The Town of Bethlehem will remain without a noise ordinance for at least the time being, as the Town Board on Wednesday, Dec. 9, decided after a public hearing that there are questions to be answered and adjustments to be made to the proposed local law.
The draft legislation, emerging about two years after a committee was formed to study the matter, would make it illegal to produce noise in excess of 75 decibels between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., as measured from the offender’s property line or from a distance of 20 feet if the noise occurs on the street.
Supervisor Jack Cunningham emphasized that the intent of the law is not to disallow noise in the town, but to give law enforcement a means to deal with noise complaints.
Occasionally, we have residents who create noise very late in the evening, and sometimes we have trouble getting them to cooperate with neighbors and the police on keeping that level of noise down, he said. `We’re just trying to give the police the tools to do their job.`
While there was little outright opposition to the idea of a noise ordinance on Wednesday, residents raised several questions about the language and purview of the law.
Planning Board member John Smolinsky questioned whether the law should require measurements to be taken in dB (straight decibels) or in dBA, a weighted scale that more accurately represents the effect of sound on the human ear.
Noise ordinance task force member Jennifer DeFranco said she supported the idea of measuring on the dBA scale, and added that objectionable noise is not just a nighttime occurrence and suggested that a daytime noise standard be considered.
`I think it would be an extra tool for the officers in the daytime,` she said.
Charmaine Wijeyesinghe asked the board why off road vehicles like dirt bikes and ATVs aren’t specifically mentioned in the proposed law. Cunningham said that such vehicles fall under the purview of vehicle and traffic law.
`I don’t think we’re going to be able to include vehicles under noise ordinance, period.
Specifically mentioned in the law are motor vehicles (including the `spinning and squealing of tires` and revving of engines), power tools, construction noise, amplification devices (televisions, radios, musical instruments, etc.) and companion animals.
There are various exceptions provided by the drafted law, including agricultural activities, government operations, firearms, aircraft, routine or emergency maintenance and construction, disaster recovery activity and manufacturing activities.
In addition, the Zoning Board of Appeals could grant a variance under the proposed law.
Other residents questioned what effect the law would have on the more rural areas of town, including farmer Chuck Preska, who also sat on the committee that drafted the town’s recently adopted Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan. He wondered whether lands not zoned for agriculture would still be exempt.
`We identified a significant amount of agricultural land that is outside of agricultural districts,` he said, referencing the protection plan.
Cunningham said that any agricultural use would be exempted, and stressed several times over the course of the meeting that the ordinance is not meant to be disruptive to the lives of residents. He added that it is within the board’s power to make changes anytime.
`This is not written in stone and unchangeable,` he said. `We can repeal it if it’s something that’s not working for the community.`
The board decided to leave the public hearing on the law open until the next board meeting scheduled for Wednesday, Dec. 23, when the public will have the opportunity to weigh in again on the revised law and a vote may be taken.
Check back to www.spotlightnews.com or the print edition of The Spotlight for updates on the ordinance.
According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, sounds at 70 dB are equivalent to busy traffic or a vacuum cleaner, and levels of 80 dB are equivalent to a busy street or alarm clock. Sounds in excess of 80 dB are considered potentially dangerous to one’s hearing.
Under the proposed law, convicted violators would be subjected to a fine of $50 to $250 for the first offense; $100 to $250 and/or up to 10 days imprisonment for the second offense; and a fine of not less than $250 and/or up to 15 days imprisonment for the third offense and subsequent offenses.
“