Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-04-NAC-min.pdf 1 Town of Lexington, MA Noise Advisory Committee (NAC) Minutes of Meeting, September 4 2025 The meeting of the Noise Advisory Committee (“NAC”) was held in the Parker Room of the Town Office Building on Thursday September 4, 2025 and called to order at 7:03 PM. Members present: Barbara Katzenberg (Chair) (BK), Benjamin Lees (BL), Laura Rosen (LR). Also present: Joe Pato (Select Board liaison). 1. APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE: BK to be the Chair of NAC for the coming year 2. Police Department noise complaints and news including the resignation of Code Compliance officer Susan Kale were reviewed (Appendix A) 3. Complaints to the Building Department as communicated by Building Commissioner James Kelly were reviewed: 39 Somerset Road, 6 Sheridan Road, 4 Great Rock Road— all involved hammering of ledge 4. APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE: The committee reviewed, modified and approved a letter written by BK concerning the potential for construction noise at a proposed multifamily housing development at 952 Waltham Street (Appendix B). We discussed to what degree the NAC can or should be monitoring future construction projects for their potential for noise disturbance, but with no conclusions. 5. Photo for Annual Report was not taken due to two missing members of NAC 6. Reviewed a query that came into the NAC mailbox concerning a constantly barking dog. BK will write back citing the relevant bylaw section (9-1) and how to complain via the Police Department 7. APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE: Minutes from May and August 2025 The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 PM BK, Clerk Appendix A (Noise complaints to the Police Department) Police Department Noise Meeting Summer 2025 The Noise Advisory Committee is responsible for quarterly review of noise complaints made to the town. On August 26th, NAC Chair Barbara Katzenberg met with Police Captain Christopher Barry to review complaints that had come into the Police Department between June 1 and August 26, 2025. The Police Department documents all calls, and categorizes them by type. For the NAC’s purposes the three main categories of interest are general noise such as house parties (code 937), gas-powered leaf blower violations (code 455), and other Town Bylaw (451) which include complaints around time/day of construction work. Noise Complaints June 1-August 26 2 Type Code Count GLB Bylaw 455 45 Town Bylaw-Other 451 13 Noise (not Bylaw) 937 18 Detail: Of the 45 complaints around GLBs, only some involved actual bylaw violations. Some upon investigation were people using electric blowers, or people using blowers for other purposes. The Noise bylaw as written allows other use of blower equipment for mosquito control or construction site clean-up. The outcome of many calls was “Gone on Arrival” i.e., no one was found working when the officer arrived to investigate. In the case where landscapers using GLBs were found, the officers most often reminded the company of the bylaw's requirements. In a handful of cases, citations were issued to homeowners. Of the 13 other Bylaw complaints, most involved complaints about the time and day construction work was occurring. These were resolved simply with an officer advising them of the hour restrictions and the workers quickly wrapping up their work. Of the Code 937 calls, most involved house parties, particularly around the time of graduation. Most were resolved quickly with a visit from an officer asking people to turn their music down or if the party was outdoors to move their celebrations inside. Code Compliance Office Position The part-time code compliance officer, Susan Kale, who began work to help educate and enforce the noise bylaw in March, has resigned. The Police Department hopes to fill in the position before the most active part of the fall cleanup season. In the meantime, Police Department officers are filling in as they did during times the code compliance officer wasn’t working over the past six months. Appendix B (52 Waltham Street) The following statement was approved by the Noise Advisory Committee on September 4th, 2025: The Noise Advisory Committee has reviewed plans for the townhouses at 952 Waltham Street and have concerns about the potential for extended periods of ledge-removal noise as part of the construction of Units 1, 2, and 3. At the August 13 public hearing, applicant representative Dave Robinson said that they had encountered ledge during the work to create test pits. He called it a “diving ledge” which we take to mean that it is high in some areas and then drops down much lower elsewhere on site. In answer to a public question about the possibility of doing blasting he said that he didn’t anticipate doing blasting because of proximity to residents and that they would instead be chipping the ledge away with a hammer. Two concerns arise for us. First, given the lack of analysis of how much ledge exists, it cannot be estimated whether work will take weeks or even months. The main area of ledge is assumed 3 to be on the hillside up to the setback line that needs to be graded down to make room for Units 1, 2, 3. Spot elevation 2 on the Average Natural Grade Worksheet shows a difference of greater than 18 feet between the existing and the proposed elevation (271.5’ elevation existing versus 253.5’ proposed). The applicant should be asked to provide detailed estimates of the amount of material to be removed. While we understand that a total precision is not possible, better prediction of the amount of ledge in that area would be helpful in understanding the likely length of time the work will take Second, we question the statement that blasting would not be possible this close to residences. We understand blasting methodology to be very sophisticated at this point and certified companies who are working in Lexington take on liability and thus are best suited to determine where the work can be done safely. There are projects in Lexington where blasting has been safely performed much closer to abutting residences than the 952 Waltham Street hillside is to its neighbors. If the amount of ledge to removed is large and blasting is possible we expect it would be significantly less disruptive to nearby neighbors. We ask that this option be investigated. If a hammer is the chosen methodology for bringing the area to the desired grade, we hope the applicant can show that this is work that can be completed in a few weeks at most. The issue with hammering is not just its loudness but also that it is an “impulse noise” which has greater implications for health and annoyance than continuous sound. Health issues associated with noise go beyond risk of hearing loss.1 Whatever method is chosen, the Planning Department should require a preliminary assessment of the amount of ledge to be removed. If that amount can be reasonably expected to span more than 7 days, a preliminary Noise Mitigation Plan should be requested. This would have the additional benefit of not requiring a work stoppage to develop a plan from scratch if it is later found to be necessary. On a separate noise topic, we request that all construction equipment used on site be equipped with “white-noise “ (multifrequency) backup alarms. 1 https://www.apha.org/policy-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-briefs/policy-database/2022/01/07/noise- as-a-public-health-hazard