RM of Ste Anne considers greatly expanded noise bylaw

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 04/08/2023 (758 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The bylaw dealing with nuisance noise in the RM of Ste Anne is vague. This can pose a problem for a bylaw or police officer trying to enforce it in growing communities like Richer.

Council wants to change that by being much more specific as it looks at updating the 1990 noise bylaw. It took a first swing at it at the last council meeting July 26.

A draft version was prepared by staff in consultation with lawyers.

“They took from bylaws they drafted for other jurisdictions, compared with other jurisdictions and ensured the legislative requirements,” explained the RM of Ste Anne’s legislative officer Nadine Vielfaure at the meeting.

Council wanted set times defined for quiet times, so it has been included.

A designated officer can give out fines at their discretion under this proposed bylaw.

“However, it is probably in public transparency’s best interest to actually have a defined amount within the bylaw so that it’s clear and everybody understands it’s not a discretionary amount at the designated officer’s discretion – the amount of the fines,” said Vielfaure.

The number $100 was proposed for a first offence. The current penalty has a range of $50 to $300, at the officer’s discretion.

A copy of the publicly proposed bylaw was not provided by municipal staff after a request from The Carillon, with administration saying Vielfaure would respond after she was back from vacation. CAO Mike McLennan was also on vacation, so a list of what would constitute an offence was not available.

Offences in the 1990 bylaw include ringing bells if you are not a church or school, or running motors and electronics – including a phonograph – that produce a noise in such a manner as to create a nuisance.

Current exemptions include farm operations, emergency vehicles, farm animals including dogs, planes and trains, events with a permit, municipal operations, and Christmas carols during the month of December.

Members of council expressed their interest in not giving any fine for a first offence.

“If that bylaw officer has a bad day and he just comes up ‘he’s getting a fine,’” suggested Ward 4 Coun. Brad Ingles.

Vielfaure said that when the bylaw officer goes out to a complaint, the direction is to try explaining and educating first, but a fine can be handed out if the offender refuses to abide.

Ward 1 Coun. Sarah Normandeau and Ward 3 Coun. Patrick Stolwyk agreed with only allowing a warning to be given at first.

“It makes it easier if they’re going on site and they know what they’re working with, as opposed to ‘I have the opportunity to give a fine,’” explained Normandeau, adding she wanted to avoid taking up time unnecessarily from staff and council.

As written, anyone who receives a fine would have the right to appeal to council.

“Would there be some circumstances where a warning or an education would not be appropriate given the severity of the infraction? And you’re taking that discretionary power away from your bylaw officer to address the matter in a timely fashion,” suggested Vielfaure.

Deputy Reeve and Ward 6 Coun. Randy Eros was more concerned about setting a specific noise level to define as a nuisance.

“We should have a way of measuring at the edge of your property or the edge of the person who’s complaining’s property what’s too loud,” said Eros, suggesting they use a device to measure decibels.

“One thing is different types of noise may be more offensive or create more nuisance regardless of decibels level,” responded Vielfaure.

“Like barking dogs,” offered Coun. Stolwyk.

Something all of council agreed on was removing a section that seemed to go after types of speech rather than volume.

“Sound of any loud blasphemous, abusive, obscene or insulting language, or sing or shout or speak in a boisterous manner,” Eros quoted from the text.

Reeve Richard Pelletier chimed in with his big picture take on why they were remaking the noise bylaw, and how a rural municipality should approach it.

“This noise bylaw is because there is something that’s been repeating: equipment running all day or so on,” said Reeve Pelletier.

He said measuring decibels is the only way to really deal with noise complaints in the city.

“But in the country, it’s not like this, if you have a crusher crushing beside your land, or a live band. And that’s all we’ve really got to deal with,” said Pelletier.

At the end of the discussion, council unanimously approved first reading of the bylaw after removing the sections dealing with speaking, shouting and singing, snow clearing time restrictions, and adding that first contact with a bylaw officer must be a warning not a fine, and that a decibel level will be added after research from staff.

The new noise bylaw will come to council again for revision opportunities before becoming law.