City of Fairfax officials will take six more weeks to gather input and consider options before enacting changes to the city’s noise regulations.
A final vote was delayed until May 12 after council members heard public testimony and discussed the matter among themselves on Tuesday (March 24).
The extra time will give city leaders the opportunity to consider “some pretty complicated” and potentially confusing changes, Councilmember Thomas Peterson said at the March 24 meeting.
Councilmember Stacy Hall acknowledged that “some are probably going to be disappointed that we’re going to be delaying the conversation even further.” But she said the extra time will give the council a chance to decide if additional tweaks need to be made.
The city last updated its noise rules a decade ago. The proposal under consideration aims to consolidate regulations currently split between the city code and zoning ordinance into a single code section.
City Attorney Brian Lubkeman told council members one reason he recommended deferral was that the public only seemed to be just now becoming engaged in the topic.
“We have finally started receiving suggestions from the public, despite many months passing” since the matter started being discussed, he said.
“We will come back with some changes [in May], and if we have additional suggestions from the public, we will certainly do that, as well,” Lubkeman said. “The more comments we receive, the better.”
Proposed changes include:
- Updating the maximum permissible sound levels in various zoning districts
- Prohibiting “any such sound that is plainly audible in any other person’s residence with the doors and windows closed”
- Introducing differing standards for daytime (7 a.m. to 8 p.m.) and nighttime
- Revising rules on loading and unloading of vehicles
- Adding motorcycles to the current restrictions applied to noisy motor vehicles
Maximum permissible sound levels would be 60 decibels in the daytime, 55 at night for residential areas, with slightly higher levels allowed in commercial and industrial areas. If an industrial area sits next to a residential community, the maximum noise level there would be 60 decibels at night.
Revisions would also change the hours that individuals can “yell, shout, hoot, whistle, sing or undertake any similar activity” in public. Currently, those activities are banned from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. daily, but under the revision, the prohibition would kick in at 9 p.m. each evening.
The new rules also would put limits on individuals allowing animals to “bark, howl, meow, squawk, quack, crow or make other such similar sounds” during certain times of day and night.
The proposed revisions would expand the city manager’s authority to temporarily suspend enforcement of the noise ordinance in certain cases.
It would also, for the first time, incorporate potential criminal penalties for some transgressions under the noise ordinance.
That has raised concerns from the public, the city attorney said, but those concerns were a “misconception” of the intent of the changes.
Under the updated code, criminal penalties for violating the noise ordinance would be Class 3 misdemeanors, potentially leading to $500 fines but no jail time, Lubkeman said.
However, language in the draft bill makes repeated violations subject to Class 2 and Class 1 misdemeanor status, which have penalties of up to six and 12 months in jail, respectively.
Alternately, violations could be addressed as civil infractions, with penalties of between $250 and $500 if an individual is found guilty in court.
Imposing penalties — criminal or civil — is a last resort, the city attorney said.
“The default [city response] is going to be to try to defuse the situation and get the offender to simply stop making the offending noise,” Lubkeman said. “Sometimes people don’t realize the noises they’re generating are disturbing to other individuals.”
Peterson said that working with residents was the first line of defense, but appreciated the new ordinance’s effort to address cases when cooperation is not forthcoming.
Mayor Catherine Read agreed.
“We are trying to put guardrails and avenues for resolving the most egregious problems,” she said.
Well-defined rules are vital, Read said, as “we can’t legislate people being thoughtful or considerate.”
About a half-dozen speakers addressed the topic on March 24. All were supportive in general, but some had specific concerns.
A number of residents of the Sutton Heights townhome community off Pickett Road — including homeowners’ association president Zachary Burrows — wanted more attention paid to truck traffic at the adjacent industrial property occupied by gas and diesel suppliers.
Delaying a final vote on the topic also drew some blowback. Among those irked by the lengthy decision-making period was local resident Ross Landes.
“I stood up here in 2022 and said we needed to revise the ordinance,” he told council members. “I don’t know what’s taken so long. I’m just at a loss.”
“This just seems like a non-brainer to me,” Landes said. “Peace and quiet in your own house seems pretty basic.”
Others, however, were okay with a delay if it results in a cleaner final version.
“Some things need a little working on,” said local resident Kelly O’Brien, who generally was supportive of proposed changes.
A number of speakers raised concerns about spotty enforcement, particularly outside of government working hours. Others said current noise regulations provide loopholes from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. that need to be addressed.
Right now, during some hours, “it’s a free-for-all,” Landes said.
“You could have an atomic bomb go off,” and the city couldn’t do anything about it during the daytime, he said.
