- City reviewing 2016 ordinance to improve clarity and enforcement, especially around noise rules
- Discussion prompted by recent restaurant noise complaint at Union Promenade
- Officials aim to balance business growth with maintaining residents’ quality of life
Union is getting the ball rolling to update its citywide nuisance ordinance, which was created nearly a decade ago.
During a Union City Commission meeting on April 6, the legislative body discussed updating its nuisance ordinance to improve its enforceability. City Administrator Amy Safran explained that the discussion was triggered by a recent noise complaint filed with the city about a restaurant at Union Promenade. Although the restaurant, which was not identified, was responsive and the issue was resolved, Safran said the situation drew attention to some of the restrictions outlined in the ordinance.
“When staff takes the complaint, we want to make sure that we’re able to enforce that and that we have a strong policy in place,” she said. “We have a very clear process that we follow internally to address these issues.”
The City of Union established its nuisance ordinance in December 2016 to protect public safety and quality of life within the growing city. The ordinance, found here, broadly defines a nuisance as any condition or activity that harms, annoys or interferes with the use of public or neighboring property and it applies to residential and non-residential properties.
The ordinance prohibits a wide range of behaviors, including unsafe or dilapidated buildings, abandoned or unsecured structures, overgrown vegetation, stagnant water, garbage buildup, illegal vehicle storage, excessive noise, odors, open burning and unsafe conditions that could attract children or pose hazards. In addition, the ordinance regulates music volume and loud noises, such as construction sounds, during restricted hours.
Union’s nuisance enforcement is a complaint-driven system managed by code enforcement officers and a hearing board. The city is authorized to issue citations, require corrective actions and directly abate nuisances if property owners do not comply. If an owner fails to comply, the city can place liens on properties to recover abatement costs, and violators can face daily fines ranging from $50 to $500 or more for repeated offenses.
Safran said that portions of the ordinance’s legal language require clarification, thereby making its restrictions clearer and making enforcement more straightforward.
“Some are a little vague,” Safran said. “With that complaint for the loud music, if you look at the noise ordinance, it speaks to you can’t have loud speakers outside of the confined area, or establishment. There’s no specific hours. It’s just not really clear.”
Commissioner Douglas Bine concurred with the city’s proposal to revise the ordinance, saying that the city must “strike a balance” between accommodating the expanding business community and preserving the quality of life for longtime residents.
“Now we’re getting complaints from neighbors, and while I understand the businesses and wanting to bring in the entertainment, it’s the old ‘these folks were here first,’” Bine said.
Both Walton and Florence have their own nuisance ordinances enforced within their respective jurisdictions. Union Mayor Larry Solomon encouraged the city commission to review both ordinances to determine whether any of their language could be applied to Union.
“We also need to have you guys (Union commission) take a look at each one of those nuisances, and find out if anything is still applicable from your perspective or not, and then have a discussion about that.”
