Connecticut Subdivision Sues to Stop Cannons

Related: Below is an excerpt from a state environmental hearing transcript that took place in Connecticut on March 19, 1993. James Laban's testimony begins here. The full transcript of this hearing can be seen here or here.

CARL DEMATTEO: Senator Daily, Representative Stratton, all the members of the Environment Committee, I'm Carl DeMatteo. I'm with the Connecticut Farm Bureau, and I'm here today to speak to you on two different bills.

The first bill I'll speak to you on is the agricultural noisemakers, SB1030. Farm Bureau is in strong favor of the rights of farmers to use agricultural noisemakers to repel or scare wildlife in order to prevent the damage and destruction of agricultural crops.

There are many farmers in the state who currently could not survive without these noisemakers. These rights are guaranteed to them under the right to farm, under Connecticut statute. Connecticut Farm Bureau is concerned that economic hardship on the farmer, as a result of revocation of his permit, may force him out of business, once again violating his right to farm.

Subsection E allows for local appeal and possible revocation of the farmers permit, even if he is in compliance with standards which will be set for noise, placement and frequency and usage of the noisemakers.

If the farmers permit is revoked, no where in this Section does it provide for his appeal on the basis of his undue hardship. Furthermore, Subsection F authorizes the commissioner to revoke the permit for any violation of this Section. This is a permanent revocation. Will the farmer be able to reapply? Is it a suspension, or is there going to be, you know, language considering both of those areas.

We realize the delicate relationship that agriculture has with a lot of the municipalities, and we endeavor to create an environment where agriculture can sustain in an urban state.

However, we consider the rights of our farmers under the statute, paramount importance and we will work diligently to preserve them.

Would you like me to speak on the other bill first?

REP. STRATTON: Yes, why don't you, go ahead.

CARL DEMATTEO: Okay. I'm also here today to speak on SB1031, which is AN ACT CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. The proposed bill will provide permanent authority to the department regarding the fee-simple purchase of agricultural land.

While this program may be an option, and a tool in farm land preservation efforts, we believe the most appropriate tool is the purchase of development rights program. Funds available for farm land preservation should be directed to the PDR program. More acreage per dollar will be achieved.

Currently the proposed buying authorization for the next two fiscal years is five million per year.

The fee simple purchase program in this current economic climate, and state budgetary situation, is not a cost effective way to preserve farm land.

More farms and more acreage could be added to the farm land preservation program through the purchase of development rights, as opposed to the outright purchase of agricultural lands.

Connecticut farmers highly support the PDR program.

Currently there are a 120 pending applications.

The majority of which will not be able to enter the program due to the budgetary and resource constraints.

Furthermore, we're opposed to the direct purchase of farm land. Because we believe that a farmer, rather than the state, should retain interest in the farm land. To quote one of our dairy farmers, Connecticut has put so much money into farm land preservation that we'd be foolish to save the land without saving the farmers who farm it.

Connecticut farmers oppose the SB1031 because funding for a program that has been a valuable and most cost effective tool in the preservation of farm land, the PDR program, may be diverted to a program that is not as effective a tool that preserves the farm land without the farmer.

I respectfully request that you give both these, testimonies consideration.

REP. STRATTON: Thank you Carl. If we could go back to the noisemakers. Do you have any comment or data that you could get us on what kind of decibel level is essential to scare an animal away?

CARL DEMATTEO: I can research that information for you and get that to the committee.

REP. STRATTON: And secondly, sort of on, then on the basis of that, and I realize obviously this would vary all over the place with the size of the farm, and where the field was, in, you know, proximity to a property line, but just if we start to sort of explore the avenue of coming up with a decibel level at property line, which certainly seems the far more appropriate in terms of neighbors considerations. Just any input that you could give us on what that might appropriately be.

CARL DEMATTEO: Absolutely.

REP. STRATTON: Are there other questions? Yes, Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Yeah, in the interest of compromise, I'm wondering why we can't have the decibel limit at the property line, lower one, and then if you, if you need a higher decibel limit to scare the animals that the farmer put in a buffer of evergreens or something between the two properties, then you would still be able to scare your animals but the people next door don't suffer nerve damage.

CARL DEMATTEO: I will explore that, and I will also go through the federal entities which do vest management praxis and programs concerning areas in that area, and research and see if there are EMPs for noisemakers in regards to vest management.

REP. STRATTON: Thank you very much Carl.

CARL DEMATTEO: Thank you.

REP. STRATTON: James Laban, followed by Stuart Korchin.

JAMES LABAN: Hello. My name is Jim Laban. I come from Portland, Connecticut. I'm here representing myself and a group of neighbors of mine. We've formed a little committee in opposition to noisemakers, use of noisemakers, and I'm here to speak to, and to tell you that I'm opposed to the passage of this SB1030.

This bill, as it stands, permits for sound making devices capable of producing sound levels up to 130 decibels in residential areas. It further allows, as you've already discussed here, depending on the type marauding involved, noisemakers may be used for 24-hour periods, every day.

This directly conflicts with Connecticut general statutes 22A-67, enacted in 1974, pursuant to the noise control act of `72. There the legislature declared that a) excessive noise is a serious hazard to health, welfare, and quality of life to the citizens of Connecticut. That exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological and economic damage.

The primary responsibility for the control of noise, rests with the state, and that each person has a right to an environment free from noise that may jeopardize his or her wealth or welfare. You know, I just want to jump to the meat of this. I mean I got all this prepared, but the more I listen today, the angrier I get, and all the memories come back of laying in bed at night and being awoken in the middle of the night.

This started in our neighborhood, and I'm just going to jump right ahead. I moved into our neighborhood, we built our home in a residential area that abutted 38 acres of land in Portland.

That land was used, up until 1977, to grow tobacco, by R.J. Reynolds.

They ditched the tobacco business and moved out.

So the land sat there vacant. We had a farm in

1986, now I moved in `81. In 1986 a farming operation from the other side of town decided to expand this operation. Came over and leased the land and he began to grow sweet corn. We had no notice, no nothing.

I came home one night and I thought, I really thought that there was a war going on outside. It was incredible. He had these things blowing off, three at a time, he had three noisemakers out there, around the clock, 24-hours a day.

Somebody talked before about calling their legislators, we got on the phone, we were calling the police, we were calling the wardens, we were calling the state - everybody - the legislators.

We were waking people up at night - what is going on here. Somebody's got to be doing something wrong.

This, now this three minutes I got here, I've got to squeeze seven years of frustration into this.

I've dug through these statutes. I've dug through the constitution. I've called people. We've, you know, there's been a lot of talk this morning about decibels, and what's, what's a good decibel level, where should you measure it, how should you measure it.

Well, it's alright here. We got standards as a result of this noise control act, the DEP has developed standards. They have them there, daytime standards, night time standards, what area you're in, and it's measured at the boundary.

You came up with a super idea - how about a buffer?

How about a buffer. But you measure the decibels at the boundary. I can tell you what a hundred decibels is like. I can tell, during the summer you cannot open your windows. With the storm windows down, the windows closed - the windows rattle all night, all night.

During the day they rattle. You can't go out in your backyard. You have a picnic out in your backyard and it looks like popcorn out there, the people jump off their seats. You don't get used to it, I'm sorry. I'm getting angrier as I talk.

That's something you never get used to. The sound and the vibration goes right through your body.

Dogs in the neighborhood won't go out in their backyards. They get constipated all summer, because they're afraid to go out. It sounds like a battle zone. This is not a situation, I think you brought it up before, where we moved in on a farming operation, existing farming operation.

An existing farmer expanded his operation, I'm calming down now, and moved in on us.

And all we wanted to do is reach some sort of compromise. Do we need these noisemakers? How effective are they? Well, through our last legislator, Vinnie Mazzotta, he asked for a study to be done. Gary Kane from the experimental Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station, did a lengthy study on these.

And the bottom line is that, two bottom lines.

Gary Kane, Connecticut Agricultural, said that the cannons are not very effective on racoons and deers for any length of time because the animals habituate to the sound. But he acknowledged that the cannon would temporarily frighten the animals.

In a later paragraph, and because the experiment station has not found cannons effective with racoons or deer, their use after dark is not recommended.

Now, I'm missing something. Why are these people blowing them off if they're not effective. If I was a farmer, I wouldn't want to go out and spend three, $400 on a cannon, and blow it off all night if it's not effective. We talked to a zillion people. We went through DEP pollution - Joe Polaski, went through some little hand held decibel meters and all.

The bottom line is, it triples and quadruples any standards that are in existence now. Somebody else said, well what about your own local noise ordinance - we have one in Portland - that's the good news. The bad news is - it was enacted after the 1967 legislation went through authorizing the use of the noisemakers, so we can't use it. It wasn't in place before.

This, aside from the decibel levels, this bill will allow anyone in the state to rent a vacant five-acre parcel, just anywhere in the state. Go to DEP, get a permit and start using these, these cannons. The neighbors aren't notified, and what we've been looking for, and I've been pushing for, this, this bill or some sort of regulation, some sort of standards, cause every time we turn around they say - well, we have no rules, and we're just going to issue it to them.

And, we'll only take it away if they violate it.

Well, they violate it consistently. They got a permit for one noisemaker - they set up three.

They got a permit to go from dawn to dusk, the go throughout the night. The guy who lives on the other side of town, the farmer, now, he forgets to turn it off.

So, you're up till two and three in the morning, and they usually do it on weekends, cause the people from the Department of Ag, aren't on duty on the weekends, so they know when they can get away with it, and it's, we've invited the farmer over.

Come on, compromise, talk to us, we've been in the newspaper, and they are, why should they compromise if they got the rules on their side.

They don't want to give up the right to the, the permit, but in doing so, they're taking away from our full use and enjoyment of our property. And it gets very frustrating. But anyone in the state right now, under this bill, can go out and rent a five-acre parcel, set up a noisemaker, and there's nothing they can do.

The adjoining neighbors, if they, if they feel offended by the noise, can go to the local legislative body and go through some sort of process, which they're not clear about. Town meeting, some sort of legislative proposal that will be presented to the commissioner, and then it's up to him whether or not they're going to grant this or not.

There's no appeal rights afterwards, so, I don't, I don't see where it's giving us anything. Anything in this bill, in fact it's taking away. I don't think they, they even come close to a 130 decibels at a property line, 100 maybe, yeah, but that's, you can't sleep through that.

REP. STRATTON: Thank you very much for your testimony.

JAMES LABAN: Thanks, thanks.

REP. STRATTON: In the process of using the DEP's measuring devices, did you record decibel levels that you could share with us at your home?

JAMES LABAN: No, they didn't. They only had a hand held that you took on, you know, just looked at it and took the measurements.

JAMES LABAN: But sometimes, there...

REP. STRATTON: What kind of decibel levels were you getting?

JAMES LABAN: Ninety, 95, yeah.

REP. STRATTON: Secondly, if you have copies of the report that Vinnie Mazzotta had done for you, I think they would be of interest to us, or a copy of it.

JAMES LABAN: Yeah. Could I give you one massive copy of everything that I have here.

REP. STRATTON: Yes, definitely.

JAMES LABAN: Including the statutes and standards.

REP. STRATTON: If you would just leave that with the clerk, I would appreciate it.

JAMES LABAN: Right.

REP. STRATTON: I think maybe there are questions.

Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Thank you. What improves the standards, more recently than I have and what does DEP use for the boundary line, for violation?

JAMES LABAN: Say that one more time. What standard?

REP. MUSHINSKY: The DEPs regs, what do they use now for a decibel violation at the property line?

JAMES LABAN: I wonder if you could hold that question till one of my other neighbors speaks. He's the scientist over here, but I do have the standards here and I could give you a copy right now for you to look at. But I'm not sure of difference between impulse noise, continuous noise, and all that.

But just to give you an example. They have three different...

REP. MUSHINSKY: Well, if we...

JAMES LABAN: ...three different areas in the state, and the night time standards for all three, I'm not sure which one I fall under, one is 51 decibels, one is 45 decibels, and the other is 45 decibels, measured at the boundary line. No sound can be emitted past your boundary line in excess of those standards, night time standards.

I'm not sure exactly what zone I fall under, whether it's agriculture coming into a residential.

I'm not really sure. But the highest they'll allow is 51, 51 decibels, if that can give you any help.

But I'm not an expert in sound.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Okay, I have to go to Finance Committee right now, so I'm leaving, but if you have any other numbers, you could leave them for me on the desk here...

JAMES LABAN: Okay.

REP. MUSHINSKY: And I'll come back later and get them.

JAMES LABAN: Okay, thanks.

REP. STRATTON: Questions? Representative Norton.

REP. NORTON: So, the measurements that sort of, off hand measurements you've made of 90 to 95 were the measurements of the noise being emitted, which you couldn't, you found unbearable, at 90 - 95 these are measurements where it was pretty much unbearable?

JAMES LABAN: I can tell you that, right those were unbearable. Those were extremely unbearable, but it had been even louder than that. Yeah, this is as if I was to stand right here at this distance and shoot a shotgun. That's how loud it is. You could feel the vibrations, not just hear them, feel them. It rattles windows. That's what we're talking about.

REP. NORTON: Did a, a, this is presuming that there were times that were better than other times. Did the frequency of the blast, I mean if it was once every two minutes, does that make it, you know, much better than it being once every 30, we don't speak in the statute, we just speak to sound, we don't speak to frequency of the blast.

JAMES LABAN: Right.

REP. NORTON: And I'm wondering if that's a part of the problem.

JAMES LABAN: Let me respond to that, though, if I hit you on the head once every ten seconds, or once every minute, would it be any better, yeah, probably if I only hit you once every minute. But, either way, either way, try to sleep through that, with me hitting you on the head once a minute instead of every 30 seconds. Yeah, that, that's probably the best way, or snotty way of responding to you. I hope you didn't take offense, but that's what it gets to, yeah.

REP. NORTON: Um, I guess I don't have any other, did, well, no, I was going to ask about trapping, but that's on someone else, never mind.

JAMES LABAN: Okay. Thanks, thanks a lot.

SEN. DAILY: I just wanted to ask one thing for clarity.

JAMES LABAN: Sure.

SEN. DAILY: The 90-95, was that the, that was unbearable, I understand. Was that in your house with the windows closed?

JAMES LABAN: No, well, actually the distance between the back of my house to the property line is about

50 feet. And that's another thing, this 500 feet from any property line - forget it. They move the cannons, I just want to explain that too, and they grow in different spots, so they harvest here, and harvest here. At least that's what I've learned, then they move the cannon.

So by the end of the season, they are, they are literally maybe twice the distance of this room away from my property line, maybe a hundred feet, not five hundred feet. But at that distance, I go back right to my property line, which is about 50 feet from the back of my house and measure it.

But if you go in the house, stand up in an upstairs bedroom it's almost the same. There's very little difference. You can go in the basement with the TV on and it will, not disturb you, it will jolt you, yeah, that's what kind of noise. You have to hear it, yeah, to really understand the impact. And I'm not a sensitive person.

SEN. DAILY: Or you used not to be.

JAMES LABAN: Right, now I'm shell shocked. Thanks a lot.

SEN. DAILY: One more question.

REP. JOYCE: I'm a little confused...

JAMES LABAN: Sure.

REP. JOYCE: Are you for the bill, or against it really, or partly for and partly against.

JAMES LABAN: I'm for regulating the permits and use of noisemaker, absolutely. But I'm against this particular, the language in this bill, in that the decibel levels are too high. Why not just adopt the existing noise levels that we already have in statute.

Why not just do that. And secondly it doesn't give the homeowners, or the residents an appeal mechanism. Those are the two parts I oppose.

REP. JOYCE: They do have appeal through the courts.

Any...

JAMES LABAN: That's why, that's where we're at right now with this neighborhood group. This is our last hope, and if we have to go through another, sir, we've already got a little strategy there. That's what we'd have to do - go through the court. And we really wanted to reach some sort of compromise, talk to the farmer, do anything - a buffer.

Anything at all. Is there anything, you know, that he could do other than this, grow another crop, I don't know.

REP. JOYCE: Do you have a list of your particular, the way you would fix this bill up. A list of things that would fix the bill up to your satisfaction?

JAMES LABAN: You know, I wish I did. I got notification of this hearing the day before yesterday. And I had to bang out this paper.

REP. JOYCE: I think it would be very helpful if we did have, you know, a record of what you think would be good to...

JAMES LABAN: I could, I'd love to submit something like that, yeah, I will, maybe through one of you I could submit it at a future time. Great, thanks a lot.

SEN. DAILY: Those decibel levels that you cited in regulations, those were ones that have been for stationary sources, are they not?

JAMES LABAN: That's right, that's right.

SEN. DAILY: For this application.

JAMES LABAN: I don't know the answer to that question, yeah, I don't know.

SEN. DAILY: They're two different things.

REP. NORTON: Those numbers seem to go (inaudible -

microphone off) cause I worked in a factory, one of my towns in my district trying to get their noise level down, as I recall 51 was the number I recall for (inaudible).

SEN. DAILY: I think there is some difference in a stationary source than a non-stationary source.

Thank you very, very much.

JAMES LABAN: Thank you.

Angry Neighbors in Connecticut Take Farmer to Court Over Noise From "Corn Cannons"