Town Council Hits Mute Button on Noise Ordinance

In what some might consider a surprise turn, the East Hampton town-wide noise ordinance has been silenced again.

Despite having new life breathed into it in June, the issue has been pushed to the side until the next town council is seated after the November elections.

What happened?

When the matter came up during the town council meeting on Tuesday night, chairwoman Melissa Engel canvassed the council for comments or questions concerning the draft ordinance council member Sue Weintraub provided at the June 28 meeting.

Barbara Moore was first to go.

“I have come to the conclusion that for me, this is very negative,” she said. “I think we have spent way too long on the negativity. I think down the road in years to come when we do have a bigger downtown, when we do expand Route 66, I think it’s possible then that we may have to have a separate noise ordinance.

“I’m pretty sad that we’ve spent all this time talking about it when we should have been spending more time helping our businesses instead of going after them. I feel like we are doing that."

Moore was referring to Angelico’s Lake House Restaurant, which the majority of the council has felt has been the target of the ordinance.

Moore has been consistent with her opposition, so that probably should not have come as a surprise. What she said next was a bit unexpected.

“I’d like to make a motion that we no longer discuss it for this council and that we put it to rest for now.”

Chris Goff seconded the motion.

Goff gave a brief rundown on all the work, discussion and research the council has spent on the matter, but despite it all, remained unconvinced an ordinance was needed.

“I still will say that I am opposed to a noise ordinance at this time for this town,” he said. “To enact something right now that, in my mind is clearly targeting a specific area, is not appropriate.”

Chatham Carillo reaffirmed she was against the ordinance, saying she doesn’t believe it is necessary.

“I’ve already said that I do not support a noise ordinance in this town for many of the reasons Chris and Barbara brought up,” she said.

Weintraub said this is not just against Angelico’s and pointed out that without an ordinance “We do not have local control to enforce anything.”

In response to the ordinance being very negative, Weintraub added, “I don’t see where controlling noise to guarantee the rights to citizens’ peace and quiet is negative. … Without having guidelines in place, we really can’t control that noise.”

“I don’t see any other reason for this ordinance,” said Engel, referring to the perception that it is spot legislation aimed at Angelico’s. “I think Paul [Angelico] has taking care of the reasons that created part of this problem. I don’t think at this point in East Hampton’s history there’s reason for more legislation in this community.”

Moore, Goff and Carillo voted in favor of the motion.

Weintraub voted against, saying “I can’t support an issue, a motion, where you’re taking away the rights of council members to speak about issues.”

Engle agreed, and also voted against the motion.

With only five members present, Thom Cordeiro and John Tuttle were absent, the motion failed to carry because it did not get the required four votes.

Engel, however, suggested, “There would be no reason I can see for it to come before us again for the next couple of months, unless something changes.”

The noise ordinance appeared to gain momentum in June when Assistant State’s Attorney John Cashman gave his opinion that because outdoor entertainment at Angelico’s is considered an accessory use of the property, criminal statutes should not be used.

According to Weintraub, Cashman also said that, with regard to state statute 53a-181a, “On our part, there isn’t going to be a big effort.” Calling it a burden on the court, he said we usually don’t go forward with this type of case because “We don’t have the time for it.”

Town Attorney Jean D’Aquila, who also spoke with Cashman, weighed in as well, saying, “If tickets were issued under this statute, they likely would not prosecute.”

With little ability to enforce the statute, Weintraub presented to the council a revised draft ordinance for its review on June 28.

To no avail.

On Tuesday, Angelico spoke during public comments prior to discussion of the noise ordinance.

“Keep in mind that over the past three years we have worked to mitigate noise,” he said. “We have reduced the volume of music; we have hired smaller bands that have agreed to play quieter music; we have built acoustic walls that have significantly reduced the sound of music.

“For the last few years we have told the town council we were working to reduce music volume and we have accomplished that objective to the point where the music volume is not a legitimate issue. The problem is, there is no problem, and it is time for the town council to finally dismiss this matter.”

After the meeting, if Weintraub was upset, she wasn’t showing it and made clear the ordinance wasn’t dead.

“Absolutely not,” she said. “We have a draft of an excellent noise ordinance in place for November.”

Weintraub remained confident in the need for an ordinance and its value with regard to the quality of life in town.

“I would do it all over again, it was the right ordinance to give control to our town,” she said. “The quality of life of the residents of this town is what’s important to me. Whatever I’ve done in this town is for the Town of East Hampton.”

She also expressed appreciation for the way Angelico has worked to address noise issues and reiterated that the ordinance did not solely target his restaurant, rather it is  a town-wide ordinance and in the best interest of the town.

“This is one of the things we should have as a tool because we are going to have mixed development, we are going to grow – in a good way. We need this in place to protect people’s rights and so that we have local control.

“That’s what we do. We’re a town council. We legislate. We look at our community and say ‘What do we need here to make our lives better?’ This is one thing I believe we do need in place.”

Whether that happens or not, it appears it will fall to the next town council to decide.