The long-awaited new noise bylaw in Richmond edged closer to completion this week.
Since it was first proposed in the spring of last year, City of Richmond staff have been consulting the public, business community and industry experts on the merits and pitfalls of the new rules.
One of the main amendments resulting from the consultation will be the ability of city council to create specific "sound zones," to be employed in situations where the prescribed "quiet," "intermediate" and "activity" zones are not appropriate.
Should the amendment be approved later this month, city council will be able to look at situations on a case-by-case basis if, for example, it's faced with a residential rezoning application which would clash with an intermediate or activity sound zone.
"Staff will work to determine a process by which such site specific sound zones may be tailored and recommended by staff to council," the city's community bylaws manager, Wayne Mercer, wrote in his report to council.
As it stands, staff anticipate that such a process would include:
A prescribed fee to cover administration costs;
An application that includes specific proposed variations to sound limits;
A detailed application explaining the background and rationale supported by a professional acoustic report;
Steps taken by the applicant to mitigate sound levels and adhere to the bylaw; and
A public consultation process.
There was, however, considerable amount of negative feedback from the business community regarding the more restrictive daytime hours in the proposed bylaw, versus those in the existing bylaw.
The daytime hours on weekends and holidays in the proposed bylaw begin at 10 a.m., rather than 7 a.m. in the existing bylaw.
"This amendment was made to be consistent with the regulations in Vancouver and Victoria," wrote Mercer.
"Businesses suggested that (the change) is overly punitive to the business owner/tenant, despite their best efforts to mitigate noise created by their customers."
Mercer did point out in his report that the clause in question would only be in play when an objective measurement cannot be made and it's expected that progressive enforcement would normally begin with a warning anyway.
Other conclusions resulting from the public participation program include:
The establishment and refinement of the quiet, intermediate and activity zones to replace the two zones in the current bylaw has provided a more effective and representative mapping of the various property uses in the city and their interaction;
The shift to a more objective and expanded measurement of the various permitted noise levels, including dBA and dBC levels and using up-to-date technology, has provided a more predictable and reliable regime for personal and business residents to coexist as well as for those responsible for the enforcement of the bylaw.
Richmond's recent growth and densification of neighbourhoods, along with technological advancements in noise measurement since the implementation of the city's Public Health Protection Bylaw 6989 in 2000, prompted the city to review its bylaw.
The proposed updated bylaw was also brought to the fore because of a spike over the last two years in the number of serious noise complaints, directly related to the increased urbanization and growth of the city.
City council approved the spending of $100,000 last spring on developing the new bylaw. More is expected to be spent on implementing and enforcing it when it comes into practice as expected later this year.
