playing. Bill K. believed that people liked to see outdoor live bands and that a lot of people would be upset if they were not allowed. He suggested that amplification would have to be balanced with the potential noise impact. Bill G. said he would like to figure out a way for businesses to have outdoor music that isn’t overly burdensome on surrounding residences, in areas where commercial and residential uses are close to each other. Circling back to §184-11, Susan B. offered to research other how municipalities handle this. She indicated that the section language might change completely, depending on what the committee decided. She also encouraged members to think about the philosophy behind the idea of noise waivers for certain events and what we should allow. The committee will revisit §184-11 at the next meeting.
4. Discussion on Outdoor Wood Burning - Bill G. mentioned that Mr. Estabrook was still living on Coddington Road, so the issue with outdoor wood burning might happen again soon. Bill will contact him, admitting that the previously proposed law modifications would not have helped Mr. Estabrook’s issue.
5. Other Business - None Meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m.