Murphy – Despite receiving four votes in its favor two weeks earlier, an amendment to the Cherokee County noise ordinance still could not make it across the finish line Monday night.
The Cherokee County Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 to table a vote on the amendment to their next meeting, despite pleas from a vocal crowd that grows increasingly agitated and unruly from one meeting to the next.
County attorney Darryl Brown reiterated his cautions from two weeks earlier, when the amendment failed to pass by the unanimous approval needed on a first vote. Brown said the amendment on Monday’s agenda was no more enforceable than the current noise ordinance and would not apply an effective deterrent to the unenclosed
crypto mine noise fueling the issue. He added that there was a “slight risk” of litigation and referenced the numerous multimillion-dollar lawsuits already facing Cherokee County and the Department of Social Services as a cautionary tale.
“It’s been said earlier that Cherokee County is currently involved in multimillion-dollar lawsuits that resulted from alleged actions by county officials who tried to take shortcuts without doing due diligence and heeding bad legal advice in the name of expedience,” Brown said. “There was an English poet named Alexander Pope who Abraham Lincoln quoted a lot, and he said, ‘Fools rush in where angels fear to tread,’ and I hope that we have learned from the mistakes that we’re having to pay for now from the past.
“If I had a magic wand that I could wave over and make that fan noise go away, I’d do it. But that’s not something legally that we have, and the amendment that’s on here tonight is not going to stop the noise.”
Chairman Dan Eichenbaum said the board’s intention is for Brown to have a new draft of the amendment ready at their next meeting in two weeks – preferably one that has been reviewed by an environmental attorney. Brown said he consulted with an environmental attorney on April 19, the day after the last board meeting, but he was still waiting to receive an email that includes that attorney’s terms of service.
County Manager Randy Wiggins said the board authorized Brown to spend up to $10,000 in consultation with such an attorney.
Commissioner Gary “Hippie” Westmoreland continued to express concerns about the noise ordinance amendment and was the first to ask Brown if it was enforceable. Westmoreland was the lone vote against adopting it during the April 18 meeting, which blocked the unanimous vote needed for an amendment to pass on the first vote.
Brown said the ordinance should be done one time and done right rather than using a “Band-Aid” approach. According to the county attorney, part of the problem with the noise ordinance amendment is the non-specific nature of terms like “continuous and sustained” noise.
He reiterated that the punishment for a violation of the noise ordinance remains a Class 3 misdemeanor punishable by a $50 fine per violation. Brown also previously said the amended noise ordinance does not specify what period of time constitutes an individual violation.
“What we have in this amendment to the current noise ordinance may be nothing more in my legal opinion than a false hope to the affected citizens,” Brown said. “Meaningful and effective legislation takes research and careful drafting, including further consultation with (experts).”
Westmoreland later suggested tabling a vote on the amendment to the next meeting. Eichenbaum and Commissioner Randy Phillips joined him in the 3-2 decision, while Commissioners Cal Stiles and Jan Griggs opposed it.
In a rare move, Eichenbaum initially did not include time on the agenda for official public comment at the start of the meeting. Stiles made a motion to add it back to the agenda, and the board voted unanimously to allow it.
Much of the public comment comes in a more unofficial form these days, though, with members of the audience frequently shouting at members of the board throughout the meetings and sometimes launching into minutes-long speeches without interruption.
Two weeks earlier, the noise ordinance appeared to pass not once, but twice, during the April 18 meeting. In a stark contrast to the board’s typical voting alignments, Eichenbaum joined Stiles and Griggs in approving the amendment, 3-2, with Westmoreland and Phillips opposed.
Less than 30 minutes later, the board rescinded that vote and voted 4-1 to approve more specific wording crafted by Brown during the course of that meeting. Phillips voted to approve it this time, with Westmoreland still opposed. Assistant county manager Maria Hass later informed the board that the vote was invalid because it was not unanimous, but that the ordinance could be approved by a simple majority vote at Monday’s meeting.
The noise ordinance amendment presented at the April 18 meeting stated:
“It shall be unlawful and strictly prohibited for any person, operation or facility to emit sound from said operation or facility that shall cause the ambient sound to exceed a continuous and sustained A rated sound level of 50 decibels as measured at any point not on the property of the person, operation or facility emitting the sound.”