Almost exactly one year after Salt Spring’s agricultural community crowded Lions Hall to press for change in the wake of a court ruling against one couple’s poultry-breeding activities, local elected officials think they might have a path forward on noise bylaws.
And even as he acknowledged islanders’ celebrated patience may be wearing thin with the slow pace, Local Community Commission (LCC) member Brian Webster said it was “better late than never” on a thorough examination of the disturbance and animal control laws that govern Salt Spring residents.
“There are lots of people in the community who will just roll their eyes, that a year after we do a town hall we’re asking for clarification about the rules,” said Webster at the LCC’s meeting Thursday, Sept. 18. “Just the fact that it’s taken this long for us to get to this point. But this is clearly information that people need.”
To that end, the LCC intends to ask staff to report back on the “process and implications” of amending Capital Regional District (CRD) Bylaw 1465 surrounding animal regulation to exempt Salt Spring from the animal noise section (26), with a reference to elevating CRD Bylaw 3384 — the “abatement and control of disturbing noise” bylaw — as the “sole animal noise bylaw applicable to Salt Spring Island.”
They also asked for a report clarifying what LCC chair Earl Rook called the “status quo” on exceptions to those bylaws, such as identified farm operations on ALR land.
“I like to think of us as a deliberative body,” said Rook, “and this is part of the process. It’s not always fast, it’s not always pretty, but that’s what we have to do to get there.”
The two seemingly competing bylaws each exempt agricultural noise — such as that from roosters — from nuisance restrictions in some circumstances. Bylaw 1465 states, in part, that except in an Agricultural Zone, “no person shall keep, harbour or permit, allow or suffer to be kept or harboured on any property owned, occupied or controlled in any way by such person any animal which disturbs or tends to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment comfort or convenience of the neighbourhood in which the animal is kept or harboured or of persons in the vicinity of such animal.”
Bylaw 3384 states, in part, “no person shall make, cause to be made, or continue to make any noise or sound in the Electoral Area which creates a noise that disturbs or tends to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of the neighbourhood or of persons at or near the source of such noise or sound.”
Notably, while Bylaw 1465 carves out an exception for agricultural activities by zoning, Bylaw 3384 has several laid out by the kind of activity taking place. Relevant to what has become Salt Spring’s “rooster issue,” the bylaw would not apply to “noise associated with legitimate farm operations, providing all reasonable measures have been taken to abate noise.”
LCC member Ben Corno mused that the discussion tends to become heated on Salt Spring because it resonates so deeply with islanders — more than people living elsewhere might immediately understand.
“We also get just as much flak for not enforcing enough,” said Corno, who pointed to noise complaints that had nothing to do with agriculture being brought to his attention. “We have people coming to us saying they’ve been trying to get a bylaw complaint lodged against a neighbour, and bylaw enforcement is not catching the noise.
“But this one is different,” Corno continued. “If people want to know why we’re focusing [on the rooster noise issue], it’s because it brings up who we are as a community.”
CRD director Gary Holman pointed out that CRD staff do make efforts to work things out between neighbours, at least in a “shuttle diplomacy” framework if not in an all-parties mediation setting.
“The [Woodland Avenue] case that went to court took three years [to get there],” said Holman, “because staff were trying to work it out, and in the end they couldn’t. Eventually they had to go to court to enforce the bylaw — and until a bylaw is taken off the books, they’ve got their job to do.”
LCC member Gayle Baker said she still held out hope for “neighbours talking to neighbours” to resolve disputes before calling bylaw enforcement. Corno agreed, but added if there had been a silver lining to the ongoing rooster saga, it had been islanders educating themselves on seemingly arcane issues like land zoning and bylaw compliance.
“We can wish all the things that we want to, for these complainants and complainees, but there’s still an onus on the community here to behave a certain way,” said Corno. “I just don’t think that’s something we can legislate, and I kind of think that some of the community is wondering if we can.”
The LCC next meets at 5 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 9.