Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tamworth resident urges board to enforce noise ordinance after ‘front‑row’ exposure to track
Summary
Resident Amy Barrier told the Tamworth Select Board that noise from a nearby driving facility has raised her stress and disrupted outdoor life; the board agreed to attempt diplomatic outreach to the operator and to request monitoring records, rather than immediately pursue fines or litigation.
Amy Barrier, a Bryant Road resident in Tamworth’s Whittier neighborhood, told the Select Board at its recent meeting that noise from the nearby driving facility (referred to in the transcript as CMI) has sometimes left her feeling physically stressed and unable to enjoy outdoor work. “I feel like my stress level has elevated to an extent that my life [is affected],” Barrier said, recounting particularly loud days in September when she called town staff and left messages.
Barrier said the town’s noise ordinance sets a maximum of 69 dBA at a facility property line, that CMI is required to monitor and report its levels, and that the town may impose civil penalties of $1,000 per violation. She also told the board that CMI had sought reclassification as a private driving facility and that, in her view, the prior racetrack ordinance is now of limited use to neighbors.
The matter matters to a small cluster of nearby households, Barrier said, because spikes in sound — not just steady background noise — are the most disruptive. “It’s like I’m putting my ear to a hive of hornets,” she said.
Board members acknowledged that, since their service began, they had not received regular noise reports nor performed town monitoring. One board member summarized the position: “I think the answer to the first few questions is no, no, no since I’ve been on the board,” noting they lack equipment and had not asked the operator for monitoring data. The board discussed legal limits of the ordinance and the risk of escalating to a contentious, costly enforcement action.
Rather than immediate fines or litigation, several members favored starting with a measured outreach to CMI. A board member said the town is likely to get further “if we can come up with a system that we mutually agree on,” proposing that board members meet the operator to request monitoring results and to seek voluntary measures to limit peak noise.
The board also agreed that residents who raised concerns should receive follow‑up about what the town asked the operator and the results of any meeting. Barrier asked the board to let affected neighbors know the outcome of that outreach so residents can be assured something is happening.
Next steps recorded in the meeting include board members volunteering to contact the track operator and to ask for copies of CMI’s monitoring, with the board recording the exchange at a subsequent meeting.
