ORDER-2021-111 : An Order Relative to Construction Site Noise during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Transcript (~25 min @ 31:00)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 30:58 Speaker 1: Councilor Stewart? Yes. Yes. Councilor Thomas? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. President Cinella? Yes.

▶ 31:12 Speaker 2: And yes. Next is Order 2021-111, in order relative to construction site noise during the COVID-19 pandemic.

▶ 31:21 Speaker 5: Councilor McNaught.

▶ 31:28 Jeff McNaught: This, just one of what, this is the noise ordinance, is that correct? So, Mr. President, thank you. This comes from the Appropriations Committee with a recommendation for passage. At this time, I'll move for passage because that was the will of the committee. I have a feeling there's gonna be some discussion though.

▶ 31:52 Christopher Cinella: Check it so there was a motion to for passage. And by Councilor McNaught, seconded by Councilor Thomas. On discussion. Councilor Stewart.

▶ 32:07 Robb Stewart: Yes, thank you. Mr. President on. In light of the memo that was sent by attorney Lucas. On this, I think that there are. Certain considerations that we need to make and his suggestion. To move this back to committee for further discussion, based on his observations, I think is an appropriate 1. And I would suggest that we. Ask for withdrawal of the motion to pass. And that we reconsider a motion to send back to committee based on this feedback. I think there's. Similar to what we saw with the earlier order, there are, I think a number of unanswered questions. In light of this, in terms of the cost, in terms of the generality. And I think it's proven to explore those.

▶ 33:14 Jeff McNaught: I wish to withdraw your motion in May and in 1 moment, I think councilor Thomas had his hand up. Mr. President.

▶ 33:23 Cory Thomas: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President. Thank you. Appropriations chair. Thank you. Counselor Stewart this. The order that the counselor McMaster brought forward on Thursday and received the unanimous vote from the appropriations committee. This is for projects that have been deemed. to have a need for acoustic monitoring through the construction management plan. And the construction management plan is set forward by the planning board. The larger projects have these acoustic monitoring requirements. They're already written into the construction management plan. We're only asking for enforcement of the construction management plan on projects that have acoustic monitoring. If you're building a deck in your backyard, you're not going to need acoustic monitoring. it's not going to be written into the construction management plan it's not going to have a construction management plan this is not going to affect 99 of the projects it's going to represent it's going to reflect a need for the largest projects in this community mostly along the railroad corridor in ward 5 and areas that have land like in ward 7. you know there's a number of projects that are coming up in ward 1 along the railroad corridor the development of franklin street uh there's some on public transportation in main street um you know throughout the community i know and and respect uh attorney lucas but i think his letter was a little bit misleading and it does not reflect what the planning board writes into these construction management plans these are for the largest construction plans in the city these are not for for every day projects that you and I might be doing in our own homes.

▶ 35:07 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 35:09 Christopher Cinella: Councilor Jamaleddine.

▶ 35:12 Maya Jamaleddine: Through the chair, I just wanna clarify with Councilor Thomas. So the attorney's concern were about the permits that were already issued about this project. Um, his concerns are, uh, where that he's gonna, it's gonna be costworthy for him to include these this new proposal.

▶ 35:43 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, well, you know, uh, doing his, uh, projects. So, he already received the permits and now we have new ordinance. So, is that I think this is worth to take into consideration and revise it.

▶ 36:00 Speaker 5: Thomas.

▶ 36:02 Cory Thomas: Through the chair, thank you. Um, this is not a new ordinance. I mean, it's a new order, but. These construction projects have already had acoustic monitoring written into the construction management plan. We're not asking to do something. We're not asking them to do something that they weren't required to do before. The planning board of Melrose is requiring acoustic monitoring. All we're asking for through this order is for the results to be shared through city hall. They're already they're already doing this. It was written written into the construction management plan by the planning board. We're not asking them to do anything more if it wasn't written into the, they don't have to do it. We're not, we're not adding, we're not looking to add something to a construction project that has already received approval. From the Melrose planning board, we're just asking for enforcement of this. And I believe attorney Lucas in his letter said that. They're already required to do acoustic monitoring. All we're asking is if they share at the end of each week, share the results of their acoustic monitoring with the board of health. It's as simple as that, we just want to make sure that following the rules of the construction management plan set forth already by the planning board. And if your project hasn't. Receive this recommendation from the planning board, or it doesn't have a construction management plan. You're not required to do the acoustic monitoring.

▶ 37:30 Jeff McNaught: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to let Councilor Eccles go before me. I saw his hand up. Thanks.

▶ 37:37 Speaker 5: I see you, Councilor Eccles.

▶ 37:38 Jack Eccles: Yeah. Through the Chair to Councilor Thomas as the maker of the order, I guess I've not read a construction management plan before. Do you believe that this order requires additional acoustic monitoring? For example, is the frequency of acoustic monitoring such that there is always one weekly so so for example is it currently written that you know someone might not have to do it every week but now they have to um submit submit uh submit a plan or submit a report every week so i'm just kind of wondering just kind of picking apart the burden that was it was discussed earlier if you could shed any light on that i'd appreciate it thomas

▶ 38:25 Cory Thomas: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Eccles, it's a great question. Thank you. In Ward 7, there's a large project going on right now of Swains Pond Road at Patrick's Place. They are turning in weekly results. They're turning in daily results when they're blasting. They're turning them in through the city and through the fire department in the fire prevention office. I know that over in Ward 5 on Pleasant street or washington in in washington street um there are projects that are ongoing that are required to provide acoustic monitoring um the order talks about enforcement of the acoustic monitoring uh and i believe councilor mcmaster said last week um during the appropriations meeting that the requirement is not being enforced and has not been enforced so far during the pandemic since construction started so it has been required but it hasn't been being it hasn't been turned in to date so we're again we're just looking for them to follow up on their

▶ 39:31 Speaker 5: requirements through the construction management plan anybody else uh council mcnaught thank you

▶ 39:34 Jeff McNaught: mr president uh and through the chair uh councillor thomas so um what what i'm wondering i noticed a couple conflicts between last week and uh attorney lucas's letter tonight one is um That this would only and I know the order says is that it would only take effect through the end of the pandemic, which, as we know, is unknown. Um, I don't think it had any plans to live on forever unless the council, um. Voted to continue it, uh, but the other thing, um, was that this would not cost any extra money so that we, we have a, um. a conflict between zero dollars and it's just being sent over to the clerk of committees under the order versus a hundred thousand dollar estimate can you help clarify that a little bit

▶ 40:33 Cory Thomas: i i don't know where um attorney lucas got those numbers uh acoustic monitoring is written into the construction management plan by the planning board um they should already be taking these records down and this is this is for jackhammering this is for you know regular construction noise

▶ 40:59 Cory Thomas: Last thing, anything that prevents quiet enjoyment for people, citizens of Melrose, we wrote it into the order that it lasts through December 31st, 2021, or during the pandemic, mostly because people are all working from home. They're learning from home, they're studying from home, they're spending a lot of time at home, and they're surrounded by more construction noise because they are at home more. This is up for debate if it moves forward tonight, it'll be up for debate in early 2022. if the council wants to move it forward and extend it into 2022. we'll have this. We'll have this discussion then. But, you know, here we are in almost May, and we're looking for an order, you know, basically for this order to enforce the requirements of the planning board for the next 7 months. The cost of it, unfortunately, I do not know that. I don't, I don't know where attorney Lucas came up with those numbers. You know, I'd like to dig into this deeper. I had conversations of my own with general contractors that are working on the project and what 7 right now. And I told him the same thing. The consulate. Master mentioned last week, we're not looking to make them do anything out of the ordinary and we definitely don't want them to spend any more money than they are already spending on their projects.

▶ 42:14 Jeff McNaught: You know, that's not the intention. Thank you. Council Thomas. I'm just going to do a quick follow up as president. That's okay. Um. Not knowing that you, as you said, you want to dig into this a little bit more. Would you be amenable to. Holding this us removing our 1st and 2nd, and getting to the bottom of this. I only ask because you say that there's other projects going on in the city where it's working. So, obviously, the health department is getting the acoustic numbers from those other projects. Just not this 1.

▶ 42:49 Cory Thomas: Is that fair to say through the president? I don't I don't think that's accurate. I don't know of any acoustic monitoring turn into the board of health right now. There are other projects in the city, and there are other city projects in the city that are coming up, you know, and this is for the citizens, you know, for some quiet enjoyment, you know, and having the general contract is, um. Health health of the standard of the planning board written construction management plan.

▶ 43:19 Jeff McNaught: Right and if if it's written into the, uh, and it does cost them extra money, and that's what we find out, then. that's what it is um those are my thoughts on it but thank you counselor thomas anything i'll cede my time to others who have more questions absolutely thank you mr president i don't have

▶ 43:40 Leila Migliorelli: any other additional questions uh counselor thomas answered my point of clarification which was that this isn't through the end of the pandemic it's through the end of the calendar year so that's it

▶ 43:51 Christopher Cinella: Anybody else on discussion? Councilor Tramontozzi?

▶ 44:00 Speaker 8: Yeah, through the Chair to Councilor Thomas.

▶ 44:03 John N. Tramontozzi: But I think what we have here is you have the contractors being required by the planning board to monitor. I think that the bigger question is, are they actually reporting what they're supposed to be reporting? All this order is doing is, Telling the contractors to report it to the planning board and then we, as the council will be able to have access to it. The paying for the monitoring anyways, are they not supposed to be reporting it to the planning board? What is the fear here? The monitoring it? And what I suspect is they're not accurately reporting it to the planning board. Like, they should be. Um, maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that that's what we're trying to get at here is just to get them to report it. So, when we have our constituents calling us saying, hey, there's a lot of awful lot of noise going on. But this construction project, we then could turn around, go to the planning board and say, hey, what is going on? And what is the readings? And if they report back to us that the readings are well, within the normal levels. then we can report to our constituents that the noise level is well within the normal level, and that's the end of the conversation. That's why we're asking, because that's all the constituents of boards covered by Councilor Thomas and McMaster are looking for. They want to know that these contractors are complying with the planning board orders and the construction. We're going to have other projects, as Councillor Thomas has suggested. I know that there are projects on the line in Ward 1 that are in the works. So I think this is an appropriate order, and I'll certainly vote in favor of it. Thank you.

▶ 46:01 Speaker 5: Councillor Stewart?

▶ 46:05 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Mr. President. A lot of good points raised in this discussion, Mr. President. I'm still not clear based on the apparent conflict in the two documents how to go forward on this. So, at this point, I'm not comfortable supporting to go forward, only because I think it's fair to hear attorney Lucas's perspective and point of view that there may be something additional that we're not understanding. I'm not sure, but when I see a potential cost by the city of a certain amount that concerns me

▶ 47:02 Robb Stewart: and actually maybe not by the city, I think more by the additional costs of the, of the contractor. So, but I'm not entirely clear. So, at this point, I will maintain my position. Thank you. Mr.

▶ 47:25 Jen Grigoraitis: Councilor Grigoraitis for the first time. Thank you, President Sinella and through the chair, just a point of clarification for Councillor Thomas. I just my understanding is that with regards to the concerns about the planning board, that this order was brought to the city solicitor, the director of planning for the city and the director of the board of health. And they did not weigh in in any formal way to the council, which I also believe would be the appropriate avenue for us to contact. The planning boards, those are that is a board appointed by whom people are appointed by the mayor.

▶ 47:59 Cory Thomas: Is that correct? Council Thomas? That is correct. We met with the city inspector, the city solicitor in the order was sent to the head of the. Planning and the planning board community development planning and community development. Director had opportunity to weigh in, and we did not hear a response after our initial meeting in February with the city inspector and the.

▶ 48:29 Jen Grigoraitis: City solicitor Thank you both. That was my only question.

▶ 48:35 Jeff McNaught: Thank you, Mr. President. So, I think we know from the other night that we voted 11 to 0 on this. So I think we all know that we want to do the right thing. The order made sense that hasn't changed, but out of respect for Councilor Stewart, what I would like to do is withdraw my motion. I would encourage my Councilor, fellow Councilor, Councilor Thomas to do the same. At least allow the motion go through whatever motion councilor Stewart wants to make vote on that. And. Um, if that doesn't pass, I'm happy to remake my motion for passage.

▶ 49:15 Christopher Cinella: So, you know, you're withdrawing your motion. I am. Procedurally, we don't need to withdraw a 2nd.

▶ 49:25 Christopher Cinella: What is the will is there. Councilor Eccles, I believe had his hand up.

▶ 49:34 Jack Eccles: Yeah, it's kind of just something that I hadn't yet considered. I did pull up the construction management plan for 99 Washington Street. And I don't see anything in here about weekly monitoring. It's a little vague. So that was just kind of for some background. It does seem to be a new expectation that we're setting of at least You know, this 1, I don't know, I can't speak for the word 7 when I just, I just pulled it up. So I'd be fine. Taking a closer look at it now that we've heard from 1 of the developers.

▶ 50:09 Christopher Cinella: Councilor Thomas, you ready to hand up.

▶ 50:13 Cory Thomas: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President. So, I second the motion to approve. Is that still on the table?

▶ 50:23 Christopher Cinella: We don't need to remove the 2nd, the main motions been removed. So, at this time, we have no motion.

▶ 50:33 Speaker 4: All right, well, if I could.

▶ 50:36 Cory Thomas: I know a number of general contract as I worked with. Countless general contractors in my 9 to 5 job and I know and appreciate many attorneys, but I, as I said, last Thursday, I've literally received about 200 emails. Just for concerns in and around Maple Terrace, Hillside Park, Worth Street, Maple Grove Street, people saying that they think their houses are shaking to the ground because of demolition and blasting. It does very little, but it's comforting to be able to go and get readings from blasting and let them know that they're within the legal limit of the construction that they're doing. It doesn't stop the homes from shaking. It doesn't stop emails from happening. But this is another layer of checks and balances that we're holding these contractors and these developers too. And I think it's an important order. And again, you know, it was voted on unanimously last week. I'd rather answer to the constituents of Melrose than the attorneys and the general contractors. Thank you.

▶ 51:43 Christopher Cinella: Anybody else on discussion or does anybody else? What is the will? Councilor Stewart?

▶ 51:51 Speaker 5: You're on mute. $5 fine.

▶ 51:55 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Mr. President. At this point, I would like to make a motion to read the letter by attorney Lucas into the records.

▶ 52:09 Robb Stewart: You actually did that earlier. That's already been done? Okay. That's already been written. Okay. Thank you. Then I would like to make a motion to refer this back to committee.

▶ 52:22 Christopher Cinella: Sort of, and is there a 2nd.

▶ 52:27 Christopher Cinella: So, motion made by a counselor, Stuart to send the order back to committee. Seconded by counselor, Eccles, any discussion around that motion.

▶ 52:39 Christopher Cinella: Seeing none, Madam clerk, if you follow.

▶ 52:42 Speaker 1: Counselor Eccles yes, yes.

▶ 52:48 Speaker 1: No, no. Councilor Grigoraitis. No. Councilor Jamaleddine. No. Councilor, excuse me, Councilor McNaught. No, no. Councilor Migliorelli. No. Councilor Stewart. Yes, yes. Councilor Thomas. No. Councilor Tramontozzi. No.

▶ 53:19 Christopher Cinella: President 9, no motion failed counseling. If not.

▶ 53:22 Jeff McNaught: This time, Mr president, I'd like to make a motion for passage.

▶ 53:28 Christopher Cinella: Motion for passage may have a counselor like, not. For the 2nd time, 2nd, and by counselor Stuart.

▶ 53:37 Jeff McNaught: On discussion again, I do think sorry. I do think. You know, I'm voting in favor of this. I believe in it. I feel for the hundreds of phone calls and emails that both Councilor Thomas and Council McMaster have received and all the residents that are affected by it. I do think we need to keep a close eye on if contractors are all of a sudden being asked to put up an exorbitant amount of money that they weren't planning on doing. Um, as we discussed last week, that's not the intention of the order. Um, and I don't believe that that's changed. So, as long as we can agree upon that, I don't think that there's any language change that's required for that. But just something for us as a council to be cognizant of. Thank you. Mr. President.

▶ 54:27 Christopher Cinella: Did you have something to add? Let's do it after.

▶ 54:35 Christopher Cinella: Let's do it, Thomas. No, that's miracles. Do you have something that I have? Yeah, I did just just, um.

▶ 54:44 Jack Eccles: Kind of to to to work my way backward from just talking about that 99 Washington street. Plan specifically my, my main concern was, you know, since we had heard from from 1 of the attorneys is just that this is setting a new expectation. That was not there previously and that's just from from taking a look at the construction management plan on the city website. It says nothing about, um. Weekly, I do agree with the spirit of the order I did last week and so. I wish that we had taken some more time to to look into exactly what the change in expectations are, but that's okay.

▶ 55:27 Speaker 8: I'm still trying to tell you thank you, but I'll pass.

▶ 55:34 Speaker 5: Okay, anybody else on discussion? All right. Madam clerk, you can follow the role.

▶ 55:37 Speaker 1: Councilor Eccles no. council of Garipay yes yes council Grigoraitis yes yeah council of Jamaleddine