Laserfiche WebLink
Discussion followed. <br />Mr. Boling pointed out the advantage of the way the ordinance was <br />structured was that the builder or the owner would need to think ab ut and <br />choose an option up front before the building permit was issued. He related one <br />of the unfortunate things in the Code Enforcement case in question was that the <br />owner of the unit obtained a permit and there was still a noise issue; ho ever if <br />the ordinance was adopted the decisions would be made up front as part of the <br />normae process. <br />Vice -Chairman Brognano asked what costs would be connectedith the <br />proposed ordinance. <br />Mr. DeBlois thought it would cost approximately $500 more to get a quieter <br />unit versus the one involved in the Code Enforcement case, and as far as <br />installing a sound barrier it would depend on what option was decided on. He <br />noted another issue concerned the homeowner's association going along with <br />whatever measures the Respondent proposed for the noise barrier; whereby an <br />ordinance would instigate the associations to have to come to terms with dealing <br />with this issue up front. <br />Vice -Chairman Brognano <br />forward with new developments <br />built. <br />inquired if the ordinance affected only going <br />and not retroactive to what had alrea y been <br />Mr. DeBlois stated it would apply to a new house in an existing <br />only to new construction. <br />Vice -Chairman Brognano asked how many complaints the <br />received annually about this type of noise violation. <br />Mr. DeBlois said complaints about mechanical equipment were p <br />PD, but <br />County <br />rare. <br />Vice -Chairman Brognano felt the County was going to great lengths for <br />what was a nominal complaint and it would add money to the cost of new <br />housing. He favored IRC staff addressing the complaints as they came in. <br />Dr. Day liked the three options added by staff and thought it woul� put the <br />onus on the developer at the beginning of the project <br />Vice -Chairman Brognano opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. a d since <br />no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. <br />PZC/Unapproved 5 November 14, 2013 <br />F:\BCCWII Committees\P&Z\2013 — AGENDAS & MINUTES\P&Z-11-14-13.doc <br />159 <br />