Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD-26-97THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINCTON z REPORT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File# /, /~?~-~ --•~ 02^ Res. #~ ..i'+~-~t~1'~`~ / Date: JUNE 2, 1997 By-Law# Report#: CD-26-97File#: Subject: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE NOISE BY-LAW, PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT BY-LAW AND EXHIBITIONS HELD FOR HIRE OR GAIN BY-LAW Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CD-26-97 be received for information. BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: At the meeting held on May 20, 1997, Council considered Addendum to Report CD-22-97 dealing with amendments to the municipality's noise, public entertainment and exhibition held for hire or gain by-laws. At the request of the International Motor Sport Group (IMSG), the report was tabled for a period of two weeks to allow additional time for review of the amendments. It was also directed that John Swallow, Acoustic Engineer address the comments raised by the North Clarington Ratepayer's Association at the same meeting. His comments are attached hereto as Schedule A. Following the meeting, the North Clarington Ratepayers' Association sent further comments which are included herein as Schedule B. John Magill, solicitor for IMSG, has requested a meeting with staff this week to review the amendments. Considering the short timeframe which was originally given to them for review and the fact that the amendments will not come into effect until July, staff have no difficulty with this request. Accordingly, a full report will be presented to Council at their meeting scheduled for June 9, 1997. Respe¢~full~y submitted, Reviewed by, ti ! Ba ie, A.M.C.T.~ W.H. Stockwell I Chief Administrative Officer o.. •. MRY 23 ' 97 1©: 22 JOHhJ SbJRLLOW SWALLOW Acoustics, Noise and Vibro}ion Contrd May 22, 1997 Municipality of Claringkon 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario ~~ L1C~3A6 Attention: hors. Patti Barrie ca: Mr. Bill Stockwell, CAO 52e P17 Schedule A ,i: . ~.- ~:-, i.. ~-' . (<1.` i ., y _, 1 RE: Response to Presentation to Council by North Clatington Ratepayers Association, Report CD 22 97 Bvlaw Amendments Mr R Taylor Dear Mrs $arrie; With this letter we wish to respond to the technical issues raised by the N.C.R,A. in its presentation to council May 20th, 1992 'A' Scale Vs'C' Scale Mr: Taylor is correct in that the 'A' scale was used in all of our measurements and that the A-weighting iS a frequency weighting which discriminates against low and high frequency sounds in a manner similar to the human ear. Thus there is a reasonable correlation between sound levels measured in d$A and the subjective impression of loudness: As the sound level increases into the 90 to 95 dB range the manger in which our ear discriminates against low and high frequency sounds changes and so the weighting curve trust change also in order to correspond to the subjective impression of loudness, The 'C' scale is now rarely used in industrial noise, where the levels are in the 90 dB range. Tt is inappropriate to use the 'C' scale for sound levels measured in community tioise where the levels are on the order of 40 to NO dBA because the 'C' -scale measurements, in decibels, will got correspond as well to the subjective impression of loudness or noise intrusion - it would happen that the 'C' scale reading of music would exceed the 'A' scale background -but the music would be inaudible! Further, it, wrnrld he inappropriate to switch to 'C' weighting for measurements done in future, or under the proposed Bylaw because the measurements would no longer correspond to measurements done previously on which the proposed Bylaw is based. rohn Swallow Associates Report dated August 3 ~,_L9.9~ Regarding Section 8.0 in our report, there is a misunderstanding about the use of the 'A'- weighted scale. To elaborate on the discussion in Section 8.0 of the report: the sound JOHN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 250 G~laxy BCUI~:vord 6abicoke, Onforio Caradn M9W SP.9 Tei=pho~= Qi6.798.0522 Fox 416.21?-1079 ~ , PiR'r' 23 ' 97 19:23 79HFJ SbJRLL9LJ 529 P18 SWALL~,~W systems for Lock concerts typically have separate amplifiers for the low frequency sounds (the bass component} and the tnid-to-high frequency sound. It was our understanding that the bass amplifiers were operating at maximum during most of the musical acts. it is t}te lqw fxequeticy sound which propagates over large distances. We found that the Alannah Miles concert was measured at `the infield site was about 5 dB higher than'the other .concerts but we noted this was composed primarily of higher freyuettcies which, again, do not carry as well over distances. Thus the low frequency component remained constant and the, sound levels at large distances could be expected to remain the same. The report indicated that this was indeed the case. It is not correcx to say that the sound level was unaffected at large distances because of the use of the A-weighting. TUe effect is entirely' due to the fact that separate amplifier systems are used for low frequency and mid-to-high frequency sounds. ~lQg!gesgonse Vs Fa_s_t_ReSDOnse There are several reasons why slow response was used instead of fast response in all of the measurements over the last two years. Firstly, A-weighting and slow response forms the basis of the MoF,E standaxd for measurement of environmental noise. The proposed Bylaw has been deliberately drafted to be very similar to the MoEE Model Municipal Noise Control Bylaw .which is a recognized document and which has been adopted by several Municipalities in (7ntario more-or-less in its entirety. Secondly, all of the previous measurements over the last two years have been done in slow response and consequently the proposed Bylaw. contains the provision for slow response in order that the measurements correspond to those made previously. Again, it would be inappropriate to change the type of response setting foi measurements made under the proposed Bylaw. Thirdly, as is indicated in the report sound ]evels due to music vary over a large range. However, we found that with rock music the maximum levels are found to be about the same and were very repeatable provided the slow response setting was used. T}te repeatability aspect makes for a good - basis far rneasurement under the proposed Bylaw. 4Ve will he pleased to ansurer anymore questions you may have. Yours truly, John Swallow Associates ~~ J rt C. S ow, M.A,Sc.,P.Eng. 7'~ '0~i28/1.997 13:01 9056558435 GP,EENWUUD MUSHP.OOM PAGE 02 Recd May 23 12:09PM'97 NORTH CLARINGTON RATEPAXEKS ASSOCIATTON INC. p.0. Bn:346, Orono, petario, LOB tM0 May zz, l vv7 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington RO Temperance Street 13owmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Attention: Patti L . Barrie, At~i c.r Re: N•C 11a~.~ rese lion to Cgglgc~;y 20 1997• ~Rgrt C>~Z2-97 - Bvtag c1~AlL~lt&~.t>~ Dear Yatti, Further to our presentation of May 2Q 1997, some of the Directors of our Association felt that perhaps rather than restricting the Maximum Levels for Concert Events to 60 dBA, that the by- law amendments should be written with a maximum level of 60 dBA with a special provision. That special provision would be a provision in the proposed by-law amendments that would entitle Mosport to apply, twice in a calender year, for a maximum level of 70 dBA. The term twice in a calender _year would mean any two days during the calender year, and on those two days dating the period of 7:00 PM to the curfew hour; the ourfew hour presently being 12:01 AM in the proposed by-law amendments. (We would still like to see this curfew hour brought back tot 1 00 PM as stated in our presentation.) We feel that by inserting such a provision in the by-laws that Mosport will be afforded some flexibility with it's concert productions, and that the neighbours surrounding Mosport will have made a compromise to reach a mutually beneficial solution to the noise problems. Permission to exceed the maximum 60 dBA level to a maximum 70 dBA level as we are suggesting in these provisions, would require approval by Council Diving Council the responsibility to approve or reject such a request will ensure that rho democretic process prevails. Council would he able to evaluate the successor failure of Mosport's compliance to the by-laws, with input from all Parties, and deliver it's approval or denial. We would like to reiterate otu concerns regarding the use ofthe'A' acAle vs. fhe'C' sale. i think it would be appropriate for all of CounciE to ensure that they have a complete understanding of the differences between the two scales prior to making their decision. Reducing the noise level to a maximum of 60 dBA may be a compromise to the'C' scale, however 1 do urge Council to utilize the expertise of Mr. Swallow to broaden their understanding of the two scales and to ensure that they are making an informed decision- Chte last point that we would like to reinforce is the difference between Slow Response and Fast Response in relation to sound level meter settings. Mr. Swallow's data collected in August of 1995 shows a considerable difference in dB levels between these two settings. If the intent of ~i~ Fast Response in relation to sound level metes settings. Mr. SwallovWs data collected in August of 1995 shows a considerable difference in dB levels between these two settings. if the intent of the by-law is to be satisfied then I think we must use the Fast Response setting in order to reflect the true levels of sound. I personally would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Council, Staff and the Municipality's Solicitor, Mr. Hefferon, for the work that has been put into these Proposed by-law amendments. It is tnaly the wish of our Association that these by-law amendments will have found the middle ground which will enable Mosport to reasonably conduct it's business, and afford the residents of north Clarington the peace and enjoyment ol" property that they deserve. Respectfully yours, C.R. y -:~__~"- President ,~.'~ ~` 7.' ~~~ r~~ ,,~ ;~ °05!28!1997 13:01 9056558435 GREENWUUD MUSHROOM i~ NORTH CLARINGTON RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION INC. P.O. Bot 346, Onono, OnMrio. L06 1 MO TO: /lt,,t%~w COMPANY: ~--7.y~ ~.~~«..~~a-~y ~ G'~o..u,~~ ~rr r.. PHONE: / cl PAX: ~os l~3 ry~i(ofi PATE: SUBJECT: /(~ C. ,C. /~ ~ s/ `1'~l.~j a~/p7 PAGES INCLUDING COVER PAGE: ((~~ comments: ~.~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ a~9~ ~. GC f~/~2!_{~.fl vtc, f -p'f'd-C-c.. ~ ~.C~'' ~/ `E1.~~LC.~ e~c~..C.. ~l.ZUe-G-~.~~r,,~ ...,ate c~-~ cdu~- .~ii~.t~ PACE 01