Report to/Rapport au :

 

Community and Protective Services Committee

Comité des services communautaires et de protection

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

May 17, 2012

17 mai 2012

 

Submitted by/Soumis par :

 

Submitted by/Soumis par : Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint, City Operations/Opérations municipales

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Linda Anderson, Chief, By-law and Regulatory Services / Chef, Services des règlements municipaux

Emergency and Protective Services/Services de protection et d'urgence

(613) 580-2424 x29257, Linda.Anderson@ottawa.ca

 

 

CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Ref N°: ACS2012-COS-EPS-0020

 

SUBJECT:

 

Noise By-law Amendment – Progressive Enforcement – Property Owners/Lessees

 

OBJET :

 

MODIFICATION AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LE BRUIT – APPLICATION PROGRESSIVE – PROPRIETAIRES ET AUX LOCATAIRES

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that Council approve amendments to Sections 2 and 3 of the Noise By-law (By-law No. 2004-253) to establish that no person shall cause or permit any unusual noise, shouting, or other noises prohibited in those sections, in a manner likely to disturb the inhabitants of the City, as outlined in this report and provided in Document 1.

 

 

Recommandation du rapport

 

Le Comité des services communautaires et de protection recommande au Conseil d’accepter les modifications aux articles 2 et 3 du Règlement municipal sur le bruit (Règlement municipal no 2004-253) pour établir qu’il est interdit de faire des bruits inhabituels ou de les permettre, de même qu’il est interdit de crier ou de faire d'autres bruits déjà interdits dans ces sections et susceptibles de déranger les habitants de la ville comme indiqué dans le présent rapport et dans le Document 1.

 

Background

 

Sections 128 and 129 of the Municipal Act, 2001 grant municipalities the authority to regulate and prohibit with respect to public nuisances and noise.  Thirteen (13) former municipal noise by-laws were harmonized in 2004 under that authority.

 

At its meeting of April 15, 2010, the previous Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) received an information report outlining the rationale for the noise response protocol in place then which, for safety reasons, did not allow Officers to attend noise complaints under certain circumstances.  CPS Committee requested that staff research amendments to the Noise By-law that could potentially hold property owners/leaseholders responsible for noise disturbances occurring on their property and report back with respect improved enforcement measures related to these types of noise complaints.  It was also suggested that staff consult with Legal Services and Ottawa Police.

 

Also early in 2010, the previous Council considered and rejected amendments to the Use and Care of Roads By-law with the outcome that staff was directed to undertake additional research and report back.  The proposed amendments were intended to address boisterous and unruly behavior, including noise, on City streets by duplicating provisions from the Parks and Facilities By-law that address those issues.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Issues with respect to noise such as shouting that occur when groups of people congregate at residences are on-going.  Persons engaging in such activities often create a nuisance to adjacent residents, business owners and the public.

 

The proposed amendments will make tenants or lessees of residences – not just their noisy guest or guests – more accountable for the activities taking place on their properties that result in unwanted noise by making it an offence to cause or permit the noise in question.  The proposed amendments will provide that persons who could be held responsible would include the owner of the residence if he/she lives there.  The proposed amendments will also augment current tools in place to address noise disturbances.

 

Further, the proposed amendments, along with the enhanced Noise Enforcement Protocol implemented in 2011, are expected to address the majority of the on-going noise issues noted above.  Through the enhanced protocol, By-law Enforcement Officers, who have undergone specialized training and have been provided appropriate equipment, now attend noise disturbance calls that they previously did not attend, resulting in more immediate action for and resolution of service requests.  As well, in 2012, the By-law and Regulatory Services Branch is implementing a pilot program through which a small complement of enforcement staff is assigned to work until 03:30 (an additional 1.5 hours) on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays from approximately May until September in order to address noise disturbances that occur on those days in the early morning hours when they cause the most concern.  The results and efficacy of the pilot will be assessed at its end to determine whether or not continuing it beyond 2012 is warranted.       

 

It is anticipated that the amendments to the Noise By-law proposed in this report, if approved, along with the aforementioned enforcement program enhancements, will serve to address the majority of residential noise issues.  With that in mind, staff does not, at this time, propose to bring forward any further recommendations with respect to amendments to the Use and Care of Roads By-law.

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no specific rural implications associated with the recommendation, although rural residents would benefit from any positive impacts of the proposed Noise By-law amendments, if approved, as they relate to shouting and other unusual noises that can potentially disturb residents in any neighbourhood of the City.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Notification of the consideration of the proposed amendments was posted on the City’s website and published in the local daily newspapers.  As well, all Members of Council were provided a copy of the notice for information and for circulation to their residents as appropriate.  The comment period was approximately four (4) weeks in duration.

 

General Public / Community Organizations

 

A public meeting to discuss the proposed amendment was advertised in the local dailies and through Members of Council, and took place on April 24, 2012.  Approximately sixty (60) participants attended.  As well, sixty-eight (68) written submissions commenting on the proposed amendment were received from individuals and from organizations, all from various areas of the City.  With the exception of three (3), all those who commented were in full support of the proposed amendments.  A significant number of the participants who attended the public meeting as well as those who submitted written comments felt however that, while the proposed amendments would improve the City’s ability to address noise issues, they do not go far enough.  Those participants/ respondents suggested alternatives which are outlined below, along with staff’s position in that regard.

 

1.    Landlords (owners who do not live at the residence) should also be held accountable for shouting and other disturbing noises.

 

Given Ontario’s current landlord-tenant law (Residential Tenancies Act, 2006) and the associated legal processes, it would be unfair to hold responsible landlords who do not live on the premises.  Landlords can and often do set out noise restrictions in their leases. However, the manner in which a landlord enforces a lease is by way of eviction proceedings, which usually begin with a Notice of Termination giving a tenant seven (7) days to cease their improper behaviour.  A Notice of Termination can only be given in circumstances specifically listed in the Act.  Under the current law, substantially disturbing other tenants in a building is a ground for termination, but substantially disturbing neighbours is not a ground for termination. Therefore, a landlord does not currently have the legal or practical tools needed to control tenant noise that disturbs neighbours.  The Chair of the Eastern Ontario Landlord Organization, who attended the public meeting in April and submitted written comments on the staff proposal, supports the foregoing position as well as the proposed amendments to the Noise By-law.

 

As well, an amendment to the Noise By-law which would allow prosecution of landlords would require a far broader consultation than was undertaken for the amendments proposed in this report.    

 

2.    People causing noise disturbances on the streets should also be held accountable and receive a by-law or other appropriate charge

 

In 2010, the previous Council considered and rejected proposed amendments to the Use and Care of Roads By-law which were intended to address boisterous and unruly behavior, including noise, on City streets by duplicating provisions from the Parks and Facilities By-law that address those issues.  The rationale for the rejection seemed to relate to concerns about the manner in which the by-law provisions would be used and about the groups that might be affected.

 

It is however anticipated that, if approved, the amendments to the Noise By-law proposed in this report, along with the implementation of the enhanced Noise Enforcement Protocol and the aforementioned 2012 pilot enforcement program, will serve to address the majority of residential noise issues.  Noteworthy also is that the original staff proposal was to amend only Section 3 of the Noise By-law which captures disturbances caused by shouting; however, as a result of the public consultation, the proposal has been expanded to include a similar amendment to Section 2 of the Noise By-law which captures “any unusual noise or noise likely to disturb” generally – a much broader scope. 

 

3.    The administrators of the post-secondary institutions in Ottawa should be part of the solution to the noise issues as many such issues are caused by post-secondary students

 

Initiatives such as the “Town and Gown” communities program are being actively pursued in Ottawa currently.  The intent of this particular initiative generally is to involve Universities and Colleges, their host cities/towns, as well as student, neighbourhood, police and business organizations in meaningful discussion to address issues of common interest that could best be served by partnering efforts and sharing information.  “Town and Gown” associations are dedicated to improving the quality of life in those municipalities that host post secondary institutions by promoting and supporting activities that ensure cohesive communities that are safe, healthy and enjoyable.

 

Ottawa Police Service

 

The Ottawa Police Services supports the proposed amendments to the Noise By-law and other initiatives outlined in this report, and would be interested in participating in a review of any other related by-law amendments.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no legal impediments to implementing the recommendation of this report.

 

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no risk management implications associated with the recommendation.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendation itself.  However, there are costs associated with the pilot enforcement program referenced in the “Discussion” section of this report, which can be absorbed on a one-time basis in the current 2012 budget for By-law and Regulatory Services.  If the pilot program is to continue beyond 2012, staff will bring forward recommendations for the 2013 operating budget, as necessary.

 

ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS

 

The recommendation will have no negative impact on people with disabilities and/or seniors.

 

Technology Implications

 

There are no technological implications directly associated with the recommendation.

 

TERm of council priorities

 

The proposed amendments are expected to have a positive impact on the manner in which the City addresses undesirable noises, leading to a reduction of nuisances caused by noise.  This initiative is therefore in support of the Term of Council Priority of contributing to the improvement of the quality of life of residents and visitors (C1 Residents & C3 Visitors).

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1:  Drafting Instructions – Noise By-law Amendment (Immediately follows the report)

 

DISPOSITION

 

If the recommendation is approved, By-law & Regulatory Services, in consultation with Legal Services, to process the required amending by-laws to Council for enactment

 

 


DOCUMENT 1

 

 

DRAFTING INSTRUCTIONS

NOISE BY-LAW AMENDMENT

(By-law No. 2004-253, as amended)

 

 

1.    Amend Section 2 such that the words “cause or permit” be added to establish the following section:

 

No person shall cause or permit any unusual noise or noise likely to disturb the inhabitants of the City.

 

2.    Amend Section 3 such that the words “cause or permit” be added and that the remaining wording be adjusted accordingly to establish the following section:

 

No person shall cause or permit the ringing of any bell, sounding of any horn, or shouting in a manner likely to disturb the inhabitants of the City provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent,

a)    the ringing of bells in connection with any church, chapel, meeting house or religious service,

b)    the ringing of bells in connection with City Hall between 0900 hours and 2100 hours of the same day, or

c)    the ringing of fire bells or fire alarms or the making of any other noise for the purpose of giving notice of fire or any other danger or any unlawful act for a continuous period of time of twenty (20) minutes or less.

 

3.    General:

a)    Amendments to the above-noted by-law shall include any minor revisions necessary to give effect to the amendments noted.

b)    The effective date of the amendments to the Noise By-law will be July 2, 2012.