BARRHEAD: County of Barrhead councillors have approved a sweeping new Community Standards Bylaw — eight years in the making — that aims to modernize enforcement of noise, property upkeep, and public conduct, but not without drawing criticism from residents worried about government overreach.
The bylaw gives the municipality the tools or mechanisms to deal with complaints from residents about what they believe is unneighbourly behaviour.
County manager Debbie Oyarzun said the bylaw also consolidates several existing bylaws under one umbrella, such as a noise and unsightly bylaw, and aligns everything to provincial legislation.
Council gave first reading of the bylaw during its Oct. 1, 2024, meeting.
"Work on the bylaw started in 2017 when council started discussing how to handle all the complaints the municipality was getting and modernizing the Noise and Unsightly Premises bylaws to have some consistency in enforcement," Oyarzun said.
She noted that the initial goal was to begin drafting the bylaw with their contracted bylaw enforcement providers, but they quickly realized that wasn't plausible, as it would take too much time away from their other duties — the municipality's contract provided only 80 hours of monthly service, all-in.
She added that council included other items in the bylaw to modernize it, such as a section on cannabis, which prohibits its use in public spaces except for buildings or structures where its use is allowed as part of the county's land-use bylaw or for medical purposes. The bylaw also addressed resident concerns about snow removal, specifically prohibiting residents from clearing snow onto or across roadways. It includes a section clarifying enforcement, obstruction, and peace officer discretion in issuing violation tickets.
Related links:
County of Barrhead resident concerned about people clearing snow onto roadwaysCounty of Barrhead gives first reading to proposed new Community Standards Bylaw
Oyarzun and community peace officer (CPO) Shae Guy noted the county's approach has always been that enforcement is largely complaint-driven.
"Even if your property is a bit unsightly, if no one can see it or your neighbours are OK with it, you are not going to see [community peace officer Guy]," she said.
Guy added that even if he did receive an unsightly complaint, there are practical things to consider before issuing a citation.
"You have to consider the land use and the neighbourhood," he said. "If it's an agricultural parcel and you have a bunch of tractors lined up in front of your property, I don't care. Even if someone complains, it is not something I will probably take action on. There needs to be a practical approach to some of this stuff."
However, Reeve Drozd said it might be a different story if someone lives in a rural subdivision with a row of discarded refrigerators and the CPO receives a complaint.
Guy also noted that the bylaw includes a new section on trees and vegetation, prohibiting them from interfering with utility infrastructure such as power poles and electricity lines. Property owners must also take steps to ensure that vegetation does not obstruct any adjacent sidewalk or impair visibility required for safe traffic flow — the latter being an issue in the hamlets of Neerlandia and Manola.
Drozd said he was glad to see the section added, especially the clauses protecting utility infrastructure.
"If a person doesn't have a utility right-of-way agreement with a utility company, getting onto the property to remove dangerous trees is sometimes difficult," he said. "Now we have it embedded in our bylaw that there has to be cooperation, primarily about any tree that could drop on a utility line and catch on fire."
Before the meeting, county resident Saralynne Dewar, in a presentation to council, voiced her opposition to the bylaw, calling the municipality's legislation "a severe overreach."
Her biggest concern was Section 6 of the bylaw, which gives the CAO, CPO or other duly appointed municipal official or contractor the ability to go on a ratepayer's property to conduct an inspection following a complaint and to do any remedial work.
"You have them being able to go onto a person's land with no warrant, no cause and no notice. That completely violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can't just walk onto people's land without reason, without notice," Dewar said.
She added that Section 6 also violates several federal and provincial laws.
Dewar said that if the municipality moved forward with the bylaw as written, she foresaw multiple court challenges being made against the county.
She also considered some of the regulations or clauses heavy-handed, referring specifically to Sections 8 and 9 on noise and nuisance complaints.
"Do people know that they need a permit to operate a generator if not on agricultural land? And if someone wants to run their lawnmower outside of quiet hours? What happens if it is 36 degrees, and someone wants to mow their lawn at 5 a.m.?"
Quiet hours in the bylaw are from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Under the bylaw, anyone who wishes to operate construction equipment, generators, power tools, or a powered lawn mower or snow-clearing equipment during quiet hours needs prior authorization from the county.
Dewar also questioned how the municipality would police nuisance complaints or disturbances at or near a public place — including fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, molesting, or using insulting language.
"I have children, I go into stores, and I'm offended by the music that they are playing because it has swear words. How are you going to enforce it? It is problematic and it is overreach," she said.
On the topic of the county manager, municipal staff or CPO entering a person's property, Guy said they did not need to include the clause in the Community Standards Bylaw and did so only for clarity, noting that legislation already gives them that authority.
"It is taken straight from the Alberta Municipal Government Act (MGA) and already exists in law and is common practice," he said.
Guy said under the MGA, if he receives a complaint that someone isn't compliant with the Community Standards Bylaw, he can go onto the property, make contact with the owner and conduct an inspection, which more often than not will be done with the property owner.
He added that if the resident or property owner asks the CPO to leave, they must do so.
"We then must give them a verbal or written notice at least 24 hours in advance that we are going to enter the property and conduct an inspection, and under the Municipal Government Act, they must allow us to do that," Guy said.
He also reiterated Oyarzun's point that any inspection is complaint-driven and that the CPO or other municipal employee needs to have a reason to inspect the property — sometimes the reason is that the CPO can be the complainant, having observed the resident in contravention of a bylaw.
Guy noted that inspections are limited to the property and that they cannot enter buildings.
Coun. Walter Preugschas asked if there was a way to make the bylaw more straightforward, explaining that the municipality could not enter a property without having a reason.
Guy said he would be reluctant to add that into the bylaw, as it is already included in provincial legislation, suggesting it would be a better fit as a policy.
"The way the bylaw and the MGA are worded, the law requires we follow the process already recorded elsewhere. If council wants the process outlined in the bylaw word for word, we can do that, but I don't think that is the place of a bylaw," he said. "That's a place for internal procedures and policies to come into play."
Coun. Jared Stoik said going to that kind of detail was unnecessary, instead suggesting they amend the bylaw to state the authority for municipal staff to enter residents' property to conduct an investigation is "according to the MGA."
Council approved the amendment.
Barry Kerton, TownandCountryToday.com
