The Pennsylvania lawmaker who proposed an amendment to the state liquor code only wanted to let wineries turn their music up a notch.

Instead, a mistake in the amendment’s text caused a ruckus in Pittsburgh’s City Council.

Councilmen Bill Peduto and Bruce Kraus introduced a resolution Tuesday that expressed their opposition to an amendment proposed in the State House of Representatives. The amendment would have altered Pennsylvania’s liquor code — which applies to restaurants, bars and other establishments that hold liquor licenses  — so that the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, an agency within the state police, could no longer issue citations for noise violations.

Peduto and Kraus asserted in their drafted resolution that “current state law empowers LCE to cite licensees for having amplified music that can be heard outside of the licensee’s premise, thereby protecting the property owners and residents that are located within close proximity to the offending establishment.”

Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Petri, R-Bucks, said that he intended for the amendment to apply to licensed wineries, which tend to be in rural areas, in order to make it easier for them to hold outdoor festivals with live music.

Petri said that he withdrew the amendment Tuesday because of a mistake in the drafting of the text. Instead of wineries, the amendment — as it was written — would have applied to all establishments with liquor licenses.

Under the current liquor code, state police can cite a restaurant or bar where amplified music is audible while the door is open.

Kraus said that this regulation helps maintain public order.

Kraus said that if the agency has cited an establishment four or five times for noise violations, and it is coming up for renewal of its liquor license — which happens every two years in Pennsylvania — there is a written record of the violations that can therefore be used at a hearing. 

“So when you do come up for renewal, that is one of the more effective tools to limit a problematic license from being renewed,” he said. “[The amendment] takes away the record that would be established by the LCE of these violations.”

Lynn Benka-Davies said municipal governments criticized the proposed amendment because they feared it would prevent them from pursuing nuisance properties. 

“We got some input from the the Pittsburgh City Council and other organizations around the state, and there was much concern about how it was going to affect communities,” she said.

Petri said that, even though he meant for the amendment to apply solely to wineries, he doesn’t personally believe communities in Pennsylvania should rely on state police resources to enforce noise regulations, but should decide what levels of noise are acceptable on their own.

“Why not let the locals handle it?” he asked, rhetorically.