Lavington LIFE is aware that Coldstream council is considering whether or not to amend the existing noise control bylaw. We have reviewed the existing bylaw and documents, and we offer the following comments.
Noise is a definite issue in the Lavington area.
The assumption by Coldstream staff and council that, because there have been relatively few noise complaints received over the last year, there is not a significant problem is wrong. It should be noted that few residents have the time to make complaints as they live in an ever more busy and stressful life in order to meet the financial demands put on them.
We note that other municipalities in B.C. and elsewhere have adopted scientifically measurable and objective noise standards.
The City of Richmond has been a leader in this regard.
We strongly urge council to adopt such standards, based on zoning, land use, proximity to residences, and appropriate noise levels. This is particularly important for industrial land uses. At a very bare minimum, measurable maximum noise level standards should be adopted for the periphery of the industrial zoned area in Lavington.
The residents of Lavington are well aware of the importance of agriculture as a source of employment and quality food.
However, the recent development and popularization of certain cherry varieties that require large mechanical inputs, and the expansion of cherry production in the valley, has led to excessive noise generation by orchard operations and significant negative impact on residents. We are also aware of the protection accorded to agriculture for noise and odour created by “normal” farm operations under the B.C. Farm Practices Protection Act.
We do not, however, see this as carte blanche for all forms of farm practices to cause significant deleterious harm to valley residents, who simply want to live a peaceful life on their own properties.
While we understand that the regulatory hands of municipalities may be tied by the Farm Practices Protection Act, we think there is every good reason for council to at least take the policy position that farm operators should be respectful of sleeping hours and should required to adopt best available technologies and practices, when there is the likelihood or existence of a noise issue in the area. We ask that Coldstream adopt such a policy and communicate it to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Farm Industry Review Board.
Lavington LIFE urges the district to take a proactive outreach approach to public consultation on the noise bylaw. This could take the form of an open public meeting, workshop or forum with speakers and discussion on various topics, including the Farm Practices Protection Act, industrial noise and noise mitigation techniques.
This could be done in the spring, and make use of the good research that has been done by district staff to date. The use of council or committee meetings solely to engage the public is not effective consultation. These meetings do not allow for effective information exchange and dialogue.
The fact that the district is small, with a limited tax and resource base, is not sufficient reason for council to ignore the impact of agricultural and industrial noise on Lavington.
The fact that few formal complaints have been lodged is not an accurate indication of the nature or severity of the noise problem.
A well developed progressive bylaw could provide an enhanced quality of life for the residents of Lavington, with no huge cost impact on the district.
At the very least, there needs to be measurable standards set in the bylaw for the periphery of the industrial zoned area in Lavington. Supposedly protective provisions in the existing land use bylaw pertaining to industry are totally ineffective.
Lavington LIFE directors
Coldsteam
