HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-05-NAC-min.pdf
Town of Lexington, MA
Noise Advisory Committee (NAC)
Minutes of Meeting, August 5, 2025
The meeting of the Noise Advisory Committee (“NAC”) was held by Zoom at 7 PM.
NAC Members Present: Barbara Katzenberg (BK), Chair, Benjamin Lees (BL), Laura Rosen
(LR), Elaine Rudell (ER), Joseph Lehar (JL), Joe Pato (JP), Select Board Liaison
Guest: Abbey Judd, Senior Arts and Culture Planner for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council
(MAPC)
AGENDA
1. Announcements
BK called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM, and LR was assigned as clerk for this meeting. BK
introduced the new member of the NAC, Joseph Lehar (pronounced “LAY-har”). The old
committee members introduced themselves to Joseph.
• Elaine Rudell (ER) is in the medical education field
• Laura Rosen (LR) is in biotech
• Benjamin Lees (BL) is a lawyer
• Barbara Katzenberg (BK) has many interests, including Hanscom, conservation, noise, etc.
• Joe Pato is on the Select Board and NAC
• Joseph Lehar is a long-term Lexington resident (almost 30 years) who works in biotech at
the intersection of AI and biological data. He started his career in astrophysics.
2) Recent noise complaints
LR summarized the Select Board (SB) meeting on the Mass Ave construction work (near
Arlington line) at night waiver being requested by the MA Water Resources Authority (MWRA).
No nearby residents attended the SB meeting, although all within 300 feet received notice
letters from the MWRA. The only contact MWRA received was from commercial sites who were
all in favor of doing it at night.
JL suggested the town could ask people to speak to nearby dwellers, as there may be renters
who don’t speak English well and could figure out alternative living arrangements. He recently
had a pickleball noise issue and found that notice distribution can be surprisingly ineffective at
alerting nearby residents. JP was concerned that sending out people to discuss the issue live
could set a precedent that the town would not be able to continue.
The work is estimated to take 3 weeks in September in Lexington followed by another 3 weeks
in Arlington. 160 feet of work will be done in Lexington. Almost all of the abutters are
commercial interests, with a few second-floor residents. BK noted that the mural work in East
Lexington that NAC recently discussed is now done, and no complaints were made about that
evening noise.
BK reached out to the building department to see if any new construction noise complaints have
been made recently. Bill Kelly was not aware of anything new. The most recent complaint was
about the continuation of work at Meriam and Edgewood. BK tries to reach out regularly to
police department – Captain Chris Barry or the operations person – but they were on vacation
this month. The Lexington Observer does reproduce the gas powered leaf blower (GPLB)
complaints, but there have not been many of these over the summer. Susan Cahill is the new
Compliance Officer who works part time and has an educational function, not enforcement.
Complainants still need to call the police the usual way, and the dispatcher would give GPLB
complaints to Susan if she was on duty. BK said it will be helpful for us to get Susan’s
commentary on what her experience has been in so far in educating people. JP noted that he
filed a complaint for a GPLB being used in front of the post office that he did not see recorded in
the Observer. BK noted that ICE efforts have really affected the landscaping community –
they’re scared.
3) Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) – Review of Boston-area municipal noise
bylaws and ordinances by Abbey Judd, Senior Arts and Culture Planner for MAPC
BK introduced Abbey as someone Jill Hai from the SB connected her to. There is an ongoing
effort on the part of the MAPC to look at noise bylaws and ordinances in a more general way.
AJ explained that the MAPC is a regional planning committee that serves 120 towns in greater
Boston area and advises on “where cultural policy meets sound management.” She works
specifically in the humanities and heritage area. The MAPC works with cities and towns on a
fee for service basis or on a technical service program. It convenes 8 subregions, of which
MAGIC represents Lexington: Minutemen Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination
AJ has previously worked on music venues in her hometown of Memphis and in Austen. She
has found that sound ordinances are not applied uniformly, and different people can have
different levels of difficulty in getting permits for outdoor sound. Police decide if they like an
artist or not. Issues are not just around entertainment-related sound – sound is a regional
challenge. They are trying to say “sound” policies rather than “noise”, since noise is defined as
unwanted sound, and they are trying to understand where that unwanted piece comes in.
They are now doing a field scan on federal, state, and MAGIC subregional ordinances, covering
many areas including accessory dwellings, animals, and vehicles. She finds the blasting issues
in Lexington very interesting, especially considering the goal of building more affordable
housing, raising conflicting interests. Sound is an inflammatory issue for a lot of folks.
She started her MAGIC analysis on Lexington and is curious what policy analyses we would find
most useful as she finalizes her field scan memo. There are some best practices and policies
that come from entertainment-related sound, such as understanding what mitigation process
can be done on the front end, giving people clear expectations of what to expect and where to
go if things deviate, and tracking complaints in a more uniform way that’s publicly accessible.
These practices will allow towns to identify patterns and what mitigations may be working?
It's important to have clear measurement systems in place and to enforce policies uniformly.
The group asked AJ to let us know about any successes.
4) Discussion of Quiet Communities (QC) meeting video
BK attended this group’s meeting last month, which was recorded, and played for the NAC
a 10 minute presentation by Les Blomberg (LB) of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse on
“Noise Ordinances: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”
LB compared 430 noise ordinances and went “in reverse order, like the movie did” starting with
examples of:
The Ugly
Ordinances that allow a slow meter response, which average signals over a second, will
underestimate sound levels, particularly impulsive noise, which occurs on a millisecond time
scale, by averaging this with silence. Also, time requirements for recording (L10, etc.) and
average noise levels (LEQ) are unenforceable, as the source of noise is hard to separate from
background sound and requires expensive noise meters. Regulations purely based on dB(A)
levels are not helpful, as there are not many noise meters in communities. Also, an impulsive
sound cutoff of 80 dB is based on old technology fixed to 35 ms.
The Bad
These ordinances are more designed to protect the noise polluter than the public – those that
allow up to 85 dB(A) during the day “are basically a license to pollute”. They protect polluters
with blanket exemptions – e.g. businesses that produce loud noise during “normal operations”.
The Good
These are ordinances that protect the polluted as well as the polluter - a little bit of both. Most
ordinances stop the worst offenders only, and one size doesn't fit all – i.e., noise is expected in
urban > suburban > rural areas. LB ended with a warning to “beware of sacred cows – you can
tell who has power in a community by who is getting exemptions. Enforcement is the most
important aspect – usually more so than need for new regulations.
BK noted that the chairman of the Zoning Board of Approval (ZBA) visited the NAC a couple of
months back due to a court case around a batting cage and emphasized the need for a
“reasonableness” standard in noise bylaw, since everyone has a different tolerance for “noise”.
5) Public Comments
There were no public comments.
6) Approval of minutes
BK noted that the May and June minutes are outstanding, and the NAC didn’t meet in July.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Laura Rosen