Henrico supervisors amend county's noise ordinance

The Henrico Board of Supervisors voted unanimously earlier this month to amend the county’s noise ordinance to limit daytime noise in residential areas from stereos, televisions, musical instruments, and similar devices.

The amended noise ordinance allows county police to issue fines of up to $500 to residents using “sound producing devices” that can be heard in the dwelling of a neighboring residence. The ordinance was previously enforceable between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. but will now be in effect 24 hours a day. Supervisors approved the changes at their Sept. 13 meeting.

County Attorney Andrew Newby listed the sound producing devices covered by the ordinance: stereos, televisions, radios, phonographs, projectors, musical, musical instruments, loudspeakers, record players, compact discs, music players, microphones, loud speakers and similar devices that are designed or used for producing or reproducing sound.

Several Henrico residents on both ends of the opinion spectrum about the ordinance made public comments before it was passed.

One resident, local musician Andrew DeMore, had several objections to the proposed ordinance, which he deemed unfair.

“A child should be able to learn how to play an instrument in their own home during the day without fear of punishment and fines,” he said. “I do agree with the current law about not disturbing the peace at night, but the fact is that people make noise and we need to make noise during the day.”

He also objected on the grounds that the county ordinance would be hypocritical considering the amount of daytime noise that county affairs create.

“I work from home and I can attest that the county itself makes a lot of noise during the day with trash trucks, road crews, and I heard chainsaws and wood chippers all summer long while street crews cleared power lines in my neighborhood,” he said. “I’ve been very disturbed but I understand that people need to make noise during the day.”

Another resident, Tyrone Mitchell of Hanover Estates, came forth with sharp disagreement.

“I’m trying to figure out who came up with this idea of telling me how to run my house,” he said.

Mitchell, who explained that he had recently retired, took issue with the county’s attempt to penalize activities on his own property.

“I pay taxes all year long…I have a patio on my house so I can entertain people in my back yard on my own property,” he said. “Now I understand playing the music at a certain time of day, I say between the hours of 5 and 11 should be fine. . . Every person should be allowed to entertain on their own property because we all pay taxes.”

* * *

Others, like a senior citizen woman from the Glen Allen area, brought support for the ordinance, citing instances in which it would have been helpful.

“There’s a lot of senior citizens in my neighborhood, we have this young man who just moved in and you can hear him all over the neighborhood,” the woman said. “Keep that $500, and if you want to add more to it do it, because that might be the only thing that’s going to get the attention of this young man who lives next door to me.”

Leeroy Gordon of the Central Gardens neighborhood brought up problems he and his neighbors had with early morning revving engines and cars with modifications that increase noise level. He said that he contacted law enforcement about the vehicle noise, but was told that officers were unable to do anything about it.

Newby responded by informing Gordon that supervisors previously had voted to pass an ordinance that regulates excessive noise from vehicles.

“Well then I’m happy,” Gordon replied, prompting meeting attendees to laugh and applaud.

Several residents, like Joanne Simmons Holmes, objected on the grounds that the enforcement of a daytime noise ordinance would be an inappropriate use of police resources.

“I think the resources with the police department and the sheriff’s [office], I think their resources could be better utilized then going around and monitoring the noise level from residents,” Homes said. “I accept the [night ordinance] but 7 to 11? Children want to have fun. Families want to have fun.”

Dennis Walton of Hanover Estate seconded her thoughts, arguing police resources would be better spent cracking down on other crimes, specifically mentioning drivers who smoke marijuana on the road.

Walton also expressed concerns about how property size could affect the ordinance enforcement.

“I live on a one-acre lot, my neighbor can hear me when I come out of my garage in the morning,” he said. “If you have kids trying to practice an instrument, like a tuba or something of that nature…or you have a graduation where kids are getting together or you have a birthday party, I mean, there will be a little noise.

* * *

After the public comments section concluded, county officials addressed citizen concerns.

Tuckahoe Supervisor Pat O’Bannon asked, “How loud is too loud?”

The ordinance does not specify a particular volume or decibel amount that noise must meet to count as a violation, Henrico Police Lt. Col. Michael Palkovics said. Rather, the determination of whether noise constituted a violation would be based on police judgment, he said.

The closest thing to a strict standard provided by Palkovics and supervisors was that the noise could be heard in the dwelling of another.

Fairfield Supervisors Frank Thornton asked Newby to address whether the noise ordinance could be used in a discriminatory way.

“People get concerned that laws like this are made to target certain groups,” Thornton said.

Newby responded that noise has been a county-wide problem – not specific to one community or group of people – and that, on the enforcement side, there was nothing in the language of the ordinance that was directed toward any group specifically.