The proposed amendment to the ordinance would allow amplified sound to be heard outside property lines on New Year’s Eve, provided it does not exceed 65 decibels (dBA) as measured at the property line. This change aims to address confusion that has persisted since the ordinance’s initial adoption in 2008, particularly regarding permissible decibel levels and what constitutes unlawful noise.

**Details of the Proposed Noise Ordinance**

The assistant city attorney presented the ordinance, highlighting that it would amend section 107-41 of the Land Development Code. The ordinance aims to clarify enforcement expectations by specifying that any sound exceeding 65 dBA at the complainant’s property line constitutes unlawful noise. This includes sounds from loudspeakers, boom boxes, and car radios, with the current regulation prohibiting amplified sound after 11:00 PM until 7:00 AM. The proposed amendments also include specific provisions for New Year’s Eve celebrations, a point of contention among commissioners and residents.

A key clarification involved how sound measurements are taken, with a standard measurement point at the property line of the complainant before 11:00 PM and at the source of the noise after that time.

**Public Input and Community Concerns**

Public input was an aspect of the meeting, with residents and business owners voicing their opinions on the proposed noise ordinance. Jason Cyber, a resident, highlighted the need to consider the diverse cultures within downtown, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging different lifestyles. He expressed frustration over chronic complaints and suggested that frequent complainers should be held accountable.

Peter Delakas criticized the proposed noise ordinance’s reliance on an outdated 2008 study, arguing that Dunedin has changed since then, with an increased emphasis on entertainment. Delakas suggested extending the proposed hours for noise restrictions, advocating for a later cutoff time on weekends.

**Enforcement and Repeat Offenders**

The discussion also touched on enforcement strategies for repeat offenders, or “bad actors,” who consistently violate noise regulations. The enforcement process includes issuing citations with fines and, if appealed, potentially larger fines imposed by a judge in circuit court. The ordinance also includes provisions for establishing a pattern of nuisance activity, requiring property owners to submit an action plan if multiple violations occur within specified timeframes.

A vice mayor raised questions about the choice of A-weighted measurement and the duration of noise measurements. The two-minute average duration was explained as a means to establish a consistent base reading, helping to eliminate short spikes from transient noises. The vice mayor expressed concern about monitoring the effectiveness of this measurement, particularly regarding loud music.

**Clarifications and Legislative Draft**

The proposed amendments to the ordinance were presented in a legislative draft format, with specific language changes highlighted for clarity. The ordinance codifies previously approved resolutions and is subject to further discussion at a second reading scheduled for September 5, 2025. The assistant city attorney expressed hope that the amendments would resolve longstanding confusion and provide a more straightforward framework for residents and businesses.

**Outdoor Dining Regulations and Business Impact**

Following the noise ordinance discussion, the commission reviewed Ordinance 24-23, which aims to amend outdoor dining regulations. George Kenny from the Community Development Department presented the ordinance, noting that it addresses outdoor hospitality and sidewalk café regulations, as well as updates development charges and impact fees related to outdoor dining.

The proposed changes include allowing administrative approval for outdoor dining areas up to 2,000 square feet, an increase from the previous limit of 500 square feet. This aims to streamline the approval process, moving it away from a quasi-judicial setting to a design review process. The ordinance also includes additional fencing requirements when a commercial use abuts residential properties, emphasizing public health and safety considerations.

**Public Comments on Outdoor Dining**

Public comments on the proposed outdoor dining regulations revealed a divide between residents concerned about noise and disruption and those advocating for the continued growth and support of local businesses. Katie Dharm, a business owner and Chamber of Commerce chair, advocated for the removal of the word “vacate” from the current ordinance, arguing that businesses should be permitted to utilize their outdoor spaces fully until closing time.

Melissa McCormick, a lifelong resident, opposed the removal of the vacate requirement, arguing that the current ordinance has supported a thriving downtown without compromising residents’ peace overnight. She suggested extending hours to midnight or 1:00 a.m. on weekends, contingent on proximity to residential areas.

**Conclusion and Next Steps**