Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, April 17, 1990 TAG: 9004170396
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARK MORRISON STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: FINCASTLE LENGTH: Medium
The board tabled the measure after 50 county residents packed Monday's meeting and objected that the law was too broadly written, too restrictive and would create animosity among neighbors.
A work session has been planned by the board in May to amend the proposed law.
The ordinance was drafted last month by Commonwealth's Attorney William Heartwell at the request of the board in response to citizen complaints about noise.
Homeowners in the Rainbow Forest subdivision have been upset for months over unmuffled "dirt bike" motorcycles being operated on private property in their neighborhood. Other county residents have complained about barking dogs.
Both groups say they feel powerless in getting their neighbors to control the noise because there are no local noise laws that county authorities can enforce.
The proposed ordinance would make it a misdemeanor to operate more than one motor vehicle at one time on private property in county residential areas or to operate any vehicle without factory-installed mufflers.
In addition, "Owning, keeping, possessing or harboring any animal which frequently or habitually howls, barks, meows, squawks or makes such other noise" would be prohibited, the proposed ordinance states.
Trash collection, construction work, automobile repairs, truck loading, sounding a car horn and operating audio equipment at excessive levels also would be limited during posted hours in residential areas under the law.
Residents at Monday's meeting said that such restrictions as written are too broad and need to be more clearly defined.
They were particularly concerned about how the law would impact on sporting events, hunting season, rural areas, industrial operations and other potential sources of noise.
They also questioned how the county would define a noise disturbance and said the ordinance was open to abuse by vindictive neighbors.
Some residents objected to having a mandate set on when their dogs could bark and for how long. Many said they moved to the country to get away from such restrictions.
Several people suggested that the county consider noise ordinances on a subdivision-by-subdivision or area-by-area basis and not adopt a county-wide law. Others said the board should let voters decide the issue.
Despite the opposition, the board said it is committed to finding some solution to the isolated noise problems that exist for some county residents.
"We're trying to give some protection to those who do have a problem without stepping on the toes of those who don't have a problem," said Chairman Webster Booze.
He said the board will take into consideration all the comments made at Monday's meeting and a second public hearing will be held after the ordinance is revised.
by CNB