Noise Monitoring Rules

Online comments: 12

• Anon

  Why not all multistory construction? If a noise monitor shows a violation, what will happen?

  Comment added October 22, 2025 10:18am

• Yasmina

  As a resident of a 5-story tenement building located directly across from MSK’s 900,000 square foot Griffin Pavilion demolition and construction project at 1233 York Ave, slated to take at least 6 years to complete, I welcome this amendment. However, the “30 day” AHV requirement is unclear and possibly does not go far enough in protecting our right to a reasonable quality of life. Are the 30 days consecutive or over the course of the project? Working class families living near 1233 York Ave have been subjected to consecutive Saturday AHVs almost every Saturday in 2025, denied our right to rest and enjoy our homes after long work weeks and school studies, which dB readings regularly exceeding 75 dB. Related, the public should have access to live data and any recommended corrective action. Far too often our 311 noise complaints are closed without any corrective action whatsoever – hopefully this amendment will change that. I have attached examples of non-consecutive Saturday AHV permits for 1233 York Ave which should equally demand noise monitoring. And finally, 200,000 sq ft seems a high bar. With readily available modern technology, and the development boom City of Yes will bring, all construction sites should be required to have noise monitors that help enforce the Noise Code in order to protect the health and well being of New Yorkers.

  Comment attachment
  AHVPermit-102525.pdf

  Comment added October 25, 2025 10:59am

• Yasmina

  Additional attachment to earlier comment submitted here – Attachment is a sampling of dB readings from the MSK Griffin Pavilion 900,000 sq ft demolition and construction site’s noise monitor for 1233 York Ave, indicating that construction noise has regularly exceeded 75 dB on Saturdays. While the amendment does well to address ongoing AHVs of 30 days or more, there seems too much room to allow projects like this to operate as six-day-week construction sites in residential neighborhoods.

  Comment attachment
  1233-York-Ave-Saturday-AHV-July-Sept-2025-dB-readings.pdf

  Comment added October 25, 2025 3:19pm

• Laura Jackson

  I am in favor of this amendment. However, the “30 day” AHV requirement is unclear and possibly does not go far enough in protecting our right to a reasonable quality of life. Are the 30 days consecutive or over the course of the project?
  Like Yasmina, I am a resident of a 5-story apartment building located directly across from MSK’s 900,000 square foot Griffin Pavilion demolition and construction project at 1233 York Ave, slated to take at least 6 years to complete.
  Working class families living near 1233 York Ave have been subjected to consecutive Saturday AHVs almost every Saturday in 2025 during which dB readings regularly exceed 75 dB.
  It seems to me that tax-paying citizens of NYC should be entitled to two quiet days a week to relax and reset before returning to our hectic lives. Our physical and mental health are at risk otherwise.
  Thank you for your service to this great city…

  Comment added October 27, 2025 12:09pm

• Jochen Weber

  As one of the members of the Construction Working Group for MSK’s Pavilion project on the Upper East Side, I can attest to the difficulty created by unclear regulations as to what environmental impact data sources community members ought to have access to. I very much appreciate the DEP to further clarify with this rule the need of the general public to know the impact of larger projects, and making it clear that — for projects of a certain size — it is reasonable to presume that the operator of the construction site is responsible for providing adequate noise monitoring, and for making the data collected available for inspection.

  Comment added October 31, 2025 8:58am

• Daniel Avery

  Attached

  Comment attachment
  20251112-Construction-Noise-Rule-.pdf

  Comment added November 10, 2025 12:30pm

• Brendan

  I think this is good in theory, unfortunately, many construction sites don’t actually apply for after-hour variances and conduct the work anyway. I’ve reported one construction site dozens of times via 311 and the tasks are closed and the work continues.

  As always, enforcement of existing rules would really help versus creating amendments.

  Comment added November 10, 2025 3:49pm

• Lincoln Restler

  See attached

  Comment attachment
  DEP-Noise-Monitoring-Rule.pdf

  Comment added November 10, 2025 5:01pm

• Anonymous

  Absolutely in favor of this proposed rule. As a resident adjacent to Pratt, I feel a large, years-long construction project must abide by the city’s rules governing noise. Pratt has requested AHVs for months at a time, which means they work on Saturdays; in August they worked without an AHV well past 10pm on weeknights.

  Please address the use of AHVs – in my opinion it is simply being used so they can work 6 days per week – there is no public safety or other issue that requires them to need this whatsoever. Residents deserve two full consecutive days free of construction noise.

  Of course construction projects need to happen – but ensuring the days and times are clearly understood and the rules followed ensures a higher quality of life for neighborhood residents. I appreciate our borough’s beautifully maintained public spaces but would love to see more attention to noise.

  Noise monitoring should be used for ALL leaf blowing and landscaping as well.

  I’d love to see much more city action taken regarding all sheds, scaffolding, and Local Law 11 related work, which could be completed with far more efficiency in my opinion thus limiting the time residents must deal with excessive noise.

  Thank you!

  Comment added November 12, 2025 10:18am

• Anonymous

  I an in favor of this amendment. I just came back from a trip to Japan and noticed that noise monitors were prominently displayed on any major construction site, available for anyone passing by to look at. If this is standard in other countries, the least we can do is make sure that New York does the same. It is well known that high and ongoing levels of noise are detrimental to the health and safety of the surrounding community as well as the people who work in construction. Let’s make sure that noise levels are appropriately and transparently measured and documented, which can lead to necessary mitigation measures if needed.

  Comment added November 12, 2025 10:30am

• Bobby D'Alessio

  In the revised rule, the need for on-site noise monitoring will be required under the following circumstances:
  • “New building” construction that requires an ANMP
  • Project square footage is 200,000 square feet or more
  • Site is within 50 feet of residential or sensitive receptor
  • Duration of ANMP is 30 days or more
  Exceptions to the need for noise monitoring is provided for affordable housing projects and emergency work. Perhaps you may consider lowering the affordable housing threshold to less than 100%.

  It is unclear whether the 200,000 square foot trigger refers to the footprint of the project, building or to the cumulative floor area of the project.
  It is also unclear if “new building construction” refers specifically to the erection of a new building or any new construction work on new or existing buildings.

  It is unclear if the monitoring requirement only applies to ANMPs submitted pursuant to AHV or any project requiring an ANMP for whatever reason.

  I’m also concerned about the availability of the monitoring equipment and the need to use DEP-approved equipment. What will the administrative process look like for obtaining that approval? How will the data be used by DEP? How will DEP account for false positives perhaps caused by ambient noise, trucks passing, etc.

  Thank you

  Comment added November 12, 2025 10:52am

• Diane Cahill

  On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, we submit this Memorandum in Opposition with Comments.

  Comment attachment
  ABC-Memo-in-Opposition-with-Comments-re-Noise-Monitoring-Rule.pdf

  Comment added November 12, 2025 1:33pm