(NOTE: The City Council’s Committee on Rules and Ordinances will discuss the proposed updated Noise Ordinance. Tuesday, April 21, 6 p.m. City Hall in the Lower Hearing Room and remote. See more info here).
By Rita Colafella
Watertown Resident
Last year, I opposed the adoption of the COVID era (2019-2024) noise ordinance draft. That same framework has resurfaced in discussions of the 2026 proposal. The core problem with the earlier draft was its reliance on vague, subjective standards like “plainly audible,” where violations do not depend entirely on objective measurement. This invites arbitrary enforcement where everyday sounds, from a humming air conditioner to a child’s birthday party, can trigger citations simply for being heard next door.
Equally disturbing is the framing of noise as “pollution” because it recasts human activity as inherently toxic, criminalizing daily life. Existing disturbing-the-peace laws already allow Police to address truly disruptive behavior. Adding a redundant, overly complex model increases enforcement burdens and the potential for selective application. It also reflects a kind of preference-based regulation where a set of preferred habits and behaviors is enforced as a public good, often while doing little to help those most affected by noise. In practice, regulation becomes more about preference than actual impact, weakening rather than strengthening community cohesion.
“Noise” is sound labeled as unwanted or disruptive. Sound can be measured objectively. Terms like “tonal sound” or “unreasonable noise” add ambiguity. Regulating sound based on its character — a hum, whine, or pitch — takes us down a rabbit hole where personal annoyance dictates policy. This can produce uneven economic effects, burdening certain industries more than others, and effectively allowing the city to create economic losers. It can also create poorer living standards. Experience elsewhere shows that stricter, more subjective regulations often fail to reduce chronic noise in the areas needing relief most, particularly near highways or industrial zones. Meanwhile, enforcement patterns can reinforce inequality and displacement pressures rather than alleviate them.
Preference for stricter daytime limits is often driven by those working from home, an option not universally available. For many residents, exposure to noise is unavoidable. When regulations restrict activity, the costs are not just absorbed by an owner, but also by renters, workers, and consumers, making these policies function like a regressive tax. Any new ordinance should include safeguards such as hardship exemptions or grandfather clauses for low to moderate income households and small businesses. Without these, regulations risk pricing certain residents out of the community.
Cultural and social bias must also be considered. Noise complaints are often shaped by preference as much as volume. Despite complex lyricism, music genres like rap, hip-hop, and punk are more likely to be labeled as “noise,” while others are more readily accepted. Similarly, activities involving children and youth are more often seen as disruptive. When young people are discouraged from gathering, playing or expressing themselves in the public or private, the issue extends beyond noise. Inclusion, equity, and healthy development come into question, especially in an era already shaped by increased screen time and reduced in-person and physical interaction.
The COVID-era draft ordinance was poorly suited to Watertown. Our city is not a monolithic community but a collection of distinct neighborhoods with different needs, rhythms, and land uses. A one-size-fits-all hammer ignores these differences. Comparisons to “garden suburb” communities like Belmont, Lexington, or Newton are misplaced. Even Arlington, which is seen as similar, is primarily a residential bedroom community with different economic and land-use dynamics. Watertown has far more in common with Waltham: a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial activity, a growing life sciences sector, and a diverse base of residents, small businesses and “makers.” Imposing an Arlington-like ordinance on Watertown would function more as a straight-jacket, restricting the very economic activity and dynamism that defines a city like ours.
Table 1: Community Profile & Economic Class (2024-2025 Data)
City/Town Community Type Primary Housing Type Economic Class Median Age Home Ownership Rate Watertown Urban/Industrial Mix Mufti-family/Condos Middle/Professional ~38 ~50% Waltham Urban/Industrial Mix Mufti-family/Lofts Middle/Working 35 48% Arlington Residential/Bedroom Single Family/2-Family Upper-Middle ~40 ~60%+ Newton Suburban/Residential Single Family Wealthy ~41.5 71.6% Lexington Garden Suburban Single Family Wealthy ~47 ~80%+ Cambridge High-Density Urban Large Mufti-family (51 units+) Academic/Elite ~30.5 34.5% Belmont Residential/Bedroom Single Family/2-Family Upper-Middle 41 ~65%+
(NOTE: AI was used to gather stats on towns surrounding Watertown and compare them using income, home ownership, housing type and class using reports on changes to local noise ordinances from Boston Herald to Globe to Waltham Times, Your Arlington, Watertown News, The Lexington Observer and many others)
Local noise ordinances range from general nuisance standards to relative frameworks like Massachusetts’ 10 dB above ambient rule, to highly technical decibel-based systems. I asked AI to generate a ranking of municipalities on a 1–10 scale, with 10 being most restrictive. The analysis was based on factors such as decibel limits, time-of-day restrictions, and equipment-specific bans. Within this spectrum, Watertown’s COVID-era draft (9th) falls in the upper-middle range, less restrictive than Cambridge (10th) but comparable to Newton and followed by Lexington, Somerville, Arlington, and Belmont. More moderate frameworks are found in Watertown’s original 1983 noise ordinance, Waltham (2022) and Burlington, 3, 2 ,1 respectively. These rely more on flexible or hybrid enforcement approaches.
Watertown’s existing ordinance (Chapter 95, updated in 2022) relies on the widely used MassDEP 10 dB rule that is difficult to enforce due to fluctuating background conditions. Combined with proposed fixed caps around 50–60 dBA, roughly the level of non-disruptive conversation, expanded time and source restrictions, the noise ordinance becomes overly rigid and impractical.
By contrast, the 2026 draft ordinance is a return to a more balanced, enforceable, and scientifically grounded approach, placing Watertown in the middle of the regional spectrum. It is more structured than purely subjective ordinances, but less prescriptive than highly technical ones. It emphasizes clear, objective standards, understandable expectations and decibel limits aligned to real-world conditions, not theoretical minimums. Most importantly, it improves enforceability, and this is key. The effectiveness of any ordinance ultimately rests on whether it can be applied consistently and fairly in practice.
As for Newton, its complaints about HVAC noise from Watertown’s riverfront highlight a broader point: proximity comes with trade-offs. Sound travels farther over water, and living near active riverfront areas brings inherent ambient noise. Existing regulations already require mitigation plans. Again, the issue is consistent enforcement. It’s also worth noting the imbalance here. Newton has resisted regional responsibilities like housing and employment (see Newton 2023 Election and February 2024 teacher’s strike), yet benefits from Watertown’s strong fiscal management and economic activity. Watertown should not constrain itself to meet the aesthetic preferences of a neighboring city.
Experience in communities like Newton, Arlington, Lexington, and Belmont also shows the risks of overreach. Leaf blower incidents generated hundreds of calls from 17 callers in Newton. Across Newton, Arlington, Lexington, and Belmont, leaf blowers drive nearly all noise disputes, with false-positive rates in Newton reaching up to 75%. While noise complaints are typically just 1-3% of all calls, they can spike to 10% in the summer due to seasonal bans. Police are reluctantly and frequently drawn into repeat or low-level disputes, almost always arriving after the fact or finding no violation, diverted from higher-priority public safety needs in the process. Even when complaint volumes decline, costs rise and stick. This is the case in Newton. Stricter compliance requirements increase labor time, require more expensive equipment, and reduce productivity. And the burdens fall hardest on small businesses, independent contractors, and small property owners operating on thin margins.
Table 2: Enforcement Reality — Noise Call Outcomes.
Category % of Noise Calls % Resulting in Violation Notes Loud music/parties 35% 20% Often resolved before arrival Construction 25% 40% Usually within permitted hours HVAC/Mechanical 15% 10% Highly subjective complaints Vehicles 15% 5% “Fleeing noise” almost always Miscellaneous 10% 8% Rarely enforceable
(NOTE: AI was used gather information in the chart on noise calls and outcomes)
I will likely support the 2026 draft noise ordinance. To further strengthen it, some refinements are warranted to improve clarity, fairness, and practical enforceability. Small businesses would benefit from a limited weekend extension allowing operations until 11:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays, supporting restaurants and local venues while preserving weekday residential quiet. Given Newton’s example, the ordinance should also define “fleeting noise” as brief, non-recurring events that do not warrant enforcement, and require that disturbances be sustained (e.g., 20–30 minutes) before triggering action. This would reduce unnecessary complaints and better focus enforcement on meaningful disruptions.
The exempt clause should be revised to explicitly exempt additional events and people, including children, caretakers, elderly, persons with disabilities,small business owners, tenants, small-time landlords and persons requiring protection from domestic violence. In many circumstances an ordinary activity can become loud or disruptive (a mom screaming for a child on the run, a tenant complaining about an old AC, an attempted kidnapping, etc. ). Clarifying these exemptions will prevent overreach. In Section 95.03(C), the term “negligently” should be struck, as it is inherently vague and introduces unnecessary subjectivity. The bullet point about necessary service and maintenance is also vague. The ordinance should instead clearly define routine service, maintenance, and repair activities, again to prevent overreach and burden.
Section 95.08(A) should extend permissible evening hours during the summer months to reflect longer daylight and typical seasonal activity patterns. Aligning permitted hours with real-world conditions and regional norms will reduce avoidable violations. Section 95.09 should also establish a clear and accessible process for obtaining noise waivers, including explicit provisions for economic hardship. Small businesses, contractors, and residents often face very practical constraints.
Finally, regulating leaf blowers and lawn mowers through a noise ordinance is a category error. These tools are fundamentally an energy and emissions issue, and policies requiring a transition to electric equipment should be addressed through an Energy Bill or Sustainability Bylaw, where the focus is on a phased and structured transition rather than immediate penalties. If the City mandates equipment replacement, it must include a defined grace period for compliance. Residents and small contractors should not be penalized for failing to immediately purchase costly equipment. Instead, the City should pair any transition with financial incentives or rebates, allow interim mitigation measures such as mufflers or noise-reduction kits, and establish a clear, phased compliance timeline.
A reminder, we are trying something new with comments. In addition to signing your full name, please indicate where you live or how you describe yourself, such as Watertown Resident, former Watertown Resident, from Waltham, etc. That way people can get an idea “where you are coming from,” both literally and figuratively.
Thanks,
Charlie Breitrose, Watertown News Editor
Just to say a THANK-YOU to Rita Colafella for their clear and extensive elucidation. While I am not completely versed on all the elements of the proposal, I do agree that Watertown should be viewed in its uniqueness as a diverse community very different from the surrounding towns. On a personal aside, I WAS annoyed at 9:00am Saturday morning, when I was seeking quiet from the week, to have to try to shut out the whirring sound of a drill doing roof work on the house behind us, even though my windows were closed. In this 24/7 work life, I would hope at least there be a respect/reprieve on the weekend. Time for peace is noted to be an integral component and contributor to mental and thus physical health.
From a mere 30-year resident:
The weekend is respected by delaying such noise as annoyed you by ONE HOUR, to 8 am from the weekday 7 am. Otherwise, no reprieve. For this and for other reasons, I support strict yet reasonable limits on noise pollution. I email the Health Department with local complaints about private garbage pickup at odd hours, the oddest being 4:30 on a Saturday morning. Clanging dumpster, piercing beeps while reversing—the whole neighborhood is awoken, and I remain awake.
The city itself has been much noisier in recent years: school rebuilds; new building construction; Mt. Auburn roadwork (much more to come); Logan flyovers (intolerable in some neighborhoods recently)—the totality of the assault of noise pollution—from public and private sources—cannot be overstated.
I agree. When someone is working outside of the listed hours, then a call is warranted. And if it is the city that is doing it, then it should be advertised to prevent calls, unless it is an emergency like a tree on a house or water main break.
Yes the city will get nosier because things like needed construction will be occurring for a period as will needed school rebuilds. There will also be roadwork to replace ancient waterways and as the generations move to the next stage, people will be augmenting houses. In my opinion, that is a good thing because it means there is work and vibrancy. The midwest may be quiet but it is, as my friend from Wisconsin says, “full of dead towns.” As for Logan, the planes fly over my house every night between 7 and 9. Sometimes it knocks out my internet service so that I can’t do work or stream. But it is a trade-off. Proximity to the airport means a shorter ride/lower fare. You can contact your state rep about it. Sometimes that does change the routes.
I agree that there is a time for peace and quiet, however, we also live in a stratified class system, in which some people work from anywhere at anytime, others work 9 to 5 or the overnight shift, and others have to work early on Saturdays. We cannot complain about the contractor always delaying our project if we don’t allow for work during the weekend. I have been there too. When I was working from home during COVID and then twice a week, the construction, home repairs and landscapers would bother me too. But it was maybe an hour or two for a period, and I could always go to DD or Starbucks. When my neighbor was felling very large trees to make a patio, I did not say a peep because when I had my driveway excavated, he did not say a peep. I’d be ok with starting later on the weekend as long as the ordinance balances it out but providing another day in work can get done earlier, maybe Friday, or later in the day. That’s my whole point; it’s is about balance. The new draft does that, and it needn’t be augmented by any of the suggestions from the COVID-era one. I just ask for explicit language and exceptions because, as we have seen in Newton (the same 17 callers made hundreds of calls), some individuals weaponize ordinances to limit access and/or create statis.
Two things:
It would be helpful if this could include a direct link to a document about the proposed ordinance.
“Mufti”-family? Interesting typo (in several places).
Sure, I will add the draft link in a new thread so it doesn’t get lost. You are correct, I made Multi into a typo, and I thought a san serif font like Arial would help me see that. I went back to my original copy, and see that I was not hitting the L key hard enough before I went to the T key, and by going too fast I was doing FT.
I couldn’t read all this, but I do support a decibel-based noise ordinance that also takes seasonal demands into account. Gas powered leaf blowers in the fall, when there are leaves to blow? Fine. Say, October 1 to December 15th. Also April, for a spring cleanup. Otherwise, no: use a rake. Too noisy, too many fumes (though quieter electric and battery blowers eliminate both noise and fumes). Lawnmowers get a break, as there is no reasonable alternative.
Noise pollution IS pollution, “the second-largest environmental cause of physical and mental health problems after air pollution,” per the WHO. That is measurable fact. We can choose to do nothing about it, or we can protect ALL our citizens from not just the annoyance of noise, but from its ill effects on our mental and physical health.
Watertown resident
I agree with your first paragraph. I just want it to all be reasonable – summer hours, leaf blowers when there is vegetation and snowblowers when there is snow.
I don’t want people to be out money. Landscaping costs in Newton have gone up, and the DIYers have invested money in their current tools. A grace period or city provided muffler would prevent all of the burden falling on those who can least afford it, and have everyone put skin in the game via taxes.
I don’t agree with the pollution descriptor. When we are talking about toxicity we really need to be careful. One, if toxicity can be broadened to mean light and noise, then I can be broadened in other ways. Two, once you have broadened the definition multiple times it loses all meaning and bite.
I am not convinced on the mental health piece. In my lived experienced, noise clears my head. After a stressful day, I get into my car and crank it. By the time I get home, I can sit and enjoy dinner. I also sleep very well in NYC but up in NH unless by the water, I have a really hard time with the quiet. I could be an anomaly.
The mental health aspect I worry about is people in the house on the screen all day, especially for kids because they are developing. When you add screen time and scheduled time (non-play), it causes depression. A noise ordinance that allows people to threaten kids who are outside playing basketball or tag or hanging listening to music is bad. Kids need that play, and that comes with noise, but it is healthier than interacting with an inanimate object with alarms that repeats content. Information loops are dangerous but for other reasons.
It is important for boys to use loud words (an f-bomb is better than an assault charge) instead of fists, and it is important for girls to counter the message that they sometimes get from parents, partners and society – “good girls” don’t make noise. They don’t make news or history either. In general, kids need to be empowered to use their voices particularly when it comes to those who would cause them harm. Per the FBI, the best defense against kidnappers is to scream and make a scene.
Again, reasonable, no play/hanging at 3:15am but at 6:15pm.
Local resident.
It seems to me that the noise issues are very item and location specific and as such the rules should also be.
In my area the loudest by far is the leaf blowers and the large mower machines.
I have found them to be much quieter in other areas but where I live they are so defining that you need hearing protection when the neighbors are having their lawns mowed or leaves blown.
This should not have be the case where you literally need hearing protection from a neighbors hired yard maintenance companies. No mater what time of day.
I agree the ordinance should be very specific in time and location. And it needs to allow for exemptions – removing a tree on a house at 1am, a barking puppy, a dad yelling for a lost kid, etc.
I am not against making those items (blowers and mowers) quieter via silencers or electric power. I don’t think the noise ordinance is the place for it though. It really is an energy issue in which there is a reasonable grace period and accomodation for low to moderate income residents. One will not be tossing out a $900.00 mower any time soon. So we need mufflers, tax incentives or rebates to make that transition.
And I want that grass trimmed because rats like that tall grass. Removing summer hours would discourage trimming because those who work all day and are not going to be able to come home before 5pm to mow the grass.
That was the best written and researched article I’ve read in a while. Another great thing about our town, the people.
I was surprised by how loud the speakers were at the concerts in Saltnstall Park which made me wonder if there was a decibel based ordinance. I have had to avoid them for that reason, I assumed I was overly sensitive due to my age. I keep a pair of industrial ear protectors next to the bed in case the fire alarm goes off because it’s so loud it gives me seizures. One adapts. The low flying planes are frightening, but this too passes. I’ve seen flight lane maps of areas that are heavily trafficked and will not be moving there. I’ve been moving away from construction since 2014 when flooding in downtown Boston became untenable. I’ve been in the 02472 area for 2 years now, just a few blocks from my great grandparents home and plan to settle here for good.
Welcome back to town! I am sorry loud noise make you physically ill. The proposed draft is decibel based, and now that we have a health department, they can scientifically measure it. For fire alarms, I don’t know if you can change the volume but look into s photoelectric sensors, dual-sensor technology, and Intelligent Multi-Criteria detection ones. The older ones, which I think use carbon paper, are easily triggered by dust, humidity, power surges, bug spray, steam and other things that are not smoke/fire. I am looking into this right now. With two sets of tenants, someone is always triggering it. And it is ear piercing. I feel my eardrums are going pop. For airplane routes, ask your state rep. If people get together and complain, they can probably have the routes changed.
The concept of noise as pollution is not new. I’m glad the writer supports the most recent noise ordinance proposal, but I wish there was less “blame” on people who are bothered by noise. For instance, the issue of people working at home is unfair, or the fact that some neighbors are constantly exposed to more noise and complain more. I have at times been really physically affected by noise; it’s not a fantasy.
Noise negatively affects the natural world as well as people. I accept some noise living in a semi-urban environment (construction and mowers) but gas leaf blowers are awful. If people have to use a blower, electric should be required. They are much, much less noisy. The argument against them has always been that small businesses can’t afford to buy new equipment. Well, now many towns around us have electric mandates, so this shouldn’t be an issue. I support banning gas blowers and allowing electric ones. Trying to enforce sound limits on them is pretty tough.
Here is one article, but there are many:
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/noise-pollution/
I agree that enforcement is not easy, and that science-based limits are helpful. But that shouldn’t stop us from trying to rein in the louder aspects of life here.
Nor is it fair to force one to get an electric mower when the old one was $500. For some, that is a hefty portion of the budget when half of the HHs make less than 123k. Quiet it them down via an energy ordinance with grace period/incentive program.
The previous draft version was so restrictive (e.g., limiting use to 5pm all year round) that it made it hard to live by. If a nurse doesn’t end shift before 6pm, then he/she are penalized for not having more control over their employment. Employment situations do matter as do housing situations; some have to live next to a highway or train station due to affordability.
Noise “pollution” is not new. However, I don’t appreciate the stretching of the definition, especially as someone who hears corporate consultese all day. Loud noise or extreme noise is better because it conveys a tangible measure. I would take someone more seriously if they used the later.
While I am not bothered by loud noises, others definitely are. I am not going to throw a concert in my backyard every night but I don’t want someone complaining because I am putting on a new roof either.
As promised, here is the link to download the proposed draft – https://watertownma.portal.civicclerk.com/event/9462/files/agenda/15082
This draft does not add the subjectivity from the COVID-era draft which did not pass. Some thought the COVID-era draft was too complex and others called it draconian (see past issues of Watertown News). This draft also removes the tonal wording which is drawn from the Commonwealth ordinance. Tonal noise is very hard to measure and thus, subjective. The 2026 draft just needs to be explicit so there is no weaponization.
Timeline based on my recollection:
I believe our original 1983 noise ordinance had not been updated prior to 2019. (https://ecode360.com/36824835?highlight=tonal&searchId=17074472379707231#36824835).
In 2018/9, a committee was formed to update the 1983 version. Several drafts were created, and it was placed in front of the Rules and Ordinances Committee last year. It was not recommended to go forward. There are too many drafts to list but you can look them up here – https://watertownma.portal.civicclerk.com/search?q=noise+ordinance
Then in 2025, the city staff began working on the updating of the 1983 draft. They looked at other ordinances and interviewed the police about it. The police thought the enforcement of this belonged with another city department. The draft was written and presented to the Rules and Ordinances in March 2026.
All references in this piece can be found in local papers including the Herald and Globe and TV news clips.
Thank you Rita.
The link to the proposed draft only goes to the meeting announcement. No draft document.
The other link does work but you have to look for the 4-2026 date.
Sorry, you need to download he Agenda Packet, on the left panel. That contains the agenda and other supporting documents.
Hi Rita (and All).
I want to thank you, Rita, for bringing up this issue. As of the meeting on March 12, 2026, when the Chair, Nicole Gardner, restricted residents from speaking at all and there was no attention paid to tonal sounds, I was under the impression that the new Watertown Noise Ordinance was a work in progress, not a “done deal” with a crafted ordinance ready to go.
I have since spoken to a councilor who has reassured me that this is because not all of the information was included on the agenda. There are some more working documents to consider and public comments before this ordinance can be completed.
Rita, your letter implied to me that this was a completed document, and that was concerning to me, There is no attention to tonal sounds at all. In contrast, look at what Waltham’s noise ordinance includes (clearly more reflective of our times and the science):
“(11) Noise Pollution: A condition caused by a noise source that increases noise levels ten (10) db(A) or more above background noise level except that it the noise source produces a tonal sound an increase at five (5) db(A) or more above background noise level shall be considered sufficient to cause noise pollution.”
“Tonal Sound – Any sound that is judged by a listener to have the characteristics of a pure tone, whine, hum or buzz.”
I’m a little confused, Rita, when you appear to dismiss tonal sounds as vague and unmeasurable, since at the Rules and Ordinances Committee meeting on January 27, 2025 (See: http://vodwcatv.org/internetchannel/show/3652?site=3 ) you encouraged looking into this.
As far as “classist” concerns, I get it. Forget about Newton. One of the reasons that so many Watertown residents attended and fought so hard to get the Broder bio-lab project to be especially careful with the noise and vibration that it would’ve emitted is that it’s located in the middle of an existing neighborhood.
Watertown neighborhoods like the ones that the Cannistraro (Broder) site are in the middle of are usually neighborhoods designated by the City as “social justice” areas. We need to join our voices with theirs so that their concerns aren’t overrun by more powerful financial interests.
And in the case of noise emitted from bio labs, a time limit is irrelevant. The sound never stops! It doesn’t just affect people who are “lucky” enough to work from home. By the way, having both worked in and out of my home, I can tell you that working from home has its own challenges.
When school kids come home, the tonal sound is there. Overnight, while you’re trying to get restorative sleep, it’s interrupting, and opening a window in the warm weather is problematic. When children go out to play on the weekends, the tonal sound is still there, constantly bombarding their senses.
Don’t support this for Newton. Support this for Watertown!
We in Watertown, in particular, with all of the new 24 hour a day buildings with chillers on the roofs, don’t want to be the next cautionary tale: Don’t be like Watertown…
Linda Scott, Watertown resident
I’m a former Watertown resident, current Newton resident who lives on the river and walks it every day, on both sides. The Watertown side is continuously dumping industrial noise along the river that is needless, harmful and easily mitigated. Much of it is from under-used lab space. I don’t see Newton gaining any economic benefit from this whatsoever. Other towns manage the noise-making equipment by installing sound buffers, not just for the impact on people – no matter what town they live in!! – but also the impact on wildlife. The Charles River is an incredible treasure that we are all so lucky to be able to enjoy and for which we must uphold responsible stewardship.
That’s why these statements have me scratching my head. What on earth is Rita saying when she writes, “As for Newton, its complaints about HVAC noise from Watertown’s riverfront highlight a broader point: proximity comes with trade-offs. Sound travels farther over water, and living near active riverfront areas brings inherent ambient noise. Existing regulations already require mitigation plans.”
Speaking as the person who contacted installers and worked directly with them to lower the volume on one building’s rooftop mechanical system, I can say that there is apparently no mitigation required of these labs; the sound is horrendous and we have no idea what the impact is on wildlife. It’s certainly not peaceful or good for people, whether they live in Watertown, Newton — or Boston and they happen to be traveling through Watertown on the path. I think Watertown has a responsibility to the larger community, both people and migrating and local wildlife, whether it wants to or not. “Aesthetic preference”? Watertown needs strict decibel-level laws and enforcement to protect all from the harmful auditory effects of lab development.
This morning I could not even hear the rush of water from Watertown Dam as I stood right next to it. No bird call. All was drowned out by the blare of the mechanical system on top of the roof of the building next to it. I sent a video to City Council, and then to Watertown News. My hope is that we all take videos, we all notice what might be getting drowned out, and we all hop on Google and see how easy it is to install buffers and other tools to minimize the noise pollution. And then we speak up and take action for change. It does not have to be this way.
Hello Cedar,
Yes I heard you at our Rules and Ordinances meeting last year. When I as a resident and tax payer could not get the first word in. You know you have a choice to move away from the river. You understand that water transmits sound faster, correct? If I choose to live next to a school, then I cant complain about the kids on the playground.
As for Newton, I have friends and co-workers there and have worked there twice in my career. Newton residents come here to spend money, to eat at our wide selection of restaurants, go to our library and get away from, as one friend in Newton Highlands said, “the shenanigans of people with too much money and time on their hands.” She spends a lot of time in Waltham. Then there is a couple who when they had the choice between Watertown and Newton, the economics in Watertown was better for both their careers. I also remember having a lengthy conversation at Branchline with a couple, who were very upset by the lack of concern for the schools in Newton, and were frankly embarrassed that it had to come to down to a teachers strike. And then were shocked that parents had the audacity to complain about having to cancel the ski vacations because the school had to make up the time. Don’t even get me started on the whole Yellow line vs Italian flag line. It made national news. Imagine having to explain to relatives across the country that it was not an Italian American discrimination case but a pissing contest and has nothing to do with All for Newton vs Everybody for Newton sign war.
As for the river, I live by the river. Not on it but not far from it. I also walk that river. I have walked both sides to Waltham, Cambridge and Brighton. They Newton side has more bugs especially after the damn. This morning, I heard frogs, squirrels and birds. When I walk it 3pm, I hear bikes, runners, college teams, birds and the dam. At 7pm , it is cars, the dam, tides, wildlife and insects. I don’t hear the problem. Maybe I am able to zone out more. There is a wide variety of birds. The ducks are no longer by the Watertown docks. They have been displaced by the geese, and are living on the Watertown side on the way to Waltham.
Yes your problem can be alleviated by having builders create better sound mitigation plans. Yes they have to present a sound mitigation plan. Maybe it is a case of maintenance, maybe it is a case of robustness. But it is not really a noise ordinance situation but rather a zoning or planning one. What your action has done is open a can of worms. Now people are trying to mimic the noise ordinance of Newton which is puzzling to say the least. One because Newton’s ordinance is uber restrictive and two, we do not resemble Newton in any way. Moving toward such an ordinance will impact our economy which funds our schools without strikes. It would change the vibrancy of our city. Sorry but the only vibrant part of Newton is Nonantum to the West Cinema movie theater area. Newton is to Watertown and Waltham, like New Jersey is to Manhattan.
It will create problems for landlords, landscapers and small businesses in Watertown. They will be hit by the fines and restrictions and pass them on as higher prices/rents. Watertown’s median income is 123k. Newton’s is 195k, almost 200k. Replacing items to come into compliance takes a bigger chunk of disposal income here. In a time when people are hanging on by their fingernails or lack food, it really is tone deaf to be talking about walks, wildlife and loud noise. If we really want to impact the health of people, then the most impactful action would be to soundproof the areas of town that are next to the highways, train stations, airports, etc. but all I hear is crickets and aesthetics.
When the Police here were asked about enforcing a stricter noise ordinance, they did not want to touch it with a ten foot pole . I guess they must have heard from their brothers across the border when they had to answer 100s of call coming from the same 17 neighbors, and then only to show up to a non violation, 75% of the time.
I suppose I could attend the next Newton city hall and complain about the fireworks. As a lifelong resident of Watertown, I have heard the fireworks from Newton every single summer. I am not going to do that. I am not a party pooper. More importantly, I am not a resident nor a taxpayer, and Newton has the right to create ordinances that are best for Newton, but by the same token Watertown, Waltham and other bordering towns should get to do what is best for them. When one talks responsibility, one really needs to understand the consequences of being responsible to one item over another. Those currently under-used bio labs is what undergird the future of Watertown’s children. That is tax money that supports a huge population of refugees, an expensive special needs program, a robust sports program, new schools and many other things. Hopefully by the time they grow up they wont using nonsensical phrases like “noise pollution” or “smell pollution.”
Ms. Colafella:
Telling Ms. Pruitt, her relief from noise along the Upper Charles River Greenway Reservation might be to choose to move. Huh? How glibly unhelpful. Similarly unhelpful are critical swipes at Newton, Cambridge, Boston, or other municipalities. Noise pollution is a problem that doesn’t stop at a city’s border and would likely benefit from informed, collaborative solutions with neighboring municipalities.
It is but one plan for relief. Alternatively, we could erect a barrier of towers facing Newton. Look, the the most appropriate plan is to is to have the Watertown Planning and Zoning Boards address the HVAC systems. To bring this up to Rules and Ordinances is inappropriate and could be dangerous. Sound is a single aspect of the situation. Enclosures have to address material, coverage, clearance and accessibility. Designs that service one aspect can lead to severe operational failures, including restricted airflow that causes systems to overheat, increased energy consumption, and the risk of voiding manufacturer warranties. The units are precision engineered to operate in open air, and any structural covering must maintain specific clearances to ensure the system can reject heat and function efficiently. An in-law who used to work on these units in Boston pointed me to Ashare.org for this information.
Those on our Planning and Zoning boards have that expertise. To say there is no sound mitigation plan is false. Per the city website, Site Plan Requirements include an initial sound assessment and the identification of measures for complying with state and local sound requirements. A post-installation report is also required. Is it robust enough? Maybe not. Again though, this is the purview of the aforementioned boards.
In addition to causing potential harm, such a noise ordinance change would ignore the economic landscapes of both cities. It ignores location theory altogether – what is economical optimal for a place depends on actors and sites within that location. An unholistic change easily exasperates some conditions. In general, most noise ordinances do not reduce inequity but cause displacement and gentrification particularly because are they are excessively restrictive, only address the needs of one demographic, and are subjectively enforceable.
As for the cities, I love Boston and Cambridge, and the restrictiveness of their noise ordinances is spot on for their layouts, density, activity and demographics. Newton, on the other hand, has become less and less appealing over time. It has a lot of issues which we have seen on the news. Newton needs more housing and diversification of industry. However, this not the same as telling them to shutter their colleges because there is a spike in DUIs in our city. And I certainly would not attend their meetings to say any of this.
After researching all the different noise ordinances, Newton does deserve its criticism. Arlington, Belmont and Lexington changed their ordinances last year, approximately after 8 years after Newton did. While their ordinances are not best for Watertown, they smartly avoid Newton mistakes.
1. https://www.totallandscapecare.com/business/article/15041185/leaf-blower-ban-strains-and-divides-town-of-newton-mass#:~:text=Enforcement%20of%20blower%20ban%20places,more%20than%20the%20total%20ban.
2. https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/newton-police-leaf-blower-ban-complaints/
Let Watertown decide what is best for Watertown, and let Newton decide what is best for Newton.
As others have already said, thank you for raising the topic, Rita. Some of us feel even more strongly about the subject than you, and you put in a lot of work!
You are correct that noise is the price of progress. But if progress leaves many unhappy with their quality of life, shouldn’t that be part of the discussion? Not least in tonight’s meeting?
Oh, on Logan overflights: I and hundreds of others have raised this issue with ALL our elected representatives, local to national, for years. They’re all aware of the problem (specifically, flights funneled through narrow air corridors, rather than fanned out as they once were, afflicting the few, terribly, rather than the many, mildly), and all powerless to stop it. Forget City Hall, you can’t fight a federal agency (the FAA), regardless of who’s President. I’m sorry you’ve been afflicted by the noise too; my particular bête noire is the 5 am and 6 am cluster of business flight departures, many less than a minute apart. I’m up by then anyway, but the rest of my household would prefer not to be.
Noise-plagued Watertown resident
Thanks and that is ok to feel that way but let’s handle noise in a way that is smart and reasonable. At last night’s meeting they did include tonal noise. They did not decide the threshold. At the next meeting, the Health Department will speak to do that. I worry about false positives. So when they said that they would get the special instrument, train up the staff and calibrate it every year, I felt better. Some other things came up last night that have me questioning the council members. For example, barking dogs were exempt but now they are thinking not to making them exempt. I don’t have a dog but so many do. If they proceed with this then they will have find a way to make it feasible or better yet toss it to animal control. Right now I am looking at the 50 ft threshold that defines loud noise (50 feet from your property lines) and alarms. It came up as they discussed car alarms and garage door alarms, not a fan of either, but that would also include smoke detectors. I think they need to invite the Fire Department to the next meeting, make it 100 feet or exempt smoke detectors.
Yeah, the flight routes are harder. I was wrong about contacting your state rep. And you have connected with the US Congressional Members who are the correct people to call. There is soundproofing the house but why should residents be out any money? Does Massport have a complaint line? Or grant program to insulate houses? How about the airlines? Is there a larger Middlesex and Suffolk county group of citizens trying to change these patterns? At the very least, that group could mention Mid-Terms to anyone who is elected, particularly since many have challengers. I can’t believe elected officials are not able to do something here.
Hello Josh:
Back in the 1960s, my ex and I bought a brick victorian row house in the South End Historic District. The neighborhood was a designated urban renewal area, but the feds offered reduced money for renovating. What we didn’t know was that we were going to live under runway 27R and have aircraft noise from that runway as a constant whenever the wind direction dictated the use of that runway. We quickly became active in a group, including residents from Southie, Milton, and elsewhere. We attended many meetings with the FAA, which eventually agreed to alter the flight path by fanning out the air traffic, and they set up a hot line for noise complaints. We learned that whenever the FAA got a high volume of complaints from one area, they inflicted the noise on another. The poor people on the other side of the tunnel did succeed in getting Logan to sound proof their homes, but other areas did not get any noise mitigating measures. Forget complaining to elected representatives. You will get a polite hearing from a staffer who will tell you she/he will pass your complaint on to the the elected representative, who can do nothing because they can’t fight the FAA and Logan. We saw the South End change from a seedy rooming house neighborhood to the million-dollar condo area it is today. But it’s still under 27R.
100% relate, Carolyn. Milton has it even worse than we do. But they had Congressman Lynch fighting for them. He once threatened to zero out all funding for the FAA if they didn’t agree to just take a meeting with a citizen group (which they had heretofore refused to do). It’s one thing to live near Logan and know it comes with the neighborhood. But Watertown is 7-8 miles due West of Logan, and runway 33L (the culprit for Watertown sufferers) runs SE to NW. The airplanes actually have to turn 90 degrees to find us. Even if their ultimate destination is in another direction!
So you probably already did this and Carol may already know this but there it the an Advisory Committee of representatives from each town at https://massportcac.org/committees/
Zeke Mermell is Watertown’s rep and can be contacted via the website. If he gets enough complaints, maybe he could direct it to the right people.