Laserfiche WebLink
59 <br /> <br />COUNCIL CHAMBER - August 18, 1997 <br /> <br /> Council met in regular session on this date with the following members present: Mr. <br />Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Richards, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Toscano. <br /> <br />PUBLIC <br /> <br /> Mr. Kevin Cox, Fairway Avenue, said that he called City Hall in response to reports <br />about negotiations between the Council and Board of Supervisors, but was not given answers <br />to his questions~ Mr. Cox said he feels Council should be above Freedom of Information <br />laws. Mr. Cox said citizens want to know what is happening. Mr. Cox asked if Council has <br />the voting study. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter said that Council has not received the voting study as it is not yet <br />finalized, but that it will be released to the public once it is. Ms. Slaughter said that she <br />understands Mr. Cox's concerns, and Council is endeavoring to follow both the letter and <br />spirit of the law, but no formal comments are being made at this time. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (car stereos) (2nd reading) <br /> <br /> Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, presented an amendment to the noise ordinance <br />requested by the City Manager as a result of questions asked by Councilors. The amendment <br />states that a noise violation occurs when "the peace, quiet and comfort of passersby or other <br />persons outside of the subject motor vehicle" is disturbed, when the noise is louder than <br />convenient hearing inside the vehicle, and when the noise is audible from a distance of 100 <br />feet between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Mr. Gouldman said that the language was taken from <br />other ordinances around the state. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell said that staff wanted to have confidence that the police and courts will <br />enforce the ordinance, and the suggested amendment better defines what the ordinance is <br />trying to accomplish. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Richards, Acting Police Chief Buddy Rittenhouse <br />said that he was concerned about the 50 feet requirement, but agrees with the 100 feet. Chief <br />Rittenhouse said the police need to use common sense in enforcing the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Cox, ChiefRittenhouse said that police will either <br />have to witness a violation, or a citizen will have to file a warrant. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano made a motion to approve the amendments offered by Mr. Goutdman, and <br />Ms. Daugherty seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she is unclear about the function of the criterion "louder than <br />convenient hearing inside the car," and ~asked that that portion of the amendment be deleted. <br /> <br />Mr. Toscano and Ms. Daugherty acCepted the amendment to the amendment. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards asked why the 100 feet requirement would apply during nighttime hours <br />only since there are emergency vehicles, businesses, schools, and hospitals that would be <br />affected by the noise during the day, and asked that this portion of the amendment be deleted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said he feels the other sections of the ordinance get at disturbing the <br />peace, and that it is appropriate to impose a higher standard at night. <br /> <br />The ordinance was unanimously amended by Council. <br /> <br /> The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REORDAINING <br />SECTION 16-9 OF CHAPTER 16 OF THE C~OTTESVILLE CITY CODE, 1990, AS <br />AMENDED, RELATING TO AMPLIFIED SOUND FROM MOTOR VEHICLES," as <br /> <br /> <br />