NOISE CONTROL

I don't know about you but we enjoy sitting on our back deck this time of the year except for one thing...NOISY 4 WHEELERS, MOTORCYCLES AND ASSORTED ATV'S!!!!!!

Some of the neighbors have reported this problem but after the police officers leave it all starts up again.

So I decided to look up the ordinance on noise control and see if we have any recourse. I don't want to make enemies of my neighbors but I kind of like having my hearing intact.

So here it is:

LIGHT VEHICLE NOISE CONTROL

96.15 SCOPE

"This subchapter shall apply to the control of all noise caused by light motor vehicles and originating within the limits of the city. (71 Code, 90.10) Ord. G-79-730, passed 2-5-79)

96.16 DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this subchapter the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. All terminology used in this ordinance, not defined below, shall be in conformance with applicable publications of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or its successor body.

A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL. The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting network. The level so read is designated db(A) or dbA.

LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE. Any automobile, van, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, motor scooter, or light truck with a gross vehicular weight of less than 8,000 pounds.

MODIFIED EXHAUST SYSTEM. An exhaust system in which:

1. The original noise abatement devices have been physically altered causing them to be less effective in reducing noise;
2. The original noise abatement devices have either been removed or replaced by noise abatement devices which are not as effective in reducing noise as the original devices; or
3. Devices have been added to the original noise abatement devises, such that noise levels are increased.

NOISE. Any sound which annoys or disturbs humans or which causes or tends to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect on humans.

NOISE LEVEL. The A-weighted sound level produced by a light motor vehicle.

SOUND LEVEL METER. An instrument which includes a microphone, amplifier, RMS detector, integrator or time average, output meter and weighing networks used to measure sound pressure levels. The instrument shall comply with the standard for Type 1 or Type 2 sound level meters as specified in American National Standards Institute Standard ANSI 51.4-1 91, or its successor.

SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL. Twenty times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of the RMS sound pressure to the reference pressure of 20 micro pascals. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels. (71' Code, 90.11) (Ord. G-79-730, passed 2-5-79)

96.17 CAUSING EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS.

(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to cause noise levels from the operation of a light motor vehicle in excess of 84 dbA in any area within the corporate limits of New Albany. Measurement shall be made on pedestrian walkways or on other suitable locations at a point closest to the street, but no less than 20 feet from the point of exhaust emission. (71' Code, 90.12) (Ord. G-79-730, passed; AM. Ord. G080-803, passed 5-5-80)

(B) In addition to the prohibition provided for in 97.07, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate a light motor vehicle which causes excessive noise levels as a result of unnecessary rapid acceleration, deceleration, revving or tire squeal. Motor vehicles may not have a modified exhaust system that is equipped with: a muffler cutout; a bypass; or any similar device. At the request of the operator of the light motor vehicle, the officer can administer a stationery motor vehicle noise test. The stationary motor vehicle noise test can provide information as to the extent of defectiveness of the exhaust system or as to whether excessive noise levels were caused by improper operation of the light motor vehicle. ( '71 Code, 89.13) (Ord. G-79-730, passed 2-5-79) Penalty, see 96.99

Cross reference: Vehicle with offensive muffler, see 97.07

96.99 PENALTY

(A) A violation of this chapter for which another penalty has not been provided shall, upon conviction, be in an amount not exceeding $50 for each offense.

(B) Every person convicted of a violation of 96.15 through 96.17 shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $100.

(C) A person who violated 96.01 through 96.04 may be fined no more than $25 for the first offence; and no more than $50 for the second and each subsequent offence, and in addition on the second or subsequent offence a law enforcement officer may confiscate any offending instrument used in violating 96.01 through 96.04. ('71 Code, 90.99(B)) (Ord. G-79-730, passed 2-5-79; Am. Ord. A-03-53, passed 8-21-03)"

So the translation is this: If someone keeps driving down your street in a loud vehicle of any type they can be fined. Maybe my husband can yell that instead of "Slow that thing down or better yet park it".

LIGHT AGENDA/SHORT MEETING?

Tonight's City Council meeting should be quick and fairly painless. The only item on the agenda is the appropriation of the $250,000 in riverboat funds for future use.

I must agree with Kay Garry on this one. She was quoted in the "Tribune" as saying that it would take 40 to 50 days to get the appropriation approved and certified if the council found a need for these funds. And we all know they will.

This money is not going anywhere, I don't see why 4 members of the council Mr. Coffey, Mr. Caesar, Mr. Price, and Mr. Gahan voted against the appropriation plan. It just seems logical that the funds be ready and waiting for future projects. Every project must be voted on anyway.

I guess we will just have to wait and see how it goes tonight. See you there.

NOT JUST RENTAL PROPERTY, BUT ALL HOUSES

There has been much concern, rightfully, about unsafe houses. And there has been some confusion about the authority of the Building Inspector. I have a copy of Code 150.101 and will be posting sections here:

SUMMARY OF CODE 150.101

CLEANLINESS OF PREMISES

BUILDING COMMISSIONER RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Enter premises to determine compliance.

2. Determine the identity & address of landowner

3. Send written notice by certified mail.

4. Have the city remove material & vehicles.

5. File a lien against the property with the County Recorder for all costs incurred by the city for removal.

Following is an explanation of the five steps listed above:

1. To determine compliance with this chapter, the Building Commissioner is entitled to enter upon the premises of any real property within the city.

2. If the Building Commissioner determines there is a violation of this section, he or she shall send by mail, a written notice to the owner(s) of the real estate, and to all other persons holding a substantial interest in the real estate (hereinafter "landowner"), requiring removal of the material and vehicles within 20 days.

3. The notice must also inform the landowner that failure to comply will result in the city removing and disposing of the material and vehicles at the landowner's expense.

4. The notice must also inform the landowner of his or her right to appeal the Building Commissioner's determination, according to the procedures set forth herein.

5. The Building Commissioner will determine the landowner's identity from the duplicate records of the County Auditor.

I was once in favor of rental inspections but after further research I realized that we already have the laws on the books and all we need to do is enforce them. We must keep in mind that unsafe houses are not just rental properties but owner occupied homes as well.

RENTAL INSPECTION REVISITED

There was a meeting this morning with the committee formed to address rental inspections/registration and code enforcement. The members of this committee are Council Members John Gonder, Steve Price, and Pat McLaughlin and Deputy Mayor Carl Malysz.

It was surprisingly well attended with an estimated 35 to 40 citizens. Mr. Gonder lead the meeting with an outline of goals and objectives.

The first item on the agenda is the hiring of a concentrated code enforcement officer. Resumes have been submitted and the individual will be hired in the next 2 weeks. The committee anticipates a period of approximately 2 months for the individual to become acclimated to the position and to begin to take action.

There were many issues addressed today. One of the main concerns was the cost of the inspections and the fact that rental inspections do not include inspections of owner occupied homes.

Of course another major concern is the problem with absentee landlords. Mr. Hartman, the building inspector, complained that it is often difficult to determine the owner of the property so therefore he cannot confront the owner about the problem.

It is my understanding that if the city needs to mow the grass, remove an abandoned car, or anything along these lines the city can place a lien against the property to be paid along with the taxes. If the lien is not paid the city can seize the house and sell it at a Sheriff's sale.

Many of the attendents expressed their concerns about the drop in property values due to unsafe homes, drug dealers, meth labs, etc. These are very serious issues that are not dealt with in a timely manner. The committee members asked for addresses of these properties.

In all it was an effective start. Hopefully this will be the first of many such meetings and maybe someday New Albany will be a safe and clean place to live.

Readers, if you attended this meeting please add your comments. There was so much information to give but I didn't want this posting to go on forever.

Thanks,

Shirley

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES

Today the country lost a kind and gracious Congresswoman, Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

I had the privilege of meeting Congresswoman Jones this summer when she accompanied Chelsea Clinton to New Albany. She was a special person and a friend to all Americans.

RENTAL INSPECTIONS

Besides the smoking ban, there is another hot button issue on the minds of many New Albany residents, both property owners and renters. I am referring to rental inspections.


I have been in favor of rental inspections for a few years. But I am not in favor of people being constantly visited by code enforcement officers or the building commission without cause.


We all know which homes are in disrepair and dangerous for human habitation. These are the homes which need to be monitored. As has been mentioned on other blogs, some people do not have enough money for the first month's rent plus a deposit and/or cannot pay very much for their rent. These people are forced to live in sub-standard housing.


I realize a lot of people who own rental property feel that they are being targeted but I don't think this will be the case. The offenders can be fined and this will pay for the code enforcement.


Readers, how do you feel about rental inspections?

SMOKING? NON-SMOKING? DO YOU CARE?

After reading the Tribune today I am confused about the smoking ban. There was an article about council members Price, Bennedetti, and Messer visiting the 40 & 8 club to discuss the ban.

It was my impression that private clubs would be exempt from the ban. When did this change?

I was reluctant to write about this issue because as a non-smoker I didn't think it was my place to do so. But after hearing both sides I am inclined to agree with the opposition. While I agree that smoking should be banned in restaurants and work places in general, I think that bars and private clubs should be exempt.

Private clubs are just that, private property. If the members choose to smoke, that should be their right. And bars? As the article said, 90% of people who go to bars to drink will smoke also. I have seen people who do not normally smoke do so in bars.

Well, that is my opinion for whatever it's worth.

The next council meeting is next week. Readers, will you attend the meeting and do you plan to speak?