CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you, Miss Long.
Yes?
GEORGE GILLIAM: Can I ask Mr. Horn a--
CHARLES BARBOUR: Yes, sir.
GEORGE GILLIAM: --question or so?
Mr. Horn, in the event that an ordinance were passed which
prohibited, I think what you and I could both agree,
is the offensive, noise-producing aspects
of construction work between certain hours--
when you're working on a job, such as the new high school,
where extensive amount of night work has been necessitated
in order to meet the owner's schedule,
could you speak to whether or not it's possible
for the construction industry to schedule its work so that
non-noise producing types of work could be done--
MR. HORN: Well, I'm sure there always--
GEORGE GILLIAM: --during these hours?
MR. HORN: There may be exceptions,
but again, I think if a standard were
set, if there were definite standards,
and you knew in advance that this
is what you had to work to-- that you
had to accomplish certain things between certain hours.
And then certain other time periods,
you had to not have noises over a given level.
And we could understand what those levels were.
They were something that were reasonable,
we could understand them.
Yes, I would think then that you could schedule to this.
So I think if it were something that
were established, that you could work toward that type of thing.
Again, there may be exceptions.
Certainly, I would imagine that when
you do your downtown street construction,
it's conceivable that you might want to schedule some of that--
very definitely schedule it for non-traffic hour times,
that type of thing.
But again, now those particular things,
I would guess, could come under your provisions
for the five day notice provision,
where you would in advance set up a time that you were going
to work, and were going to have a period,
and take this up with the city manager.
So I think that could be covered under that on a scheduled type
basis.
I think you can makes provision for.
GEORGE GILLIAM: When you bid a job today
under the present law, do you work
into your bid the expectation that 10%, or 20%,
or 30% of the work will be done during overtime schedules?
MR. HORN: Well, if there's some reason
to take that into account.
And if there is a schedule that requires overtime,
then that would be taken into the thing.
The types of things--
GEORGE GILLIAM: How much lead time would
you need between the adoption of an ordinance--
or maybe put differently, if an ordinance were adopted
tomorrow, which I certainly don't
think there's any possibility of, but were that the case,
does your company and other companies similarly situated
have outstanding contracts that you'd have problems on?
MR. HORN: I don't believe so.
I think if a reasonable ordinance
were adopted-- not an ordinance that prohibits construction
work of all kind after 8 o'clock,
but an ordinance that prohibits excessive construction
noise after 8 o'clock.
I think if such an audience were adopted,
certainly as far as our firm is concerned,
I would not envision any problems
with excessive construction noise after a given time.
GEORGE GILLIAM: And from the construction point of view,
do you think that the city's enforcement problems are easier
if certain specified types of equipment
are outlawed during certain hours,
or do you think that the decibel measure is more workable?
MR. HORN: I would think that the sound level
thing, the same as--
I think you're going to be facing the same problem
that you are with, as John was talking about,
motorcycles, which I think is a perfectly valid point.
I don't-- or maybe you are.
I doubt that you're going to outlaw motorcycles altogether
in the city of Charlottesville.
Maybe you will.
But I would think that you would be
more concerned about the noise.
And certainly construction equipment
is not that different.
There is construction equipment that is noisy.
There is construction operations that are very definitely noisy.
There are others that are not.
I would think that it would be on a sound basis, would
be the logical way to--
CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you, Mr. Horn.
Yes, sir.
JAY LEVINE: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Jay Levine.
I live on Trailridge Road.
And I'm on the faculty at the University's medical school.
I think what you're finding here tonight
is that there are basically two methods of noise control.
One method prohibits activities, and the other
prohibits noise in excess of a particular level.
The ordinance as drafted is the one,
of course, that prohibits certain activities.
And many people so far have spoken to the fact
that we may be better off prohibiting excessive noise
levels.
The first is easier to control.
Someone is either operating a lawnmower, or they're not.
It's very obvious as to whether or not they're in violation.
The second is more difficult in that
you have to have a piece of equipment
and make a measurement.
However, there are a couple of other factors
that I think are quite important that I
think are worthwhile bringing up at this point.
If you prohibit certain activities, such as the example
Mr. Horn just gave of construction
after certain hours, you provide no incentive
whatsoever to the construction industry
or to any of the individuals in the city to do
things in a quieter manner.
They can make all the noise they want during the day,
but when 8 o'clock comes along, they have to stop.
There are many ways to quiet things down during the day.
You can buy quiet jackhammers.
You can buy quieter air compressors.
There are portable shieldings that
can be placed around an area of a street that's
being broken up, where a pipe is being cut
with a gasoline powered saw.
There are things that can be done.
I would strongly urge you to keep the objective in mind.
The objective is a quieter city.
And I think we can get a great deal of cooperation
toward everybody trying to make the city quieter if we set
noise levels and give people an incentive
to continue their activities that they choose,
but not to impose the noise from those activities
on their neighbors.
And I think that's what we're really after.
And I think it would be a great deal more palatable to move
in that direction.
I commend you for moving forward with the noise ordinance.
I hope we will continue in this direction
and end up with one that does talk to noise levels.
Thank you.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you, doctor.
Yes, sir.
RE LEE: Mr. Mayor, I am RE--
excuse me.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Excuse me, sir.
I think he was first.
LARRY SABATO: Mr. Barbour and members of council, my name
is Larry Sabato.
And of course, I'm supposed to represent student interests.
So that's what I'm going to try to do to some degree, what
student interests there are.
I don't think that many students would disagree with many
of the comments made tonight.
Of course, only about, I believe,
26% or 27% of the student body belong to fraternities.
I personally do not belong to a fraternity.
I don't party there.
I don't like loud noises, either.
I like to study and do whatever else I have to do in quiet.
So I don't really disagree with most
of the comments made tonight by members of the community.
And secondly, of course, I certainly myself,
and I think most members of the student body,
recognize that there has been a problem, particularly
in the Rugby Road area.
Many times I think the sound levels
there have exceeded what a reasonable person would call
reasonable levels of sound.
At the same time, of course, many times that level
has not been exceeded.
And as Mr. Gilliam, as you raised at the work session
two weeks ago, it's very difficult for anyone
to define unreasonable, unnecessary, detrimental noise.
It all depends upon the individual situation
and how the person feels at the particular moment.
Certainly, too, in terms of students--
and I know this is a major problem in the Rugby Road area,
and certainly the Venable Association is,
I think, most concerned about fraternities.
I don't think that too many students are quite as
loud as that garbage truck.
I don't think so anyway, from what I've heard.
But I hope they're not, anyway.
But we do have several concerns in the ordinance
that has been presented to the council
that we would like to bring out.
And I want to say from the beginning
that we're not necessarily opposed
to the enactment of a noise ordinance.
But obviously, we would like it to be flexible enough
to include our concerns, too.
If it's a general ordinance as has been presented
to the council, I think as some other people have stated,
you would have a real problem with enforcement
for the reasons that I've just mentioned.
At the same time, there is, of course,
an expense involved in the decibel level ordinance.
But the most important point we want to make
is that I think community standards have
to come into play here.
And any proposed ordinance has to be flexible to some degree.
There are obviously different lifestyles
and different standards of living in the community.
And I think it's difficult to have
one ordinance, particularly a specific ordinance, reasonably
apply to all sectors of the community.
I know that this wouldn't hold water legally,
but I think that in terms of the idea of the Supreme Court
ruling on obscenity, for instance,
allowing for community standards.
Certainly I think we would all agree
that the best ordinance or the best law
allows for the individual concerns
and particular situations to be met.
So I hope that flexibility and community standards
will be one of the most important issues discussed
whenever a noise ordinance is enacted, if one is enacted.
I think there are several other concerns, which
I know some of you brought up the other week.
Of course, the question of overburdening the police force
is one.
Secondly, in terms of a specific decibel ordinance,
it's kind of difficult, especially
for a student or an average individual,
to know when he or she is violating a decibel level.
Perhaps we'll all have to buy decibel meters.
I don't know.
But I think that, too, the specific situation
in the proposed ordinance about the permit system
is somewhat vague, too.
I don't think there are enough safeguards guiding
the reissuance of permits, and that's something
that we would want to go into.
But we do not disagree at all with the proposal
to form a committee, a representative committee,
to study the noise ordinance.
I would say two things, though, about that committee.
First of all, I would hope that it would include students,
specifically representatives from the Student
Council and the Inter-fraternity Council.
And secondly, I hope that it will
look at the whole range of the issue,
that it will not start from the premise
that there must be a noise ordinance.
That it will examine whether the concern is valid or not,
whether there should be a noise ordinance.
And then if they do decide there should be a noise ordinance,
then go on from there and decide what type of noise ordinance.
Thank you.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
CHARLES BARBOUR: Yes, sir?
GEORGE GILLIAM: Question to Mr. Sabato?
CHARLES BARBOUR: All right.
GEORGE GILLIAM: Sir?
LARRY SABATO: Yes?
GEORGE GILLIAM: Mr. Peasley gave us
a copy of an ordinance which is under consideration
in Arlington County, or perhaps has
been adopted in Arlington County, that provides for city
manager with the approval of the county board of supervisors,
or the county manager with the approval of the county board,
to designate certain areas as ultra quiet areas.
I've forgotten what-- but I would imagine
this would be for hospital zones, or an area such as next
to the Martha Jefferson Infirmary, there
by the Gordon Avenue Library, and this type of thing.
When you were advocating an ordinance that
recognized that perhaps different areas of town
would have different needs for quiet,
was this the type of thing that you envisioned?
LARRY SABATO: Yes, I think that would be a great improvement
over what's been proposed.
I don't know how workable it would be.
And certainly there'd be a lot of disputes about what
areas are ultra quiet.
But I think that, in terms of our concerns,
that would be an improvement.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you.
LARRY SABATO: Thank you.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Yes, sir.
RE LEE: I am RE Lee, officer of RE Lee
and Son, Charlottesville contractors.
We are not opposed to a noise ordinance.
Personally, I think Charlottesville should
have had it 30 years ago.
At least for that long, trucks on the bypass
and on Emmet Street have been waking me up at night.
We do object to the way this ordinance is written.
It would prohibit all construction
except during certain hours.
It would make no distinction between the riveter, who
is always a noise pollutant, and a painter,
who won't be a pollutant until he
takes his mini bike to go home.
[LAUGHTER]
Please make some distinction there and make adjustments
so that quiet work can be done at any time,
as long as we're not disturbing other people.
Certainly put standards in that noise can be measured.
Construction equipment today can meet certain sound standards.
And it's improving all the time because of the attention that
is being given to sound pollution, as well
as other forms of pollution.
Equipment manufacturers are doing better every year.
And don't be too hard on those mini bikes
because they'll all come out on Georgetown Road.
We have enough of them now.
Thank you.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you, Mr. Lee.
Anyone else?
Yes, sir.
PHILLIP ALLEN: I'm Phillip Allen,
with the University of Virginia Medical School.
Many of the points I had intended to make
have already been made, and I wont belabor them.
However, I think it's important to note
that several people have emphasized that not only can
noise be surveyed with existing equipment,
but it can also be abated with existing equipment.
Mr. Peasley mentioned in passing that there are
health aspects to this thing.
Many of these health aspects have not
been clearly defined as yet, although obviously
hearing impairment and damage of that kind has.
However, an increasing number of studies
in the medical literature, and to some extent
in the lay press, as well, have noted the increasing prevalence
of what is known as the stress syndrome.
This is both a physiologic and an emotional problem
of increasing prevalence in this country.
Pieces of this were anticipated many years ago.
And increasing experimentation and medical experience
have shown that a great deal of it is valid.
It's believed now that perhaps much of urban stress
leads to such things as chronic degenerative diseases,
such as atherosclerosis.
And everybody knows what the consequences of that are.
Half, if not more, of the deaths in this country
are due to myocardial infarction, cerebral vascular
accidents, diseases of that nature.
And the contribution which noise makes to the stress syndrome
is, of course, not the sole contribution, but nonetheless
very considerable.
Mr. Peasley's remark that two out
of three complaints to the Venable Association
arise because of noise--
in fact, surveys throughout the country
indicate that this is the single most common source
of difficulty for urban dwellers.
Testimony to this is the startling increase
in the use of tranquilizers, anticholinergics, and sedative
medications.
There's a national heart attack prevention program,
which is addressing itself to the question of noise
and its contribution to that.
There's a national hypertension survey, again,
which is doing the same thing.
The former Commissioner of Mental Health, Dr. Fill--
that's F-I-L-L, not P-H-I-L--
in New York City, who comments, I think, quite trenchantly,
"More and more people do not live healthier lives.
They are merely prevented from dying.
There is, indeed, a technical, medical conception
of what health is, but we do not have
a human conception of health.
We function in the illusion that we are sane,
yet we continue to violate the crudest principles
of mental health and welfare."
Similarly, the Noise Control Act of 1972,
which was passed by the government,
states, "It is the policy of the US government
to promote an environment for all Americans
which is free of noise that jeopardizes their health
or welfare."
Since so many of the other points
have been taken up by the previous speakers,
I'll just make one more comment on this.
The Conservation Foundation of Washington, I think,
has a beautiful statement to this effect.
"As a nation, we accept the public need for amenity.
We must not neglect man's need for places to refresh his life,
tempts his identity with other life and the earth.
Some places should be remote, others near,
to restore the spirit.
We must also look with skepticism
at technological frivolity and wisely at its hidden costs."
And finally, a quote from Mr. J.B. Jackson,
who's a landscape architect writing in Landscape Magazine--
his conception of the well-designed city,
very beautifully set forth.
And he concludes it with this statement.
"If it," meaning the well-designed city,
"if it cannot provide us with the sounds of the remoter
landscape, it at least provides us with areas where the sound
of human voices and footsteps are not drowned out
by mechanical noises.
It provides us with quiet."
There's a great deal more that can be said,
and has already been said, and probably still needs
to be said.
But I hope that the cumulative impact of what the speakers
tonight have said will convince you of the need for this.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you, Dr. Allen.
Yes, sir.
[APPLAUSE]
LUCIUS BRACEY: Mr. Barbour and members
of the city council, my name is Lucius Bracey,
and I'm President of the North Downtown Residents Association.
It's difficult for me to say anything
without being repetitious, so I'm
going to say very, very little.
And what I'm going to say is that you have heard
the plea of the residents.
The kind of ordinance that is enacted by this city
is going to be a reflection of the commitment
that this city is willing to make to the city [INAUDIBLE]..
You've heard the residents in the neighborhood associations
plea for a strong commitment, which
I think has to be indicated in a noise ordinance which
controls decibel levels.
And we ask that you take into consideration
the reports of all the residents that you've heard here.
Thank you.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you, sir.
GEORGE GILLIAM: May I ask Mr. Bracey a question?
CHARLES BARBOUR: Yes, sir.
GEORGE GILLIAM: Mr. Bracey, there are still
two members of council, I guess, left
who are faced with the decision of whether or not
to do something downtown.
And one would assume that if they
do decide to do something downtown,
their efforts would be, at least in part, directed
towards making it a vibrant place at night.
I would assume that it would be possible
that noise levels, if there were dinner entertainment
facilities downtown, might exceed
what would be acceptable in other parts of the area,
such as your area that's not more than a couple
of thousand yards away.
Would you support the type of ordinance
that Mr. Sabato suggested that have different standards
for different areas of town?
LUCIUS BRACEY: Yes, I think we would
support that type of ordinance.
But I'm not so sure that it's applicable to the situation
that you described.
[LAUGHTER]
GEORGE GILLIAM: Thank you.
SPEAKER 1: [INAUDIBLE]
[LAUGHTER]
GEORGE GILLIAM: In a way it's--
CHARLES BARBOUR: Yes, sir.
CURTIS CRAWFORD: Is it possible to speak from here?
CHARLES BARBOUR: I'd prefer--
CURTIS CRAWFORD: --across from--
CHARLES BARBOUR: Please, if you'd be so kind.
CURTIS CRAWFORD: My name is Curtis Crawford.
I'm the minister of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Unitarian
Church.
I don't know of anyone in the church who opposes the proposed
ordinance, but I still speak for myself and not
for the congregation.
I speak as one moving from New York City to a community he
thought would be quieter.
And of course, which still is somewhat quieter than New York
City, despite its ordinance.
I want to make three brief points.
One is a point about the ethics involved
in the kind of ordinance that is presented.
It seems to me that a governing body rarely has the opportunity
to enact something which prevents
so much injury to persons at the cost of restricting
so little freedom.
Very often when a council passes a law,
the number of people whose freedom is restricted
is actually greater than the number of people
to whom injury is prevented.
But with the exception of some usages of sound,
such as the construction example that we've already had,
most of the cases of sound which have
come before you in testimony tonight
have been a question of, shall one person, or two persons,
or three persons be granted by society
the privilege of inflicting pain on 10, 20, 30, 100,
1,000 people?
And what kind of city council is it
that would say after deliberation, yes, we
think that when it comes to a motorcycle,
or when it comes to a truck, or when it comes to a power mower,
that one person ought to have the full liberty of inflicting
pain on hundreds of persons because that's what it means
to be in a free society?
I don't think that's what it means to be in a free society
at all.
And especially when those pains are not necessary pains.
The second point I should like to make
concerns the type of question that something
like a motorcycle raises.
Surely every member of the city council knows by this time
that there are a great range of different kinds of mufflers
that are made for motorcycles.
Some are made to muffle the sound.
Some are made, as everybody knows, to enhance the sound.
It is perfectly possible to gear legislation
in terms of the best state of the current art
in the first category and not the second.
Require it down to the level which manufacturers
have succeeded in making mufflers work,
and then as some of the examples of legislation which
have been presented to you do, in future years lower firmly
and surely that decibel level as the state of the art
of muffling improves.
The third point I should like to make
is that in regard to power mowers in the city,
it is hard for a person who grew up using another kind of mower,
and made his way through high school and part of college
using another kind of mower, to feel that people really
need all day to mow their lawns with power mowers.
It seems to me if the community is kind enough
to allow such mowers to function at all,
that the owners should be kind enough
to respond by accepting a somewhat stiffer
limitation than what is almost dawn to dusk, not quite.
I think the hours of 7:00 to 8:00
in the proposed legislation?
7:00 AM to 8:00 PM?
Or is it 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM?
Maybe it's just 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
CHARLES BARBOUR: 8:00 PM.
CURTIS CRAWFORD: But it doesn't seem to me
that that much time is needed.
And amendments should look to stiffening that paragraph
of the ordinance.
Thank you very much.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you, sir.
[APPLAUSE]
Anyone else?
Yes, sir.
JOHN HERRING: I'm John Herring, and I
live by what is known as Painted Bridge or Beta Bridge, which
I heard recently called Rude Bridge
by a wonderful English woman who drove by and said, oh,
what a rude bridge.
[LAUGHTER]
I liked that name.
I had to laugh at that.
I've lived there for eight years.
And I guess I've phoned the police perhaps 10
times in eight years.
Usually it involves shouting, yelling,
a hullabaloo of that nature.
I was prompted to come tonight--
I wasn't really going to until I had
to go through the siege of three bridge paintings
in the last three days.
I received a lecture, what I believe
to be a lecture, from the police the other night
at a quarter of 3:00 because I had called them.
I must say, I hadn't been the first.
I'm glad to say I was not.
There had been people ahead of me,
so the cruisers were there when I arrived.
But when I asked them to try to send the kiddies home,
there was no way in which they could do it.
They didn't want to send them home.
They sat there and watched them paint the bridge.
And I'm glad they painted the bridge.
I wish they'd do it between 1:00 and 3:00
in the afternoon because there's no reason why
they should be quiet.
They used to be very quiet because it was a lot of fun.
It gave kicks to the event.
The point is this-- that we do not have teeth.
And I'm speaking now--
I have not spoken in prior years because I've
been in a situation where people say, well, you live there.
Shut up.
You live in the middle of the university.
Expect this.
Rely on the fact that you're going
to be running crazy two nights a week for such a length of time.
Well, I don't mind the parties.
There are 18 apartments in our building,
and we usually manage them pretty well.
But the thing that bothers me is that,
with the suggestion from Larry, that there might
be a different zoning aspect.
Well, I'm not a hospital.
I'm not a maternity ward.
And I can see that simply because I live near that area,
that my desire to live in some sort of peaceful atmosphere
at times might be set aside because we live there.
It'll be automatic to say, well, the university fraternities
in the area are deserving, they should have their parties,
and that sort of thing.
By the very fact that we live there, we must back off
and say, well, our rights are going
to be less than someone who lives somewhere else.
So all due respects to Larry's suggestion
that there be zoning, I can see what's going to happen.
I'm for your parties, believe me.
I'm for the fraternities.
I have been for 15 years, for many other reasons.
But I really was driven mad the other night
at a quarter of 3:00 when I got a lecture from the police
and the students involved, when I was accused
of breaking tradition for not letting them paint the bridge,
being a nuisance because I went out and complained,
and being a particular fink because I'm considered part
of the university community.
[LAUGHTER]
And I couldn't sleep when I got back home
because I was so damn mad.
[LAUGHTER]
--that I just couldn't sleep.
So a quarter of 5:00, there I was.
And we've had three nights of this.
And may I say something odd?
I wish you'd go to the railroad or whoever
is responsible for that damned overpass
and insist that they tear that nuisance-- it's
an attractive nuisance-- and put up a metal fence.
Then it wouldn't be painted anymore,
and that would solve that question.
I mean, that may sound silly, but I'm very serious.
It's been painted three nights in a row.
Come out and join me some night for the painting.
And then there's a question which
has not been brought up anywhere in the ordinance.
It involves the parking of cars on people's property
during big weekends.
The fact that sometimes when we try to get out of our parking
lot, we can't.
There's not a policeman or cruiser that ever comes down
the street, Rugby Road from Unitarian
Church to the Rotunda, and tickets six or eight
or 10 of the cars that are on top
of our lawn in the parking lot.
You see what I mean?
These are things which are involved.
And I've taken well over three minutes.
But I am concerned, again, that by the very right--
the Venable Association people may have their rights clipped
because we live near the noise.
Now again, for eight years I've never
griped at a party on a big weekend.
I've gone in, and I have a fan, and I have earplugs--
and I really do.
And we've got it down to a science in the faculty
apartments.
But I'll say this, not like the man
who says he's going to leave town, I want to live there.
I want to stay right on that corner by that bloody bridge
and have the right to have a policeman tell me when I go out
at a quarter of 3:00 in the morning
that he will shut the ones up that are yelping
their heads off and have been.
And don't think I go out right away.
I usually wait till my adrenaline is way up here.
It took 40 minutes the other day to get me out of my apartment.
So with that, I leave you with the giggles and the problems.
But believe me, I would have never
come here tonight had it not been for the last three nights
at good old Painted Bridge.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you, sir.
[APPLAUSE]
Anyone else?
Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 2: I said it'll only take me 50 seconds,
so I didn't use--
I'd like to point out there's two kinds of noise.
It hasn't really been mentioned here,
and Dr. Allen touched on it, there's
a physiological type of noise which we can measure.
There's a psychological type of noise which we cannot measure.
We have to take this into consideration.
And I urge you, the council, and the mayor,
to take this into consideration when you rewrite this noise
ordinance.
For example, when Dr. Slaughter Fitz-Hugh's pine tree falls
down over the power line and cuts the power off to my house
for four hours--
of course, you know I love Dr. Slaughter Fitz-Hugh,
but it just happened to be his pine tree--
there is no greater music, I heard no greater music
to my ears at any time until when Thepco's big,
roaring trucks moved in with their screw thing that they--
and their telephone poles, their new power
poles, and all this thing.
That was wonderful music.
That was not noise, man.
That was music.
[LAUGHTER]
The same thing is true of certain of the construction
industry.
And I've got to say a point in Mr. Horn's and Mr. Lee's
behalf over there.
I can't possibly conceive how anyone could consider
it a noise problem when a construction company that
is continuously pouring cement on a new Martha Jefferson
Hospital addition, and they have to continue
into the night, and the next day, and into the next night
in order to make this a successful project,
in order to make new beds for the sick-- that couldn't
possibly be noise, gentlemen.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you, sir.
[APPLAUSE]
30 seconds, sir.
SPEAKER 3: The only point I want to stress is the matter of--
I don't think there's anything in the ordinance about a speed
limit.
And to me, I think a speed limit,
if it was lowered in the residential area,
would have a lot to do with cutting down the noise.
We're subjected to a race track on Hilltop Road
due to a fraternity down at the end of Rugby Road.
They take occasion, all hours of the night--
and I've timed them.
And I'm now checking their license numbers.
And I plan to go to the fraternity president
and talk to them about this question of,
the speed limit is 25 miles an hour on that street, with a lot
of children.
It ought to be 15 miles an hour.
The speed limit, I think, is one thing
that will help this noise abatement, if it is lowered.
Because some cities have gone to 15 miles an hour
in the residential area, and it has a definite benefit
to cut down noise.
Thank you.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Thank you, sir.
I'd ask anyone to speak against, opposing.
Thank you very much.
I close the public hearing on the noise.
SPEAKER 4: In Charlottesville.
[INAUDIBLE]
CHARLES BARBOUR: Let me state that the council--
I can see tonight from all of you who have participated,
and I hope the council will appoint, I feel,
a committee to work with the city attorney and the city
manager and come up with something
that is useful and enforceable for the whole city.
I hope all of you, or most of you, or the ones I called on
will be willing to serve.
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 1: Always can hear the noise.
[LAUGHTER]
SPEAKER 5: I thought it'd take Cindy
about an hour and 20 minutes.
CHARLES BARBOUR: [INAUDIBLE]
SPEAKER 5: It took about an hour and 20 minutes.
SPEAKER 6: Well, less traffic inside [INAUDIBLE]..
SPEAKER 5: Yeah.
Everybody was for it and referred it right now.
SPEAKER 7: There's always [INAUDIBLE]
for the [INAUDIBLE].
[GAVEL RAPPING]
CHARLES BARBOUR: Council will take a five minute
recess because of noise.
[LAUGHTER]
[MUSIC PLAYING]