LAKEVILLE — Noise pollution continues to be a crux of the public hearing to expand the Wake Robin Inn. On Aug. 26, the fifth hearing session of the month and second-to-last in the statutorily defined window, the question arose: is any additional sound permissible at all?
Bennett Brooks, founding sound engineer of Brooks Acoustics Corporation and an expert hired by Wells Hill Road residents William and Angela Cruger in opposition to the project, said no: “I think all the experts agree that the project will be audible and that’s the criterion.”
Attorney Josh Mackey, who has represented the applicant Aradev LLC since its first appearance before the Planning and Zoning Commission last fall, countered Brooks: “The idea that nuisance within the regulations means anything that is audible to neighbors is simply ludicrous.”
He referenced air conditioning units, dogs barking and children playing as inevitable sounds in a residential neighborhood. Herb Singleton, a sound engineer with Cross-Spectrum Acoustics and the Commission’s third-party expert reviewer, agreed with Mackey, explaining that defining nuisance as any sound emission that can be heard by neighbors “gets dangerous very, very quickly” due to those complicating factors. He suggested that nuisance “implies a level of annoyance based on audibility,” rather than audibility itself.
It was the third hearing in a row in which sound took center stage in the discussion, with the focal point being what constitutes “nuisance,” as it appears in the town’s zoning regulation 803.2 for special permit approval: “The use shall not create a nuisance to neighboring properties, whether by noise, air, or water pollution; offensive odors, dust, smoke, vibrations, lighting, or other effects.”
A sound study commissioned by Aradev for its application and Singleton’s third-party review both stated that the noise produced by the redeveloped hotel would be below a nuisance level at the property boundaries. At the Aug. 12 hearing, though, neighbors countered that any additional noise intrusion onto their own properties would be against the regulations, as they are intended to “protect abutters and neighbors” from intrusion beyond what they are used to, as Bill Cruger put it. Brooks argued in his Aug. 26 testimony that “in terms of size and scope, this project is almost identical to the former application,” which Aradev withdrew in December due to a likely denial.
Brooks was one of three experts brought into the Zoom room on Tuesday evening to provide testimony against the proposed hotel development. The Crugers, who were intervenors in the 2024 round of hearings for the first iteration of the Inn redevelopment proposal, decided not to formally intervene again during this cycle. Instead, P&Z Chair Michael Klemens stated that the Commission decided to allow the Crugers’ experts to “engage in a dialogue” during the process, but without formal party status in the proceedings.
The other two presenters, wetland scientist George Logan of Rema Ecological Services and Brian Miller of Miller Planning Group, echoed Brooks in their testimonies that Aradev’s current application has not satisfactorily reduced the scale and intensity of the first proposal. Representatives of Aradev have continued to argue that the current plan, which reduces the total occupancy from 158 to 130 and downscales its build footprint, among other alterations, adequately address scale and intensity concerns raised by the Commission and the public.
Of Tuesday’s three-hour meeting, only 20 minutes were left for public comment, leading to a much-abbreviated session for residential input. Klemens announced that the next hearing session, scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 4, at 6:30 p.m., will prioritize the public’s chance to speak.
Thursday is the last scheduled date for the public hearing, which state law deems must close on Sept. 9.
