2021-09-02-NAC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Dan reviewed the process by which comments would be received and noted that participants would be provided with 3 minutes for presentations to ensure that everyone present at the meeting would have an opportunity to speak. The following summarizes input received as participants joined the meeting: • An individual asked questions regarding the proposed enforcement of regulations related to GLB noise. Several issues were discussed on this topic including the difficulty of obtaining reliable measurements of potential sound violations. It was noted that the current proposal focuses on the decibel ratings of equipment used to alleviate enforcement issues. Vicki also noted that she had reached out to the Town of Aspen which confirmed that Aspen's noise by-law had been difficult to enforce. • Archana, of Sustainable Lexington, confirmed that organization's endorsement of the NAC's GLB proposal. She made a short presentation summarizing the damaging impacts of GLBs (noise, harm to wildlife,toxic emissions,worker harm). Discussion focused on the differences between GLBs and electric leaf blowing equipment and it was noted that electric equipment is slightly less powerful and less damaging to wildlife. The Committee also discussed the differences between two and four stroke engines and noted that the impact of working everyday with the very toxic emissions generated by two stroke leaf blowers had the most significant impact on landscape workers. Archana clarified that noise mitigation was also important and confirmed that Sustainable Lexington supported all aspects of the NACs proposal in that regard. • Local landscaper Mike Crugnale expressed several concerns with the proposal including the mechanics of enforcement and whether the proposed bylaw would apply to all construction noise. Dan explained that the proposal was narrowly tailored and was intended as a response to complaints received about GLB noise, not construction noise (or,for example,tree work). Dan also noted that construction noise (including rock breaking) was dealt with separately in provisions added the by-law last year. • Mike also expressed concern about enforcement against illegal operators in the Town who provide landscaping services without paying taxes or observing local ordinances. Members of the Committee noted that fines would also be levied against homeowners for breaches of the noise bylaw.Vicki noted that other communities have or are requiring licensing of landscape operators in their towns. The concept of a permitting system was also discussed. • Mike noted that a longer transition period for landscapers to convert to electric equipment would be preferred. He stated that a 4-year transition period would be ideal. Following the conclusion of open discussion with meeting participants,the Committee moved to outstanding business items. 4. Other Business