Noise, vibration rule passes

MAT-SU -- If you're a fan of earth-shaking bass, you'll have to get your fix in a six-hour window of time under the new noise and vibration ordinance passed unanimously by the Mat-Su Borough Assembly Tuesday.

More than 30 people testified before the assembly Tuesday evening, most of them intent on convincing the assembly to pass a boroughwide noise ordinance that would limit vibration and noise generated by amplified music, television or radio.

The ordinance is the borough's response to a problem brought forward by several Mat-Su property owners. The property owners live in the Goodard Subdivision, at the corner of Seward-Meridian Parkway and the Palmer-Wasilla Highway, on a bluff overlooking North Bowl, a bowling alley and dance club that opened in October. Four homeowners from the subdivision filed complaints in February about the noise and vibration generated at North Bowl, and shortly thereafter, the assembly directed borough staff to work to prepare an ordinance that would address the homeowners' concerns.

That ordinance, now finished, was the topic of a public hearing Tuesday, and those who testified outlined numerous reasons to pass or fail the ordinance.

Residents who live above the bowling alley told of frustrations over sleepless nights, children frightened by the window-rattling sound and lives upset over the past seven months.

"If you are somewhere and it's really loud and noisy, then you have a choice to go home," said Melany Messinger, "but we are home."

Bob Stevens, owner of North Bowl and Fish Heads Bar, said he's spent about $15,000 to get a spectrum analysis done to identify the bass emanating from the bar, moving speakers to deflect the sound away from the homes, and installing heavy doors on the bar, aimed at blocking the sound. He downplayed the sound, urging assembly members to visit the homes on the hill before passing the ordinance, and said he had made an honest effort to reduce the noise and, when that didn't work, he offered to purchase at least one home on the bluff.

"Had I known there might be any way I can't play music in a dance club, I wouldn't have invested more than a million dollars in it," Stevens said. And then he cut to the chase. "I'm kind of famous for fighting ordinances in the city of Anchorage, and I have cost the city of Anchorage hundreds of thousands of dollars [in lawsuits]. I've never paid for more than paper and stamps … and I've never been fined."

Stevens previously owned the Lost Abbey Teen Club in Anchorage.

Some said they'd like to see the ordinance expanded to cover not only noise and vibration generated from music, but from nearby gravel pits or other sources of loud noise. Butte area resident Gregory Nilsson said he identified with the property owners. Nilsson suggested an ordinance limiting the actions of individuals who use gunfire as a means to celebrate or intimidate.

"As a property owner, I should have the right to enjoy weekends and evenings," Nilsson said.

Although most who testified were in favor of its passage, some were concerned that it would prohibit private parties involving music or practice sessions for children or adults learning to play inherently loud musical instruments such as drums or the electric guitar. Others, like Wes Wallace, owner of Capitol Speedway in Willow, brought up concerns that the ordinance may be detrimental to the operation of their business.

"We're a very amplified form of entertainment," Wallace said. "We raise hell and make a lot of noise … If you pass this, there's going to be more than one of us put out of business."

Wallace said he's not concerned about complaints from his neighbors -- they have never complained, and he has worked out agreements about hours of operation with some of them. He said, however, he is concerned that previous customers who may feel they've been wronged, such as if they were asked to leave his premises, may use the complaint-driven ordinance to cause difficulties.

After hearing the various testimonies presented, Mat-Su Borough Mayor Tim Anderson called for a break and Borough Manager John Duffy began work to find a reasonable time frame in which loud noises would be acceptable. When the assembly returned to the table, Assembly Member Mary Kvalheim put forward a motion incorporating the timetable Duffy suggested. The timetable allowed for loud noise, or noise and vibrations that cross property lines, between the hours of 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. on weeknights and 4 p.m. and 11 p.m. on weekends. The quiet hours would have pertained to both noise and vibration, but Assembly Member Jody Simpson said further restrictions may be warranted.

"I wouldn't particularly want my knickknacks being vibrated off my shelf any more at 10 a.m. than I would at 10 p.m. at night," Simpson said.

Assembly Member Talis Colberg suggested splitting the wording that would allow vibrations out of the motion and the assembly agreed, with member Bill Allen opposed to the 24-hour limitation.

Simpson suggested adding in a sunset clause to the ordinance -- a provision she said would allow the property owners relief while allowing borough staff to make a more specific ordinance, listing specific decibel ranges that would be prohibited and incorporating or evaluating laws already on the books that may pertain to the problem. An audience member had, earlier, suggested state statutes were already in place to deal with excessive noise or vibration -- statutes which prohibit disturbing the public's peace.

In discussing state statutes relating to disturbing the peace, Teresa Williams, the Mat-Su Borough Attorney, said Alaska State Troopers don't generally apply the statute in a way that would incorporate loud noises.

"It's not applicable because it's not being enforced," Williams said. She added that the statute is generally tapped when officers encounter things like public drunkenness or fighting.

The amendment to make the ordinance effective for just one year did not pass, although some assembly members pointed out that, if problems were found with the ordinance, it could be changed at a future meeting.

The ordinance, as a whole, passed unanimously by the assembly, and it may be augmented by changes to the borough's fee structure. Allen asked whether the assembly could include wording that would instate a fee for people filing a complaint. Duffy said fees are generally set by a separate ordinance, but a fee for filing complaints will be part of a new fee ordinance that will be before the assembly at either the first or second assembly meeting in June.

As they prepared to pass the ordinance, several assembly members discussed their reasons for supporting it. Simpson said she was glad to see it enacted boroughwide, as it will give people who live near public campgrounds or bars outside the core area an avenue for relief.

Allen said he was "cautiously optimistic."

"It's a situation where it appears to me reasonably intelligent people could sit down and work it out without having to create laws to govern," Allen said. "[But] to me, at least, one of the main ingredients in quality of life is being able to sleep -- I hope Mr. Stevens and members of the neighborhood can get together and reconcile their differences."

It may not be that easy. Stevens, after the assembly's vote, wasn't sure what would happen next. Soundproofing the roof, which appears to be where the majority of the vibrations and sound emanates from, didn't appear to be an option, he said.

"You can't put a concrete roof on a metal building," Stevens said. "The most economic thing would be to buy the houses on the hill."

Simply turning the music down wasn't a realistic option either, he said.

"When you're playing dance music, there's an expected volume, and it's loud," Stevens said. He said he's already made efforts to lower the bass, but his efforts are thwarted by simple geography. "Because of the hill, it tends to amp up that bass."

While Stevens said he sympathized with the property owners' plight, he foresees a court challenge -- one he forecasts will be expensive, but not for him.

"I think this'll cost [the borough] $150,000, and they won't win," Stevens said. "I don't even have to do any research to argue this -- the Constitution is so clear and so specific and there are so many previous court cases."

Contact Rindi White at rindi.white@frontiersman.com.