SPEAKER 1: I'd like for Mr. [? Raleigh, ?]
if he were to give us some--
a quick rundown, please.
SPEAKER 2: [INAUDIBLE].
SPEAKER 3: Mr. Mayor, the council has before it,
I believe, a copy of the proposal
which was drafted by a law student assistant
system in my office.
And which we--
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
SPEAKER 3: --which we took up at the work session some two
weeks ago.
At that time, the council expressed an inclination
to hold a public hearing on the proposal with the understanding
that it is just that, only a proposal,
and is not presumed in any way to be in its final form.
But the council felt the need to hear
from the public on the general question of noise and noise
control in the city and a desire to sort of interpret
the scope of the problem as it presently exists in the city.
I'm sorry that gentleman who drafted this proposal
has the flu and could not be here tonight,
but if the council has any questions,
I'll attempt to answer them.
Otherwise, I suppose, we might as well
hear from the people who are here to comment.
SPEAKER 1: Would you briefly run through--
there might be someone who is not familiar with the whole--
just highlight.
SPEAKER 3: Well, this ordinance would enact a general provision
which basically parallels the ordinary disturbing the peace
ordinance, which is found in many city codes.
Mr. Preston has researched this question
and has read Supreme Court cases on the constitutionality
or lack thereof of various disturbing the peace laws
and has attempted to frame this provision in line
with the terms that the Supreme Court has found acceptable.
The ordinance would then prohibit
certain types of noise generating conduct
under certain conditions.
These would include construction work
except between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday
through Friday and 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Saturday,
the use of chainsaws, power lawnmowers, pneumatic hammers,
and other types of noisy equipment,
again, except between those hours, the playing outdoors
of radios, phonographs, or musical instruments,
the use of motor vehicles out of repair or loaded or used
in a manner that creates unnecessary and disturbing
noise, the blowing of horns, sounding
of compressed air whistles or the blowing
of sirens except for specific emergency purposes,
and the use outdoors of any loudspeakers or other sound
amplifying equipment.
For these types of prohibited noise,
there would then be a procedure established
whereby persons having good reason
could seek a permit which would permit them
for specific occasions to carry on these prohibited activities.
SPEAKER 1: Thank you, [? sir. ?] Council have any comments?
If we can [INAUDIBLE] the public [INAUDIBLE]??
I would like to state at this time I certainly
hope that each person will limit their comments to no more
than three minutes because a lot of people
would like to speak to this.
I would like to hear from anyone who would
like to speak for the proposal.
Yes, sir.
DR. HARRIS: [INAUDIBLE]
SPEAKER 1: Yes, sir.
DR. HARRIS: My name is Dr. Harris.
I'm a professor of electrical engineering
at the University of Virginia.
It happens to be part of my business,
the production of sound.
And sometimes when it gets to the rock and roll level,
it can be called noise.
It's also part of my business to measure noise levels and noise
sounds.
Now I think that Charlottesville should very definitely
have a noise level control law not only with respect
to the playing of loud speakers outside but also with respect
to other types of noise-making devices such as trucks, garbage
trucks, our city's own trucks.
We should have a noise level ordinance
on which we buy our garbage trucks, on which we
buy our other trucks for the city, on which other people
in the city buy trucks.
Now I would like to play you--
since I only have three minutes, I'd
like to play you just a few seconds of a record
from one of our own garbage trucks
that was recorded from more than a block
away from where the garbage truck was
operating through an open window of a bathroom.
It was on the opposite side of the house
from which the truck was operating.
[GARBAGE TRUCK MOTOR]
That's the motor running.
Normal noise level in the house.
[GARBAGE TRUCK NOISES]
Is there anyone that couldn't hear that?
I'd also like to point out, your honor, that I
don't think that New York should be [? getting ?] ahead of us.
We're much more forward-reaching and much more considerate
than most of the officials in New York.
Just to point out to you, this is New York's ordinance
relative to trucks.
And you can see it looks kind of dirty like New York does.
But they do have an ordinance on which they
purchase their garbage trucks, for example,
their other trucks.
This is just as an example.
For example, they state that any motor vehicle
with a manufacturer's gross vehicle rating of 8,000 pounds
or more and any continuation of vehicles [? towed ?] by such
a vehicle shall not have, at a 15 mile per hour
or less, more than 86 decibels.
By 1978, that must go down to 72.
And after January 1978, it must be 78 decibels.
I'd like to also point out that there's
a complete set of specifications for testing their garbage
trucks before they buy them.
The manufacturer must meet certain noise levels
before they buy them.
They have arbitrarily set these low levels
fairly high so that the average garbage
truck, which they need desperately,
can meet the specifications.
But they have set rather drastic limits on future noise levels
from trucks and other outside vehicles.
Chain saws, that's another matter.
You can control that by cutting them off at a certain time.
But you can't control trucks because when the trucks come
through town, they come to town at a time
when you're trying to get to sleep.
They're traveling at night.
I happen to live on Spotswood Road, which
is about a block and a half from [? Emett ?] Street.
In my house, I'm lucky.
I have double glazed windows, and I can't hear the trucks.
But the rest to the neighbors can.
And when those trucks roll at night
and when they gun their engines at the stop signs
and they take off from Barracks Road and [? Emmet ?] Street
heading on 29 North, man, you really
got yourself some noise if you're
sitting out on the porch.
Now the question comes up is if we have such regulations,
I understand that there's some concern about how
we will control this noise.
I have here a very simple instrument.
You've all heard of Doppler radar
from which we measure the speed of automobiles.
This little device is a very inexpensive device.
It can be mounted on a tripod like a Doppler radar.
The police can control what's going
on by the simple expedient of watching this little needle.
And I'll give you an idea right now of when I'm speaking,
my sound level--
And.
Remember, I'm not talking into the thing--
is about 78 decibels--
78 decibels.
If a truck goes by and it's about so far out
and it goes [TRUCK NOISE],, that's about 110 decibels.
Now when you have 110 decibels of noise level coming
into your home, then you can't hear anything
in your home, anything that's going on,
if it's about 16 decibels less than that.
You just can't hear it.
So I guess I've used up my three minutes, John.
I will fold up my [INAUDIBLE] away.
SPEAKER 1: Thank you very much, sir.
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Doctor.
DR. HARRIS: Thank you.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
WA JOHNSTON: I am WA Johnston, and we have a 610 US 250
bypass I'm talking in part for the North Downtown Residents
Association.
And as I say, I live in a place where
I have more assorted noises, I think, than any place in town.
Now I've prepared a few notes based
on the discussion two weeks ago and on the proposed [INAUDIBLE]
bypass which may have been used in [INAUDIBLE]..
I'm going to omit a little bit of this, but this section,
first section that we're interested in, is section
19-25.1, which deals with definitions of noises and hours
during which certain noises be permitted--
in this connection, the hours during which
certain objectionable noises must
be regulated so as to protect the interests of all concerned.
This is particularly true in the use
of power tools in the maintenance
of private property.
The following changes in the hours and definitions
I suggested to further mitigate noise pollution
but to allow sufficient homeowners maintenance time.
B1-- [INAUDIBLE] construction workers of any type
is prohibited on Sundays.
I think that is assumed the way the material is now written,
but it is not so definitely stated.
B2-- change the permitted hours on Sunday
from 10:00 AM to 3 PM.
Sunday is a day of rest, and while many men do their yard
work on Sunday, they should be able to get
it done within these hours and leave
the early morning for other people
to rest, to go to church, leave the afternoons
free for their enjoyment.
B4-- automotive noises are covered by the Virginia motor
code.
They should be consulted and this section
redrafted to more completely cover and define these noises.
It is doubtful that these definitions
would cover the objectionable noise of mini-bikes,
which should be covered.
I think there are certain class of noises that were not covered
in the original outline.
And I suggest that we had added these 7
for correctable, loud, recurrent industrial noises in the areas
adjacent to an R1 residential area.
This has came up in the form of discussion,
and [INAUDIBLE] a definite plan was named.
I live quite a little ways from it,
and yet, there are times when I can get very much bothered
with it myself.
And finally, this is one I've had and [? signed ?] away--
persistently loud barking dogs or other long continued animal
sounds.
I had [INAUDIBLE] across the bypass from me.
Some dog would start to bark at 3:00 in the afternoon
and bark until 5:00 or 6:00.
And then he'd take a little rest.
Then he'd start about 8 o'clock and bark until 10:00.
Then he'd take a little rest and park then from 11 o'clock
until half past 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.
Now I lived maybe a quarter of a mile form this location,
but it was a little bit bad.
Finally, we solved it by three calls
to the police, one from the county dog man,
and it finally got stopped.
But it was a hell of a nuisance, and it
is certainly comes [INAUDIBLE] disturbing the peace generally.
These are just--
I think generally that we've drafted so far
is fine except how in the heck are you going to enforce it.
I see no possibility that we can do it without,
as the previous speaker said, measuring instruments.
And we have to realize that sound
has trilinear concordance.
There's pitch and noise level and the frequency of the noise,
and all these have to be measured.
There are instruments available which
will measure all these things.
And it was brought out, as I remember the committee meeting
before, that mini-bikes on the ordinary decibel reading
didn't make noise enough.
But I don't think there's a soul here
that won't admit that a mini-bike is
one of the most annoying sounds you can hear, almost as bad
as a chainsaw.
So while-- but I don't know enough,
and I don't think, with no excuses to you gentlemen,
that you know enough which will draft a law which will fairly
evaluate these noises and which will satisfy
not only the experts but a layman.
So I suggest that this part of the thing
be drafted first by committee in which one members should
be a physicist or electrician or electrical expert who
understands the sound and all the various levels
and pitches to which it can be and which
could set to satisfactory level for that.
To add to that, we must add a doctor because frankly,
gentlemen, these sound things can have a bad physical effect
on people.
[INAUDIBLE] cause deafness, illness, and various things.
So we have got to get the medical expert.
Fortunately, we've got him right here in town
[INAUDIBLE] at the University.
Those two [? members, ?] then I would suggest that we had three
laymen, at least one older person of my age,
one of middle aged, like you, [? Jim, ?] and one
of the younger people
But know at least one of these persons
should be a woman of one or more of those
should be a woman because they're
more sensitive to sounds, I believe, that the men are.
And then once that [INAUDIBLE] definition [INAUDIBLE],,
there's the question of who's going to enforce it.
Now I know Mr. Hendricks is going
to take me to task for this because he figures the police
department doesn't have anybody to take care of it,
and I agree with him.
The police don't have to have enough men for what
they want now.
I said only one right way to do this,
and that is to create a crew specially trained in sound.
Three persons crew could do this, I believe.
Whether it is [INAUDIBLE] report to the police or not,
it's going to cost us taxpayers' money.
But boy, it's going to be worth it
to have a peaceful town again.
And as I say, I live in one of the noisiest places in town.
And incidentally, nothing is mentioned
as to whether it's a misdemeanor crime to have these loud sounds
and so what the punishment is for it.
Thank you, gentlemen.
SPEAKER 1: Thank you, sir.
SPEAKER 4: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Johnson, before you leave,
I want to thank you very much for this presentation,
and I hope you won't take it amiss if I say that I also
as a lady thank.
You thank the gentleman, and I presume you're thanking me too.
WA JOHNSTON: I certainly did.
I should have said honorable members of the council,
but I did.
I think Mr. [INAUDIBLE] and Mr. [? Preston ?]
have done a good job generally doing it.
But they ducked the one they couldn't solve
is how to enforce it.
And it is difficult to enforce--
SPEAKER 4: I wasn't speaking to that.
I was just remind you that there are people
up here other than gentlemen.
WA JOHNSTON: [INAUDIBLE] yes, I know [INAUDIBLE]
that you are a lady, and I express my apology [INAUDIBLE]
myself.
SPEAKER 3: Thank you for coming.
WA JOHNSTON: [INAUDIBLE]
SANDY: Pass these copies over.
I don't want to get caught in the preceding crossfire.
My name is Sandy [? Peasley. ?]
I'm speaking for the Venable Neighborhood Association Noise
Pollution Committee we had a statement
that I'm afraid is somewhat longer than 3 minutes,
good bit longer.
But I passed out copies for the members of the council, city
manager, and the city attorney.
And I'll simply read a few excerpts from it.
Noise pollution is certainly one of the items
of greatest concern to the citizens of Charlottesville.
It leads by nearly two to one the next highest concern
expressed by members of the Venable Neighborhood
Association on their membership forms.
At the May 1973 meeting of the [? Barracks ?] Preston Rugby
Road association, there was unanimous support
for anti-noise action on September 30, 1973,
Mr. Lucius Bracey Jr., president in the North Downtown Residents
Association, put the need for a noise abatement ordinance
first on that organization's list
of issues critical to our city.
Noise pollution is a major health hazard.
I won't go into the quotes here, but the information
is on our brief with references to Dr. David M.
Lipscomb of the Noise Study Laboratory at the University
of Tennessee, a Ralph Nader report, audiologist WG Thomas
at the University of North Carolina Speech and Hearing
Center, Dr. James [? D. ?] Miller of the Central Institute
for the Deaf in St. Louis, and I understand
one of the later speakers tonight
is Dr. Phillip Allen, who as an M.D. And an engineer
can speak much more to the point on that.
It may be worth noting that some US municipalities have
experimented with ordinances where the highest decibel level
permitted for noise other than from motor vehicles
is in the low 70s and in the daytime in the high 60s.
And this is reference to the frequency cycles.
The Swiss, apparently especially concerned with the effects
of noise, have a maximum noise standard
of 75 decibels a cycle slow--
A scale slow response 50 feet for automobiles.
The city of Charlottesville had a noise control ordinance
which prohibited loud noises, but this provision,
under the heading of disorderly conduct,
I understand, was removed sometime in the '60s presumably
because it was too vague and did not
set precise enough standards.
Several years ago, the city attorney's office
drafted a proposed noise ordinance which the Venable
Neighborhood Association suggests
does approximately meet current needs of the city.
It sounded like a stripped down version of the proposed draft
Arlington County ordinance which we have passed around which,
in our view, rather precisely meets what we see and feel
is the basic concern of much of the community.
And we leave that for the council's and city attorney
and city managers study.
But we do know that there are many US cities that
have anti-noise ordinances that have precise decibel standards
and some of which, as in New York, Chicago,
are aimed at precisely at specific noise producers.
We also note that there have been Supreme Court decisions--
and again, the references are here--
which say that unrestrained use throughout a municipality
of all sound amplifying devices would be intolerable.
And there is a 1970 case, [INAUDIBLE] v Post Office
Department, in which the US Supreme Court said
the right of every person to be let alone
must be placed in a scale with the right of others
to communicate, that we are often
captives outside the sanctuary of a home,
and subject to objectionable and other sound
does not mean we must be captives everywhere.
And I might note, the Supreme Court,
the people who concurred on that ranged
from Judge Berger or Chief Justice Burger
to Justice Douglas just as an indication of the fact
that varying philosophical views of the justices
all agreed in that respect.
We have a statement in here about the common law background
of the right that the city has to use its police
powers to control noise.
In other words, to sum that up, noise control
has been approved under common law
and under the statutes for a very long time.
We know there is concern over allocation of city resources.
We believe that an ordinance of the type
drafted several years ago by the city attorney's office which
provided precise decibel standards as one measure would
probably save city expenses or, at the most,
entail very little additional expense.
It is unlikely that more than 3 or 4 noise meters
would be needed.
And I defer to the experts, but at least one [? type ?]
costs approximately $200.
University noise experts do tell us that reading the meters
is a very simple procedure.
The necessity for police officers to return time
and again to places complained about
should be reduced under such a procedure.
Once it is clear that the entire community is concerned
about noise pollution, there is likely to be
a decrease in incidents requiring policing.
We have a question about the currently proposed ordinance.
How is it proposed that setting up a permit system--
that in setting up a permit system, the views of neighbors
will be ascertained?
For example, someone may apply for a permit for a noise
exception, but how will it be determined
that those in the neighborhood will not be
bothered by the ensuing sound?
We briefly considered to approaches.
One might be that as it is now, the standards
are very unclear as to how the city
manager or the person that he's designated to handle this
would determine that.
One suggestion might be that the standards are high enough
so there's no need to have exceptions
to it, which might be administratively
easier to administer.
Or another approach might be that within a given distance
of the place for which the permit is requested
that a certain proportion of the neighbors living
within a certain distance have to acquiesce.
Otherwise, their own peace in their own home
would be invaded.
So to sum up, we believe that a community working together
can do a great deal to reduce the incidence
of all types of pollution.
Most of us, if approached in the proper cooperative spirit,
will want to work for something that
cuts down the damage to the tranquility of our homes.
We believe that for the foregoing reasons about noise,
the concern of the various neighborhoods,
the dangers to health, the low and possibly
no demand on municipal resources,
and the chance for us all to work together for a quieter,
pleasanter Charlottesville, that either the city attorney's
draft, the earlier version of several years ago,
or one similar to the Arlington County draft
should be enacted by the city council.
Mr. Mayor, I'd like to beg indulgence
to read very shortly an excerpt from just one
letter of a great many that our committee
has received if I could.
This is from a lady who lives within the Venable neighborhood
area.
She says, for several years, she's been renting two rooms,
and they have neighbors.
This year, there seems to be a new bunch over there.
The dog barks at night most of the time.
The boys sit around during the week and argue so loud
and shout at each other that between the boys and the dog,
my rest is disturbed, and the boys at my home
complain to me about it.
I get up at 6:00 every morning and I'm at work by 7:00,
so I need my rest.
On weekends, it's terrible.
Sometimes, they start up early in the night and sometimes late
at night or early the next morning.
With the high five going and the boys and girls yelling
at each other, it's rather bad.
During the week when they shout and argue at each other,
it's worse, for I can sleep on weekends.
My boys and I had a talk the other week,
and it is disturbing their studying and sleeping.
I've called the landlord, got nowhere with him.
I've had to call the boys about the dog.
For the first time in my life, I called the police
about the noise, as I couldn't stand it anymore
and I know it was disturbing my boys in sleeping.
Police came.
Boys and girls quieted down for a while
and then started back up.
I don't want to be called a fuddy duddy,
but I like to get my rest and my students
to be able to study and get their rest.
As it is now, I get off from work, go home, and eat.
Then I take a nap, for I don't know whether it's going
to be a quiet night or not.
I hope that your committee on noise
could spend several nights at my house.
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 1: Thank you, sir.
yes, sir.
ALAN WILCOX: Mr. Barber, members of council,
my name is Alan Wilcox.
I live at 701 Elizabeth Avenue, which
is just off Holmes Avenue up in Woodhaven area.
I'd like to bring up the issue of motorcycle noise to you
this evening.
It's a rather narrow issue compared
to the overall scope [INAUDIBLE] have to handle.
But when you're trying to get a little sleep at night,
it gets to be very disturbing.
And I would like to suggest that perhaps we consider the noise
measurement scheme that Dr. Harris brought
up earlier wherein the place perhaps might be allowed
to carry one or two or more of these devices
so that they might be able to answer noise calls.
Now let me tell you a little bit about the events last summer.
It seems the major problem is in the small motorcycles, the two
cycle jobs that make the most noise.
And mainly, it's the youngsters, the 18-,
20-year-olds that are driving them.
And evidently, they don't seem to have much concern
with people either.
I flagged down one of them last summer
and chewed him out for making a lot of noise.
And he just said, yeah, right, and proceeded on his way
making a lot of noise.
In fact, last summer, somewhere around 2 o'clock,
I woke up hearing some motorcycles roaring around.
And one of them roared right past the house.
And all of a sudden, his engine died.
Well, I looked out the window to see what was going on,
and what really happened was he wanted
to get home, which-- and he lived down the block a ways.
So he got a good running start, turned the engine off,
and coasted home.
That was so he didn't wake up his neighbors.
But meanwhile, the rest of us sort of went without sleep.
Now I've called the police on numerous occasions.
And yeah, you get a little irritated around 10,
12 o'clock at night when you have to get up early morning.
And they've done a right good job coming out.
And I've chatted with them on occasion
and they do their do their best to harass the loud motorcycles.
And they clear out.
They don't hang around when the police are coming by.
But I do believe that if the police had some measurement
equipment, they could lie in wait,
then nail some of these guys.
You know, last summer, I figured, well, the police
didn't have any equipment.
I was going to get out there and do something.
So I got out there on the--
see them right in the corner, and they come
rolling around there full till.
I got out there with my camera late at night.
And there I was with the strobe.
And I waited until some guy came roaring around there.
It just happened he didn't have any lights on either.
He came roaring around the corner
and I nailed him good with the camera,
took his picture and the whole business.
And he went up the top of the hill there
and found a couple of his buddies on the motorcycles.
And they all, all three or four of them,
started up their engines and came roaring down
and descended on me.
Then I told them all I didn't like the noise,
and besides that, they were in violation running around
without lights.
And yeah, they're a sassy bunch of guys.
Yeah, they just don't--
you know, I think half of them just don't
have the upbringing that--
you know, I don't think their parents [INAUDIBLE]
them, really.
And they just make a lot of racket
and they don't concern themselves
with the rights of others to have a little peace and quiet.
Now as you address the motorcycle issue,
I have an ax to grind because I have a motorcycle.
OK.
But, my motorcycle is quiet.
And what I'd like to point out to you
is that there are loud motorcycles
and are quiet motorcycles.
And when you come down hard on the guys that
have loud motorcycles, I don't want
you to step on the feet of the guys that have quiet ones, OK?
But in all seriousness, though, I
do believe that the measurement scheme, at least one
of those little handheld jobs, would certainly
be able to put a little teeth and some sort of ordinance
whereby it could specify a certain DBA level.
And the policeman could go out there, you know?
Some guys, they go around the block like clockwork.
You know, a policeman could come out there and just sit down
for a few minutes and wait until one of those guys comes around
and get him right on the spot.
SPEAKER 1: Thank you, sir.
ALAN WILCOX: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: Good evening.
I'm Dr. [? Riden ?] I'm at the University of Virginia
in the engineering department.
And I live in Cavill Avenue, which
is right in the heart of the university fraternity area.
Basically, I'd like to very shortly say
amen to what the other people have said.
I think that you need an ordinance, one
that has numerical limits.
I don't think many of us have any idea what
a number 85 decibels or 70 corresponds to
in terms of sound.
Therefore, I would like to make an offer from the Venable
Neighborhood Association to set up
equipment that is amplifiers, sound source
speakers, and noise meter at your convenience in council
chambers or elsewhere.
And we will demonstrate to you what certain noise levels are.
And then you will be able to make a decent estimate of what
should be in an ordinance and not simply something which
is unreasonably loud, which I believe is unenforceable.
Thank you.
SPEAKER 1: Thank you, sir.
AUDIENCE: My name is Robert [? Newmeister, ?] and I
live on 1659 Brandywine Drive, which
is probably the second loudest part of the city.
We are continually faced with people
riding in the valley down around Meadow Creek area
riding motorcycles and mini-bikes.
I had the opportunity of standing out
on the lawn one afternoon with Mr. Van [INAUDIBLE],,
and we listened to the motorcycle noise
down in the valley.
Now I'm an electrical engineer.
I worked in the hearing aid industry for 15 years.
I know what sound levels are, and I
know they can be measured.
I think we have a police department here--
it's not Mr. Hendrix's police department.
It is our police department.
I think that our police department certainly
ought to be able to come out and make sound measurements
if the equipment is available.
Third point is that we're talking
about noise that happens occasionally,
a motorcycle going down the street at night
disturbing somebody.
I'm talking about continuous six to eight hours a day
of a bunch of morons riding around my house on mini-bikes.
Now.
If you don't think I'm ready for the psychiatrist,
I assure you that I'm very close to it.
I'm to the point now where I will probably
be forced to air condition my house to shut out these noises.
And as soon as you do that, well, your assessor will
be up there raising my taxes so that I'll
be able to enjoy the peace and quiet that I normally
would expect in my area.
Now I think that the ordinance that was drafted so far tonight
is just scratching the surface.
In my estimation, it's a very weak attempt
at any kind of an ordinance.
There are cities like Fairfax, Montgomery County,
around Washington, New York City.
The federal government has attacked the problem.
There is no reason why we cannot come up with an ordinance that
has some teeth in it and that can be enforced.
And I would like to second the motion of the gentleman
before that we get a good committee together
in this town, and let's do something about this situation.
It's becoming untenable and unbearable.
And I'm at the point now where if the city of Charlottesville
doesn't do something, I'm about ready to leave the city.
Thank you.
SPEAKER 1: Thank you, sir.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
SPEAKER 1: I would certainly hope you'll
get all the other [INAUDIBLE].
Thank you.
AUDIENCE: Members of council, my name is Jack [? Horn. ?]
I live at 700 Highland Avenue.
I'm in the construction business.
I don't propose to speak for all of the construction industry,
but I will speak for our firm and certainly for myself
as an individual.
We are certainly willing to support a reasonable sound
ordinance.
I think certainly the idea of what you want to accomplish
in a sound ordinance is fine.
I do think that there are some very particular problems
with this one.
I would particular refer to the first paragraph which,
among the things that are prohibited
in the city of Charlottesville, is construction
work of any kind after 8:00 PM.
I just simply don't think this is very reasonable.
I think we have crews of painters, of people
who do floor tile work, electricians who,
for assorted reasons, may choose to work long hours,
may choose to work at night.
I think to simply say construction work
of any kind is not a very reasonable approach to it.
I think we certainly ought to attempt
to set noise standards for construction work
as you would for mini-bikes or motorcycles or anything else
And then have the hours and the construction industry
attempt to live up to these noise standards.
It would seem to me if you carry this
as it's written now to its ultimate conclusion,
you couldn't lay floor tile in the basement of your house
after 8 o'clock at night.
It would be against the law as this ordinance is written.
I don't think you meant that, but I
think this is the way the ordinance is written right now.
And I would certainly hope that this part of it
will be changed.
Secondly, I think there's a need for some provision
for emergency situations.
I think emergency situations do occur.
A contractor or someone breaks a pipeline,
as we did in Jefferson Park Avenue
two or three years ago in the middle of the street.
I would have been tickled to death at 8 o'clock
to call the city and told you we were going home
and we'd be back the next morning fix it.
But I don't really think that was the right answer.
I think the answer at that time was to proceed and fix it.
There is no provision this audience for that.
There's a provision for the city, for the state,
to do emergency work but no provision for anyone else.
And I think it's certainly not unlikely
that businesses, the industry people engaged
in private practice, could also have emergency situations.
Two years ago, when you first talked about a sound ordinance,
we made the offer then.
I will repeat the offer now.
Certainly our firm stands ready to offer you
any assistance, any expertise that we might
possess in terms of developing a workable, reasonable ordinance.
I certainly think we'll support a reasonable ordinance.
I don't think the one as it's written now with regard
to this one paragraph in particular and the ordinance
having to do with emergency provisions
either are adequate at this time.
And as I say, we'll certainly, if you
do decide to go the route of having a committee
or something to study it, we would certainly
be willing to join with that group.
Or if you simply want input from us,
we'll be glad to work on that basis
to try to make available any information we have on
[INAUDIBLE].