OP-ED: Thoughts on the Proposed Updated Noise Ordinance

(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)

(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 (9^th) falls in the upper-middle range, less restrictive than Cambridge (10^th) 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.

(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.