Noise Law version 4 is here
(https://writer.zohopublic.com/writer/published/8sb7md80e7b5a74f24ff08d33621d6b36102a)
and we are scratching our heads. What we are hearing about the Noise Law during Town Board meetings doesn’t seem to make sense. Here’s what
we know.
Version 3 limited noise during the hours 11pm to 7am, and had a $50 fine. Version 3 was formulated by a diverse group including, for the first time, representatives from both sides of the question. After just two meetings, the Town Board (representative?) declared the committee at an impasse, but several participants disagree, saying that there was no impasse.
Version 4 increased the fine to $150-750 and added language that declares ANY audible sound (not just noise) beyond the property line is considered unreasonable. The word “audible” is used several times; its definition is, “able to be heard.” That’s a very strict and probably unworkable cutoff.
The Town Board blamed the changes in Version 4 on the Town lawyer, Guy Krogh.
Here’s what doesn’t line up: Why would a lawyer make changes in the amount of the fines or the period of the day that the law applies to, or add a significant modification (audible)? Lawyers don’t do this without instruction or permission. If a lawyer made these changes without permission, then why didn’t the Town Board discussion begin and end with, “We received back the document from the Town Lawyer. It has unacceptable changes that we did not authorize. We are tabling this discussion until a future meeting.”
Only in the face of strong opposition from multiple residents did the Town Board begin to find fault with its own document.
The fact is that the Board dissolved its noise working group–the first variant of this group that contained representatives with diverse opinions–and took back sole control of the document. This new document represents the thinking and agenda of this Board (as did the first two versions of the law).
In the face of an election whose outcome – for the first time in decades – is uncertain, the Town Board is doing major damage control. Even so, while they claim to be open to change and discussion…when it begins to happen, they shut it down and fail to practice it.
