Laserfiche WebLink
enforcing the noise ordinance though. There have been other issues and other tactics <br />that we had taken to address the problems. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: We can move on. I just know personally in my neighborhood <br />there was a party shut down because the noise was so loud that they did show up —a <br />different code enforcement officer, but they did close it down. I don't want to beat this to <br />death. <br />Beaudin: The difference is, there's code enforcement and there's police response. Our <br />code enforcement officer is not responding to disturbing the peace calls. There's a <br />possibility that if he was on a shift and a call like that came in that he may ask for some <br />support, but there's the difference between being out there with a noise meter and <br />determining a violation and people creating a nuisance in the neighborhood. Typically, <br />there's a fork in the road there for who responds and how you respond. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: Code enforcement would not want to respond 10 o'clock at <br />night. <br />Beaudin: Correct, exactly. He's at home with his family at that point in time. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: Okay, and limited too. <br />Commissioner Allen: I have a simple question. In your proposal about discriminating <br />between Mason events and non -Mason events, how would neighbors or how would we <br />know which kind of event it was to know whether they were in compliance or not? <br />Before you answer, my reason for asking is I went on the Mason's site today because <br />know they had committed several years ago with Brian Dolan the posting of all of their <br />events. I noticed that the last event posted was May 4th. So even today, they're not <br />posting. I wasn't able to see the events to even know there was an event going on as <br />they had committed to doing. But, bottom line, how would one know what kind of event <br />it is to know whether they were in violation if we have separate parameters around <br />those? <br />Weinstein: So we acknowledge that the Masons have not been completely consistent in <br />enforcing the voluntary measures that were suggested a couple of years ago so we <br />definitely understand that. One of the objectives of this CUP relook is to codify those <br />voluntary measures plus some additional measures that we've identified to make sure <br />that they actually happen. So if there was an event at the Masonic Lodge in the outdoor <br />area and a neighbor complained, we would investigate the complaint. One of the things <br />that we would look at in investigating the complaint would be the event calendar that, <br />per these conditions of approval that we're recommending, the Masons would need to <br />update. If we found that there wasn't an event that happened, say, on a certain <br />weekend and that event wasn't listed on that schedule, that would be a violation of the <br />conditional use permit and we would seek to rectify that. So we get the fact that the <br />events log hasn't been consistently updated, but the updating of the schedule would be <br />something we would expect as part of this CUP modification. <br />Chair Ritter: Go ahead, you haven't had a turn. <br />EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 8 of 52 <br />