HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-01-NAC-min Vf
�xrc.cc?,
Town of Lexington, MA
Noise Advisory Committee (NAC)
Minutes of Meeting, October 1, 2024
The meeting of the Noise Advisory Committee ("NAC") was held in person and on Zoom in the
Select Board Room of the Town Office Building on Tuesday October 1, 2024 and called to order
at 7:11 PM.
NAC Members Present: Barbara Katzenberg (BK), Chair, Sallye Bleiberg—remotely (SB),
Benjamin Lees (BL), and Joe Pato (JP), Select Board Liaison
Introduction and Administration
1. BK was assigned as clerk for this meeting.
2. BK announced that the next meeting will be Monday November 4th at 7 PM (note change
from regular Tuesday meeting day)
Committee Business
1. BK announced that a noise mitigation expert who has been working on Lexington
construction projects will present at the November meeting. BK provided him with some
initial questions and asked any members who had specific questions they think of in
advance to send them to her and she would forward them on.
2. BK announced that for the December meeting, Dr Jamie Banks, who started Quiet
Communities and worked with Lexington on the gas-powered leaf blower (GLB) phase out
article wis scheduled to speak.
3. BK announced that she met with Select Board member, Jill Hai, about a project that is has
been initiated by the Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (MAGIC) group
within the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) to scan noise bylaws across the
region with the deliverable of the project will be a noise ordinance toolkit and
recommendations for local and statewide noise policies including best practices.
4. Review of noise bylaws of other towns
a. BL review of Wellesley: In 2009 passed what was described as a noise control
ordinance, but doesn't regulate noise as such, just hours of certain commercial
activities-construction, earth moving, yard maintenance, home improvement,
delivery and pickup of equipment. Limits to M-F 7AM to 7 PM and Saturday 8AM
to 7 PM, prohibited on Sunday. But does not apply to what residents can
undertake on their own property. Beyond that, there's state law. (10 dB(A) over
ambient)
b. SB review of Natick. Little there. No GLB, only construction. Looser than
Lexington's; hours are longer and they can even do work on Saturdays and
Sundays, except start time is 8 AM (later than weekdays). Holidays not
mentioned. Fine of$300 but didn't mention if it was per offense.
c. BK review of Cambridge-not fully reviewed but by comparison much more
complete.
i. Leaf blowers
1. Allowable seasonal dates comparable
Vf
�xrc.cc?,
2. City employees & contractors exempted from restrictions, not in
Lexington
3. Require commercial operators to get a permit which Lexington
does not
4. Require owners of multiple properties to submit a full operation
plan
5. Equipment standards and sound levels are measured at 50',
which Lexington does not do (measured at property line). JP: The
equipment I looked at did not have ratings for 50' they had sound
levels at the operator's ears (OSHA)
6. Limit the number of blowers operating at once
7. Phase out dates for commercial and homeowners reversed from
Lexington-resident phase out first. For 4-stroke walk-behind
(which Lexington does not yet phase out in the bylaw) Cambridge
will phase out when technically and financially feasible.
8. Both Lexington & Cambridge have a process for special permit.
Criteria to be evaluated are hardship to comply and impact (e.g.,
to neighbors) of not complying.
ii. Construction noise
1. Metrics-Cambridge uses the L,o measure in addition to dB(A)
addressing sound levels in a more detailed way than Lexington.
a. JP: L,o was discussed during the updates made this year,
but it was too complex to address—so up to a group like
this one to think about these options more deeply.
b. BK: One our primary responsibilities is to understand the
measurements & metrics that are out there and to figure
out which ones are practical and are most meaningful in
terms of how sound affects people.
c. BK: Cambridge also has different allowable sound levels at
property boundaries, they differentiate by whether the
affected adjoining properties are residential, commercial,
or industrial.And overall their allowable levels are lower.
For dB(A) out top allowable level is 85 dB(A) for all
affected property types. Whereas Cambridge has a limit of
75 dB(A) when the affected property is residential.And
given that this is a logarithmic scale, that is a significant
difference (10-fold difference). I would like to understand if
they can make it work. Because if they can make it work,
we should be able to make it work
2. Types of noise
a. Cambridge does not differentiate the type of noise-creating
activity. Lexington only requires a noise mitigation plan and
logging of complaints for projects where there will be ledge
work, and then only if > 7 days.Although Building
Commissioner can always require a noise mitigation plan if
deemed necessary. JP: in Lexington you always have to
Vf
�xrc.cc?,
meet the general 85 dB(A) limit, but you don't have to have
a noise abatement plan.
3. Responsible entities for enforcement are similar
4. Penalties are different-Ours go from $100 to $200 to $300.
Whereas theirs is $300 from the first offence and they spell out the
possibility of prosecution and restraining order and the revocation
of the permit. Would we be able to take those steps if it wasn't in
our bylaw?
a. JP: I don't think we'd be allowed to but would have to
check. Cities and towns are different in their leeway.
Feedback I have gotten from staff is it is expensive to take
to court and courts don't look favorably on pursuing this
type of complaint.
b. BL: Injunctive relief, if the state law permits, that could be a
possibility for persistent violators. It means you go to a
court and the judge says I'm ordering you to stop doing
this thing that you are doing and if you violate this order
you could be imprisoned or otherwise punished.At that
point if you violate an injunction that is contempt of court—
either civil or criminal contempt. Whether you would run
into the same issues of judges saying Why are you wasting
my time—I don't know.
c. BK: It seems a lot of the Building Commissioner's work is
informal and educational and we expect developers to
want to have a continued good relationship with town and
will make an effort to comply.
5. Next steps-continue to reviewing noise bylaws of other municipalities. BK to look at other
municipalities in the area to find ones that are more substantive. She will then with
others' agreement assign these out for further review.
6. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM
The next meeting is November 4th, 2024, at 7pm.
Respectfully submitted, Barbara Katzenberg