Last week, the City of Kamloops’ Community and Protective Services Director, Byron McCorkell, introduced potential amendments to the city’s Good Neighbour Bylaw.
The bylaw says that council may "regulate, prohibit, and impose requirements in relation to the protection and enhancement of the well-being of the city, including, without limitation, in relation to nuisances, disturbances, and other objectionable situations, as well as in relation to noise, vibrations, and any other matter that is liable to disturb the quiet, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of individuals or the public."
Under the existing bylaw, nuisance “means any conduct, activity, or condition that unreasonably interferes with a Person’s use and enjoyment of a public area or of land he or she owns or occupies, or which annoys or gives trouble, or is offensive, irritating, or a pest to anyone within the city.”
According to the bylaw, this can refer to avoiding loud noises, not allowing a commercial vehicle to idle in a residential area and respecting construction hours.
The bylaw also requires property owners to maintain their homes. This includes not allowing an accumulation of unsanitary conditions or objects, noxious weeds, rubbish or insect infestations.
McCorkell’s proposed amendments are meant to enhance the effectiveness of the bylaw while addressing concerns raised about the level of enforcements used.
Each month the Law Enforcement Working Group, which is made up of members of the community services division, RCMP, Kamloops Fire Rescue and other city staff, reviews properties that have exceeded the number of nuisance services calls set out in the bylaw.
“We’re trying to use it to encourage change in the community,” explains McKorkell.
Kamloops City Council has received conflicting concerns about the bylaw – some people want stricter rules and more robust enforcement while others want more lenient rules with more opportunities to appeal to council.
"The North Shore Business Improvement Association (NSBIA) would like to see stricter provisions and more robust enforcement, and two South Shore business owners would like to see more lenient provisions and the ability to appeal their nuisance designation to council," reads the report.
Some of the sections that are proposed for review include definitions of certain legal terms, fees for excessive nuisance service calls fees, amending appeal provisions and updating fees to recover costs incurred by the city and bring them in line with other municipalities
A few of the options for amendments to excessive nuisance service call fees include:
No amendments to the Excessive Nuisance Service Call provisions.
Change the threshold to three Nuisance Service Calls within 30 days instead of three within 12 months.
Change the threshold to four (or more) Nuisance Service Calls within 12 months.
Reduce the timeline of the Section 6.3 Notice to something less than 12 months.
Another part of the bylaw proposed for review is the right property owner's have to appeal a nuisance designation.
Currently, people can appeal the terms of a compliance order, a demand for payment of abatement fees or for excessive nuisance service call fees.
Options for council to consider when reviewing this section include not making any changes to these rules or change the rules to allow people to appeal a written notice.
McCorkell will also be asking council to consider changes to the current service fees because they have not been updated since the bylaw was adopted in 2017. The options include leaving the fines at $100 per infraction or increasing it to either $200 or $500.
The committee voted to direct city staff to review these changes and a report will be presented to council for further consideration.
