Board members also agree on need to hire consultant to help them address decibel levels and, potentially, create various noise zones
It took four tries — during a total of about two-and-a-half hours on Dec. 1 — but Sarasota Mayor Debbie Trice finally crafted a motion that won unanimous approval of her colleagues in their effort to implement a revised Sound Ordinance that has been designed to be more readily enforceable for the city of Sarasota.
Former City Attorney Robert Fournier explained that the version of the new regulations that won approval late that afternoon, on first reading, mirrors a City of Miami Beach ordinance that was upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and, therefore, should be able to survive any legal challenges in Sarasota.
The regulations include a “plainly audible standard” as the basis for enforcement of the nighttime decibel restriction citywide.
A second reading of the ordinance will be necessary, Fournier further noted, before the new Sarasota regulations can take effect.
With no more commission meetings scheduled this year, that second reading is expected to take place in 2026. The Sarasota News Leader was unsuccessful in its efforts this week to learn when that second reading might occur.
Vice Mayor Kathy Kelley Ohlrich made the first motion on Dec. 1, noting at the outset, “This is to get us moving …”
She called for adopting the revisions that mirrored the Miami Beach ordinance’s plainly audible standard and making 55 decibels the maximum level allowed between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., seven days a week, as measured 100 feet from the source, except on New Year’s Eve and July 4. For those dates, midnight would be the hour at which the sound level had to decrease.
The existing limit for nighttime hours is 65 decibels (dBs).
Her motion further noted that the city should enumerate the various devices from which sound emanates, for measurement purposes, as Fournier had proposed, in an effort to provide the necessary evidence for offenses.
Additionally, Ohlrich called for the hiring of an acoustical engineer to provide the commissioners the data they need to consider revising the maximum decibel levels for daytime and nighttime, including the potential that different restrictions will be assigned to various zones created in the city.
However, Fournier and Mayor Trice said they felt that that direction should be part of a second motion.
No one seconded her motion calling for the “plainly audible” standard.
Then Commissioner Liz Alpert, who was participating in the meeting via Zoom, made a motion that called for adopting the revised ordinance the board members were considering that day, with the plainly audible provisions. Nonetheless, she called for keeping “the status quo,” with nighttime decibel restrictions to begin at 11 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. Further, she said the later hour should be the standard for the night before “all holidays.”
Commissioner Kyle Battie seconded the motion.
“I think the status quo works,” Alpert told her colleagues. Noting that she has been a city resident for 23 years, she added that the city’s daytime and nighttime sound restrictions are “a good balance.” Moreover, Alpert said, “People expect [on] the weekend to be able to stay out a little later, to do things later.”
Battie concurred. “Downtown and Main Street is the heartbeat and the pulse of any city.” People who choose to live downtown have to realize that they will be subjected to more noise, he pointed out.
Ohlrich protested the motion. “We’re not making a decision for just the urban core,” she stressed “We’re making a decision for the entire city. … Things have changed around us,” she continued. “Now we have a lot of residents downtown, and we’re trying to find the balance that works for a vibrant downtown and the people who live here. That’s our job,” Ohlrich told her colleagues; “not to keep things the same.”
Alpert’s motion failed on a 2-3 vote, with Trice, Ohlrich and Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch opposing it.
Next, Ahearn-Koch attempted to craft a motion, calling — as Ohlrich did — for the revised ordinance to mirror the Miami Beach regulations. She also specified a maximum decibel level of 65 for both the daytime and nighttime hours. “Plainly audible” sound should be determined at 100 feet from the source of the noise, she added.
Yet, after Fournier sought clarifications on aspects of her motion, she withdrew it.
Then Trice handed the gavel to Vice Mayor Ohlrich and made a motion that called for the revised ordinance to mirror the Miami Beach regulations in regard to “plainly audible” standards. However, she did call for extending the start of the nighttime hours to midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.
Commissioner Battie seconded it.
Fournier explained that the decibel levels could be changed later, following the hiring of a sound consultant and the receipt of recommendations from that person.
After that motion passed unanimously, Commissioner Ahearn-Koch made a motion for the hiring of a sound consultant to study all of the issues that the board members had discussed that day relative to maximum decibel levels and the potential creation of zones across the city.
Battie seconded that motion, and it also passed unanimously.
‘One standard citywide’
At the outset of the hearing, City Attorney Joe Polzak told the commissioners that he had asked retired City Attorney Fournier to address them that day on the proposed changes to the Sound Ordinance, as Fournier had worked on the revisions extensively before he stepped down from his position earlier this year.
During his presentation, Fournier noted that many ordinances in other jurisdictions have different sound limits for different zoning districts or other specified areas. For example, he said, “One limit applies to residential neighborhoods.” Restrictions may be different for industrial areas, he continued, compared to commercial districts.
“Sarasota has one standard citywide,” he stressed. The city “is not divided up into areas.”
For the hearing that day, Fournier noted, the commissioners were addressing three of the 10 sections in the ordinance. Those covered definitions, unreasonable sound, and maximum sound levels.
He was going to focus on the last one, he told them.
“Sarasota has traditionally regulated sound,” Fournier said, “by applying maximum decibel limits to the sound. … We don’t currently have a ‘plainly audible’ standard,’ ” he noted.
He believes, he added, that the city’s decibel levels “would be considered high when they’re compared to [levels in] other jurisdictions.”
Fournier proceeded to explain the “three distinct decibel measurements that can be taken in our Code.” The dBA sound is what one would consider to be heard by the human ear, Fournier continued.
The dBC reading, he said, “gives more weight to low frequency sounds, and It’s most often used to measure the bass sounds.” On some occasions, that low frequency sound is felt as much as heard, Fournier pointed out.
The third measurement determines the difference between the dBA and the dBC levels, he said. “The greater the difference, the greater the prevalence of the bass low frequency sound.”
Then he noted that in almost every sound ordinance he had reviewed, the dBA level is lower than the dBC level. Fournier added that he believes the reason for that is the human ear’s perception of less sound — or inaudible sound — at the dBC level. However, he acknowledged that he is not an expert on such issues.
Further, Fournier emphasized that decibel levels do not progress on an arithmetic scale but a logarithmic scale. In other words, “Eighty [decibels] is twice as loud as 70 dBs. … And 90 [decibels] would be four times as loud as 70 dBs. … It increases exponentially, in other words.”
Next, he displayed a portion of the proposed, revised ordinance, explaining that “amplified sound” is regulated only when it is not “in a completely enclosed building,” and only during the nighttime hours specified in the ordinance.
The existing ordinance also governs “continuous source sound,” Fournier told the commissioners, as well as “impulsive sound,” such as a gunshot or the sound of a firecracker.
The revised ordinance eliminates the standards for continuous source sound and impulsive sound, he continued. Instead, he said, he used the terms “inside source sound” and “outside source sound.”
At 10 p.m. each day, Fournier pointed out, the city requires outdoor amplified sound to be turned down.
However, because of an exception granted to Mattison’s City Grille on the Lemon Avenue Mall, he noted, the reduction in outdoor amplified sound is being enforced after 11 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.
The commissioners have the discretion, Fournier advised them — based on his research — to modify the hours. Some city residents had proposed that 10 p.m. be the hour when sound must be lowered, he noted.
Then he showed the commissioners a chart he had created to help simplify the situation, using the terms “Daytime Hours” and “Nighttime Hours,” with the maximum decibel levels linked to specific sections of the City Code.
It would be up to them, Fournier continued, to decide on the decibel levels and the hours they want to see those levels enforced — especially the latter; the chart could be changed accordingly. Fournier added that he felt that having such a chart to rely on would facilitate enforcement by members of the Sarasota Police Department.
Next, Fournier turned to the “plainly audible” standard, which — he explained — is sound that can be heard by a law enforcement officer using his or her auditory sense, “but at a specified distance from the source of the sound.”
He added in the provision for bass in the definition for “plainly audible sound,” Fournier pointed out.
The ordinance would make unlawful the plainly audible sound heard at a specified distance from the source, he said. However, Fournier noted, in accord with the ordinances he had reviewed, a specified hour still would have to be set for enforcement of that standard.
Some ordinances he had seen used the plainly audible measurement in daytime hours as well, Fournier said. He would not recommend that such a provision be included in the ordinance before the board that day, he continued, because he believes a sound consultant would be necessary to help to create the standards for daytime, given the various activities that take place in the city during the day.
At night, using the plainly audible measurement is easier, he pointed out, since, in general, people agree that lower sound levels are preferred at night.
Fournier also noted that most of the ordinances he had seen that included the plainly audible sound provision maintain maximum decibel levels, as well.
Then Fournier addressed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, which includes Florida, in a case called D.A. Mortgage, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach. In that case, the court “upheld the use of the plainly audible standard for certain kinds of sound” between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., seven days a week, he pointed out. “So we do have legal precedent,” he told the commissioners. “It’s constitutional,” according to that ruling, he said.
Therefore, he suggested that if they wanted to incorporate the plainly audible standard in the City of Sarasota’s revised Sound Ordinance, they could model such a regulation on the ordinance approved for the City of Miami Beach. “I think [that] would discourage [lawsuits against the City of Sarasota over the revised ordinance, he added.
However, if the commissioners deviated from the City of Miami Beach ordinance, he said, he believes the City of Sarasota would be more likely to face a legal challenge.
He further noted that the Miami Beach ordinance includes “specific sound reproduction devices” in its section about amplified sound.
Explaining other facets of the Miami Beach ordinance, he showed the commissioners the language he had proposed for the revised Sarasota ordinance that he believes would protect them further in the event of a legal challenge:
‘We’re part of the downtown condos that pay millions in tax dollars’
Among the 10 members of the public who spoke during the hearing, Jim Lampl, who said he has lived in downtown Sarasota for more than 14 years, addressed the commissioners on behalf of The Jewel condominium complex, which is on lower Main Street.
The residents of that building, Lampl stressed, are “greatly impacted by the increased noise.”
They walk downtown, shop downtown, dine in downtown restaurants and use the services of downtown businesses, he continued. “We’re part of the downtown condos that pay millions in tax dollars and help support your salaries.”
Lampl showed the board members video clips of both a high-end sports car and a truck creating noise as the drivers maneuvered them on downtown streets. While the truck noise heard from his cell phone was at the 70-decibel level, he said, the residents hear that vehicle noise at the 90-decibel level.
Yet other clips depicted music and sports reports emanating from downtown businesses.
“Now you have some idea of what it’s like to live downtown,” Lampl pointed out.
John Harshman, who noted that he is a 52-year resident of the city, acknowledged that he does not live downtown, but he owns property downtown; his tenants are either retail businesses or offices.
His many years in the city, he said, had given him a historical perspective that he could provide to the commission. “In 1998,” he noted, “the city was a completely different place.” The area north of Fruitville Road was blighted, Harshman added, for an example.
The commissioners seated at that time “believed wholeheartedly that if you brought residents [into that area],” it would improve.
“It’s the residents that provide the foundational lifeblood for downtown,” he stressed.
In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, he noted, quite a few clubs were located downtown; he cited a number of examples. They were “filled with people at night,” he added, and then the people would go home. Downtown even had a grocery store on Main Street at one point, Harshman said. “But we didn’t have that one key component, and that was the residents.”
The vitality for which downtown Sarasota is known today is a result of the influx of residents, he stressed. Residents have done a lot of research, he pointed out, in regard to sound ordinance provisions. They have strived for a balance, Harshman said. He urged the commissioners, “Listen to the downtown residents. They’re the ones that have invested heavily in downtown.”
A third speaker, John Simon, who lives in the condominium complex at 1350 Main St., talked about the construction noise already pervading downtown, with more projects to come. He noted that weekend noise on top of weekday noise is an issue with which the residents have to contend. “The burden of this noise falls largely on full-time residents of Sarasota … and if the noise gets too bad and drives the full-time residents away, you could end up with a downtown that’s totally filled with snowbirds.”
Two snowbirds who recently returned to Sarasota from New York City told him, Simon continued, that downtown Sarasota has a worse problem with noise than New York.
Later, Commissioner Battie took issue with that statement. “I lived in New York City,” he pointed out. “There’s no way on this green Earth that you’re going to convince me that Sarasota’s louder than New York City.”
Simon advocated for an 11 p.m. cutoff seven days a week for the higher citywide decibel level. He showed the commissioners a chart that compared Sarasota’s daytime sound restriction to those of other Florida cities. “We’re clearly near the highest decibel level, and much higher than many other cities.”
On the other side of the issue, Paul Mattison, owner of Mattison’s City Grille, which has stood on the Lemon Avenue Mall for 23 years, explained, “We built our business on helping to create a lively downtown Sarasota.”
City commissioners decades ago came to him about opening a restaurant on Lemon Avenue, he said. “There was not any residential in that area at all” at the time, Mattison noted.
He told those commissioners that he envisioned a European-style café with a bar, plus live music in the evenings. When he asked if the music would disturb anyone, Mattison continued, the commissioners told him, “ ‘No, you’re in the downtown core.’ They had different designations for different areas of downtown …”
He added that the downtown core comprised “mostly businesses, and [those commissioners] wanted a lively restaurant-entertainment district. And that’s what we created.”
Mattison always has made it clear to his downtown neighbors that if they are bothered by the music to give him a call, he said. “ ‘We’ll adjust,’ ” he tells them.
“It can’t be the businesses against the residents,” he stressed of the concerns over noise. “It has to be a lifestyle that we all want downtown.”
Moreover, Mattison pointed out, “When someone chooses to live in an urban area,” they should expect to be exposed to a different noise level than if they were a resident on Longboat Key, for example.
“It comes down to enforcement at the end of the day,” he said.
David Lough, president of the Downtown Sarasota Condominium Association (DSCA), noted that he was speaking for himself, having found it impossible to win full agreement among the DSCA board members for an endorsement of any of the proposed Sound Ordinance revisions.
Lough did provide some levity in his remarks, telling the commissioners that discussions of the topic reminded him of a sign that he recently had seen. It said, “I’m not tequila; I can’t keep everybody happy.”
Following the public comments, the commissioners engaged in more than an hour of exchanges with former City Attorney Fournier, asking numerous questions about various facets of the proposed changes, before voting on the various motions.