Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board reviews draft noise ordinance aimed at nighttime generator disturbances
Summary
Board members reviewed an internal working draft of a nighttime noise ordinance intended to fill enforcement gaps for recurring generator noise, debated definitions and decibel standards, and agreed to revise the draft for legal review and further discussion on Aug. 27.
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The board spent substantial time reviewing a draft 'Town of Baldwin Unreasonable Noise Ordinance' prepared by Kent to address recurring nighttime generator noise and other prolonged disturbances.
Chair said the draft seeks to "provide the town with a more direct and defensible enforcement mechanism for unreasonable nighttime noise while still allowing appropriate exceptions for emergency generator use, power outages, utility interruptions, public safety activity," and he walked members through key sections including purpose, authority, definitions, quiet hours (9 p.m.–7 a.m.), prohibited acts, exceptions for medical and emergency use, and measurement/evidence procedures.
Members debated whether terms such as "unreasonable," "prolonged," and "substantial interference" were too vague and whether the ordinance should include a mandatory decibel standard. One member argued that without a decibel threshold the ordinance risks becoming "subjective to one person's hearing," while others noted the draft sets a 2-night-in-7-days standard to distinguish maintenance from recurring nuisance. The board discussed possible technical references for decibel levels and the practicality of enforcement by the code officer.
The board directed Kent and Chair to tighten the draft based on tonight's comments, asked David to do a sanity check, and put the ordinance on the agenda for Aug. 27 for a vote on next steps (whether to send it to town lawyers, MMA/SMPDC, or another reviewer). The draft provided at this stage was marked as an internal working document and the Chair asked that it not be distributed publicly until properly formatted for legal and public review.

