'Dead' ordinance still discussion topic

By COURTNEY LAMDIN | Staff Writer
mireporter@mac.com

Despite no appearance on the agenda, a dead noise ordinance drew a large crowd to the Monday, May 17 Selectboard meeting.

It kicked off with a noisy display by Ron Moorby who, just as chairman Lou Mossey called the meeting to order, turned on a boombox and blasted Jimi Hendrix’s “The Star Spangled Banner” through the flag salute.

Mossey asked Moorby to shut off the music and eventually was asked to leave by police chief Brett Van Noordt.

But Moorby was not alone. The community room was packed, and according to Milton resident Tina FitzGerald, the crowd came because of a May 8 posting to the community Web site Front Porch Forum by Selectboard member Todd Shepard.

Shepard was not present at the April 5 meeting when motions to set a public hearing for a proposed noise ordinance and proposed changes to the existing dog ordinance failed.

His Front Porch posting noted ongoing noise complaints and asked for input by May “to see if there is support for this type of ordinance and to see if there are others that are bothered by noise before requesting it be added as an agenda item and presenting a draft ordinance for consideration at a public hearing again,” the post read.

At the meeting, FitzGerald addressed board chairman Lou Mossey, asking why this “dead issue” was brought up again.

Mossey responded that, “Nobody on this board, nor out of the town offices, brought this up as an item … on the agenda.”

FitzGerald countered that Shepard’s Front Porch posting asked people for input, even though Mossey told her that the issue would not come up again, she said.

Mossey told FitzGerald that this issue was raised in public forum, but that the Selectboard did not bring it forth. This same message, including that there is no proposed ordinance, was relayed at least six more times during the 40-plus-minute public forum.

At the meeting and in a follow-up interview, Shepard clarified that the post’s purpose was to get feedback. He said some people took the post out of context.

“Everything was misconstrued. I was asking questions. I was listening back,” Shepard said. “That was something that I’ve heard time and time and time again from our community that previous boards had not asked for feedback. I did it, and you saw the reaction.”

Shepard’s Front Porch posting garnered at least 20 responses, with 75 percent in favor of “some control on noise,” he said. After this response, Shepard intended to draft a new ordinance for future consideration, but since the May 17 meeting, his plans have changed, he said.

“At this point, I don’t have any immediate plans to bring it forward,” he said. “Would I like to continue working on it, and do I believe there needs to be something? Yes. This is one of the things that a board in today’s environment needs to take into consideration.”

At the meeting, town manager Sandy Miller reminded residents that any ordinance cannot be passed without going through several legal steps including a vote to set a public hearing and publication of the hearing date in the newspaper. At a hearing, the board could choose whether or not to vote in a proposed ordinance, Miller said.

But in the days previous to the meeting, emails circulated from Milton resident Chris LaFrance with the subject, “Behavior of Town Manager yesterday.”

The Monday, May 10 email, which LaFrance copied to this newspaper, was an exchange between him and Miller about obtaining a copy of the April 5 proposed noise ordinance that is considered “dead” because no public hearing was set.

“Your attitude with me yesterday when a simple request to obtain a copy of the, as you deemed it, ‘dead’ proposed noise ordinance was uncalled for,” LaFrance wrote, calling the ordinance Miller’s pet project. “I am hoping that it is truly ‘dead’ but rumors state otherwise.”

Miller’s email response rebutted LaFrance’s claims of a bad attitude and reiterated the matter is dead.

“If others in the community are discussing it, that is their prerogative and the matter will remain ‘dead’ for staff unless the Selectboard directs otherwise,” Miller wrote. “It is a simple fact that neither I nor other staff have any agenda in this or other matters and have acted entirely upon the direction of Selectboard members and they have stated as such.”

Despite this, on Wednesday, May 12, this newspaper received another LaFrance email titled, “Proposed noise ordinance to rear it's [sic] ugly head Monday, May 17,” the day of the Selectboard meeting.

The email had an attached copy of the dead noise ordinance.

This newspaper received a forwarded copy of LaFrance’s email from another Milton resident, who took it to mean that the noise ordinance would be on the agenda.

To clarify, this newspaper emailed board chairman Lou Mossey.

Mossey wrote, “The noise ordinance is not on the agenda for Monday the 17. However, board members are still receiving calls about this issue. I do expect that it will be brought up during public forum. As far as I know, that does not make it an agenda item.”

On May 17, the day of the meeting, The Burlington Free Press also published a story saying a proposed noise ordinance was on the agenda. WCAX Channel 3 briefly had a similar story on its Web site that Monday morning before it was removed.

At the meeting, many speakers in public forum referred to a “proposed noise ordinance,” including LaFrance.

He presented a petition, which he said was signed by 465 Milton residents. Checking with the official voter list revealed that one-third of the signers are not registered voters.

The “Petition to Eliminate the Proposed Noise Ordinance in the Town of Milton” called the ordinance “too vague” and required it “be eliminated in its current state by the Selectboard.”

According to town clerk John Cushing, the petition is moot because that ordinance was already dead. The petition does not, however, preclude a different noise ordinance from being considered, he said.

“There are certain guidelines for what petitions can and cannot do, and in this particular case, it was a moot point because it was already done,” Cushing said.

He added that most petitions request the board to add an article to a ballot. If the requested item is within the board’s purview and the petition has 5 percent of registered voters – in Milton’s case, 320 – the board is required to add the item.

In this case, Cushing considers the petition an “informal request” that shows the signers' opinion but is not legally binding, he said.
LaFrance declined an interview request about the petition’s intentions.

As for Shepard, he recognized that some Milton residents have noise issues and encouraged them to speak out at Selectboard meetings.
“They need to be as vocal as they can in the community,” he said. “Really, it’s the community that’s going to drive change. [The Selectboard] can only facilitate that change.”

If an organized group came to meetings in favor of an ordinance, Shepard would consider pursuing the issue again, he said.

“Absent that, it’s very hard to do something, even with 10 or 15 in favor [of an ordinance] when you’ve got anywhere from 300 in the previous petition on the dog issue a few years ago or 500 this time that are opposed to it,” he said.

Reflecting on the meeting, Shepard said that community members had a right to express their opinions, but that in the end, the noise ordinance was not on the agenda and no Selectboard member intended to broach the subject that evening, he said.

“My big wish is that if something is bothering people, they get the information correct and they send it out from there,” he said. “At least spread the right information."