;;

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Noise By-Law and Patio Music

Please see below, the reply to several questions we posed to City Manager Chris Murray on the noise by-law issue and Saracoa. Mr. Murray is presently away, and we received a reply from his staff. You will note that the part of the question that involves possible exposure, was initially left unanswered.

We have included our follow up question, and the reply as well.

Mr. Murray:

We are contacting you with a question regarding Saracoa’s patio music, which we understand has recently restarted.

1. Given that the city by-law prohibits live or amplified music for all restaurant/bar establishments that have patios, what measures is the city taking to ensure that either all restaurant/bar establishments that have patios are also afforded the same clearance and are allowed to have live or amplified music on patios or, or that alternatively, Saracoa be required to abide by the same by-laws that are in place for others.

2. Does the city recognize that unequal enforcement of this by-law may advantage or disadvantage some establishments over others and is the city not exposed if it allows such an imbalance to exist?

Yesterday at Planning Committee council approved a recommendation that Planning Division staff be directed to hold a statutory Public Meeting in October 2016 for the purposes of hearing public submissions on potential changes to the Zoning By-law, identified in Appendix “A” to Report PED16155, respecting live and recorded music and dance facilities on outdoor commercial patios.

The meeting will provide the public with the zoning options, and it is our intent to receive public feedback and provide advice on an option going forward. The City will also be considering best practices in other municipalities to understand how noise from patios is addressed in those municipalities with waterfronts.

A further report on the results of the public consultation will be brought forward to council later this year.

The part of the question that's asks about exposure does not appear to be answered. Is the city not worried that other establishments can argue that their business has been disadvantaged due to different allowances made to Saracoa?


We are open to feedback from residents and businesses alike when we have our October public meeting. They are welcome to bring those concerns forward.

8 comments:

  1. AnonymousJuly 06, 2016

    Did they understand the question? I think you asked them if they are worried about being sued by other businesses who could say that the live music being had at Saracoa has stolen away customers from them. What the heck does a public meeting have to do with this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJuly 06, 2016

    Have a sleepless summer folks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJuly 06, 2016

    √ Sarcoa
    x Saracoa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 19, 2016

      A common spelling mistake.

      Delete
  4. does the City treat residential ratepayers fairly and equitably? How about it's own employee's? Special interest groups? Anyone? Is it reasonable to expect a truly harmonized enforcement for all "restaurant/bar establishments" across the City?

    In my opinion, parking and noise are not the real problem here, just symptoms of a "partnership" that has been poisoned by personalities. I believe the City needs to re-examine how it qualifies these relationships from the outset.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJuly 07, 2016

    there should be a referendum on this

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJuly 07, 2016

    Someone dropped the ball on this. You can't have a place like Saracoa without live music being part of it. Everyone knew that. It only became an issue when the neighbours started getting the brunt of it. But this should have been anticipated and they should not have been allowed to proceed on that bsis. So, I think the city is at fault and I do not blame Saracoa.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes you can have an establishment without patio music. It's the feds who lied to Sarcoa and their general arrogance towards municipality's bylaws that's at fault. Until the city took over ownership they were unable to enforce the legally binding bylaw. All federal lands within the city have the same issues. Canada Post even stopped to squatting on city property and refusing to comply to bylaws and planning

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.


Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.

Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.