Community Corner

East Hampton Town Council Considers Proposal on Dealing with Noise

Plan based on state statute

An effort to come up with some kind of enforceable plan to address noise in East Hampton continued to slowly move along at Tuesday night’s town council meeting.

However, the efforts of the past few months seem to finally be bearing some fruit.

The council was presented with a proposal by members Thom Cordeiro and Sue Weintraub that closely mirrors state statute 22a-69-1.

Find out what's happening in East Hampton-Portlandwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“In the essence of providing what we hope will be closure at this time with regards to the noise ordinance and to give the community some basis, and our police officers some basis, of which to work,” Cordeiro said,  “Sue and I recommend that we adopt the State of Connecticut Regulation 22a-69-1, which is the control of noise as stated by the State of Connecticut, and we adopt that as our ordinance.”

Quality of life, Angelico’s has been good for the community, less government not more, permitted use, not a permitted use, a right to quiet, the debate has gone on for nearly six years, and several residents had as opportunity to reiterate some of those points Tuesday night, either through public comment or by submitting letters or emails to the council, some of which had portions read.

Find out what's happening in East Hampton-Portlandwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“My only concern with a noise ordinance is that the police department that we have is busy enough,” resident Nikki O’Neill said. “To me, for them to have to run around and chase a motorcycle or a boat on the lake if it’s noisy, or music if it’s noisy, is taking time away, to me, from what they should be doing.”

The owner of Angelico’s, Paul Angelico, also got up to speak, choosing to read a letter to the council written by his attorney, Michael Dowley.

“It is our opinion that the ordinance enacted by the State of Connecticut is adequate and that the Town of East Hampton does not need to go through the time and expense of implementing its own ordinance,” wrote Dowley.

Citing enforcement issues with a noise control ordinance, specifically referring to one adopted by Windham, Dowley said there appeared to be more pitfalls, such as a lack of enforcement and a waste of the town’s resources, than benefits.

“Be aware that any ordinance crafted to exclude those favorite East Hampton events would ultimately lead to the enactment of an ordinance that would only be applied to my client’s property and this office has already made the town aware on multiple occasions that such an enactment of a town regulation would lead to a federal claim against the town.”

The council was undeterred and, with warmer weather coming, appears determined to get something done sooner rather than later.

“We need to adopt this as our benchmark and now we will have a framework with which to work and it will hopefully provide solace to residents in that area.”

Among the few difference with the state statute were the penalties associated with the proposal. First offense, a written warning. Second offense, $250. A third and subsequent offense, $400.

“I think it’s excessive,” said council vice chairman John Tuttle, who thought the amount would lead to more fines being contested.

According to Dowley, adopting such an ordinance would require certain town festivals and events be subject to that same ordinance. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

All exemptions that exist in the State of Connecticut code would be accepted, exemptions which would appear to include the town’s key events, such as Old Home Days, the boat parade, Panther Fest, etc. Other events not exempted, could request a variance.

“This will provide an opportunity for enforcement for our officers, it will provide guidance to the community, and we’re not going beyond what currently exists within the boundaries of the State of Connecticut,” Cordeiro said. “So, let’s adopt this as a council, pending review by [town attorney] Jean D’Aquila.”

Having an ordinance that is enforceable has been one of police chief Matt Reimondo’s main concerns.

“If you deem we need an ordinance, we need one that’s enforceable,” Reimondo said at the Jan. 11 town council meeting. “One that’s enforceable, and I don’t only mean by us giving tickets, I mean by the fact that if somebody fights it and it goes to court, it stands up in court.”

There was a question concerning whether enforceability of the proposal would require it being adopted as an ordinance, which would require a public hearing, or more simply as policy.

Though the measure is based on the state statute, Weintraub’s understanding was that it needed to be adopted as an ordinance to be enforceable at the local level.

“Until we adopt this as a town ordinance, we have no power of enforcement,” Weintraub said.

Not all council members were quick to sign off on the proposal.

“I still think there is a better way to do this without adding legislation to our town, which, I think, is going to be a negative long term,” Tuttle said.

In the end, no motions were made. Instead, some council members wanted clarification and more information from D’Aquila, who will review the proposal and offer her recommendation.

The proposal will be taken up again at the next town council meeting on March 22.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here