A Big Noise
by Thaddeus Flint
For the New Lebanon Town Board, 2014 could be a noisy year – when it comes to noise.
At the first monthly meeting of the Board on Tuesday, Board members were once again asked to look over a proposed noise ordinance for the Town. The matter has been brought up before, but the Board has changed now. Councilmen K.B. Chittenden and Doug Clark have been replaced by Councilmen Dan Evans and Chuck Geraldi, and so the matter didn’t get very far.
[private]“Were going to have to talk about it,” said Town Supervisor Mike Benson, “its evolution.”
Councilman Bruce Baldwin is largely behind the evolution of the proposed local law, which states “excessive sound is a serious hazard to the public health, welfare, safety and the quality of life,” and “the citizens of New Lebanon should have a right to, and should be ensured of, an environment free from excessive sound.”
The sound in question would seem to be rather obvious to anyone who lives in or near the normally quiet little town. The ordinance specifically states that the Board would be enacting the law in such a way that it doesn’t interfere with the “normal activities of rural life…including…cutting firewood, mowing hay and lawns, construction and similar activities.” So that pretty much leaves Lebanon Valley Speedway as the bull’s eye for this law. It’s impossible to ignore the noise when the Speedway is up and running, and many feel that even though they understood there was going to be noise when they first chose to move near a race track, the track racing seems to keep getting louder.
Whether that’s true or not, the possibility of a noise ordinance for New Lebanon is now a distinct possibility. While the matter was not discussed further by the Board at this meeting, giving Geraldi and Evans a chance to get up to speed on the matter, the Town’s Attorney, Andy Howard, did point out that there are two ways of dealing with sound – the analytical way and the objective way. Apparently the current New Lebanon way, ignoring rocket cars on quiet summer afternoons, is not actually a competent way at all.
The proposed noise ordinance now in the hands of the Board follows the analytical method. That involves actually measuring certain sound levels. This requires proper equipment and specially trained noise experts to operate that equipment and evaluate the results. A big noise becomes a complex thing measured in spikes of decibels over certain periods of times. The proposed ordinance basically states that big noises, those over 65 dB(A) are off limits from 7 am to 7 pm, and less big, big noises, those over 55 dB(A) are not allowed from 7 pm to 7 am. Sound spikes, that is big quick noises, would not be able to exceed normal background sound by more than 6 dB(A) more than 8 times from 7 am to 7 pm. From 7 pm to 7 am that would drop to 4 spikes of 3 dB(A).
So what does all that mean? It means be very, very quiet. Normal conversation is in the 65 dB(A) range. To violate the ordinance though, sound would have to exceed 65 dB(A) more than 10% of the time measured. That might not be all that hard. It’s likely some Board meetings in New Lebanon would actually fall afoul of their own ordinance. Obviously, that’s an absurd example. But where would the absurd end and the law begin? Anyone with kids knows they could largely be in violation of such a strict noise ordinance for a good part of any day. How about firing a gun more than eight times?
Probably there will be some tinkering with the idea before it ever gets to a public hearing. But, unless the Speedway somehow gets grandfathered in under the old rule, where there were no rules, it is difficult to see how in any way it could comply. Back in 2010 when track owner Howard Commander was trying to get a motocross track built, Attorney Bryan Baker pointed out that the new noise could “be significantly more than 100 decibels.” Commander responded by saying nobody would notice it anyway because “we would be adding a little noise to a big noise that is already there.’’ While the motocross didn’t survive, that “big noise” is still there and certainly above tolerable level in the proposed law.
“It’s a very important issue in any municipality,” noted Howard, but an issue best pursued with some thought. Howard urged Board members to study the proposed ordinance and then come back to him for further guidance. The matter was tabled until February.
Zoning Enforced
While possible future noise restrictions are considered, current zoning is now being actively enforced.
“We have stepped up our zoning enforcement,” said Benson, holding up what he referred to as “a pretty blue chart.” Last fall there were about 13 properties in the Town listed on what was referred to as a “hit list.” These were the properties with the most zoning and code non-compliance. Code and Zoning Enforcement Officer Kent Pratt has since been tracking the hit list and has created the “pretty blue chart” to keep the Board informed of developments. The latest is that the hit list is down to five properties. Should nothing substantial happen to resolve outstanding problems, the Town “intends to proceed [in Town Court] in the next 30 days,” said Howard.
At the same time the Zoning re-write committee is hard at work on proposals for updating the current regulations with regard to fencing, cell towers, one and two family homes, accessory structures, Columbia County Planning Board referrals, road frontage and manufacturing/home occupation.
Probably the largest construction project that will occur in the Town this year will be the new firehouse at the site of the old American Legion Hall. Departing Lebanon Valley Protective Association Fire Chief Bud Godfroy pointed out that it might be a good idea for the Board to have one of its members attend planning meetings for the structure. Godfroy said, “There is going to be a lot of money spent,” on the new facility and some of that money will have to come from the Town. “I don’t want my taxes going up,” he added.
The meeting ended in a scene out of the novel Catch-22. Resident Johanna Johnson-Smith asked if there was a new rule in force about Board members not answering questions from residents during privilege of the floor at Board meetings. “If that’s the case,” said Johnson-Smith, “how do we then get questions answered?”
“There are no new rules,” stated Benson. “The rules have been at every meeting since I’ve been around.”
Johnson-Smith is referring to rule #4 of the Rules of Procedure for Privilege of the Floor. This states, “Members of the Board shall give their full attention to the speaker. They may choose to respond but shall not engage in a debate.”
So Board members do not have to respond if they choose not to.
And if they choose not to, what then? resident and Planning Board Member Trina Porte wanted to know.
This turned out to be one of those times the Board chose not to respond.
“Ninety percent of the time we answer questions,” said Benson, “without question.”
But not this time. So Porte didn’t find out what to do next if her question isn’t answered because this was one of the questions they chose not to respond to.
Not everyone was impressed with this non-response. “There should be something in writing,” said resident Judy Zimmer.
Upcoming Meetings
• Monday, January 20, at 7 pm, Darrow School, Final Public Comments Session Conservation Advisory Council Open Space Inventory.
• Thursday, January 30, at 7 pm, The Firehouse, Community Forum on the new Firehouse Project.
• Tuesday, February 11, at 7 pm, the next regular monthly Board meeting.[/private]