2024-03-31 PL-CCI-2024-000003 Bill 121 Brooke Boyce Testimony

Home

From: Brooke Boyce To: WPCtestimony Subject: Critical Evaluation of Quiet Hour Regulations in Bill 121 Date: Sunday,March 31,2024 6:23:29 PM Chairperson Lin and Members of the Commission, I extend my greetings to you and the esteemed members of the Commission. As an individual deeply committed to our community's ethos and as a homeowner who, with my husband Austin, regularly opens our hosted home to visitors, I am prompted to discuss the unreasonable quiet hour regulations proposed within Bill 121. Together, we contribute to the local hospitality sector through our hosted short-term rental property. Drawing upon my extensive background in education and analysis, I wish to address a specific aspect of the proposed quiet hour regulations within Bill 121 that warrants critical examination. The stipulation of quiet hours from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. in the current draft of the bill raises significant concerns regarding its practical implementation,particularly in distinguishing between periods when our property hosts guests and when it serves solely as our private residence. Last summer's incident, wherein a family's peaceful celebration, in line with state noise regulations, could now risk noncompliance, exemplifies the potential for misinterpretation under the new regulation. Moreover, the inherent challenge lies in our neighbors' ability to differentiate between the presence of guests and our personal use of the property. Without clear indicators, the proposed quiet hours impose an undue constraint on our fundamental rights to enjoy our home. The question arises: Should we, as homeowners, be subjected to the same restrictions during periods without guests? This lack of distinction appears both unfair and unreasonable, undermining the balance between hosting responsibilities and personal liberties. To address these concerns, I advocate for the following amendments to Bill 121: 1. Clarification within the Definition of Quiet Hours: It is imperative that the bill includes specific language to clarify that the quiet hour restrictions apply distinctly to periods of guest occupancy. Such clarification would alleviate concerns of overreach into the homeowners'private lives and ensure that the regulation is enforceable in a manner that respects the rights of property owners. Alternatively, as state law already defines quiet hours by zone, I would propose removing this additional restriction entirely from the bill. 2. Objective Noise Criteria: Establishing objective, measurable criteria for noise disturbances would provide a transparent and fair standard for enforcement. This approach would prevent subjective interpretations that could lead to inconsistent applications of the law,thereby protecting both community tranquility and individual freedoms. This could be done by measuring noise decibel levels at the property line (as police often do) instead of being arbitrarily measured by a neighbors opinion of"being disturbed". By implementing these adjustments, Bill 121 would more accurately reflect the dual nature of hosted short-term rental properties. This distinction is crucial for maintaining a fair and balanced relationship between short-term rental operations and residential norms. Our community thrives on its ability to welcome visitors with warmth while preserving the quality of life for its residents. Ensuring that our regulatory framework supports this balance is essential for the continued prosperity of our local economy and the fabric of our community life. I appreciate your dedication to thoughtful and equitable governance and look forward to your consideration of these proposals.