Skip to content

Keeping the peace in the North Okanagan-Shuswap

CSRD noise bylaw would enable RCMP to ticket offenders.
8613416_web1_Quiet-please
Columbia Shuswap Regional District directors gave approval to the creation of a noise bylaw for electoral areas at a Sept. 21 board meeting in Salmon Arm.-Image credit: Photo contributed

Quiet please!

Columbia Shuswap Regional District staff are working on a noise bylaw.

Despite concerns about public expectations, potential staffing and budget resources, directors unanimously approved going forward with the bylaw at the Sept. 21 board meeting in Salmon Arm.

The issue of a noise bylaw arose at the May board meeting, resulting in public consultation conducted over July and August through newspapers, social media and the CSRD website.

A total of 245 comments were received, 62 per cent of them in Area A Rural Golden where 94 of 152 respondents were not in favour, and 16 per cent in Area C South Shuswap where 20 respondents out of 40 were in favour of the bylaw and 11 opposed the legislation.

Those in favour of the bylaw cited inconsiderate neighbours, short-term renters and tourists partying at night, and impact on quality of life.

People who were not in favour of the bylaw are generally opposed to more rules and regulations they believe would infringe on their rights to a rural lifestyle where neighbours can talk to each other to resolve issues.

“There appears to be some limited support but the sample size is really small,” said Gerald Christie, CSRD manager of development services. “The themes range from very supportive to very, very not supportive; those against the bylaw have strong opinions, they don’t want a bylaw.”

Christie told directors that staff are concerned about the bylaw and the conditions it might set up for regional district staff if they were to receive a complaint after hours.

“Do we call the RCMP or tell them to call themselves?” he asked, concerned about the expectation that falls on CSRD staff to enforce the bylaw.

First of the board to comment, Area A Rural Golden director Karen Cathcart noted the number of vocal constituents in her riding. She said people who own dogs that are protecting livestock are worried about barking complaints.

“Basically the matter is people don’t want to see change no matter what it is,” she said, pointing out she would like to see the 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. quiet time changed to 5 a.m. to accommodate those who begin work early, including farmers. “I am reminded the bylaw supports the RCMP; they could use it as a tool and it’s complaint driven.”

Although in favour, Cartwright acknowledged the extra staff time that would be required if the bylaw were to go forward and asked if it would be worth it if it is altered by amendments directors request.

Area D director Rene Talbot said the bylaw should be from 11 p.m. to 6 or 7 a.m. rather than 10.

“I don’t want to change hours on weekends, barking dogs are a big problem and it’s not the ones in kennels,” he said. “I have never had a complaint about dogs protecting farm animals, but I have had a lot of complaints about barking dogs in my area. Even though I was opposed before, I am now in favour of the bylaw.”

Both Area B rural Revelstoke director Loni Parker and chair and area E Rural Sicamous director Rhona Martin said they had received many calls about the proposed bylaw, and once callers understood its main intent was to provide the RCMP with a tool in the form of ticketing offenders, they were more accepting.

“Every area has dogs and we need to be clear this is not about dogs, but we also have a lot of industry and I worry about 7 a.m., a lot of people start working at 6,” said Martin. “I hear what staff are trying to caution us about and if the bylaw is to proceed, I think we need to put some news out that pounding a nail is not reason to call.”

Chief administrative officer Charles Hamilton says staff will now perfect a bylaw, trying to reflect some of the points brought up in discussion, particularly around hours.

“Correspondingly, Gerald said he’d be bringing back the bylaw enforcement policy to try to address expectations with respect to what will and will not be investigated,” he said.