Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-04-NAC-min RECEIVED Town of Lexington 2021 02 P"SCO, 9AA, HIII 'm TOWN CLERK Noise Advisory Committee(NAC) LEXINGTON MA Minutes of Meeting November 4,2021 A meeting of the Noise Advisory Committee ("NAC")was held via Zoom videoconference on Wednesday November 4, 2021, at 7:00 PM.A quorum of three members was present. NAC Members Present: Dan Koretz (Chair), Vicki Blier, Nick Afshartous, Stewart Smith, April Wang Others Present:Joe Campbell, Mark Sandeen (Select Board), Suzie Barry(Select Board), 19 members of the Public, Landscapers and Town Meeting Members 1. Introductory Remarks Dan convened the meeting at 7:00 pm and took the roll of NAC members in attendance. After calling the meeting to order he referred to the posted agenda for the meeting. He observed that November 3rd had been the last date to submit changes to Article 10. However, in light of recent issues raised by members of the public,Town representatives and landscapers (subsequent to the NAC's October 20, 2021, meeting) he indicated that the NAC had received permission to submit final revisions on November 51n Dan noted that there were a number of attendees at the meeting aside from NAC members. He stated that the Committee would begin by considering and deciding any outstanding issues ahead of finalizing the Warrant Article. Depending on how long this aspect of the meeting took, the balance of the meeting time would be dedicated to an open meeting for comments and feedback. Dan asked that all non-NAC members remain muted until that time. He also reminded all in attendance to maintain decorum at all stages of the meeting. 2. Approval of Minutes The Committee reviewed Minutes from the October 20, 2021, meeting of the NAC which had been posted on Slack in draft form. Dan moved that the Minutes be approved, and the motion was seconded by Nick. Following a roll-call vote, the motion was carried unanimously. 3. Outstanding Issues a. Confusion regarding definition of Landscape Equipment Dan noted that several landscapers had recently expressed concern regarding the extent to which Article 10 potentially could restrict landscaping equipment other than GLBs: in particular, gas-powered lawn mowers. Secondly, there had also been recently articulated concerns about the decibel ratings of GLB's and how these ratings were confusing (e.g., whether measured "at the ear" or at 50 ft). Dan stated that Article 10 did not affect landscape equipment other than GLBs. However, given the possibility that these issues could continue to result in confusion over what noise level was permitted, Dan discussed a potential Motion which would have the effect of removing all references to noise in Article 10. He briefed those in attendance on the background to the proposed 78 dB limit and the fact that the NAC had deliberately set the limit at 78clB, unlike other local Towns (some of whom have lower dB limits)to ensure that most GLBs remained legal. Dan also noted on the issue of enforcement by the Town, Acting Chief of Police McLean had stated that enforcement of permitted dates and times of GLB usage was preferred to an enforcement approach based on noise levels and the interpretation and measurement thereof. Motion Dan moved that all references to sound/noise levels in the current Article 10 be removed.The motion was seconded by Nick and after deliberation and consideration by the Committee a rollcall vote was taken, and the Motion was approved unanimously. b. Phaseout Date for GLBs Dan noted that the Lexington Board of Health recently endorsed Article 10. Vicki then spoke to the issue of phasing out GLBs in Lexington. She noted that the State of California has now resolved to ban all GLB's state-wide as of 2024. She stated that it appeared fair to provide local landscapers with more time to run down/depreciate their gas-powered equipment. She suggested that adding an extra year prior to phase-out (moving the phase-out date to 2025)would be appropriate. Mark added that the intent of the extension would be to provide a further year to local landscapers following the CA ban. Dan referenced a recent discussion with a landscaper, the latter of whom indicated that while he recognized the inevitability of a conversion to BLBs and other equipment, he was also nervous about the date of conversion coming too soon. Nick noted that if a change was made to the phaseout period, the NAC's materials online and those that had been sent to Town Meeting members (and others)would need to be re-sent. Vicki observed that, in her view, local residents were more interested in knowing that a phaseout will eventually take place, even if the current date were to be extended. The Committee discussed the possible change and after deliberation the following Motion was made: Motion Vicki made a motion that the Committee extend the phase-out date from 2024 to 2025.The motion was seconded by Dan and following further deliberation a roll-call vote was taken and the Motion carried 3— 2 on the following basis: In Favor Against Dan April Vicki Nick Stewa rt c. Impact of GLB Phaseout Timing on Residents Dan noted that concerns had recently been expressed as to whether resident use of GLBs should be treated differently for the purpose of GLIB phaseout timing. It had been pointed out that it may take longer for resident users to run down their equipment. Dan asked that the Committee consider whether residents should be provided more time than landscapers prior to GLIB phaseout. In light of this concern, Dan suggested that residents be provided with a ten (10) year period to run down their personal GLIB equipment. He noted that the number of resident GLIB users was expected to be a small number. Concerning potentially protracted noise issues during the 10 year period, he also observed that most resident GLIB users did not run multiple machines simultaneously. The Committee discussed a potential motion along the lines suggested by Dan. Nick noted that a longer phaseout for residents appeared to be more unfair to more people (particularly residents) by permitting continued GLIB noise over an extended period.Vicki suggested that lengthy phaseout period for residents would create additional problems including those related to enforcement. She also stated that the suggested 10-year period was too long. April indicated that she did not support a lengthy phaseout. Stewart suggested that an additional year for residents might provide additional time for running down their equipment but would not be so lengthy as to create further issues. After further discussion,the following motion was made: Motion Stewart moved that resident GLIB users be provided one further year(until 2026)to operate their personal GLB's prior to phaseout of their GLIB usage.The motion was seconded by Dan and following a rollcall vote, the motion carried 4-1 on the following basis: In Favor Against Vicki Nick Dan April Stewa rt d. Conclusion of Spring Clean-up Period Dan stated that questions have been raised as to why the final dates for GLB usage during spring clean- up were different as between the DPW and commercial landscapers. Under the current proposal, the final date for landscapers is May 22nd whereas the final date for DPW is May 31St Dan noted that he has had many conversations with Dave Pinsonnault of the DPW over the past several years during which Dave made it clear that his crews need until the end of May to complete the required Town Clean-up. Dan also noted that the annual date of May 22nd in the current proposal was expressly designed to ensure that the final date for GLB usage during commercial landscaper clean-ups would fall before the Memorial Day weekend. He stated that the use of May 22nd would ensure this. However,the Committee received questions regarding the different dates. Mark stated that certain Select Board Members would prefer if the dates in the draft Article were the same. Vicki suggested that the wording of the Article be altered to use the words "Memorial Day' instead of a fixed date (May 22nd versus May3lst). Vicki also stated that she was not comfortable with the possibility that GLB usage could take place on Memorial Day weekend. Suzie Barry pointed out that the simpler the Committee can make the Article, the better. After deliberation, the following motion was made: Motion Stewart made a motion to change the wording in the draft Article to make the final Spring clean-up date May3lst, the same for both DPW and commercial landscapers.The motion was seconded by Nick and following a rollcall vote, the motion carried 3-1 on the following basis: In Favor Against Abstain Stewart Vicki Dan Nick April e. Board of Health Endorsement Nick asked to review the unanimous endorsement of Article 10 at a recent Board of Health Meeting. Dan displayed the endorsement letter on screen and the Committee discussed the matter. There being no further urgent issues for the Committee's consideration, Dan suggested the Committee take a five-minute break prior to the commencement of the Public Meeting section of the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:03pm and commenced again at 8:10pm. 4. Public Meeting Dan invited the members of the public in attendance to participate in the meeting. • Bob Avallone (TMM Pct 8) stated that he had received push back from several landscapers concerning Article 10. Having listened to the changes made by the NAC to the proposal during the meeting, he indicated that he likes the changes and can support the Article. • Paulette Lamarchia (local landscape company) asked whether the GLB restrictions and phaseout applied to only backpack style GLBs or any GLBs. She also asked about 4 stroke engines versus 2 stroke engines.The Committee discussed these issues and determined there was no basis to exempt one type versus another. Dan indicated that the health issues related to GLBs was significant. He suggested that Paulette could raise these issues at Town Meeting. • David Towers (TMM Pct 5) stated that he was impressed with the work the NAC has undertaken. However, he noted that resident generated GLB noise can be more annoying given that the duration of use may be longer whereas commercial operators (who use several GLBs at a time) can be more efficient and hence less annoying. He noted that this issue amounted to a trade-off. He also advised that he had heard from landscapers that BLB use may take longer and cost more. Dan provided further information to David on these points including the facts that the type of trees on a property may impact efficiency, and he also noted that there were currently landscapers operating in the Town which only use BLBs. David also pointed out that the low frequency noise produced by GLB's was a problem.Joe (who is an acoustical engineer and advisor to the NAC) agreed and explained that as part of his work with the Committee, he had duplicated the sound measurements for GLBs which appeared in the academic literature. There being no further comments from the public Dan asked the Committee to consider further meeting dates. He also noted that the existing materials needed for Town meeting would need to be updated and distributed to all interested and involved parties ahead of Town Meeting 5. Next Meeting The Committee agreed that the next meeting of the NAC take place at 7:00pm on November 10, 2021. A second meeting would be scheduled (following Town Meeting) on November 18, 2021, at 7:00pm. 6. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45pm.