2.a) Second Reading of Ordinance 24-22 of the City of Dunedin, Florida amending Section 107-41.1, Unlawful Noise, of the City of Dunedin Land Development Code to provide for interpretive clarity related to amplified sound and to clarify amplified sound may be heard outside the property line on New Years Eve and may never exceed a weighted 65 Decibel measured at the property line.
This clarification/amendment comes from the City Manager's due diligence of public record and history. I commend her work and support the small much needed clarification that eliminates subjective enforcement and problems.
Paragraph I) is ambiguous regarding where and how amplified sound should be measured for loudness. Is the sound measured inside the structure at the source of the amplified sound, or is it measured at the property line? If a sound that is generated within the structure is then "heard" at the property line, does that indicate a violation? What dB level is meant by the word "heard" as a criteria for threshold of sound?
By comparison, paragraph C) provides specific criteria for sound level and the location where the sound will be measured: "...that exceeds an A-weighted decibel threshold of 65 Db dB, measured at the property line..." There is no doubt in C) that sound is measured with a device at the property line whereas in I), the criteria for measurement may be a person's perception of sound level at the property line rather than a measurement with a meter that produces a specific number.
Once I) is corrected, I would support the Ordinance.
The ordinance states: WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that enacting this Ordinance is consistent with its Comprehensive Plan
This amendment DOESN"T meet the commitment made to the residents in the Strive for 2035 Comp.Plan, dated 10/7/2021, amended 1/26/23:
i. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5.1: “The City shall ensure that existing residential areas are protected from the incompatible non-residential activities.”
ii. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5.2. “Existing residential areas shall be located and designed to protect life and property from natural & manmade hazards such as excessive traffic, NOISE, and deterioration of structures.”
iii. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.6.4. “The City shall establish provisions whereby neighborhood commercial development is … located convenient to residential areas, but not in a manner that will adversely affect the quality of life of the community it serves.”
At a minimum, a specific enforcement plan needs to be in place prior to implementing. I OPPOSE
I am troubled by the city’s handling of this process. There is a lot of confusion in community as to the changes of noise ordinance, there are many inaccurate interpretations. City Staff has not been transparent informing residents.
* The original draft of the outdoor dining ordinance from the consultant included the vacate. The new quiet hours would be from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. in Dunedin versus 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. in Pinellas County. We are paying consultants to advise, why not use the advice.
* The proposed amendment would allow noise levels overnight in Dunedin to be twice as loud as in Pinellas County (65dB in Dunedin versus 55dB in the county).
* The information presented by George Kinney, Director of Community Development was vague as to impact this amendment change has on Dunedin. Not enough information about late night businesses in Dunedin was presented to make decision.
Please, this noise amendment needs more consideration before making decision.
I am a resident property owner immediately adjacent to but not within the City's Entertainment District (ED). I support the amended unlawful noise (24-22) and Outdoor Dining (24-23) ordinances as drafted. I also respectfully request that the city budget for and that the PCSO provide law enforcement services in the ED between the hours of 11:00 pm and 3:00 am. We need a professional law enforcement presence in these hours not as the result of an after-the-fact response to call volume, but rather, to promote ordinance compliance; as a deterrent to drunken, miscreant behavior; and for the comfort, health, peace, and safety of all ED stakeholders; including but not limited to downtown residents, tourists, workers, and business owners.
This clarification/amendment comes from the City Manager's due diligence of public record and history. I commend her work and support the small much needed clarification that eliminates subjective enforcement and problems.
Paragraph I) is ambiguous regarding where and how amplified sound should be measured for loudness. Is the sound measured inside the structure at the source of the amplified sound, or is it measured at the property line? If a sound that is generated within the structure is then "heard" at the property line, does that indicate a violation? What dB level is meant by the word "heard" as a criteria for threshold of sound?
By comparison, paragraph C) provides specific criteria for sound level and the location where the sound will be measured: "...that exceeds an A-weighted decibel threshold of 65 Db dB, measured at the property line..." There is no doubt in C) that sound is measured with a device at the property line whereas in I), the criteria for measurement may be a person's perception of sound level at the property line rather than a measurement with a meter that produces a specific number.
Once I) is corrected, I would support the Ordinance.
The ordinance states: WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that enacting this Ordinance is consistent with its Comprehensive Plan
This amendment DOESN"T meet the commitment made to the residents in the Strive for 2035 Comp.Plan, dated 10/7/2021, amended 1/26/23:
i. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5.1: “The City shall ensure that existing residential areas are protected from the incompatible non-residential activities.”
ii. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5.2. “Existing residential areas shall be located and designed to protect life and property from natural & manmade hazards such as excessive traffic, NOISE, and deterioration of structures.”
iii. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.6.4. “The City shall establish provisions whereby neighborhood commercial development is … located convenient to residential areas, but not in a manner that will adversely affect the quality of life of the community it serves.”
At a minimum, a specific enforcement plan needs to be in place prior to implementing. I OPPOSE
I am troubled by the city’s handling of this process. There is a lot of confusion in community as to the changes of noise ordinance, there are many inaccurate interpretations. City Staff has not been transparent informing residents.
* The original draft of the outdoor dining ordinance from the consultant included the vacate. The new quiet hours would be from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. in Dunedin versus 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. in Pinellas County. We are paying consultants to advise, why not use the advice.
* The proposed amendment would allow noise levels overnight in Dunedin to be twice as loud as in Pinellas County (65dB in Dunedin versus 55dB in the county).
* The information presented by George Kinney, Director of Community Development was vague as to impact this amendment change has on Dunedin. Not enough information about late night businesses in Dunedin was presented to make decision.
Please, this noise amendment needs more consideration before making decision.
I am a resident property owner immediately adjacent to but not within the City's Entertainment District (ED). I support the amended unlawful noise (24-22) and Outdoor Dining (24-23) ordinances as drafted. I also respectfully request that the city budget for and that the PCSO provide law enforcement services in the ED between the hours of 11:00 pm and 3:00 am. We need a professional law enforcement presence in these hours not as the result of an after-the-fact response to call volume, but rather, to promote ordinance compliance; as a deterrent to drunken, miscreant behavior; and for the comfort, health, peace, and safety of all ED stakeholders; including but not limited to downtown residents, tourists, workers, and business owners.