Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-03-NAC-min Town of Lexington, MA Noise Advisory Committee (NAC) Minutes of Meeting, December 3, 2024 Town of Lexington Noise Advisory Committee (NAC) Minutes of Meeting, November 4,2024 The meeting of the Noise Advisory Committee (“NAC”) was held in person in the Parker Room of the Town Office Building and on Zoom on Monday, November 4, 2024 and called to order at 7:01 PM. Members present: Barbara Katzenberg (Chair) (BK), Benjamin Lees (BL), Laura Rosen (LR), Elaine Rudell (ER). Other attendees: Joe Pato (JP) (Select Board Liaison), Ralph Clifford (RC), Jamie Banks (JB), Rick Reibstein (RR), Joseph Campbell (JC), Jay Flynn Introduction and Announcements. 1. BK was assigned as Clerk for this meeting 2. BK announced that a part-time compliance officer to enforce the GLB ban has been hired and Chief McLean confirmed that they will work during the spring cleanup season. The compliance officer will report to Capt. Christopher Barry. 3. BK reported on the approval of new multifamily housing on Concord Ave on a parcel that will require significant ledge work. In public hearings, noise and vibration issues were raised and the developer appeared willing to extend the area of pre-blast surveys to 300’ and to have contractors use “white noise” back-up alarms on construction vehicles. Ralph Clifford on Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) request for updates to Noise Bylaw 1. RC: As written the Noise Bylaw could cost the Town and special permit applicants a lot of money 2. We’re being asked to deny permit applications unless it can be shown the project wouldn’t result in a Noise Bylaw violation. This would require hiring an acoustic engineer for the applicant but also one to help the ZBA to evaluate the claims. 3. When a project before the ZBA (e.g., a deck close to the lot line) is seen as likely to be problematic to the neighbors (visual, noise, other intrusions) the ZBA would require mitigation, but not for every project. Or if a decision is appealed because of problems we would evaluate then—but not at the permitting stage. 4. Right now, because of the recent Land Court decision it’s required that we consider noise for any special permit or variance—but it’s hard to predict the noise impact before something is built 5. The second issue is that the bylaw specifies 10 dBA (above ambient) and that is not a lot of sound. We know kids playing make a lot of sound, but most of us consider that good sound, not noise. Would like relevant bodies to review what the level is at which we should act. Also consider the time. We do for construction but not for other kinds of noise, e.g., kids playing at 4 in the afternoon is different than at 12:30 AM. 6. BK: Have you had to tell any applicants yet that they need to do this? RC: No the only special permit was for a structure very far from abutters. Building Department is designing a new form to identify cases where there might be a need for professional measurement-e.g., touching the setback line. 1 7. BL: Did the Land Court say it was the applicant’s burden to demonstrate that their use would not violate the bylaw? RC: In this case (a batting cage) they determined that it was violating the bylaw. The Land Court scolded the ZBA for not considering the noise consequences (as well as all other town bylaws). 8. LR: I see that acoustical measures were taken to buttress the complaint, but not why these measures need to be taken in advance. RC: That is what we are being asked to do. 9. BK We/Town Meeting are being asked to modify the bylaw to make it less vulnerable. 10. JP: Trying to think if there are cases where ZBA should be considering noise for example an industrial site with new construction near to the setback with predictably noisy air handlers. RC: Of course, in dealing with a special permit we have to balance between the owner’s right to do what they want versus the consequences to the town and noise is part of that. Takeda example of modification to a special permit in which discussion about the noise consequences were held. But we’d like <the NAC> to help with what they think the balance should be. Because the ZBA doesn’t do engineering or prediction of noise. We get involved is for an enforcement action. If the Building Department says yes or no the appeal comes to us. 11. RC: The ZBA is not a policy-making body. We can only ask policy making bodies to take a look at it. We think change is needed in Chapter 80 (Noise) and another in Chapter 135 (Zoning) 12. JP: It has been given to Town Counsel to advise policy-making bodies. Dr. Jamie Banks, Founder and President of Quiet Communities, Inc 1. Became interested in problem of noise from constant GLBs in 2010. Quiet Communities started in 2013, work at the juncture of policy, community, science; 50 people today. RR is head of Legal Advisory Council. We promote quiet as a valuable natural resource, work to reduce harmful noise and pollution. Problem is growing. Have real stars on legal and science advisory side. Do education, outreach, policy & legal initiatives. 2. New widely adopted definition of noise is unwanted and/or harmful sound 3. Noise is the “new secondhand smoke” 4. A-weight decibel is a sterile/inadequate measure. Underweights low frequency components. Many characteristics of sound not just decibels (dripping faucet example)-loudness, repetition, frequency, tonality, time of day, duration etc. 5. Low frequency responsible for majority of complaints (e.g., a boom box), greater health impacts. Carries further and penetrates windows, structures 6. Noise health impacts not just auditory but also sleep disruption, cardiovascular, mental health, metabolic, cognition. (Details and mechanisms presented) 7. Nighttime noise has more pronounced effects, particularly intermittent 8. Noise impairs children’s learning 9. Vets, seniors, people with various conditions, kids & adolescents more vulnerable 10. Noise also affects non-human living organisms 11. Some communities more impacted (e.g., near an airport or highway) 12. Problems long known. Currently-no federally funded education, research, product labeling, no enforcement of existing regulations, no new regulations, no quiet product program. Originally noise was included as part of Clean Air Act of 1970. But, in 1982 2 Noise Control and Abatement programs defunded. Lost institutional knowledge in EPA 13. Hard for Quiet Communities to pick up the slack, trying to get the issue back on the national agenda. Work with media, also have sued EPA over lack of regulation after some unproductive discussions. Waiting on the courts 14. RR: (also part of Sustainable Lexington). Want to give Dave Pinsonneault credit. Brought Jamie to a presentation and he immediately acted on getting electric equipment to try. Also want to add the emotional stress people feel when they are beset by noise and there is no recourse. Often a large entity (e.g., coal mine, steel mill) is the source and no one wants to go up against them. A theme is ventilators, air compressors, data centers. Noise from these machines is predictable. You don’t have to be a sound engineer to ask questions. There are things that can be done! 15. JB: Also people don’t know what it is like to experience noise. Gives example of writer who criticized people trying to do a GLB ban until he experienced it directly. 16. RR: Environmental Justice communities experience this to a greater degree. There are existing solutions. 17. BK: You said decibel is poor measure. We asked the noise mitigation specialist who spoke here what measures should we use. To you, are there measures we should be using in our bylaw that would be better? 18. JB: Consider noise with low frequency components. At minimum people should be able to go into their house and close the doors and windows and have a semblance of peace and quiet. There are some ordinances that simply talk about what’s “reasonable.” 19. BK: There was work done on the bylaw last year and some consideration of removing “reasonable” but the conclusion was you have to have it. 20. LR Are there any examples you can recommend? Has Lincoln done a good job? JB: Lincoln doesn’t have a noise ordinance. Tried for 7 years and finally got a summer GLB restriction—which is not enforced. The city of Elkhart, IN had a very strong law and fines were a revenue generator for the city. But it fell apart. Generally who should be penalized who should enforce it are difficult. 21. BK: Re the metric question-we should use measures that reflect what people experience, and it sounds like decibel is not good for that. 22. BL: Why A-weighted decibel? JB: It’s what our ears are best at hearing and for so long the focus was on auditory impact, and it became the standard. But it has been widely criticized 23. JC: In previous NACs we spent a lot of time looking at measures. But most have their roots in hearing damage, OSHA regs. There is a rating level for measuring annoyance, These use penalties based on noise type, e.g. impulsive which is a narrow band of noise. But the problem is they have a subjective component (so- called rating level in the B & K Environmental noise brochure) When Lawrence Copley does a noise survey he’s measuring rating levels. These 3 rating values can make all the difference in the world. Iin the past for NAC, we were hoping to look at more sophisticated measures that are reflective of the effect on quality of life and health. But the challenge is enforceability—some measures are difficult to understand and easy to misapply. That’s one reason the GLB ordinance degraded into simply asking whether the LB had a gasoline tank on it. You can design quieter GLBS, so it’s unfair but it is enforceable. 3 24. BK: Ledge work part of bylaw does have a measurement component. But it could be that what the noise mitigation specialist is measuring is not exactly what it says in the bylaw but what he believes is important to measure. JC: Yes I think he would be measuring a superset of what is in the bylaw-and maybe that’s a good thing. 25. JC: An important comment by RR was that there is a whole field of engineering focused on making things less noisy, less harmful. The simplest one is the number of blades used in a fan has a direction connection with the spectrum of noise it generates. Related working on designing quiet propellers for drones. People using the equipment and profiting should invest in more responsible technology that is less damaging. Acoustical Society of America many presentations on different noise mitigation strategies and designing quieter products. Grad students all over the country are working on problems of noise and vibration-though not necessarily products available yet. 26. RR: Re the need for measurable, objective truth-Maybe we don’t need to measure the noise maybe it’s enough to say people are suffering. If they are complaining repeatedly and more than one person is complaining then you have an issue. The specific level may be important but not to start the intervention. 27. BK: Usually people making noise are doing something that is valuable to them. People want to do construction involving ledge removal. RR: But have they taken steps to mitigate? The quantitative question can be postponed. BK but our case is construction where we know it’s going to be noisy, we want them to mitigate, and we have to provide context for them. Do we just say to the noise mitigation specialist- you’re certified, you know what to do, or do we provide them some framework? RR: If the plan is boilerplate you kick it back and ask for something more tailored. 28. JB How about if you say to people, if there are problems are you willing to put people up in a hotel? (LR suggested this in previous meeting.) 29. JB: Last point, when people are exposed to repeated noise—the damage they suffer is exacerbated. The initial noise overwhelms the ability of your system to recover so when you hear that repeated noise you get even more damage. th Minutes of the September 11 and November 4 Meeting were approved Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM. The next meeting is January 7, 2025, at 7pm. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Katzenberg 4