1.a) First 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.
1. Expanding noise late at night for the entire city is not consistent with the comprehensive plan promise.
b. Some of the policies in our Comprehensive plan that are not consistent with the proposed expansion of the noise ordinance include:
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 … 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….”
For this and other reasons, I oppose.
I support our local businesses and a lively downtown nightlife, and I fully support removing the vacate order. I moved to Dunedin two and a half years ago, and the liveliness of this town was a major factor in our decision to live here. I think most rational people would agree that anyone living downtown should expect and embrace the lively (and yes, sometimes noisy) nature of the area.
I would also like to point out that it is very confusing which position (oppose/neutral/support) to choose on the online eComment platform. It is obvious that at least some of the commenters may have selected the position that actually doesn't align with their opinion, so any comments made via this platform should be individually read for clarity.
People moving to the downtown area should be advised by their realtors, landlords, and the city themselves of the nightlife that has been part of the city for the distant past. If they have made an informed decision to live amongst the nightlife, and still find the noise offensive, they should move to a location outside the nightlife areas. I am a relative newcomer to town, but I fully support the idea that newcomers should not move somewhere and expect the area to change to accommodate their particular likings and sensitivities. If a resident has not done the due diligence to experience the surroundings of their planned home, it is up to them to change locations to an area more suitable to their taste. Seems quite simple. Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on others. People need to take responsibility for their own choices.
I live center downtown on Grant Street for 20 years. I purchased, not rented, my home because I want to live in a downtown which has nightlife I have loved and stayed over two decades at my location for that reason. Downtown has been lively throughout all the years. That is not a new phenomenon, In fact, it is actually quieter now than it used to be. People who wish for quiet at night should move to the country or a development, get better windows, or invest in earplugs. What they are proposing will not actually stop the occasional incident of someone who is noisy. They can still stay out late inside an establishment and then be "raucous" on the way home. I have been entertained by such persons, but I have never felt the need to report them or to punish other people from being outside enjoying a beer or a conversation late at night. I have recently had two sets of visitors from overseas remark what a wonderful town this is because of the night life! Please don't change my home.
I want to commend the City Manager in regards to her recent written clarification of the sound ordinance. I was on the original task force in 2008 that presented this ordinance to the City. When the ordinance was first published, I asked for, and received a written clarification from then assistant City Manager Harry Gross that said “the intent of the ordinance was that the 65 db standard would be maintained. It just moves to the property line of the source of the music at 11pm”. (see attachment) The sound ordinance was correctly enforced for 10 years with no issues. In 2018 and again in 2023, a Dunedin citizen advised the Sheriff’s Dept wrongly which led to wrongful enforcement and harassment of our business and it's employees. This issue was brought to the attention of the City Manager who after much thorough investigation came to the conclusion that a second clarification may help those reading the ordinance so that it is interpreted and followed correctly in the future.
I live at 950 Broadway. When I bought my condo in 2020, it was with full knowledge that breweries and bars/restaurants could continue serving and entertaining outside after 11:00. This is what makes Dunedin lively and growing. I support our restaurants and breweries, and I would expect city government that benefits from their success to do the same.
As a Dunedin resident I am against this noise after 11pm insanity. Not all of us work 9-5 jobs. My only time I get to go out and relax with friends is from 12am-3am. Why does everyone else get to enjoy our city just not us people at night time? It's a town built on Music and Breweries let's keep the night life alive. Why do we get punished because the rest of the city builds around these establishments? Most of the places in reference were here long before someone decided to build an apartment complex or townhouses. Don't move across from a Brewery if you expect it to be quiet. Move across from a Brewery because you love the live music and want to support that local business.
As a downtown resident immediately adjacent to, but not within the Downtown CRA, I support the revised Noise Language Ordinance and the Outdoor Hospitality and Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance as drafted, with the following caveat: Any ordinance enacted by a municipal authority is meaningless without supervision. Raucous shouts of drunken, rowdy revelers in the early morning hours of legal operation must be anticipated and prevented. At least one CPO must be budgeted for and assigned to patrol the entire entertainment district between 11pm and 3:30am. Hospitality owners, management and the PCSO must collaborate to prevent "any person to willfully make, continue or cause to be made or continued *any* noise, which because of its volume level, duration and/or character annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, health, peace or safety of reasonable persons of ordinary sensibilities and tolerance for sound levels within the city limits" as stated in the current and draft ordinance.
1. Expanding noise late at night for the entire city is not consistent with the comprehensive plan promise.
b. Some of the policies in our Comprehensive plan that are not consistent with the proposed expansion of the noise ordinance include:
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 … 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….”
For this and other reasons, I oppose.
I support our local businesses and a lively downtown nightlife, and I fully support removing the vacate order. I moved to Dunedin two and a half years ago, and the liveliness of this town was a major factor in our decision to live here. I think most rational people would agree that anyone living downtown should expect and embrace the lively (and yes, sometimes noisy) nature of the area.
I would also like to point out that it is very confusing which position (oppose/neutral/support) to choose on the online eComment platform. It is obvious that at least some of the commenters may have selected the position that actually doesn't align with their opinion, so any comments made via this platform should be individually read for clarity.
People moving to the downtown area should be advised by their realtors, landlords, and the city themselves of the nightlife that has been part of the city for the distant past. If they have made an informed decision to live amongst the nightlife, and still find the noise offensive, they should move to a location outside the nightlife areas. I am a relative newcomer to town, but I fully support the idea that newcomers should not move somewhere and expect the area to change to accommodate their particular likings and sensitivities. If a resident has not done the due diligence to experience the surroundings of their planned home, it is up to them to change locations to an area more suitable to their taste. Seems quite simple. Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on others. People need to take responsibility for their own choices.
Oppose removing vacate outdoor
I live center downtown on Grant Street for 20 years. I purchased, not rented, my home because I want to live in a downtown which has nightlife I have loved and stayed over two decades at my location for that reason. Downtown has been lively throughout all the years. That is not a new phenomenon, In fact, it is actually quieter now than it used to be. People who wish for quiet at night should move to the country or a development, get better windows, or invest in earplugs. What they are proposing will not actually stop the occasional incident of someone who is noisy. They can still stay out late inside an establishment and then be "raucous" on the way home. I have been entertained by such persons, but I have never felt the need to report them or to punish other people from being outside enjoying a beer or a conversation late at night. I have recently had two sets of visitors from overseas remark what a wonderful town this is because of the night life! Please don't change my home.
I want to commend the City Manager in regards to her recent written clarification of the sound ordinance. I was on the original task force in 2008 that presented this ordinance to the City. When the ordinance was first published, I asked for, and received a written clarification from then assistant City Manager Harry Gross that said “the intent of the ordinance was that the 65 db standard would be maintained. It just moves to the property line of the source of the music at 11pm”. (see attachment) The sound ordinance was correctly enforced for 10 years with no issues. In 2018 and again in 2023, a Dunedin citizen advised the Sheriff’s Dept wrongly which led to wrongful enforcement and harassment of our business and it's employees. This issue was brought to the attention of the City Manager who after much thorough investigation came to the conclusion that a second clarification may help those reading the ordinance so that it is interpreted and followed correctly in the future.
I live at 950 Broadway. When I bought my condo in 2020, it was with full knowledge that breweries and bars/restaurants could continue serving and entertaining outside after 11:00. This is what makes Dunedin lively and growing. I support our restaurants and breweries, and I would expect city government that benefits from their success to do the same.
As a Dunedin resident I am against this noise after 11pm insanity. Not all of us work 9-5 jobs. My only time I get to go out and relax with friends is from 12am-3am. Why does everyone else get to enjoy our city just not us people at night time? It's a town built on Music and Breweries let's keep the night life alive. Why do we get punished because the rest of the city builds around these establishments? Most of the places in reference were here long before someone decided to build an apartment complex or townhouses. Don't move across from a Brewery if you expect it to be quiet. Move across from a Brewery because you love the live music and want to support that local business.
As a downtown resident immediately adjacent to, but not within the Downtown CRA, I support the revised Noise Language Ordinance and the Outdoor Hospitality and Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance as drafted, with the following caveat: Any ordinance enacted by a municipal authority is meaningless without supervision. Raucous shouts of drunken, rowdy revelers in the early morning hours of legal operation must be anticipated and prevented. At least one CPO must be budgeted for and assigned to patrol the entire entertainment district between 11pm and 3:30am. Hospitality owners, management and the PCSO must collaborate to prevent "any person to willfully make, continue or cause to be made or continued *any* noise, which because of its volume level, duration and/or character annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, health, peace or safety of reasonable persons of ordinary sensibilities and tolerance for sound levels within the city limits" as stated in the current and draft ordinance.