---

Classifying noise as a “nuisance” and better regulating large outdoor parties were topics of conversation at the October 8 Township Council meeting.

The Council took up two proposed ordinance amendments: one that would require registration for any outdoor party that would have at least 100 guests, and another that would repeal the Township’s noise ordinance and instead handle noise violations as nuisances.

Public Safety Director Quovella Maeweather was on hand to answer Council members’ questions about both proposed amendments.

The amendment to the special events ordinance is primarily aimed at private parties with 100 or more guests.

Maeweather said there was a need to regulate these parties, mainly for public safety concerns over parking.

“I want to tell my guests where to park, yes, because I don’t annoy my neighbors because I have to live there after that night,” she said. “And also I want it to be safe for the flow of traffic. If someone at that party, God forbid, has a heart attack, if there’s a fire, we want these vehicles, safety vehicles, to be able to make it through there.”

She said the the idea for the change is not to be punitive.

“We’re not trying to fine people, we’re not trying to write tickets, we just want everyone to be happy and celebrate and do what they want to do the right way,” Maeweather said. “We’re not going to get rich off of this. We just want to direct them to something and say, here, this is what you should do.”

Maeweather said she frequently gets calls from residents asking what they need to do for the party they are planning.

“I’ve seen in almost five years I’ve been here, large weddings, large baptism parties,” she said. “I’ve seen it and it worked out perfectly because they ask for guidance. If the cops come and tell them they’re doing something not quite right, they move their cars.”

Councilman Ram Anbarasan (D-At Large) asked if it just wasn’t a matter of inconvenience caused by too many cars beingparked on a street.

“It’s not just inconvenience, it’s public safety,” Maeweather said. “We have to have the street open for emergency vehicles.”

“So is there some way to massage this ordinance that if the homeowner on a private property is having a party and is expecting more than 50 cars, 100 cars, whatever that might be, maybe we can redo this so it doesn’t look so intrusive,” Anbarasan said. “To me, when I read this ordinance, okay, this is my property I’m gonna have people, why should I have to get permits? I have enough land, but as a public nuisance or a public safety issue on a street, yes that I think we can say, if you have room for 100 cars in your 3-acre property, go for it. But if you’re going to use a public road that’s going to create a hazard on an emergency, yes, we should get some sort of guidance. But we don’t know until they apply for it or tell us they’re doing this.”

“So you made a statement, Councilman, so it’s your private property but you’re not allowed to do anything that you want,” said Township Manager Robert Vornlocker. “There are many things that you’re not allowed to do because they’re not legal. One of the things that you’re not allowed to do is create a hazardous condition. You’re not allowed to have a bonfire on your front lawn because it’s not permitted.”

The ordinance amendment calls for a permit fee of $125. Vornlocker said the fee is justified because of the staff work that has to go into approving a permit.

“Staff time has value, and that’s why we charge an amount of money for permits,” he said. “It’s because staff has to do things right. If someone is going to have a large wedding in their backyard, whether they be on a quarter-acre lot or a 6-acre lot ,if they’re going to have tents and they’re going to have on-street parking, those things require staff to dedicate time, right?”

“The fire prevention office will have to spend time with fire inspectors, ensuring that the tents meet proper fire code,” he said. “The police department will have to expend time.”

Vornlocker said it’s “fine” if the Council doesn’t want to charge a fee to recoup that time.

“But when these events are held in locations that are not intended for these types of events, they create a hazardous condition,” he said. “That means that if that’s not mitigated, that hazardous condition is allowed to occur.”

“That’s what the effort is here,” Vornlocker said. “That’s what the purpose of this ordinance is; not to intrude on someone’s private property, but to ensure that whatever it is that’s occurring is done in a safe manner and doesn’t create a hazardous condition for the attendees, for the people who live in the neighborhood in adjacent properties, or for the people who have to respond to the complaints when they occur.”

Maeweather said she has seen neighborhoods come together when a resident wants to have a large party.

“They work with their neighbors,” she said.

“We have someone who approached the town recently and they were planning a wedding for 300 people on a parcel of land that’s in excess of 6 acres and is on a street that allows no parking whatsoever on either side,” Vornlocker said. “And they were making provisions for parking attendance, and they were going to park on the lawn, which in this particular circumstance would be permitted. They approached us to ask about permits and things like that. This is one of the things that kind of prompted this discussion.”

Councilwoman Kimberly Francois said that although there have been large “pop-up” parties on her street over the last several summers that have been nuisances, she wasn’t sure if this proposed amendment wasn’t “over-regulating.”

“The concern here for all of us is are we over-regulating people’s rights within their private property or are we doing the right thing for the greater good of the neighborhood and the community?” she asked. “And I think that’s the balance here, right? For me that’s the balance.”

“Well, to me, we’re not going in saying how much liquor you’re drinking, you know, we’re not monitoring the foods and any permits for that,” Maeweather said. “We’re really saying if it can be contained, that’s how I feel, it’s not a problem.”

Mayor Phil Kramer said that he agreed with some of the points made.

“What echoes in my mind is this is my home I’m having a party, and I have to get a permit,” he said. “Mr. Vornlocker and I can swear to today’s events where people who had an open to the general public event didn’t realize the permits they had to get. Now we’re having people with a private party telling them they one, have to get a permit and two, they’ve got to pay what, $125? So to me, for me to even consider the vote, it should be zero. This is just something we should eat.”

Maeweather suggested that the ordinance amendment be changed to charge no fee for the first summer season, then see how that goes.

“It’s still telling people what they can do in their own home and granted, you can’t murder someone in your own home, but this is not murdering someone this is having a party,” Kramer said.

The proposed amendment should be introduced at the Council’s next meeting.

A proposal to scrap the Township’s noise ordinance and transfer its provisions to the nuisance ordinance also elicited a discussion among Council members.

Maeweather told the Council that the current noise ordinance is useless because of the decibel requirements that must be met to issue a violation. To be considered a violation, noise has to reach a certain decibel level, which has to be read by a decibel meter.

“In order to address the noise ordinance we need noise meters,” she said. “We need certified noise meter readers, and I need certified noise meter operators. It’s costly, it’s a process, and I do not have a noise meter operator on every single shift, every time of the day, that covers 24-7.”

“Plus, I’ll tell you this, in five years we’ve written one summons that met the decibels of that noise meter and the ordinance,” she said.

Classifying excessive noise as a nuisance would give police officers more discretion in writing violations, Maeweather said.

Rainone said that an amendment to the Township’s noise ordinance approved earlier this year by the Council – regulating the loading and unloading of trucks in certain zones – is not valid because the state Department of Environmental Protection, which created the statewide noise ordinance template, has ruled that if a change to a town’s noise ordinance is made, that town’s ordinance must be updated to reflect any changes in the state’s template.

“We need to move those provisions into the nuisance ordinance to get them out of the noise ordinance so that we no longer have the requirement of having to get DEP approval for the adoption of these ordinances,” he said.

“Under DEP standards they would say well, if you’re going to stop somebody from loading and unloading a truck in the middle of the night, you have to have a noise meter at the nearest residential property line and every time one of those boxes bangs on the back of that truck it has to exceed the noise meter and you have to have a certified operator there when it happens,” he said. “It’s virtually impossible to enforce that by using decibel levels.”

“This is much needed,” said Anbarasan. “Councilman Vassanella and I met with the former noise control officer from another county. He not only touched upon your issues, he also showed us the documentation an officer had to make. It’s like a book. No officer’s going to go ahead and write those.”

“And apparently, they have to be there for 30 minutes and it has to be recorded every five minutes or something like that,” he said. “So it’s very onerous and it’s just not possible, it’s not effective, we cannot attend to the complaints based on the current ordinance.”

Deputy Mayor Ed Potosnal also supported teh change.

“I get a lot of noise complaints in some of the areas in Ward 1 that are very tight housing clusters and you know there’s really no way to enforce it given all the things that were described here and it’s very frustrating to residents,” he said.

“So I love this ordinance and what it’s trying to do,” Vassanella said.

The nuisance ordinance amendment is expected to also be introduced at the next Council meeting.