Plain City officials are once again considering changes to the village’s noise ordinance, this time proposing adding decibel levels.
Council President James Sintz explained during a work session Wednesday that, after hearing that police officers were struggling with the subjectivity of the existing noise ordinance, staff worked with legal counsel to create a proposed decibel-based ordinance.
The village’s current ordinance uses the “reasonable person standard,” which 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.
Village Administrator Haley Lupton said the new, proposed ordinance is modeled after other communities that use decibel levels in their legislation.
The written ordinance is accompanied by a table that lays out permitted decibel levels based on the time of day or night and the zoning district. “Land use categories” include residential, business and mixed-use industrial districts.
Violations would be based on the “receiving land use,” Sintz said.
“If you live in a house and you call (to report excessive noise), the responding person will measure based on residential levels,” Lupton explained.
Council member Michael Terry asked why levels are dictated by the site of the report as opposed to the source of the noise.
He said he had no issue with doing so, but initially thought going to the source “would be easier.”
Sintz said the village’s legal counsel recommended doing so because basing violations on the source of the noise can be difficult because officers would be required to be aware of exact property lines and determine which land use category they are in.
“It makes sense to me,” said Council member Jim Eudaily. “Go to where the complaint is from.”
Lupton said the exact decibel levels, which are slightly higher in business and mixed use districts than in residential districts, are based on the standards set by other communities and tests within the village. She noted that Plain City has purchased two sound level meters.
The proposed decibel levels are actually lover than original recommendations, Lupton said.
Council member Frank Reed raised several issues he has with the proposed ordinance.
First, he said he feels the ordinance should be led with a purpose statement that indicates the sound restrictions are “to protect residential property owners from excessive and unreasonable noise.”
Mayor Jody Carney said she feels the intent is to create an environment in which residents and businesses can coexist.
Still, Reed said he feels every point of the ordinance should be evaluated based on whether it protects residents.
With that in mind, he said he is opposed to the specific “quiet time” hours in the village – during which the permitted decibel levels are lowered – extending from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Reed said he feels it should be adjusted to 9 p.m. to better align with the times he feels school-age children are going to sleep. He said he does not feel there should be a distinction between weekdays and weekends because children have the same bedtime on weekends.
Reed also said he feels the level of noise should be set at 40 dB.
The proposed levels for residential districts are 50 dB during quiet hours and 60 dB all other times. In business and mixed use districts, the levels are 65 dB during quiet hours and 70 dB otherwise.
(The table includes two types of decibel readings, dBA and dBC, which reflect those that can be measured by a sound level meter. The levels referenced above indicate dBA.)
Regardless of his specific dB recommendation, he said he does not feel using a sound level meter is the best way to measure noise levels.
Reed said sounds can compound and distort the dB reading, so he foresees issues “working with technology you don’t fully understand.”
He also questioned why the table uses the phrase “at a sustained length of time between two and 10 minutes.”
Sintz explained that, at the recommendation of legal counsel, “we couldn’t leave it open-ended.”
He said an officer will arrive to the complainant’s location and “fire up the decibel meter as soon as they arrive.”
The wording in the ordinance explains that the officer will not leave before two minutes, but will not continue to measure sound for more than 10 minutes.
Sintz said the purpose is so a violation wouldn’t be missed with too quick of a measurement, but officers also wouldn’t be required to measure for an indefinite period of time until a violation might occur.
“We’re not going to stay there for 30 minutes, waiting for the noise to go up and down,” PCPD Chief Dale McKee explained.
Reed argued that he feels the language in the proposed ordinance does not clearly explain Sintz’s points.
Ultimately, Reed, whose council term expires at the end of the year, said he is not hopeful his recommendations will be incorporated into a revised ordinance.
“I’m not going to be here for the amendment for this and you probably wouldn’t pass them anyways,” he said.
Council member Michael Terry said he understands some of Reed’s concerns, but feels officials are taking steps toward a solution for the issues with the current code.
“They were trying to add objectivity to a world of subjectivity,” he said.
He said he isn’t certain that a decibel-based ordinance will be better than using the reasonable person standard, but “we’ll have to try and see.”
Terry said council will likely discuss the matter further during its first meeting in January.