Plain City Council is again delving into the details of the village’s noise ordinance.
Council was set to hear the first reading of an amendment that would add decibel levels to the village noise ordinance, but paused to consider exactly how the decibels will be measured.
The proposed amendment listed permissible decibel (dB) levels, as measured from the receiving land use.
For instance, if a resident complained of loud noises heard at home, a Plain City Police Department officer would base the permitted dB level on the residential district even if the sound was coming from a location within the business district.
In December, council members noted that the village’s legal counsel advised that basing violations on the source of the noise could be difficult because officers would be required to be aware of exact property lines and determine which land use category they are in.
The proposed amendment indicates permitted dB levels would be lower in residential districts than business, mixed use or industrial districts.
Including dB levels at all would be a major change to the existing noise ordinance, which relies on the “reasonable person standard.”
It prohibits noise that is “plainly audible and likely to cause inconvenience or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities” after 9 p.m. on weekdays and after 11 p.m. on weekends.
Over the past several months, council members expressed a willingness to reconsider adopting a decibel-based noise ordinance in response to resident feedback.
While Council President Michael Terry did not express opposition to the new type of noise ordinance, he said he is “still not sold” on basing the permitted dB levels on the receiving site.
Council member Kerri Ferguson echoed Terry’s concerns.
She said she feels making the dB levels dependent on the source location would give business owners more leverage to control the noise at their property.
If a band performs at a restaurant, for example, Ferguson said the restaurant owner could easily monitor whether the music was exceeding the allowed volume.
Resident Steve Syfert thanked council members for their “sincere effort” to adjust the noise ordinance, but said he also feels monitoring sounds from the receiving land would be problematic.
When there is a distance between the site creating sound and where it is being measured, Syfert said dB meters will inevitably pick up other sounds that contribute to the reading.
Since PCPD officers will still need to determine who or what is creating the noise, Syfert said he feels this version of the noise ordinance will be “weak like the previous one.”
He asked council to add language to the ordinance indicating “no electronically amplified noise should be heard beyond the premises” of the site.
While council did not go so far as to ban all sound beyond a site, members did lean toward adjusting where PCPD officers will measure noise levels.
Council member Aaron Lewis said he feels it would be simpler to set a specific distance – whether 50 or 100 feet, for example – from a sound source that officers go to measure dB levels.
Lewis said he feels that would “take the pressure off” officers and ultimately reduce the number of complaints.
Regardless if the village sticks with its current reasonable standard ordinance or switches to dB levels, Law Director Paul La Fayette said officers will still have to use their best judgment.
“We can try to science the heck out of it, but there’s always going to be some level of discretion with the officers,” La Fayette said.
Terry agreed, adding that he feels the intent of the noise ordinance is to set expectations and create accountability.
Council member Jim Eudaily noted that, if council preferred a source-based dB ordinance, the included noise levels would need to be adjusted because measurements would be taken closer to where the sound originates.
Council voted 6-0 to amend the ordinance to base decibel readings on the source of the sound.
The first reading of the amended ordinance will appear before council at its next meeting, Feb. 26.