City of Kingston Report to Council Report Number

Transcription

1 To: From: Resource Staff: Date of Meeting: July 15, 2014 Subject: Executive Summary: City of Kingston Report to Council Report Number Mayor and Members of Council Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Terry Willing, Director, Building & Licensing Department Queen s University - Application for Temporary Noise Exemption - West Campus Sports Fields & Richardson Stadium In February of 2014, Queen s University submitted an application for a permanent exemption to the Noise Control By-Law to permit noise from whistles, yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, singing or the playing of musical instruments, including percussion instruments. This was to cover 52 weeks of the year. The request was submitted for activities on its sports fields and Richardson Stadium which are located at the corner of Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard and Johnson Street between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, Monday to Sunday and on Statutory Holidays. As an alternative to their exemption application, the applicant was seeking a change in the designation of the areas from residential to become other areas to limit such noise to no later than 11:00 pm as laid out in the Noise By-Law Schedule B Activity #15 to be consistent with the non-residential nature of the facility. The request for exemption was advertised in order to allow the public the opportunity to object or support the request for exemption. A petition bearing the signatures of 94 people objecting to the application was received along with 43 communications from residents that objected to the exemption. Queen s met with local residents to hear their concerns about the application for exemption. At the March meeting of Council, Queen s withdrew its initial application for a noise exemption, attached as Exhibit A. Queen s has significantly changed its request to help address the concerns of the neighbours. The main concern for residents was the use of continuous amplified sound and the ability for Queen s to utilize the exemption for extended periods of time. To address that concern, Queen s is now requesting the exemption for a number of games (occurrences) at the West Campus turf and grass fields. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

2 Report to Council Report Number: July 15, 2014 Page 2 of 9 At the West Campus turf and grass fields located at the corner of Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard and Johnson Street, Queen s is now requesting only a temporary exemption until December 31, 2015 to allow for further evaluation of any noise, mitigation measures and using this information for further consultation. This temporary pilot is to permit intermittent noise from whistles and the operation of any device or group of connected devices intended for the production, reproduction, or amplification of voices or sounds at their West Campus sports fields between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday to Sunday, including on Statutory Holidays. It is also being proposed that the exemption for amplification of voices or sounds be granted for a maximum of 93 games with a maximum duration of 2 hours per game, during the season from March 15 th to December 10 th which equates to an average of 2 games per week, it being recognized that some weeks may have more games than others. At Richardson Stadium, Queen s has also made application for a temporary exemption until December 31, 2015 to permit noise from whistles and the operation of any device or group of connected devices intended for the production, reproduction, or amplification of voices or sounds between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday to Sunday, including on Statutory Holidays. Queen s University is requesting that the proposed exemption only apply to intermittent use of whistles during games and that amplification of sound only apply for game announcements, music, and the national anthem for a maximum of 15 games from March 15 th to December 10 th. Queen s also recently held two meetings with concerned residents and neighbours to discuss amendments to the noise exemption request. It is important to note that a few years ago, the City granted a similar noise exemption to Power Play Sport located in the west end of the City. This noise exemption permitted noise from buzzers and whistles from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays, and from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. There are no criteria imposed on a Council in deciding exemptions so there is no precedent in that regard. There was a time when the Municipal Act limited the length of a Council exemption to just 6 months, but even that limitation has been removed from the Act. Recommendation: THAT Queen s University be granted a temporary exemption until December 31, 2015 to Noise Control By-Law Schedule A Section 7 to permit noise from game whistles and Schedule B Activity 4 to permit the use of amplified sound for the purposes of playing the national anthem and intermittent game-related PA announcements at their West Campus grass and turf sports fields located at the corner of Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard and Johnson Street between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday to Sunday, including on Statutory Holidays; and City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

3 Report to Council Report Number: July 15, 2014 Page 3 of 9 THAT the use of amplified sound for the purposes of playing the national anthem and intermittent game-related PA announcements at the West Campus sports fields shall not exceed a combined total of 93 games between March 15 th and December 10 th ; and THAT Queen s University be granted a temporary exemption until December 31, 2015 to Noise Control By-Law Schedule A Section 7 to permit noise from game whistles and Schedule B Activity 4 to permit amplification of sound only for game announcements, music and the national anthem at Richardson Stadium located at the corner of Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard and Johnson Street between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday to Sunday, including on Statutory Holidays for a maximum of 15 games between March 15 th and December 10 th ; and That Queen s University will communicate in the following manner: 1. Annual communication to all user groups about the importance of keeping noise levels to a minimum; 2. Post signs to remind organizers, participants and spectators of the importance of keeping noise levels to a minimum; 3. Continue to communicate via website, and explore dedicating web pages exclusively to Richardson Stadium and West Campus sports fields; and THAT Queen s University will proactively monitor their West Campus sports fields and Richardson Stadium in the following manner: 1. Establish a dedicated call-in number for residents to register any noise concerns; 2. The contact number will be posted prominently on the Queen s website and communicated directly to residents of neighbouring communities; 3. Any complaint received will initiate an immediate response by Athletics and Recreation facility staff, who will visit the field to investigate; 4. All complaints will be reported to the City Manager, Licensing & Enforcement within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint; 5. Noise clauses will be inserted into all field-use agreements; and THAT Queen s will provide a copy of the Noise study to the City along with proposed actions as a result of the study by the end of December 2014; and THAT Queen s will report their occurrence and game usage for the West Campus fields and Richardson Stadium to the Manager of Licensing & Enforcement at the end of each month between March 15 th and December 10 th. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

4 Report to Council Report Number: July 15, 2014 Page 4 of 9 Authorizing Signatures: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer Consultation with the following Commissioners: Cynthia Beach, Corporate & Strategic Initiatives Denis Leger, Transportation, Facilities & Emergency Services Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston Not required Not required Not required City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

5 Report to Council Report Number: Options/Discussion: July 15, 2014 Page 5 of 9 In February of 2014, Queen s University submitted a request for an exemption from Noise Control By-Law , Schedule A, Section 7 and Schedule B, Activities 4 & 15 to permit amplified sound, game whistles, yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, singing or the playing of musical instruments, including percussion instruments for the following: 1. Fields located at the corner Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard and Johnson Street a. Monday to Thursday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. b. Friday to Sunday, including statutory holidays, between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. c. Single use occurrences from Friday to Sunday, including statutory holidays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. to a maximum of 24 days in a calendar year. 2. Richardson Stadium a.monday to Thursday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. b.friday to Sunday, including statutory holidays, between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. c.single use occurrences from Friday to Sunday, including statutory holidays, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. to a maximum of 24 days in a calendar year. On Wednesday, January 15, 2014, Queen s University representatives and members from the neighbourhood attended the Near Campus Neighbourhoods Advisory Committee meeting. Queen s University appeared as a delegation at the meeting and spoke to its request for noise exemptions. A copy of the presentation is attached to this report as Exhibit B. Representatives of the neighbourhood also made a presentation at the meeting and their submission is attached to this report as Exhibit C. Members of the public appeared at the meeting as well and spoke both in support of and against the exemption. On Thursday, January 30, 2014, residents met with the Mayor to discuss their concerns and a copy of their submission for that meeting is attached to this report as Exhibit D. A subsequent meeting was held by the Mayor with representatives of the neighbourhood and Queen s University to discuss the application for exemption. On January 30, 2014, Queen s University delivered 250 letters (Exhibit E) to the residents in the neighbourhoods of Oakridge/Gibson to the east, Cliff/Purdy to the north and Yonge to the west, inviting them to attend a public meeting to discuss their concerns. An advertisement of the public meeting was also placed in the Kingston Whig Standard. On February, 13, 2014, Queen s University held the public meeting in order to allow them to hear and to discuss the neighbourhood concerns. A copy of their presentation is attached to this report as Exhibit F. In City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

6 Report to Council Report Number: July 15, 2014 Page 6 of 9 February 2014, neighbours at the public meeting did confirm that they have had no concerns with activities at Richardson Stadium. Queen s withdrew its application for exemption based on concerns that had been raised by the residents in the area. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 Queen s held a public meeting to discuss the outline of a revised proposal to residents and to communicate measures that would be taken to mitigate noise. Residents were given the opportunity to discuss their concerns with the proposed application and as a result it was evident that the main concern of the residents in attendance was the amplification of sound. Queen s advised residents at the meeting that in addition to their request for amplified sound and whistles to 9:00 p.m. they would be applying for 6 additional occurrence exemptions between 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. in a calendar year at the West Campus sports fields and 6 during the same time period at Richardson Stadium. Those requests were withdrawn by Queen s based on feedback from the Community. Revised applications for exemption were submitted on June 20, 2014 for Richardson Stadium and the West Campus sports fields, attached as Exhibits G and H. The request for exemptions was advertised in the Kingston Whig Standard and on the City s public notification website on June 24, 2014, attached as Exhibit I. Of those responding, 8 support the exemption request and 36 oppose the request, attached as Exhibits J and K. The previous exemption request from Activity 15 of Schedule B, yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, singing or the playing of musical instruments, including percussion instruments, is no longer required as Queen s is reducing its request to correspond with the times that this activity would be permitted under the by-law. Additionally, Queen s has eliminated its requests for additional occurrences up to 11:00 p.m. Queen s is also proposing that the exemption from Schedule A, Section 7 be limited to whistles only and that an exemption for amplification of sound apply only to game announcements and the national anthem at their West Campus sports fields and amplification of sound only for game announcements, music and the national anthem at Richardson Stadium. A subsequent public meeting was held by Queen s with local residents on July 2, A notice of public meeting was advertised in the June 27 edition of the Kingston Whig Standard and is attached to this report as Exhibit L. A notification of the meeting which included a detailed revision of the exemption proposal was also hand delivered to the homes of all residents on Gibson Avenue, Oakridge Avenue, Cliff Crescent and Yonge Street, attached as Exhibit M. The notification was mailed out as well. Approximately 60 people attended the public meeting with some opposed and some in support of the application. The main concern of those opposing the exemption was the ability for Queen s to use the exemption consistently for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week and that the types of amplified sound and music would be disruptive and not fitting with a residential community. Queen s has considered the additional concerns that were raised by residents at the public meeting and has made further amendments to its request for exemption. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

7 Report to Council Report Number: July 15, 2014 Page 7 of 9 With reference to the types of amplified music that would be permitted at Richardson Stadium, Ontario University Athletics (OUA) regulates the use of amplified sound for hosting University sanctioned sports/events, attached as Exhibit N. The regulations speak to the need for risk management, safety and regulating the use of amplified sound. The OAU outlines the permitted use of amplified sound as follows: 14. Artificial Noise / Amplified Noise: a. Music (including live bands) and computer generated sounds are only to be played during stoppages of play, time-outs, half-time, etc. It is expected that players will have the opportunity to hear their coach s instructions during a time out. b. At other points during the game nothing to be amplified while the opponent has the ball. c. Music should not be demeaning in nature to the visiting team or to the officials. The host institution must monitor the use of music to ensure that the language and lyrics are consistent with the OUA principles and that these lyrics will not demean, discriminate nor use profanity. d. The use of laser pointers, megaphones, amplified music, air horns, whistles, etc. by fans/spectators (which includes cheerleaders) shall be prohibited during all indoor events. e. The use of Laser pointers are not allowed at any and all events. f. Other noise makers are at the discretion of the event manager. The OUA prohibits the use of inappropriate amplified noise/music which was a concern that was raised by local residents. The possibility of Queen s ability to use the exemption 12 hours a day, 7 days a week was very concerning for residents. At the meeting held on July 2 nd it appeared that some residents preferred that the exemption be quantified into numbers of occurrences. In light of this, Queen s is now proposing that the exemption apply to a maximum number of games over the season at Richardson Stadium and a combined total at the West Campus grass and turf fields, attached as Exhibit O. The proposed number of 93 games on the West Campus fields now equates to an average of 2 games per week with a maximum of 2 hours per game, it being recognized that some weeks may have more games and others may have less. Queen s has also confirmed that the amplified sound would not be continuous throughout the games and they have quantified the nature and duration of the sound as follows: national anthem - approximately 90 seconds opening player/game introductions - approximately 2-3 minutes; and intermittent game-related announcement approximately seconds. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

8 Report to Council Report Number: July 15, 2014 Page 8 of 9 Queen s has also commissioned HGC Engineering to perform a West Campus turf field sound study seeking recommendations for permanent solutions to reducing noise from the fields. The study was not available at the time of the report and therefore staff are recommending that Queen s provide the City with a copy of the results of the study and their proposed actions. Staff are recommending the report be received by the end of December 2014 to allow for a complete season and to allow Queen s to confirm the actions they will take going forward to reduce the impacts of noise in the community. HGC Engineering has provided an outlined scope of their project, which is attached to this report as Exhibit P. nterim noise mitigation steps have already been taken by Queen's such as positioning speakers so that they face away from residential areas and regulating noise through contractual agreements with user groups. An outline of the challenges presented to Queen s in attempting to pre-determine or codify numbers related to use of the amplified sound for the national anthem and intermittent gamerelated announcements for games at the West Campus Fields is attached as Exhibit Q. Staff are recommending that the exemption be approved. The pilot period will allow Queen s University the time that is needed to perform their Engineering Noise Study during events when noise can be measured and to finalize and begin implementation of the steps that will be taken to mitigate the noise based on that study. The pilot will also allow staff the opportunity to ensure that the conditions, if approved, have been followed. Existing Policy/By-Law: By-Law A By-Law to Regulate Noise as authorized under the Municipal Act and which specifies that applications for exemptions from the by-law be made to Council. Notice Provisions: A public notice was advertised in the Kingston Whig Standard on June 24, 2014 advising that Queen s request for a noise exemption will be considered by Council on July 15, The notice also invited the public to provide their objections to the request and that all written comments were required to be submitted on or before July 4, Accessibility Considerations: Not applicable Financial Considerations: There are no financial considerations with this report as all advertisements were placed at the expense of Queen s University. Contacts: Terry Willing, Director, Building & Licensing extension 3240 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

9 Report to Council Report Number: July 15, 2014 Page 9 of 9 Kim Leonard, Manager, Licensing & Enforcement extension 3222 Other City of Kingston Staff Consulted: Not applicable Exhibits Attached: Exhibit A - Request for Withdrawal of Noise Exemption Exhibit B - Queen s Presentation to NCNAC Exhibit C - Residents Presentation to NCNAC Exhibit D - Residents Presentation at Meeting with Mayor Exhibit E - Queen s Letter nviting Neighbours to Public Meeting Exhibit F - Queen s Presentation at Public Meeting Exhibit G - Queen s Application Richardson Stadium Exhibit H - Queen s Application West Campus Sports Fields Exhibit I - Public Notice of Request for Temporary Noise Exemption Exhibit J - Responses Supporting Exemption Exhibit K - Responses Opposed to Exemption Exhibit L - Queen s Public Meeting Notice Exhibit M - Queen s Letter to Neighbours Exhibit N - OUA Hosting and Sound Regulations Exhibit O - Queen s Amended Application Exhibit P - HGC Turf Field Sound Study Update Exhibit Q - Scheduling Related to the Queen s Temporary Noise Exemption City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

10 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

11 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

12 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

13 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

14 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

15 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

16 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

17 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

18 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

19 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

20 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

21 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

22 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

23 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

24 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

25 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

26 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

27 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

28 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

29 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

30 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

31 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

32 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

33 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

34 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

35 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

36 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

37 West Campus Fields Noise Bylaw Exemption Application 13 February 2014 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

38 Background Bylaw precludes any noise after 9pm, even a referee s whistle Sought exemption (but not from everything specified in the bylaw) City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

39 Context Fields are used by Varsity sports Intramural sports Community groups Restricting hours would disproportionately affect community groups because varsity and intramural use is prioritized City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

40 Community Groups: Field Usage 120% 100% 80% 60% Community Queen's 40% 20% 0% City Council Meeting 24 July 15, January February March April May June July August September October November December

41 Main Concerns Frequency of use Noise intensity Need for increased monitoring City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

42 Possible Solutions Frequency of use Modify exemption (e.g., restrict hours, or days, or both) Move some activities to other fields where feasible City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

43 Possible Solutions Noise intensity Schedule quieter activities in the later hours Restrict usage of public address system and modify speaker placement Prohibit use of noise makers Move some activities to other fields, where feasible City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

44 Possible Solutions Need for increased monitoring Facility staff to conduct field use audits Dedicated number to call Impose contractual obligations on users City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

45 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

46 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

47 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

48 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

49 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

50 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

51 Public Notice Section Request For A Temporary Noise Exemption Exhibit I Report Number Queen s University has made application for a temporary exemption until December 31, 2015 to Noise Control By-Law Schedule A Section 7 and Schedule B Activity 4 to permit noise from whistles and the operation of any device or group of connected devices intended for the production, reproduction, or amplification of voices or sounds at their West Campus sports fields located at the corner of Sir John A MacDonald Boulevard and Johnson Street between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday to Sunday and on Statutory Holidays. Queen s University is requesting that the proposed exemption only apply to whistles during games and that the amplification of sound only apply for game announcements and the National Anthem. In addition Queen s is requesting the exemption beyond 9:00 p.m. for a total of 6 occurrences in a calendar year at the West Campus sports fields. Queen s University has also made application for a temporary exemption until December 31, 2015 to Noise Control By-Law Schedule A Section 7 and Schedule B Activity 4 to permit noise from whistles and the operation of any device or group of connected devices intended for the production, reproduction, or amplification of voices or sounds at Richardson Stadium between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday to Sunday and on Statutory Holidays. Queen s University is requesting that the proposed exemption only apply to whistles during games and that the amplification of sound only apply for game announcements, music, and the National Anthem. In addition, Queen s is requesting the exemption beyond 9:00 p.m. for a total of 6 occurrences in a calendar year at Richardson Stadium. The current by-law prohibits the use of whistles and the operation of any device or group of connected devices intended for the production, reproduction, or amplification of voices or sounds at all times. Anyone wishing to object or to comment regarding this temporary exemption should deliver their concerns in writing or by before 4:00 p.m. on Friday, July 4, 2014 to: City of Kingston Phone: ext Kim Leonard, Manager, Licensing & Enforcement Fax: Ontario Street kleonard@cityofkingston.ca Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3 Located at: 216 Ontario Street This matter will be considered during the regular Council meeting that commences at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 15, City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

52 Exhibit I Report Number NOTICE OF COLLECTION: Personal Information collected is pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (and all other applicable privacy provincial and federal legislation). Such legislation is reviewed and applied for the collection, use, disclosure and destruction of the information. The personal information collected as a result of this public notice will be used to assist in making a decision on this matter. All names, addresses, opinions and comments collected will be made available for public disclosure. Questions regarding this collection should be forwarded to Kim Leonard, Manager of Licensing and Enforcement, 216 Ontario Street, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 2Z3 or by ing kleonard@cityofkingston.ca. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

53 Subject: YES to west campus fields By-Law Exemption From: James Sent: Monday, June 30, :02 PM To: Leonard,Kim Cc: Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian; Gerretsen,Mark Subject: YES to west campus fields By-Law Exemption As a resident of Kingston I support the request by Queens for the West campus fields By Law Exemption. I don't understand what the big fuss is over this request. It seems that a few people are trying to have their personal interests out way the befit of the rest of Kingston. When passed (because it should be), these residence would be no different then the hundreds of others who back directly onto Schools, soccer fields and baseball diamonds across Kingston. The fields at west campus are a gathering place for the physical activity of our city and the health of our residence. The sounds of sport and team play are the sounds of a vibrant, active and social community... a community I enjoy living in. Sincerely, James Ligthart 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

54 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

55 Subject: Noise By-Law Exemption Request From: Sent: Friday, June 27, :16 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Noise By-Law Exemption Request Dear Kim Leonard, I am writing this letter of support for the request by Queen's University Athletics for noise by law exemption related to their west campus fields ( Richardson Stadium and West Campus Turf). I am writing from two perspectives...one as the Athletic Coordinator for all high school team sports in KASSAA ( Kingston and Area Secondary School Athletic Association) and one as a long time resident of the area in question. KASSAA sports have a superb partnership with Queen's Athletics. Many of our games in the Fall and the Spring are held on their turf fields. This is done to ensure that we can provide opportunities for our student athletes to participate ( no matter the weather) and to save our own grass turf fields during the spring. This spring 251 games were scheduled during 21 play dates. Without, Queen's west campus, this would not have happened. In my estimation, the adjustment that Queen's made from their original proposal has gone beyond the extra mile and taken into consideration the objections of some of the neighbors. I use the term some of the neighbors as my family has lived in that neighborhood for the past 60 years. My mother's home is exactly 0.66 km from the middle of the new turfed field and less than 1 km from the middle of Richardson Stadium field. In all of our years growing up there we used all the local fields from dawn to after dusk...oakridge diamond, Elder Park, and Compton Park. The access to playing spaces was celebrated by our neighbors. The sound of boisterous children and teenagers was never an issue whether it was cheering, singing, yelling, or celebrating. The sounds from Saturday afternoon football games emanating from Richardson Stadium have been enjoyed through the years by my 90 plus year old mother. "Its great to hear young people at play" she says. It is my hope that COMMON sense will prevail here and a noise exemption be permitted. In an age that is dominated by children who no longer play outside and who are more familiar with video games than active play, it is of paramount importance that City Council allow this exemption to pass. Frank Halligan Athletic Coordinator KASSAA City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

56 Subject: Noise bylaw exemption for Queens West Campus From: Horton, Greg (MGS) Sent: Monday, June 30, :14 PM To: Leonard,Kim; Gerretsen,Mark; Schell,Liz; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian Subject: Noise bylaw exemption for Queens West Campus Please vote in favour of the noise bylaw exemption. Greg Horton (613) City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

57 Subject: By-Law Exemption - Letter of Support From: Billy Bostad [mailto:13wb2@queensu.ca] Sent: Thursday, July 03, :25 AM To: Gerretsen,Mark Cc: Leonard,Kim; Schell,Liz; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; bpatterson@cityofkingston.ca; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian; Leslie Dal Cin Subject: By-Law Exemption - Letter of Support Dear Mark Gerretsen The purpose of this is to provide a letter of support for Queen's Athletics and Recreation in regards to the noise by-law exemption application for the west campus fields and stadium. I am a member of Queen's Varsity Triathlon and Cross Country, and although I do not use the fields directly, I cannot stress enough how important their continued usage are to both my fellow Queen's student athletes and athletics fans. I am currently completing my Master's in exercise physiology and I believe recreational opportunities such as this are very important for students. Thank you for your consideration of the proposed by-law exemption application. Billy Bostad, B.Sc.H, M.Sc. Candidate Queen's University School of Kinesiology & Health Studies 28 Division St., Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 13wb2@queensu.ca 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

58 July 3, 2014 Thank you for the opportunity to support Queen s University s application for permanent exemption to Noise Control By-Law on behalf of the Kingston Women s Soccer Club (KWSC). The KWSC has more than 700 members and for the past several years, we have secured field rental contracts with Queen s University, including the fields at West Campus in order accommodate our Spring, Summer and Fall sessions. Queen s University has been instrumental in our community. It is important to note that it is not only students of Queen s University using their fields, but members of our community. Queen s has provided our club, comprised of women from the ages of 16 up to 50 plus years of age who live and work in this community. Without the use of the Queen s fields, our club would have to turn away members and limit the number of teams interested in playing soccer. Our club has utilized Tindall, Nixon and several soccer fields at West Campus on Mondays, Thursdays and Sundays between the hours of 6:00 pm and 10:00 pm, from May through August. Enforcement of the current noise bylaw at West Campus, or on any Queen s field, would result in the loss of at least 2 or 3 games per week for a minimum of 16 to 20 weeks; that s a staggering total of 32 to 60 games conservatively speaking. Our club is already feeling the effects of the new time restrictions at the West Campus. The impact of these pending time restrictions would restrict membership at a time when leading an active, healthy lifestyle should be promoted and celebrated instead of hindered. The City of Kingston has publicly acknowledged the need to improve the condition of its current fields as well as construct new ones to meet the demands of our very vibrant soccer community. Queen s has contributed and partnered with our community by permitting clubs to rent their well maintained facilities. It is the policy of the City of Kingston to give field rental priority to youth leagues and clubs, as well as a lower hourly rate. Rental rates are higher for adults and in general, the only option for clubs such as ours, to run our leagues, is during the later evening hours and on weekends. These later evening hours are considered prime time and as City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

59 such, the rates are higher than non-prime hours. Over and above the higher prime time rates, evening user groups have to add on an extra cost for lights to make the outdoor fields safe for use. The reality for adult clubs like the KWSC who is managed solely by volunteers, is that we make numerous concessions in order to support, develop and promote youth athletics in the Kingston Area. If the noise bylaw exemption is not supported, adult clubs such as the KWSC and their members will be adversely impacted yet again, and not simply in terms of cost. The KWSC Board of Directors on behalf of the KWSC members support the application by Queen s University for an exemption to Noise Control By-Law to permit the scheduling of outdoor organized sports in our community. Thank you for taking the time to consider our request for support. Sincerely, Kingston Women s Soccer Club On behalf of our 700 members City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

60 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

61 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

62 From: Mark Coghlan Sent: Friday, July 04, :01 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: To whom it may concern, My name is Mark Coghlan and I am a student at Queen's University. I am writing this to show positive support for the new West Campus Fields noise by law exemption. The use of the West Campus fields has been an important part of my university experience through athletic events, intramurals, and school spirit. Being allowed to use the fields is an important way to keep Queen's students both physically and mentally healthy through sport. It also creates an even stronger Kingston and Queen's community through the numerous events including football games at Richardson Stadium. As the President of the Queen's Triathlon Club I consistently see the importance of the facilities in order to allow teams to prepare for and host sporting events. Therefore, I believe the proposed by law exemption is a fair compromise that allows Queen's students to continue using important facilities, while taking into account other resident's opinions and concerns. Thank you for your time and I urge you to allow the exemption and future use of the West Campus Fields. Sincerely, Mark Coghlan 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

63 Subject: Please do not allow any bylaw noise exemptions for Queen's west campus fields From: Adam Davidson-Harden Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :59 AM To: Leonard,Kim; Gerretsen,Mark; Glover,Bill; Office of the Provost; Sandy Mowat Subject: Please do not allow any bylaw noise exemptions for Queen's west campus fields I write this letter as an individual and not on behalf of my neighbourhood. Queen's has resubmitted their application to seek exemptions to the city of Kingston's noise bylaws, over and above the objections of its neighbours in the community around its West Campus. While the formal application document has not been published, a webpage on the city of Kingston's site summarizes the current request (see link below). Since 2011 and the construction of its new fields - and particularly in the past few years - Queen's has been wanting to allow more and more noise to be made in its fields. Predictably, this has disturbed the neighbourhood. I myself live close to the new fields, and have wrestled with noise at innappropriate times while putting kids to bed, forcing me to register many complaints with bylaw enforcement. Queen's reaction to these types of complaints was to seek to take away our right to complain about its noise bylaw violations. Their first attempt in this regard failed. Now, in response to our neighbourhood's firm collective 'no' to its noise bylaw exemption application a few months ago, Queen's is asking for more exemptions. They still want to take away our right to complain of noise bylaw violations, and this is unacceptable. Queen's is asking for too much. They asked for too much the first time, and they are still asking for too much. While they no longer seek to allow noise to be made until 11pm or midnight permanently - a truly ridiculous request - they do want to be able to allow amplified sound during games right up until 9pm, every day of the week. Even if this noise is restricted to points throughout the game, it is too much. The current application also states that Queen's wants six days a year take to make noise past 9pm, as with the first outrageous application. My response is that there should never be noise made past 9pm in violation of noise bylaws, in residential areas as stipulated by the bylaw. The solution to this challenge is not to take away neighbours right to complain of noise bylaw violations. The current bylaw should be supported and enforced. As with the annual football games at Richardson stadium that have gone on for decades, a once a year exemption is one thing. But all year long is quite another. There should be no exemptions to noise bylaws - permanent or temporary - in relation to Queen's west campus fields. The mere fact that the new fields exist does not give Queen's license to request to annoy its neighbours past the point of tolerance. In my letter objecting to Queen's first noise bylaw exemption request, I wrote about the pan-religious, pancultural 'golden rule' - which calls for each of us to treat others as we wish to be treated. I wouldn't want any citizen of Kingston - whether a Queen's provost or Principal, or anyone else - who lives in a residential area to have to suffer the kinds of noise Queen's is proposing to make. Our rights to quiet enjoyment of our lives and homes are protected by law. Instead of seeking to circumvent these laws, I would ask Queen's to reconsider the golden rule and to think about how it can be a considerate neighbour. 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

64 Please do not grant Queen's this request. Or to our Queen's neighbours: please reconsider, and withdraw this request. Start from square one: instead of seeking exemptions, think and plan about how to operate your fields without violating noise bylaws. This is not only a 'common sense' approach, but a caring and neighbourly one. Sincerely, -Adam Davidson-Harden 82 Oakridge Ave, Kingston, Ontario relevant links: existing bylaw: Queen's current noise bylaw exemption request: 26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3D_118_INSTANCE_mIrojY3TeRAO column- 1%26p_p_col_pos%3D2%26p_p_col_count%3D3 2 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

65 Subject: Queens noise exemption From: michael Sent: Tuesday, June 24, :18 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Queens noise exemption City of Kingston Kim Leonard,Manager,Licensing & Enforcement Kim, I am writing today to object in the strongest terms to any extended noise exemptions for Queen's or any other group. The present laws are in place to protect our right to enjoy our time off at home. By allowing Queens or any other group to extend the noise bylaws you are driving us into our homes at the nicest time of the year. We have to close all the windows to escape the noise. This is not something new...we have lived it all before and it is not what our summers at home are about. Our homes along College St. are among the highest taxes in the city we deserve protection from the extra noise! I wish to be notified on any correspondence regarding this matter before it goes to council for the vote. Please keep us in the loop so we can respond accordingly. Thank you for your co operation Michael and MaryEllen Greenwood 96 College St. Kingston K7L 4L cell City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

66 Subject: Queens noise by law exemption From: Justin S [mailto:sj1401@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, :51 AM To: Leonard,Kim Cc: Neill,Jim Subject: Queens noise by law exemption Dear Kim Leonard; I am writing regarding the noise by law application by Queens University for the West Campus Fields. I live near the Kingston Centre and frequently hear the amplification from those fields at my home. I live at 289 Park Street. I cannot imagine how loud the sound must be for the houses directly across from the field. I think Queens University or the city should fix this problem. There is not even a fence or wall to reduce the noise. I am against this exemption. It is the city's responsibility to stand up for its citizens. Sincerely, Justin Sowik 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

67 Subject: Queen's Noise Bylaw Exemption From: Morgan Wade Sent: Monday, June 30, :21 PM To: Leonard,Kim; Gerretsen,Mark; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian Subject: Queen's Noise Bylaw Exemption Dear Ms. Leonard, Mayor and City Councilors, I am writing to you to voice my opposition and frustration at the new Queen s University noise bylaw exemption. In the spring, neighbours and other concerned citizens spent much time and effort to retain their rights under the municipal bylaws to be protected from excessive noise coming from the sports fields at Queen s West Campus. Queen s withdrew their original application, fearing it would be voted against. Now they are submitting a different application, still requiring an exemption from municipal bylaws, causing neighbours and citizens to again take time out of their busy days to repeat their objections and fight for their rights. It feels an awful lot like Queen s will continue to make applications until they wear down their opposition and get their way. Creating a by law exemption in our neighbourhood means removing some of our rights as citizens. It would mean we have less recourse to the law than would other citizens in the rest of the city where the by law is still in effect, which we assume, also includes Queen s campus office buildings and residences. Removal of rights of just a few would seem to require extraordinary circumstances and extraordinary justification. We ve yet to hear a proper justification for a noise by law exemption. We do not seek to prevent activity at the sport s fields. We support exercise as key to physical and mental health. Most of the adults and all of the children in our neighbourhood take part in various community athletic clubs and we are sometimes spectators in the stands. We welcome the liveliness that sports bring to the area. We seek only that these activities comply with the right and reasonable laws already in place. Suspending those laws for some, but not others, is unjust and it sets a dangerous precedent. What special status and exemption will be sought next? We welcome all noise amelioration efforts made by Queen s. We hope that, as good neighbours, Queen s University will voluntarily take these measures. As long as Queen s remains in compliance with the by laws there is no issue. If 12 hours a day of amplified sound would cause non compliance with the by law, as it seems Queen s assumes it will, then Queen s should either reconsider their amplified sound policies, or put in place effective sound buffers. A by law exemption is in no way necessary it hardly seems like the extraordinary circumstances that could justify the abrogation of citizen s rights. Please vote against this unfair and unnecessary recommendation. Thank you for your time and consideration, 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

68 Morgan Wade 59 Gibson Ave 2 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

69 Subject: Queens Noise Exemption Request Original Message From: MJ Sent: Wednesday, July 02, :48 AM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Queens Noise Exemption Request > Dear Ms Leonard, > Our city noise bylaw is in place to protect citizens from inconsiderate neighbours. Queens is just such a neighbour. Their outrageous request for an exemption to the current noise bylaw constitutes a brazen hijacking of the rights of all who 'share the air' with Queens. > City council needs to reject this request to ensure that it's citizens rights, and it's own authority, are not eroded. > I hope the mayor and all councillors are prepared to stand up to Queens. Such an exemption would set a precedent, that can be used to degrade the noise bylaw across the city. > Regards, > Mj Murphy > 47 Oakridge Avenue 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

70 Subject: Queen's noise exemptions From: Margaret Hughes Sent: Monday, June 30, :06 PM To: Leonard,Kim; Gerretsen,Mark; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian Subject: Queen's noise exemptions Dear Mayor Gerretsen, Councillors and City staff, Please say "No!" to the request from Queen's for unacceptable noise exemptions. Queen's needs to be sensitive to the rights of residents to have peace and quiet in their neighbourhoods. We already have to put up too often with the noisy behavior of Queen's students late at night and if the City grants this request our neighborhoods would become even more uncomfortable to live in. Thank you, Margaret Hughes 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

71 Subject: Queen's request for 12 hrs/day noise exemption Original Message From: Toni Pickard Sent: Wednesday, July 02, :31 AM To: Leonard,Kim; Gerretsen,Mark; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian Subject: Queen's request for 12 hrs/day noise exemption Dear Mayor Gerretsen and Members of City Council, I find it surprising and deeply regrettable that, in pursuit of monetary gain, the University would show so little regard for the wellbeing of Kingston residents who live near the West campus. I don't live in that neighbourhood, but in the downtown area where we occasionally hear the exempted noise from special Queen's events on the main campus. Those few events make it impossible to enjoy life at home while they continue. Of course this can be borne occasionally in the interests of supporting the University in our City, but those hours are always intrusive and thoroughly unpleasant as anyone living within earshot can attest. Having to endure the kind of sounds (especially game announcements) contemplated in the application every day or at least frequently would be unbearable, knowing that Queen's was actively pursuing an ever increasing number of such events cause for despair. Were this to happen near our home, we would have to move. As you consider this application, I urge you apply the Golden Rule. If you would refuse such an exemption for your own neighbourhood, refuse this one. Sincerely, Toni Pickard 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

72 Subject: Queens Temporary Noise By-law Exemption From: Donald Mitchell Sent: Sunday, June 29, :00 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Queens Temporary Noise By-law Exemption Dear Kim Leonard; I do not support the temporary noise by-law exemption application by Queens University. Queens University has not respectfully performed their 'due diligence'. I support the standard the current by-law provides. Queens needs to 'live' to that standard and complete their artificial field by adding the necessary noise mitigation. The city of Kingston has a responsibility to protect citizens and their homes. I believe the intensity and duration of the 'acoustic' west campus field noise is already to the limit. To permit whistles and amplification without restriction for 12 hours of every day will cross over to harming residents. The entire process of this application and the university's biased control of the feedback from the public sessions has placed residents in a position of disadvantage. There is no viable mechanism that gives residents a fair opportunity to inform the application. The most impacted are the least represented. I believe the city of Kingston should have required a higher standard and site planning approval to address the light and noise impacts. These fields given their impacts on residences are 'structures'. I am hopeful the city will review this oversight and address the issue with any future fields either at west campus or other sites. Thank you, Donald Mitchell Resident 43 Gibson Avenue 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

73 Subject: Queens Temporary Noise By-Law Exemption From: Michelle Sent: Sunday, June 29, :44 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Queens Temporary Noise By-Law Exemption Dear Kim Leonard; I am writing to state that I do not support the application for a temporary by law exemption by Queens University. Our home has been in my family for just over fifty years and in the past few decades the audible impact of the west campus fields has noticeably grown. The construction of the newest field in recent years has caused a significant increase in the amplified noise. I believe it is too close to the residences and does not have any effective sound barrier to minimize the impact. I support my neighbours and fellow residents. There are homes that are unreasonably affected and I do not believe Queens has taken any action to solve the excessive noise. Michelle Mitchell 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

74 Subject: Queen's University Noise By-Law Exemption Request Original Message From: Chrystal Wilson Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :51 PM To: Leonard,Kim Cc: Gerretsen,Mark; Berg,Sandy; Downes,Rick; George,Kevin; Glover,Bill; Hector,Dorothy; Hutchison,Rob; Neill,Jim; Osanic,Lisa; Paterson,Bryan; Reitzel,Brian; Schell,Liz; Scott,Jeff; Media Sun Media Paul Schliesmann Subject: Re: Queen's University Noise By Law Exemption Request Greetings, The intent of this letter is to express my concern regarding the noise bylaw exemption sought by Queen s University. My house is just under a kilometre from Richardson Stadium as the crow flies. At this distance, we can hear all sports events played at both Richardson Stadium and the West Campus Turf Field. And actually, I enjoy the sound of people participating in positive healthy sports activities. This is a good sound for our community and our overburdened health care system. I do have 2 specific concerns regarding Queen s noise bylaw exemption request. The first is about amplified sound. The sounds of crowds cheering and athletes competing are great sounds to hear. But, I believe that amplified game announcements and music within a residential neighbourhood should not be allowed. Please take a moment to look at Richardson Stadium through the satellite view of Google maps. There are houses on Yonge Street within a stone s throw of Richardson Stadium. The people I know who live in that area are working multiple jobs with non regular shifts to try and make ends meet. One such friend is a young mother who works nights and sleeps once her child leaves for school. How will she be able to sleep with amplified game music blasting into her house? When Council approved a noise exemption for Queen s last fall, the amplified music from Main Campus was loud enough to be distracting to our family. We live approximately 2.5 kms from Main Campus. Can you imagine how disruptive amplified music will be to a struggling family living just metres from it s source? I don t believe that there is any justifiable reason to inconvenience families this way, especially when the reason is merely entertainment. The health benefits of the sports events can still be gained without amplified sounds. I ask that Council please reject Queen s request for amplified sound exemptions. I believe this request is not appropriate for a residential neighbourhood, and is insensitive to the needs of the vulnerable families living in the homes near Richardson Stadium, especially those living directly behind Richardson stadium on Yonge Street. My second concern is about community decision making. I became aware of Queen s initial noise bylaw exemption request in March, the night it was supposed to be presented to Council. Once that request was withdrawn, I expected to hear about an opportunity for public consultation. I consider myself to have a more than average awareness of my community, and wanted to participate in a public discussion about this issue. However, I hadn t heard anything more about it until a friend who lives near Richardson Stadium told me yesterday that Queen s noise bylaw exemption would be back on Council s agenda in July. This friend told me that some kind of community meeting had apparently taken place, but even people (including himself) who were actively involved in trying to find an agreeable solution, were not invited to that meeting. 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

75 If this is true, it s extremely disappointing to hear. I would hope an academic institution would advocate for open and transparent discussions which allow for sharing of information (such as future plans for the West Campus Turf Field, and number of days when amplified noise should be expected), and collaborative discussions which lead to mutually satisfactory solutions. The issue of being able to satisfy Queen s needs while also being respectful to the neighbourhood is not a difficult problem to solve. I believe it would be prudent of Council to reject Queen s noise bylaw exemption request and encourage open community discussions which seek a solution satisfying all stakeholders. Thank you for considering my concerns. Regards, Chrystal Wilson 96 Dickens Drive (613) City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

76 Subject: June 29, Update re Amplified Noise from Queen's West Campus Original Message From: Susan A. Reid Sent: Monday, June 30, :51 AM To: Leonard,Kim; Gerretsen,Mark; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian Subject: June 29, Update re Amplified Noise from Queen's West Campus Dear Mr. Mayor and Councillors This afternoon's "Kingston FC" games played on Queen's West Campus artificial Turf field were a real eye opener. They had obviously be strongly cautioned to keep their amplified noise to an absolute minimum resulting in, by far, the least noise this group has ever inflicted on the adjacent neighbourhood. Obviously when properly cautioned and properly motivated, the amount of noise generated from user groups can be vastly reduced. It also demonstrated that amplified game announcements are not required as the game was conducted virtually without amplified sound. This did establish what Queen's could accomplish solely with properly articulated rules of conduct for their users. If Queen's were to install proper noise abatement (acoustic walls, berms etc.) it is reasonable to assume they would be able to operate and maintain the normal community standards of noise. Queen's insistance on a 12 hour per day exemption as somehow necessary was convincingly belied today by what they and their renter demonstrated this afternoon. Best Regards, Susan Reid 52 Oakridge Avenue (aka 20 yard line West Campus Turf Field) Kingston. 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

77 Subject: July 2, 6pm, Robert Sutherland Hall From: Donald Mitchell Sent: Sunday, June 29, :17 PM To: Office of the Provost Cc: Gerretsen,Mark; Schell,Liz; Glover,Bill; Leonard,Kim; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian; Hurdle,Lanie Subject: July 2, 6pm, Robert Sutherland Hall Good afternoon, Dr. Harrison; I have written the CAO and Mayor of the city of Kingston to express that I have no faith this Queens orchestrated process will provide fair resolution to residential noise concerns. It is my belief that a satisfactory outcome will only be realized with the implementation of a third party (independent) consultation process. That method would have a properly documented evaluation of the complete issue from all pertinent perspectives and seek to develop a viable solution with the benefit of professional planning insight and guidance. I have attended every resident meeting with Queens on this noise problem. Our family has owned our property for over 50 years. The university s noise trespass on our home in the last 43 years and more significantly the property of our neighbours was never appropriate; but to manage this trespass in the circumventive fashion that Queens has handled these by law exemption attempts lacks respect. I adore my home far beyond its monetary value or location. We deserve the respect of due diligence. Queens has barely satisfied the minimum requirement. I believe good public relations are based in exceeding all expectations. It is my belief that Queens is interpreting the public feedback to selectively utilize that information with the primary purpose of obtaining as wide an exemption as possible. This application is another ask without demonstrating required specifics or conditions to ensure noise abatement. Over the last six months, I have witnessed requests for clarifications, limitations and solutions that have not been fairly represented. Our collective input was generalized into 2 or 3 comments at your last meeting. Is there supporting documentation that transparently acknowledges and addresses public feedback? Again, there are assurances missing that I would expect council to require on a resident's behalf before they began to consider an exemption of the right to reasonable noise restriction. Alternative possibilities exist that would achieve appropriate use of the fields without need for by law exemption. These are options Queens has neither seriously explored nor provided proof of having evaluated, let alone actioned. Residents, and council, require evidence a compelling argument that exemption is the only possible course of action that will mitigate noise. 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

78 Councillor Schell has informed me you intend to have another public meeting which I trust will be more than announcing Queens intended direction without incorporating valid input. While I doubt this one session will develop the missing elements for credible application I will attend with a list of specifics. City staff, councillors and many residents are engineers and professionals of related fields; and it is my hope that they too will be able to attend to engage university officials. I have copied this response to others so they might be prepared in advance. The July 2 nd meeting is on the heels of a holiday weekend and with short notice. Many of us did not receive an invite to the meeting from Sheilagh Dunn or your office. The practice of providing material in advance has not been done for any public meeting. It prevents any detailed consultation work; regardless, one point I specifically raised Dr. Harrison (and you agreed to address) was the 84 hours a week for 52 weeks. Later, I realized that 84 hours/week is more transparently stated half of the hours of the year. If you recall, my concern was consecutive days and consecutive hours within a given day. Obviously, half a person s home life is an unreasonable ask and I anticipate at the upcoming meeting you will be able to provide more clarity on how Queens would propose to limit that amount to actual need. Also, neighbours would appreciate receiving a complete copy of your latest application and all supporting material in advance of the July 2 nd meeting. I have no confidence appropriate restrictions will be imposed unless residents craft those binding conditions. The type of documentation I am referring to is the combined schedule (real and estimated) including all the simultaneous use from each field that was requested during the last application for exemption and is still needed for this application. After evaluation this would help to form what Councillor Neill called at the last meeting a legacy document for future accountability. We seem to be spinning wheels as feedback is handled in an insular manner and selectively used to further a separate agenda. Now, if something as basic as the total use can t be accurately presented to council in a measureable form then no rational person can responsibly know what they are permitting to be impacted on residents. This gives you some glimpse of the type of documentation I imagine a full consultation would provide in print with accountability. It would inform plus set actions for an effective solution while providing voice to every stakeholder and looking at all practical options not just the ones deemed most convenient or cheapest. I am convinced a properly researched site plan or master plan should have caught the issues associated with this newest field. It is regrettable that the city process did not require site planning approval. To my mind that is an error. An application brought through a city committee might have flagged the impacts on surrounding residences and required closer analysis. There is a strong argument that lights erected above the tree line and noise amplification that reaches as far as the Kingston Centre are compelling evidence that this build is a series of living structures. A field may lack walls and a roof; however it is inevitable that the neighbours are constantly aware of all your business (well before you invite others to come over and play). Amplification exponentially increases the problem. What other build would permit such a minimum due diligence? The city should revisit this policy. 2 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

79 I believe this exemption like your last will not arrive to a satisfactory outcome. Queens University has committed no physical action to reduce noise. Queens presumes to remove complaint without appeasement. Residents do not elect a university to manage the by law. Mayor Gerretsen informed me the complaint is the start the enforcement process. It will take significant action on the part of Queens to compel and justify this ask. That action will start with an open and just consultation plus enforce measurable steps to mitigate the noise. Sincerely, Donald Mitchell Resident 43 Gibson Avenue 3 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

80 Subject: Noise Exemptions for Queen's From: Michael Pickard Sent: Wednesday, July 02, :05 AM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Noise Exemptions for Queen's Dear Ms. Leonard, I write to urge you to take account of two distinctions which I believe should limit any exemptions Queen s is granted: First is the distinction between activities internal and external to Queen s. A Queen s football game is, for good or ill, treated as an important part of life at Queen s, and I believe it is appropriate for the city, within reason, to facilitate such activities. However, when Queen s rents its facilities to groups external to Queen s, or itself hosts external activities, the situation is entirely different. The benefit to Queen s is simply monetary. No doubt money is a good thing in an enterprise which does good. But it is unreasonable to ask the neighbours to bear significant burdens for this good. Queen s couldn t steal from me no matter how much better the world would be with more money in its hands. Why should Queen s be able to appropriate my serenity? The second distinction is between game announcements, on the one hand, and whistles and the national anthem, on the other. People might disagree about this, I m sure, but to me game announcements are particularly unpleasant. They take place regularly, over and over, over perhaps a three hour time span; if there are multiple games, the spans are multiplied. The announcer strives to make these announcements as lively and dramatic as possible. Meantime, the announcements are unnecessary; the game can be understood by watching, you don t need the announcements. A whistle, by contrast, is necessary to the game, and is a natural sound, no amplification required. It is short lived, if recurring. As for the national anthem, some might object to it, but once it is played/sung, it is over. I believe Queen s is asking for too much. I hope you find these comments helpful. Yours sincerely, Michael Pickard 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

81 Subject: No to Queen's second application for noise examption From: Clive Robertson Sent: Thursday, June 26, :26 PM To: Leonard,Kim; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian; Office of the Provost; Rhonda Clark-George; Sandy Mowat; Cc: Gibridge Gang Subject: No to Queen's second application for noise examption Dear Kim Leonard: I m writing to voice my objections to Queen s second application for an exemption to the city s noise by-laws. I have chosen to work and live in Kingston (since 1999) largely because the city made smart decisions in the 1970 s to restore heritage buildings and keep industrial pollution out of the downtown core. Having lived in many of the major cities in Canada I value and appreciate Kingston s residential uniqueness. I have lived in the neighbourhood we call Gilbridge (adjacent to the east of Queen s West Campus sports facilities) for the last six years. My neighbours include Queen s alumni/alumna, and current and past staff members and faculty who are unanimously opposed to Queen s applications for noise by-law exemptions. In effect we double as members of the Queen s community who object to the university s lack of civic sensitivity and responsibility. Why? Because we are living with the environmental effects of the University s decision to expand open-air sports facilities that exceed what they need for themselves; off-campus recreational facilities that, though this is denied by Queen s, are primarily about opportunities for new revenue streams from field rentals. I am arguing that it behoves the City of Kingston not to increase Queen s trespassing rights into the larger residential zone bordered by Sir John A. MacDonald to Barrie street on one axis, and from Union to King St. on the other. City street signage recognizing Queen s symbolic and material significance in Kingston is one thing impositions of commercial noise on residential neighbourhoods are a different matter. Though I am not a fan of beer bottles and other game garbage littering our lawns and streets, no-one where I live is objecting to noise created by Queen s varsity games. Amplified music and I say this as a rock musician and record producer for me is the line in the sand. I neither need nor want Queen s to be publicly accorded the function of our community s DJ. Please refuse the request for the noise exemption now being made. If Queen s is not willing to build enclosed facilities like the K-Rock Centre or even present plans to incorporate noise-abating features on their expanded West Campus fields they surely are not working to earn council member and affected community member support? Sincerely, Clive Robertson, Ph.D Faculty member, Department of Art and Graduate Program in Cultural Studies 850 Johnson St. Kingston, Ontario 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

82 2 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

83 Subject: No to Exempting Queen's University from it's obligations to City Residents From: Susan A. Reid Sent: Thursday, June 26, :40 PM To: Leonard,Kim; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian; Office of the Provost; Rhonda Clark-George; Sandy Mowat; Subject: No to Exempting Queen's University from it's obligations to City Residents Dear Ms.Leonard, Queen's University has an obligation to the citizens of Kingston to properly design these facilities with effective noise and light mitigation. Then Queen's should operate them in a manner that maintains community standards. Community bylaws are the community standards. They have met none of these obligations as yet. Absolutely no general noise exemptions for amplified sound at West Campus. It would be extremely damaging to nearby residents and is completely incompatible with maintaining the quality of life of Queen's neighbours. Sincerely, Susan A. Reid MSc. Mech. Eng. Queen's Science '83 52 Oakridge Ave, for 25 years Kingston, Ontario 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

84 Subject: NO blanket exemption for Queen's Fields for amplified sound! From: Molly Higginson Sent: Monday, June 30, :52 PM To: Leonard,Kim; Gerretsen,Mark; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian Subject: NO blanket exemption for Queen's Fields for amplified sound! Dear Mayor and Councillors I am writing to ask that you not grant Queen's University permission to broad cast amplified sound 12 hours a day at the Queen's fields. I am not talking about hearing the Queen's band on occasional Saturdays in the autumn. With the new facilities and plans to rent them out, the quality of life for hundreds of citizens is going to be diminished if Queen's is granted this blanket exemption. Queen's can carry out its function as a university very well without inflicting this damage; amplified sound is not a requirement for a sports field. A very good alternative has been proposed by the citizens (see below). Yours sincerely, Molly Higginson Alternate Plan for Queen's Amplified Noise Submitted to Kingston Councilors and Mayor via June 24, 2014 Amplified sound is not a requirement for sports field use and is fundamentally incompatible with residential neighbourhoods as recognized in our City Bylaws. We propose a limited exemption that fully supports Queen's social mandate as an Educational institution and supports their varsity sports program: 1. Exemption for amplified sound, Queen's bands and acoustic musical instruments for Richardson Stadium for the Gaels Varsity Football games, and for semifinal and final games of the men s and women s Varsity Soccer teams. This is completely consistent with their usage from 1977 to 2012, with the addition of up to 4 Varsity team soccer games. Maximum 10 to 14 games per year (higher value only for post-season playoff games. 2. No exemption for amplified sound on any open field 3. For special events, Queen's will apply to the City for an event exemption, ensuring public accountability. 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

85 Subject: Objection to the proposed Queen's Noise Regulation Exemption From: Adrian Walker Sent: Tuesday, July 01, :34 PM To: Leonard,Kim Cc: Gerretsen,Mark; Schell,Liz Subject: Objection to the proposed Queen's Noise Regulation Exemption Dear Kim, Our house is at 58 Norman Rogers Drive, and we object in the strongest terms to the proposed Queen's Noise Regulation Exemption. When there is an event in the nearby stadium, the volume on the public address system is such that we can hear every word clearly in our garden, and even some sentences inside the house with the windows closed! In other words, Queen's has a track record of using much louder settings than necessary. The proposed exemption will clearly reduce the value of our house. Thank you for refusing the proposed exemption and any requested re-zoning. Adrian & Barbara Walker 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

86 Subject: Queen's request for noise by-law exemption From: Loisy Ballina Viramontes Sent: Wednesday, July 02, :59 PM To: Leonard,Kim; gibridge Subject: Queen's request for noise by-law exemption Dear Kim Leonard, We moved to Kingston from Mexico three years ago, we decided to move here because some years ago we had the opportunity to live in this city for a year and we definitely felt in love with this great place, which we think is an excellent place to raise our three boys. We currently live on the south side of Johnson st. near Sir John A. Macdonald and yet, when there is a game on at the sports field, we can clearly hear the noise associated with it: in particular, the amplified sound. If we can hear all the noise so loudly, we can only imagine what it's like on Oakridge ave. One of the most important aspects on which we based our decision to move to Canada was because we felt Canadians tend to think and make socially related decisions, protecting the rights of the citizens. The noise by-law exemption that Queen's is applying for would allow this type of intrusion 9 AM TO 9 PM. This does not support the rights of the citizens to peace and quiet. For this reasons, we ask you to stop Queen's University petition for an exemption to noise control by-law. In this way City officials 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

87 would reaffirm their solidarity with the community that they represent. Sincerely Loisy Ballina and Juan Fernandez 818 Johnson st. 2 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

88 Subject: Queen's Blanket Noise exemption Original Message From: John Downie Sent: Wednesday, July 02, :42 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Queen's Blanket Noise exemption Dear Kim, No, no, no! And we live five houses in from Albert Street on Union so would definitely be impacted. Mary Alice Downie 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

89 Subject: Queen's application for blanket noise exemption From: Nancy Ossenberg Sent: Wednesday, July 02, :13 PM To: Leonard,Kim; Cc: Reitzel,Brian; Berg,Sandy; Glover,Bill; Hector,Dorothy; Hutchison,Rob; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Downes,Rick; Paterson,Bryan; Neill,Jim Subject: Queen's application for blanket noise exemption Dear Kim Leonard, Three points: First, Sunnyside district where I live is still a mixed neighbourhood including families with babies and young children who need their sleep, emergency room physicians who must catch sleep whenever they are off shift, as well as serious students who don't necessarily want their study time interrupted by loud whistles and amplified music. Second: Any Queen's blanket noise exemption for the West Campus and Richardson Stadium would certainly result in uncontrollable spread of "noise exemption" encouraging more rowdy student behaviour in surrounding areas. Third: The eardrums of young people already are suffering permanent damage from excessively loud music and bang-bang thumping percussion. To summarize: There appears to be no benefit to ANYONE by approving this application from Queen's for a blanket noise exemption. Yours truly, Nancy S Ossenberg 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

90 203 Victoria St 2 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

91 Subject: Noise By-laws Original Message From: Anita Krebs Sent: Wednesday, July 02, :47 PM To: Leonard,Kim Cc: Gerretsen,Mark; Reitzel,Brian; Berg,Sandy; Schell,Liz; Glover,Bill; Hector,Dorothy; Hutchison,Rob; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Downes,Rick; Osanic,Lisa; Paterson,Bryan; Neill,Jim Subject: Noise By laws To Kim, Councillors and Mayor, Please enforce our noise By laws, which are in place for all citizens, industries and institutions, including Queen's University. Queen's should try to set an example for their students of good citizenship and consideration of the neighbourhood in which they reside and operate. Do not allow Queen's to think that they are above the law. Anita Krebs, Concerned Citizen 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

92 Subject: Say NO to Queen's Noise By-Law exemption From: Norman Rice Sent: Thursday, July 03, :06 AM To: Leonard,Kim; Gerretsen,Mark; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian Cc: Susan Reid Subject: Say NO to Queen's Noise By-Law exemption Dear Councillors, I live at 279 Van Order Drive in Calvin Park. I am writing to support the protest led by neighbours of Queen's West Campus against the request by Queen's for an exemption to the noise by-laws in their area. Queen's apparently argues that it is essential for them to have the exemption, but that seems hard to credit when they have been using West Campus for sporting activities for many years. They have had little difficulty with their neighbours until the last few years when they have ramped up their noise levels with seeming disregard of their neighbours and city by-laws. Queen's may well believe that an exemption is essential for them to fulfill the commercial aspirations they seem to have for West Campus, but that is surely a problem of their own making, and should not be landed on the shoulders of their neighbours. I live within amplified shouting distance of both McCullough Park and Lafleur Park. McCullough Park in particular is already used for organized sports activities in the evening, and right now it is a delight to have them there. But I can imagine how objectionable it would be if some group there started playing amplified music and noise some 12 hours a day, any day of the week they pleased. Consequently I am not only sympathetic to the current complaints of Queen's neighbours, I am also very concerned about the precedent a noise exemption for Queen's would set. What argument or objection could I use against a proposal for noise exemption in my neigbourhood that would be any different than the ones raised by the neighbours of Queen's West Campus? What kind of extra criterion could Council use to reject such an application? (Possibly that the applicant wasn't important enough?) The motion on Queen's request is coming to Council very soon, and I believe it should be rejected. But at the very least Council should support the legitimate concerns of Queen's neighbours by withholding action on the motion until Queen's has undertaken its (vaguely) promised study of noise abatement possibilities and commits firmly to specific abatement actions. I sincerely hope you are able to help in this matter. Thank you, Norman Rice 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

93 Subject: Can you endure more noise? From: Rosemount Inn and Spa Sent: Wednesday, July 02, :45 PM To: 'ken ohtake' Cc: Leonard,Kim; Gerretsen,Mark; Reitzel,Brian; Berg,Sandy; Schell,Liz; Glover,Bill; Hector,Dorothy; Hutchison,Rob; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Downes,Rick; Osanic,Lisa; Paterson,Bryan; Neill,Jim Subject: RE: Can you endure more noise? I do not support the noise exemption for Queen s. I believe the homeowners deserve the same respect and protection that other taxpayers receive under the noise bylaw. Holly Doughty Holly Doughty Owner Innkeeper Gary Manager Rosemount Inn & Spa, Kingston, Ontario Celebrating 25 years in business with the best guests in town! Founding member of the Historic Inns of Kingston / Breakfast is ready!! 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

94 Subject: Queen's Noise Exemption Original Message From: Leon Garrett Sent: Thursday, July 03, :20 AM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Queen's Noise Exemption Dear Ms. Leonard. We have lived on Oakridge Ave. for 48 years. We have seen many changes in that time, but none so invasive as these last 3 years or so. To grant this exemption would forever change the whole atmosphere of this area. We should be able to expect the same consideration as other people. Please do not grant Queen's this temporary exemption as I feel it would just encourage them to push for more. Even 11/2 years is too much for us to endure. Please uphold the by law as it applies to everyone. Sincerely, Anne & Leon Garrett, 63 Oakridge Ave. 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

95 Subject: noise exemption From: greg samuel Sent: Thursday, July 03, :19 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: noise exemption Hello Kim Leonard: Regarding the noise exemption at Queens: I have no problem with whistles, but I don't see why every game and activity at Richardson stadium needs to be amplified. I haven't read any specifics of decibels. The way I read this, it will be unlimited amplified sound for 12 hours a day. Please get back to me if there are specifics I have missed. Greg Samuel 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

96 July 4, 2014 Dear Ms. Leonard, Little has been said about the impact of loud whistles in residential neighbourhoods, I would like to speak to that aspect of Queen s application for exemption. All sports fields are likely in contravention of the City-Bylaw s prohibition on the use of whistles, so this should be addressed with a general amendment to Schedule A-Section 7 of the City Bylaw and not as an exemption for a single user or field. Fox40 whistles are sports industry standard for game officiating, with most models rated at 115 to 120 db! A level that is excessively loud given the ambient noise levels on city fields. Any amendment to the noise bylaw to permit whistles for game control should designate a maximum permitted decibel level of any whistle used to 90 db, in order to limit the maximum power at the source and limit resulting impacts. As noted on the manufacturer s website, these whistles are still clearly audible in a gale and are well suited for multi-field areas, as sound from these whistles will not carry as far as the db models. Patterns of usage should also be considered in any amendment in order to restrict excessive repetition for drills etc. Sincerely, Susan Reid, 52 Oakridge Ave, Kingston City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

97 Subject: Unreasonable Noise Bylaw exemption request from Queen's From: Don B Rogers [mailto:donrogers@primus.ca] Sent: Friday, July 04, :01 AM To: Leonard,Kim; Gerretsen,Mark; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Berg,Sandy; Neill,Jim; Glover,Bill; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian Subject: Unreasonable Noise Bylaw exemption request from Queen's Hello Ms Leonard and Members of Council, I strongly oppose the present application by Queen's University for a 12-hour per day, every day, year-and-a-half duration, "temporary" exemption from key provisions of the city's noise bylaw. I oppose this application for the following reasons: 1. The application represents a seismic shift to the delicate equililbrium which has existed for years. The residents of the neighbourhood accepted the amplified announcements and music at 6-8 Queen's varsity football games per year at Richardson stadium. Now Queen's wants a massive change to that equilibrium--more venues, more games, more hours, sports other than football. 2. Queen's was or should have been aware of the city's noise bylaws when it proceeded to improve its open-air fields with night floodlighting and artificial turf. But Queen's went ahead and made those improvements, and now wants special noise exemptions after the fact. 3. Queen's does not pay property taxes. Yet it wants a massive noise bylaw exemption which negatively impacts many taxpaying property owners. When assessing conflicting interests, taxpaying properties and owners should have priority. 4. Queen's does not need much of these additional noise exemptions for its own athletic program. Queen's is renting out its tax-exempt fields to other groups. 5. Surely the granting of exemptions to the city noise bylaw is intended for time-limited specitic events, such as a building construction, or a street festival, or a charity fundraiser, or some other one-of event. The bylaw exemption process should not be used to allow one person, or one institution to effectively be exempt on an ongoing basis. An ongoing, open-ended exemption like to one requested by Queen's sets a disturbing and dangerous precedent. Other similar exemption requests are bound to follow. 6. While some sports perhaps do need the occasional whistle signal, sports do NOT require amplified announcements and music (Varsity football at Richardson Stadium possibly execepted). 7. Bylaws exist to set the ground rules for EVERYONE in the community. People buying homes take relevant bylaws into account. Businesses expanding take bylaws into account. Everyone knows the rules. To grant such a massive exemption from a bylaw destroys confidence in that bylaw. It creates the uncertainty that the existence of a bylaw is supposed to dispel. 8. For all the above reasons, granting Queen's its requested noise bylaw exemption is just not fair! Best regards, Don B. Rogers Save Our Neighbourhood Action Group 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

98 Subject: Stop the queens noise exemption Original Message From: Peggy Sent: Friday, July 04, :20 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Stop the queens noise exemption Dear Ms. Leonard, I am writing to object to the application Queens has made for a noise exemption on West Campus. As an active person and the mother of athletes, I find the sounds of healthy competitive sports quite tolerable. It surprises me that the noise bylaw actually states that game whistles are an issue. However, amplified noise is very different. I lived on College St. prior to moving to Oakridge Ave. and on Sat. Afternoons in the fall listened to the football game announcements. Even living that far away, I would not have wanted to listen to it for a weekend, or seven days a week for 12 hours! Queens is attempting to change this educational setting into a business. It is mainly rental groups that need this exemption. I object to this field being used in this way. I can't help but point out that by trying for this exemption, Queens will be taking revenue from city fields that are located more appropriately for tournament play and semi professional games. Our quality of life is being eroded by this application. It is not necessary and the principle of this application interferes with my rights as a tax paying citizen of Kingston! Sent from my ipad Margaret (Peggy) Browne 10 Oakridge Ave. Kingston 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

99 Subject: Queen's Noise By-law Exemption West Campus From: Olga Oleinikow Sent: Friday, July 04, :44 PM To: Leonard,Kim Cc: Gary Wilson; Gerretsen,Mark; Glover,Bill; Schell,Liz; Neill,Jim; Scott,Jeff; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Hector,Dorothy; Paterson,Bryan; Downes,Rick; Hutchison,Rob; Reitzel,Brian; Office of the Provost; Ann Tierney; Leslie Dal Cin Subject: Queen's Noise By-law Exemption West Campus Dear Ms Leonard, We are writing regarding Queen s University s request for an exemption for amplified noise at West Campus. We would like to say that we live at 64 Oakridge Ave and have done so for 28 years. We are fine with the use of whistles by referees during games and coaches during practices. However, we would hope they explore the use of quieter whistles. We say this because a few weekends ago there was a game going on at the artificial turf behind our house one which started at 8:30 am. During this time, there were noticeable periods when the whistle blew often and every 2 minutes or so. A whistle not so shrill would have been welcomed. We do object to the use of amplified noise, though, particularly at the artificial turf area of West Campus. We know Queen s has hired an engineering firm to look into the current noise level impacting the neighbourhood. We ask that City Council deny Queen s request for amplified noise for now. We would think waiting until the results of the sound study are available, and any recommendations to mitigate the noise are implemented by Queen s is a better time to decide if amplified noise is even an issue before a decision is made. In the meantime, Queen s could make game announcements using electronic screens, such as those that appear in train stations, for example. The screens could have a running list of times with the names of substitutions of players, who scored, et cetera. For the artificial turf, the screen could be on the north side of the artificial turn facing south, thereby minimizing visual impact on residents in the near neighbourhood. With regard to Richardson Stadium, we are not sure where we stand. That is, the level of noise generated over the years through amplified sound has not had a negative impact on the quality of life for us. We expect this is because Richardson Stadium is well below ground level from our house and how sounds bounce. We re not sure the neighbours on Yonge Street west of Richardson Stadium feel the same, as the sound may impact them significantly. Also, for our purposes, the activities there have been minimal in number with mostly Queen s football teams. However, in sympathy with those who are negatively impacted by amplified nose, perhaps an electronic screen with a running list of announcements could also be used there at least until after the results of the sound study by the engineering firm are available. 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

100 We are not in support of amplified music at Richardson Stadium. Queen s can fall on tradition and use the Queen s Bands during their football games. No objection there. Amplified music is noisy, intrusive and not required for the sporting event to occur. For those who feel the need of having music during a sporting event, they can wear headphones. We would like to say that the issue of sound at West Campus is of particular concern now in light of the number of expected games to be played on the field. Our understanding is that there are 23 Queen s men s and women s soccer games scheduled for the coming year, and 18 Kingston FC soccer games. These numbers do not include games to be played by other sporting teams, such as lacrosse, not to mention practices and the noise they generate. Therefore, it s that much more important to try to minimize the noise coming from West Campus. If Queen s were accommodating only Queen s teams, then I think we would feel differently about the noise issue. In summary, please deny the request for amplified sound. Queen s can revisit this request after the results of the sound study are available and any suggestions for lessening the sound impact are implemented. Yours sincerely, Olga Oleinikow and Gary Wilson 64 Oakridge Ave (for 28 years) oleiniko@queensu.ca wilsong@queensu.ca 2 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

101 Subject: noise exemption From: greg samuel Sent: Friday, July 04, :20 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: noise exemption Hello Kim Leonard Manager, Licencing and Enforcement: Regarding The Temporary Noise Exemption pertaining to Richardson Stadium regarding By law : Can there be amendmends to this request? 1) An added section on decibel controls. This temporary exemption will amount to hundreds of days. Will residents have input into sound levels? 2) A limit to amplified sound on games with more than 100 spectators. (The actual number doesn't matter I have made it a minimum) 3)This temporary exemption should end at the end of )At least a stipulation that once this exemption is done, it can not be extended automatically. Queens will have to formally apply for a change to the by law. Once this pilot project is over, a study must be done with input from the public. Thank you Greg Samuel 225 Park St. 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

102 TO: FROM: K. Leonard, City of Kingston - please copy to: Mayor Mark Gerretsen and Kingston City Councillors Hart Cantelon, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta DATE: July 3, 2014 RE: POSITION PAPER RE: QUEEN'S REQUEST NOISE EXEMPTION - WEST CAMPUS To Whom It May Concern: I have been approached by members of the neighbourhood directly east of the Upper Field West Campus facility with a request to provide a position paper concerning the upcoming Queen's University request for noise exemption status for the West Campus sports facility site. I have agreed to do so and consequently, attended the public meeting held at Queen's University on July 2nd. Attendance at this event allowed me to hear firsthand the arguments for and against this exemption. As directed at that meeting, I am sending this position paper to K. Leonard at the City of Kingston. I would request that the Mayor and City Councillors receive a copy of my analysis. I would note that it was not a fortuitous decision to agree to submit a position paper to the elected officials of the Kingston City Council. I am now retired but have had considerable experience, academic training and professional activity in the area of recreation, organized sport and physical education. I was a member of the academic staff in the School of Physical and Health Education at Queen's University for a period of 26 years. I also taught briefly at the University of Alberta, Carnegie College of Physical Education in Leeds, England and retired with Professor Emeritus status from the University of Lethbridge after chairing the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education for three years. While working at Queen's University (as was the case at the University of Alberta) I also was a member of the intercollegiate football coaching staff (22 years at Queen's; four years at Alberta). In fact, I have coached football at various age and skill levels for more than thirty years. The paper is laid out in the following manner. First, a summary outlay of the sports facilities upon which the subsequent argument is developed. Second, a brief discussion, primarily in Table format, to illustrate the current Queen's sporting/recreational structure and those competitive activities that require outside facilities. Third, I provide a balanced opinion, based on my experience as to the feasibility of a noise exemption for the west campus facility. I end with some summary comments and recommendations. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

103 Queen's University Outdoor Sports Facilities As a urban neighbourhood-locked university, Queen's University has challenges that differ from other institutions. When the new Athletics Recreation Centre (ARC) was built ( ), there was the necessity of relocation of the Kingston Curling Club, demolition of houses on Clergy Street West, as well as that of the Jock Harty Arena and underground parking garage. Simply put, Queen's is and has been restricted in its construction of main campus sports facilities. Currently, these include the ARC, and the re-opening of the Physical Education Centre (PEC), which, built in 1970, was initially closed with the completion of the ARC, but reopened in 2013 due to facility demand. The main campus outdoor facilities of relevance to this paper are the Frank Tindall Field and Nixon Field. When I first arrived at Queen's University in 1976, there already was the development of the West Campus site, which initially took in two grass fields, Richardson Stadium (grass field, all-weather track), and to the east of Richardson Stadium, tennis courts (now in disrepair), and to the north of Richardson Stadium, concrete throwing circles for discus/shot-put, a ball diamond, and a "spill-over" field east of the ball diamond. Over time, the "spill-over" field, so named because it was used primarily in emergencies, became part of the over-all Queen's complement of regularly used space. Directly east of this field, a former parking lot became a turf field of standardized dimensions for competitive sports, such as soccer. Table One summarizes the facilities of relevance to the noise exemption proposal put forward by Queen's University. TABLE ONE HERE Field Location Grass or Turf Frank Tindall Field Main Campus, West of Turf Macintosh - Corry Hall and Robert Sutherland Hall Nixon Field Main Campus, South of Turf Kingston Hall Richardson Memorial West Campus Grass Stadium South-east Field West Campus, directly Grass south of Richardson South-west Field West Campus, directly Grass south of Richardson North-west Ball West Campus, directly Grass Diamond north of Richardson North-west Field West Campus, north Grass east of Richardson (beyond access road) North-east Field West Campus, north east of Richardson (beyond access road) and east of North-west Field Turf City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

104 Queen's University Athletics Structure In August 2010, Queen's University introduced a new competitive sports model for the academic community. Like other Canadian universities this structure reflected the emerging corporate campus image for universities based on the explicit goals and objectives of the corporate sector. Universities increasingly evaluate their short and longterm planning objectives using the corporate template of maximized profit, growth, and marketability. As established units (academic and extra-curricular) it is not surprising that university athletics departments follow the lead of the institution and implement similar structures. As the Queen's model is described, "it is competitive progressive and sustainable". It is tiered into three competitive sports opportunities, varsity teams, varsity clubs, and recreation clubs, each with its own objectives, responsibilities, and levels of competition for the recipient. The corporate model strategy is explicit in the model: "enhancements to increase departmental revenue through ticketing, merchandising, sponsorships, and the development of strategic partnerships for club development, recruitment and fundraising" (All from Queen's Competitive Sports Model). What further complicates this increasingly standardized athletic model is the peculiar philosophy of Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS), namely the lenient "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" nature of its member affiliation. Simplistically speaking, it can be represented by a continuum of institutions whose athletic programs are primarily funded through student athletic fees, those (like Queen's) which rely both on athletic fees, individual registrations, corporate sponsorships, facility rentals, and generous and continued alumni support, through to those teams that for all intents and purposes, are privately owned and farmed out to the academic institution (Laval, Regina and Carleton football, Lakehead hockey). Regina is illustrative of the latter. Football players at the University of Regina play for the Regina Rams, while all other Regina intercollegiate athletes are known as the Cougars. As the Regina Ram website notes, its affiliation with the University of Regina was "a community partnership agreement between the Regina Rams Football Club Inc. and the university". The importance of this evolving athletic structure for the noise exemption application will be made clearer later on. At this point, suffice to say that the expectation to realize excellence (CIS and Conference championships) among Varsity teams imitates heavily upon the funding and coaching capabilities of the privately owned sector teams. Expectations include services such as "academic mentoring and support, strength and conditioning programs, marketing support, event management, athletic therapy and coaching". Specifically, at Queen's the decision was made, with the acceptance of the 2010 model, to support "13 Varsity Teams, 22 Varsity Clubs and 28 Recreational Clubs. The placement of teams and clubs into their streams was based on sport attributes, criteria and requirements, financial sustainability and five years of data" (Queen's Sports Model). However, not all of the designated teams and/or clubs are relevant to the noise exemption City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

105 application. For the sake of brevity, the breakdown of varsity team, varsity club, and recreational club will be presented in Table form. Those units whose sport requires outdoor facilities at either Main Campus or West Campus locations are noted in bold type. QUEEN'S VARSITY TEAMS Pursue competitive success at the highest level Varsity Team Basketball (Men and Women) Cross-country (Men and Women) Football (Men) Hockey (Men and Women) Rowing (Men and Women) Rugby (Men and Women) Soccer (Men and Women) Volleyball (Men and Women) Need for Outdoor Facilities No Yes but due to nature of sport, not applicable Yes No Yes but due to nature of sport, not applicable Yes Yes No QUEEN'S VARSITY CLUBS Practice and compete against other post-secondary institutions Varsity Club Baseball (Men) Cheerleading (Men and Women) Curling (Men and Women) Cycling (Men and Women) Fast Pitch (Women) Fencing (Men and Women) Field Hockey (Women) Figure Skating Golf (Men and Women) Lacrosse (Men and Women) Nordic Ski (Men and Women) Sailing (Men and Women) Squash (Men and Women) Swimming (Men and Women) Synchronized Swimming (Women) Triathlon (Men and Women) Track and Field Athletics Ultimate (Men and Women) Water Polo (Men and Women) Wrestling (Men and Women) Need for Outdoor Facilities Yes but due to nature of sport, not applicable No No Yes but due to nature of sport, not applicable Yes No Yes No Yes but due to nature of sport, not applicable Yes Yes but due to nature of sport, not applicable Yes but due to nature of sport, not applicable No No No Yes but due to nature of sport, not applicable Not Applicable, on hold as club Yes No No City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

106 QUEEN'S RECREATIONAL CLUBS Focuses on participation-based physical activity, and may include limited competition Recreational Club Haidong Gumbo, Jui Jitsui, Judo, Karate, Olympic Tae Kwondo, Tae Kwon Do, Total Martial Arts Climbing, Outdoors, Equestrian, Run, Ski and Snowboard Archery, Life Guard, Figure Skating, Gymnastics, Yoga Badminton, English Rugby, Ringette, Squash Need for Outdoor Facilities No Yes but due to nature of sport, not applicable No No Over and above this three-tiered sports model, Queen's University operates an expansive intramural program. Like the team/club model there are those activities for which outdoor facilities are required. Thus for example, the 2014 summer programs include Softball (Co-Ed), Ultimate (Co-Ed), and Soccer (Men's and Women's). As with the normal fall schedule of activity, the majority of competition takes place on the main campus (Nixon and Tindall Fields). Like most universities with expansive intramural programs, the Queen's structure schedules competition at venues convenient to change facilities (ARC) and operate after more competitive practices have ended. Thus, for example, the summer programs on Nixon and Tindall Fields operate from late afternoon until 11:00-11:30 p.m. What is important is the fact that competitive activities can occur without excessive noise. The proximity of Nixon Field to the Kingston General Hospital is evidence of that. Similarly, it can be expected that activities at the West Campus, Upper Field area could also. Noise from competitive activity does not equate with noise from sound systems, music, etc. It was clear from the Public Meeting on July 2, that it is the latter which concerns the near-neighbourhood residents. From the nature of the sport, the time of season (fall), there are seven Queen's varsity sports and/or varsity clubs with which a time exemption application would be applicable. These are: (a) Varsity Teams - Men's football, Men's and Women's Rugby, Men's and Women's Soccer; (b) Varsity Clubs - Women's Fast Pitch, Women's Field Hockey, Men's and Women's Lacrosse, Men's and Women's Ultimate Frisbee. There are no Recreational Clubs for which the application is applicable. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

107 Three of these units can be eliminated from the application immediately, given the playing facility traditions that they enjoy. Both Men's and Women's rugby practice and play on the Main Campus Nixon Field. Women's Field Hockey is also eliminated since it plays on the Main Campus Frank Tindall Field. I would contend that Women's Fast Pitch can also be eliminated, if only for game condition facilities. While it is possible that the Fast Pitch Players might practice on the West Campus northwest ball diamond, it would seem to make more sense for the team to play its games at one of the quality regional ball diamonds. Here, I have in mind diamonds such as the Circle City Fastball Park, located by the previous Harold Harvey Arena (now the Domino Theatre's Davies Foundation Auditorium). Since there are no lights on the northwest ball diamond, no noise exemption is applicable. Men's and Women's lacrosse have regularly practiced and played games on what was the original "spill-over" field, namely the West Campus North West field. My understanding is that it is adequate for lacrosse, given its overall dimensions. Here too, the application is not relevant. First, since the field has limited lighting, games are regularly played in daylight hours. Second, as a Varsity Club with its mandate to play competitively against other club lacrosse teams, games normally take place on weekends only, start early and finish by late afternoon to allow visiting teams to return to their home campuses. Finally, because of the lighting conditions, practices would not go beyond daylight hours. Intramural activity has also been eliminated since almost all activity takes place on the main campus fields, for reasons noted above. The next section, therefore, will concentrate on those five sports (football (men), soccer (men and women), ultimate (men and women), for which this application might be relevant. Queen's Noise Exemption Application: relevancy and/or need? Any one who has coached, taught a physical education class, or participated in a favourite physical activity will acknowledge that games can be loud, noisy affairs. While it is true that there are activities, which require focus, quiet and concentration (eg. golf, chess, darts, billiards) and that there those that on the moment of initiation require the same (eg. curling and releasing the rock, tennis and the serve, bowling and release of the ball). In the case of the sports directly affected by this application, none of this applies. Flow games like soccer and ultimate, played at the highest competitive level are noisy, communication affairs. Teammates need to know constantly the positioning of each other. This applies to football as well, even though it has a more static nature that the other games. I noted at the start, my longstanding involvement in recreation, sport and physical education. I like the noise associated with competitive activity. It gives me a buzz, just as I am sure it gives members of an orchestra a buzz as each as every one in the symphony City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

108 tunes up for the production. Consequently, like others who expressed personal opinions at the Public Meeting on July 2nd, I have no problem with the noise associated directly with Queen's athletic competition. Albeit subjectively based, I would go as far as to say that the opponents to the proposed application are so inclined not so much from the noise generated by activity at Richardson Stadium, the fields south of the stadium, or the intercollegiate activities that occur (usually on weekends during the fall term) on the upper fields of the West Campus. What is it that they do oppose? These are readily identifiable. noise associated with activity outside the normal and usual intercollegiate athletic schedule, and from the Upper East venue; excessive noise associated with heavy concentrated tournament play, again usually outside the normal intercollegiate schedule and again, from the Upper East venue; noise that is peripheral to that initiated by the athletic contest but is part of a marketing strategy by which the sports competition is marginal and often secondary to "the sporting experience". For the best example of the latter, consider the constant stimulation that characterizes NHL hockey games for the arena audience. the potential for increased noise from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. seven days a week as increased outside rentals of the athletic facilities are pursued. It is telling that the neighbourhood resistance to this application took sail when Queen's University began to intensify activity at the West Campus-Upper Field area. As far as I can tell, and from comments uttered at the July 2nd Public Meeting, there is less worry about peripheral noise from Richardson Stadium. This is directly related to the location of Richardson Stadium and the grass fields south of the Stadium. The area was the former location for the Correctional Services limestone quarry and the construction of the stadium and fields lies at the basin of the abandoned quarry. There is, therefore, a natural berm to the east of these facilities. Beyond the berm is a large parking lot, with shuttle services to the main campus. Many Queens' employees park at this location. Further, Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard curves eastward so that there is much more distance at this point of West Campus than occurs at the Johnson/Sir John A. intersection. Finally Oakridge Park lies directly east of Sir John A. at this curvature. This geographical consideration results in residential housing that is much more protected from excessive noise than that which occurs at the West Campus-Upper Field location. It is puzzling therefore, to understand why Queen's University has submitted a noise exemption application in the first place. The Queen's Sports model clearly identifies those sports it considers to have "market driven" potential. This potential includes peripheral "stadium experience" at which excessive noise is a possibility. Only one of the four competes at the West Campus, i.e., football and its competitions occur during normal daylight hours, always within the confines of Richardson Stadium, and almost always on Saturdays. In fact, games are purposely scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. so that the contest can be completed in regular daylight hours. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

109 Men's and Women's soccer (practice and competition) has been slotted into the Upper turf field at the West Campus but both teams could easily be accommodated at the main campus Tindall Field. Others extensively use the latter for soccer. The relocation is based on the premise of alternative scheduling by which two tenants (i.e. sport) utilize the same venue. In this case, with the field hockey varsity club being the primary sport tenant at Tindall Field, it is simple to schedule Ontario University game competition on alternative weeks---soccer one week while Field Hockey plays away, the converse on the next week. At almost every Canadian university this is commonplace and readily acceptable to conference schedule coordinators. In fact, both Waterloo and Wilfred Laurier Universities share the same football stadium, based on this exact scheduling procedure. Finally, the Ultimate Frisbee competitions, in my longtime coaching experience at Queen's were always played on the well-maintained grass fields south of Richardson Stadium. Again, this is an area sheltered from excessive noise by the geographical confines of the space. There is no evidence that Ultimate is in the market driven category. Also, like its lacrosse counterpart, there is little evidence that "the hype" surrounding Richardson Stadium football occurs at competitions. This analysis leads me to only one conclusion, stated in rhetorical fashion. What was the reason for this application in the first place? There is no evidence to support the Queen's contention that a 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. noise exemption is necessary. First and foremost, Queen's athletics is to deliver programming for its students. In the case of Varsity teams and clubs, these are student-athletes, who must balance academic responsibilities with the pursuit of athletic excellence. It is the responsibility of the university to ensure athletic pursuits do not inhibit academic success. For this very reason, every CIS conference schedules competitions heavily on weekends, during daylight hours. Every conference prohibits competition during exam periods and has clear guidelines as to when, how and how many exhibition contests can occur. Queen's University simply does not need this blanket noise exemption for its student athletes and intramural participants. Recommendations: 1. Kingston City Council should reject this application. There is no evidence to support the need for such exemption. Queen's programming and its student-athletes are in no way disadvantaged with the existing noise bylaws, in the pursuit of sports on the campus. 2. Queen's is no different than other universities in the quest for greater funding capabilities (corporate campus development). Outside rentals is one way of generating peripheral funding sources. If and when the expanding needs of students are met, rentals are viable sources of increased revenue. But these can be met within the existing noise bylaws. When there may be a necessary extra-ordinary exception, procedures are in place to accommodate such requests. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

110 3. Queen's University, in cooperation with the City of Kingston, should in the first instance, work to stifle unnecessary noise emanating from the West Campus-Upper Field complex. The university has already put in place an important step of noise analysis but more needs to be done. For example, there is extensive research that exists that noise abeyance can be reduced through natural shrub/tree planting. Both partners have readily at hand, experts to advise on what is necessary along the Sir John A. Boulevard and Upper Field complex. Respectfully submitted, Hart Cantelon, Ph.D. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

111 Subject: Objection to Queen's U noise bylaw exemption From: Christopher Spencer [mailto:spinneron@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 04, :01 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Objection to Queen's U noise bylaw exemption Dear Ms Leonard, I do believe that my neighbors have voiced many concerns regarding Queen's U's application for a "temporary" noise exemption, so I won't repeat what's already been stated. I would like to know if the city has ever granted a temporary noise exemption that was exactly that. I mean has the city ever not made a temporary exemption permanent upon it's expiry? Regards, Christopher Spencer 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

112 Ms. Kim Leonard, Manager Licensing & Enforcement City of Kingston 216 Ontario Street Kingston, ON K7L 4S9 July 4, 2014 Dear Ms. Leonard, I am opposed to granting Queen s University a Temporary Noise Exemption as advertised in the Kingston Whig Standard on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 and which is also posted on the City s web site. I have lived, since 1989, on Oakridge Avenue directly across the road from Queen's West Campus and wish to offer my observations and perspective on this application. With their application, Queen s University Administrators are insisting that users of Richardson Stadium as well as the open sports fields at West Campus must be allowed to broadcast amplified sound throughout our neighbourhoods from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily including holidays. This is inappropriate for, and fundamentally incompatible with, our residential neighbourhood. It is contrary to our City s well established noise control by-law. I believe the provisions of Kingston s noise control by-law are founded on the premise that people in residential neighbourhoods do not have, nor should expect, the right to broadcast amplified sound or persistently propagate other loud noises out into our neighbourhood which are disturbing to our fellow neighbours. I believe that to be a universally held understanding amongst residents living in all areas of our city. They quite rightly expect to have access to meaningful legally enforceable protections provided through the service of our City s by-law enforcement officers when their living conditions become severely degraded due to the unreasonable intrusions of other property owners who will not cooperate in alleviating noise problems. The provisions of the noise control by-law establish the terms of legally enforceable fundamental needs of any healthy residential community. These particular regulations are in place to safeguard people from the established negative health impact of elevated environmental noise. These include: degraded sleep, decreased school performance in children, increased cortisol levels (stress response), elevated blood pressure etc. Sanctioning elevated noise in the environment of complete neighbourhoods full of residents is a very serious matter which must require exceptional and compelling justification that would somehow offset the known health impacts. One should expect very thoughtful consideration and a thorough analysis of the impacts to Kingston s stable residential communities be done by our City government. Surely a by-law which provides such fundamental protections to city resident s health should not be treated as one might handle more straightforward administrative rules, such as parking restrictions or the maximum height of someone s fence? The impacts of removing noise protection from large stable neighbourhoods are considerably more serious to the health and wellbeing of residents. How will you measure and evaluate those impacts? They are real. 1 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

113 Since constructing the artificial turf field in the north east corner of their West Campus property, Queen s University has enormously ramped up their athletics operations to the point where they now routinely broadcast amplified sound throughout our residential neighbourhoods during varsity football, varsity soccer, Kingston FC soccer games and at numerous other events which are more difficult to identify. Queen s has changed the game these are new conditions brought into our neighbourhood with the construction of a completely open outdoor artificial turf playing field which was designed and built in a residential area without any noise abatement features. The site where that field was built was a parking lot for the previous 4 decades. The longstanding pattern of hearing amplified announcements at perhaps 6 to 8 Golden Gaels football games, roughly one game every other week in the fall, has suddenly morphed into amplified announcements, crowd encouragements, national anthems and other music being broadcast into our residential community from more than 50 games. This assertion is easily verifiable by consulting schedules available on Queen s Athletics web site amongst others. Queen s played football at Richardson Stadium for many years without broadcasting music during pauses in play, but music has been recently adopted as an entertainment feature at football games. In the past, Queen s never used amplified sound at varsity soccer games which was audible to the residents in my neighbourhood. I have been living on my property on Oakridge Avenue for over 24 years and I would have noticed if Queen s was doing that. Kingston FC pro soccer used to practice and play at the Caraco-Home field which is situated well away from residential properties, but these activities are now practically in the back yards of many homes. Professional soccer is a noisy business, and it has no place in a residential area if the owner and operator of an outdoor sports field is either unwilling or financially incapable of building effective noise abatement into their facility. There are other much more suitable locations in our city that are away from houses and have the added advantage of proper change rooms and permanent washroom facilities features which are missing from the West Campus artificial turf field. Queen s application is not about kids and students and community groups playing games - they haven't needed nor used amplified sound in the past. This application is not about anyone trying to stop Queen's football - the neighbourhood has been accommodating football games each fall for over 4 decades and it is expected (although recent use of game music in pauses at football games is unnecessarily annoying to the neighbouring community). This application is not about a football or soccer game being shut down the moment a whistle is blown - it simply just doesn't happen like that even though some may suggest that to be an eventuality. All of the by-law enforcement officers I have dealt with regarding noise have been insightful and well equipped to assess the reasonableness of the situation given the place and time. This application is about Queen's University taking opportunistic advantage of the institutions E1 zoning to circumvent municipal regulation and guidelines on sports venue development to build an artificial turf field in a residential neighbourhood. In addition to locating it completely unsuitably, they built it without any noise abatement features to protect the surrounding residential properties. It is Queen's responsibility to protect their neighbours from unreasonable levels and duration of noise and if the City 2 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

114 did not have regulatory authority to insist on noise and light pollution protections being put in place during the design and construction phase - the City should absolutely insist on it now. The City s noise control by-law is virtually the only means left by which the City can exercise control, guidance and supervision of the ongoing development and operation of Queen s evolving outdoor sports and sportsentertainment complex. This application is about Queen s University failing to respond to legitimate noise complaints about their outdoor sporting activities, first from their neighbours and then from the City. Their response has been squarely focused on avoiding their legal responsibilities by insisting that the pertinent sections of our noise control by-laws should not be enforceable on them. Instead of accepting their responsibilities to their neighbours, Queen s University would prefer the City to remove Queen s legal obligation to behave within our neighbourhood as any other neighbour in a residential community must. Please do not consider relinquishing the City s control and enforcement capability on West Campus daily between the hours of 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. This application is about Queen's University ramping up the use of amplified sound broadcast in our residential neighbourhood and insisting that they must be allowed to do this even though it is clearly contrary to the very reasonable noise protections for all residential areas in Kingston. Regular use of amplified sound is fundamentally incompatible with residential areas and our noise bylaw recognizes that reality by prohibiting it. Special events and occasions do happen which involve amplified sound in residential areas and that is why we have a process in place by which event exemptions may be sought based on the impact and merit of the activity and affected residents are routinely provided with some opportunity to influence/manage the normally quite transient impact (i.e. one evening or weekend) of those events. Queen s University Administration should avail themselves of this well established process their student government does so consistently every year to facilitate fall orientation activities. Last weekend, on Sunday June 29 th, there was a noticeable lessening of the impact of the Kingston FC games on our lives when compared with last season. The volume and number of announcements from the open artificial turf field was kept to a level which I would characterize as more respectful of our neighbourhood s quality of life. It offers hope that with the implementation of additional effective physical sound abatement plus properly designed speaker placement and volume controls there can be a way through this mess. But it will need all of that to be successful. I have heard directly from an ardent sports fan who attended the Kingston FC games that day and in his estimation everything was fine about the game with the one exception being that Kingston lost. The amplified sound system was used exclusively for announcing player changes, the issuance of cards, goals and assists and for information about future games. He said no one seemed to miss music being played at half-time. However, you must realize that the very existence of the noise control by-law was the essential factor in making that adjustment in behaviour come to fruition. If an exemption were to be granted, human nature being what it is, the use of amplified sound will be adjusted back to where it was before to the full extent of what the by-law exemption would permit. We have had ample demonstrations from Queen s last year that they did not take noise complaints from neighbours seriously enough to respond. In the end, it has required the determination of residents, the existence of the noise control by-law and 3 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

115 actions by you and your by-law enforcement staff to get us where we are Queen s insisting that they must operate with exemptions. Once again, please do not relinquish the City s control and enforcement capability on West Campus daily between the hours of 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. I would suggest that Queen s application for a noise exemption be viewed in three parts, with each part considered on its own merit: 1) Use of amplified sound at Richardson Stadium 2) Use of amplified sound on the West Campus fields 3) Facilitating the use of game whistles Regarding the use of amplified sound at Richardson Stadium, there is a long history of a very limited number of games using amplified announcements each year. The only disclosed figures I have seen from Queen s University regarding their actual requirement is their estimate of games each year. I think this would likely be composed of up to 8 Gaels football games, 4 OUA varsity finals soccer games with the balance some number of high school championships. I don t believe an exemption should be required to host these games given that they have been running without difficulty. If the by-law enforcement department feels they will be required to actually charge Queen s and shut down any of these games should a complaint be lodged due to a technical and/or legal duty then it might be reasonable to consider a limited number of game exemptions, perhaps maximum of 12, to allow the use of amplified sound between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6.p.m. However, I am not supportive of an exemption for the use of amplified sound use at Richardson Stadium if it does not place limits on the volume and duration of the announcements. In my view, the City must maintain enough regulatory control to allow by-law enforcement staff to compel Queen s to reduce volume levels or cut the use shorter if they deem the use of amplified sound to be unreasonable for the time and place. Regarding the use of amplified sound on the West Campus Fields, there is no history of amplified sound use on the north grass field that I am aware of and the use of amplified sound on the new artificial turf field in the north east corner represents a completely new use in this location which is within one fields length of residential properties and did not exist prior to the fall of Queen s built the field in that location without paying design attention to noise abatement and there should therefore be no expectation of special consideration for by-law exemptions until that situation is corrected. I do not feel Queen s has a right to send prohibited noise out into the surrounding neighbourhoods. Rather, they have a duty and responsibility to protect their residential neighbours from the burden of excessive noise. Given that Queen s is just now conducting a noise study while simultaneously asking for a daily 12 hour noise exemption puts the surrounding neighbourhoods and the City of Kingston in a difficult position. They have known for some time that neighbours were complaining about the amount of noise emanating from their artificial turf field and did not respond in a fashion that involved investigating technological means of noise mitigation. Queen s has not, to the best of my knowledge, officially provided notice of even approximate minimum or maximum number of games that they intend to accompany with amplified sound they have simply asked for the legal right to use amplified sound 4 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

116 during games played on the West Campus fields between the hours of 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. daily including holidays. In my view, such an uncapped request is completely unjustifiable. The argument of this being necessary for scheduling flexibility is completely without merit one does not need to know precise dates and times of games to be aware, with significant accuracy, of the number of games which you are expecting to play. Using published schedules it is easy to determine that there are already 41 games scheduled this year to be played at the West Campus artificial field where amplified sound would be used and that is just counting regular season varsity and Kingston FC soccer games. The Provost of Queen s University, when notified that it is normal practice to place maximum number of usages on noise exemptions, steadfastly refused to consider modifying their current request. In my opinion, reinforcing this conduct with a noise by-law exemption is not wise. It will be vital going forward to rely on written commitments and documentation which can serve as a legacy document. Until such time as effective sound barriers are installed games can be played on the new artificial turf field without exemptions and if problems persist then they can either revert back to the facilities where they were played prior to 2011 or moved to another more appropriate location. If Queen s is not prepared to install effective sound mitigating barriers for their host community then they can, once again move games back to where they were previously played. Also, we must not forget that Kingston has more soccer fields available now than in 2011, including several artificial surfaces. I certainly do not consider assertions that all sporting activities at West Campus must cease without granting Queen s their requested exemption to be credible. If that were the case, Queen s would face the same circumstances on their main campus fields and should therefore be seeking exemptions for their use also. Regarding the use of game whistles being prohibited by Schedule A (Section 7) of the noise control bylaw, I would suggest that this is an issue whose scope reaches beyond Queen s West Campus and affects the use of any non-city-owned sports field such as those owned by St. Lawrence College and both local school boards. I believe that the City should recognize the necessity of whistles for game control by suitably amending the by-law rather than having to issue individual exemptions for the owners of all of the non-city-owned playing fields. This could perhaps be achieved in Schedule C of the noise control bylaw by adding an exemption for the use of whistles for the purposes of the control and regulation of sports games. However, as not all whistles are the same and a very commonly used Fox40 whistle produces sound at 115 db which is very loud and piercing and carries great distances, you should consider adding some additional language stipulating that persistent whistling could only be permissible in locations sufficiently distant from houses or where noise abatement is installed. I thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my point of view. Sincerely, Thomas W. Moynihan, P.Eng., Queen's Science 83, M.Sc.Eng Oakridge Avenue Kingston, ON K7L 4S9 5 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

117 July 4, 2014 Dear Ms Leonard, Mayor Gerretson, and members of Council, Re: The proposal by Queen s University for by-law exemptions to allow a continuation of recently increased noise from athletic activities at West Campus (and possibly allowing further increases) As a tax-paying Kingstonian, long-time resident of the immediate community, and member of the faculty at Queen s University, I am strongly opposed to this effort. Athletic activities at the West Campus of Queen s do not and should not require exemption from municipal by-laws restricting noise. Such an exemption would not only deprive Kingston s residents of enjoyment of their property and threaten their health, but would set a dangerous precedent, empowering the university to take further steps that would degrade the quality of life in residential communities where thousands of people live. I believe that it is very important for the City of Kingston and all residents to consider the Queen s noise as part of a larger picture. The main point of my letter is the inextricable connections between the exemption request, the sports field in the northeast corner of the West Campus area, and the future redevelopment of the West Campus site as a whole. Doublespeak? My concerns about the noise exemption proposal have intensified thanks to public statements made by Queen s University. For example, in his letter of June 25 advising the Kingston Mayor and Council of the Queen s submission of a proposal to the City, University Provost Alan Harrison makes the following remarkable claim: Richardson Stadium and the West Campus fields cannot operate within the by-law without an exemption, which means that if we do not have exemptions we shall ultimately be forced to suspend athletic activities at West Campus. Soon afterward in the same letter, Dr Harrison also stated that Athletic activities have been an integral part of life West Campus for more than four decades, and it would be unfortunate if this were to stop completely. City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

118 How are these two statements consistent? For more than four decades, athletic activities have taken place on West Campus. How was this possible without exemptions from by-laws and why are exemptions necessary now? As far as I know, no residents of Kingston have demanded, or would ever expect, the suspension of sports at West Campus. Thus it is not all clear why Dr Harrison is making this statement. Does he wish to suggest that residents are being unreasonable? Or does he, perhaps, wish to distract your attention from a key point that he has failed to mention? To those who know the situation, it is very clear what information is missing here: The imposition of noise on neighbours of West Campus is much worse than it used to be. This sort of suggestion that sports at West Campus might cease because Kingston residents are being unreasonable might help Queen s answer questions that might be posed by news reporters and alumni who live elsewhere, but in this letter to city officials the suggestion seems inappropriate. If I were in your place, I could not help taking as a threat the statement that Queen s might stop holding sports events at Richardson Stadium and the rest of the West Campus area. Is Queen s threatening to pack up its toys and find another sandbox to play in? Is Queen s attempting to bully elected officials? And what about the ambiguous reference in the last paragraph, where Dr Harrison mentions that the economic impact on the City of Kingston is something that should be considered in relation to noise coming from West Campus? Although I strongly agree with this statement, I cannot help but wonder: Is Queen s suggesting that financial considerations should induce the Mayor and Council to open the door to more and more noise from West Campus? Because the intention is not clear, I will not dwell on the distasteful implication that the University feels it can buy off the municipal government. After all, perhaps Dr Harrison simply means to suggest that a popular stadium rebuilt by lavish donations, facilitated by your assent to exemptions, will be a stunning commercial success both for Queen s and the city. But instead of imagining an economic success, I urge you to consider how the impact of a trespassing bullying University on the economy of the City of Kingston might very well be NEGATIVE. The disturbances allowed by exemptions will surely affect Kingston s quality of life, natural environment, property values, democratic governance, and international reputation City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

119 as a livable city, quite possibly imposing more costs than benefits on the average resident and the community as a whole. As a resident of Oakridge Avenue, I am naturally concerned about the possible impact of uncontrollable noise on private property values adjacent to West Campus. If financial sacrifice is imposed on me, I wonder, who will gain economically? Whose interests do our municipal democracy and our publicly-funded University intend to serve? The New Stadium is not part of the discussion at this time, according to Provost Harrison At the public meeting held at Queen s yesterday evening (July 2, 2014), Dr Harrison responded several times to comments and questions related to the new stadium project. He said the following: That plans for the stadium are far from final. That he had concluded from previous public meetings that residents had no objections to the continued use of Richardson Stadium. That, considering similar cases, it seemed likely that the final plan for re-building the stadium would include replacing natural turf with Astroturf. The Provost also stated that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the stadium, partly because there is no definite plan to discuss yet. The more the Provost seems to wish to avoid talking about the new stadium, however, the more it seems that the University is seeking a by-law exemption partly in order to avoid talking about the stadium with the public. Now IS the time to discuss the stadium project! To re-cap the situation, the current proposal for a by-law exemption: 1. Follows a period of rapidly increases in frequency and intensity of noise that is seriously disturbing to residents close to West Campus. 2. Follows decades of infrequent noise disturbances AND after the opening of a new artificial field 3. Comes before concrete efforts to buffer the noise disturbances while assuring you that efforts will be made later, after an exemption is granted 4. Precedes the completion of a commissioned study of the noise 5. Follows public awareness that the entire West Campus area will change dramatically during the years ahead 6. Precedes detailed public information about how the West Campus will be redeveloped City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

120 7. Like all temporary exemptions, is likely to assume a permanent form The prospect of permanence is unusually serious in this case because the scale and impact of the redevelopment of West Campus are a) unknown and b) potentially vast. In conclusion, I emphasize that the proposed by-law exemption is particularly significant to neighbours precisely because of the prospective re-building of Richardson Stadium. Moreover, it is precisely because of the manner in which Queen s planned its new Astroturf field at West Campus, and the manner of its response to the field s impact on private homes, that it has lost the benefit of the doubt about its competence and consideration in planning the West Campus site as a whole. In order for a positive economic impact for Kingston to result from the stadium project, very thorough planning will almost certainly be necessary, including careful consultation with many experts and the public as well. There is the danger that a by-law exemption would subvert the process of planning the stadium. It would be like slapping a patch on part of a problem rather than conducting a full and professional treatment of the whole. Now is the time, before work begins on a new Richardson Stadium, for the City and the University to fully discuss and plan this large and important project. Successful planning will require serious and sustained professional attention on both sides, along with much more than pro forma consultation with the public. In the meantime, I very much hope that you will oppose by-law exemptions that would allow Queen s to project loud and disruptive noise into the homes of city residents from 9 am to 9 pm daily until the end of 2015, and possibly beyond. Yours sincerely, Emily M. Hill emily.hill@queensu.ca (613) City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

121 July 4, 2014 Dear Ms. Leonard, I ve included the regulations pertaining to the city s jurisdiction re Queen s Noise Exemption application to provide background for others reading this submission as I am certainly confident you are fully conversant. The Ontario Municipal Act empowers the municipality to pass by-laws within defined spheres of jurisdiction and the sphere of jurisdiction that governs noise by-laws is defined as Health, safety and wellbeing of persons 1. With regard to noise regulation the following is specified: Noise Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, a local municipality may, (a) prohibit and regulate with respect to noise, vibration, odour, dust and outdoor illumination, including indoor lighting that can be seen outdoors; and (b) prohibit the matters described in clause (a) unless a permit is obtained from the municipality for those matters and may impose conditions for obtaining, continuing to hold and renewing the permit, including requiring the submission of plans. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s 69. To safeguard the health and wellbeing of residents, and as a necessary component of due diligence, the Municipality should require submission of detailed plans for mitigating the deleterious effects of the requested exemption. These plans should include: 1. Full scope of exempted use being requested (i.e. total expected hours of use, hours of continuous use, specified limits regulating simultaneous use of whistles and amplified sound on multiple fields etc.) 2. Description of specific noise abatement strategies to be implemented. a. The language that would be included in all renter agreements b. The wording of site posted Rules of Conduct to address general noise and conduct (spectators chanting, shouting, etc.) including how rules are to be enforced in a timely manner. 3. The specific scope of the engineering acoustic study they have commissioned has not been provided. No acoustical data was recorded for Richardson Stadium as yet although the Stadium is included in the current application before council The criterion that will be used to determine which (if any) of the commissioned noise study recommendations will ultimately be binding on the applicant. The current application documentation refers ambiguously to where practical and to unspecified financial and/or esthetic considerations. I respectfully suggest that until a plan with a clearly defined extent of impact, measurable performance goals and substantiated timelines for implementing mitigations has been presented to council, the granting of any exemption for amplified sound without having established this would not meet minimal standards of best practice. Sincerely, Susan Reid, MSc. Mech. Eng. 52 Oakridge Ave, Kingston, ON 1 Section 11, Spheres of jurisdiction. 2 Section 129, Health, Safety and Nuisance. 3 HGC Engineering Acoustical Consultants. Communications at Public Meeting July 2, 138 Unions St. Kingston., ON City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

122 Subject: Request For A Temporary Noise Exemption until December 31st, Queen's West Campus Field From: Peter Stroud [mailto:stroudforsydenham@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 04, :34 PM To: Leonard,Kim Subject: Request For A Temporary Noise Exemption until December 31st, Queen's West Campus Field Dear Ms. Leonard and city staff: I am writing to clearly state my recommendations in regards to the following application: Request For A Temporary Noise Exemption until December 31st, Queen's West Campus Fields. Whereas the decision by Queen's to first ask for a "blanket" exemption until 11pm on these fields showed a profound disrespect for the residents of the neighbourhood and rightly sparked a public outrage resulting in this earlier application being withdrawn by Queen's, and Whereas amplified sound during a sports event, while often the norm in commercial sports venues, is NOT required for the enjoyment of a sports event, and Whereas Queen's has wisely adapted their position to now ask for a "blanket" exemption until a more reasonable time of 9pm, it remains a "blanket" exemption that would apply 365 days a year while in effect, and Whereas the noise bylaws exist to ensure that respect for the public good is paramount, I hereby recommend that the City REJECT this application for the above reasons. I would like to state, however, that my opposition to this application stems only from the above reasons. I believe that the City SHOULD CONSIDER granting exemptions to Queen's ON AN INDIVIDUAL EVENT BASIS, within reasonable limits keeping the well-being of all city residents in mind. It would set a dangerous precedent, I think, to allow this application to move ahead and the City should encourage student groups and Queen's departments to read the bylaws carefully so they can understand what specific aspects of the bylaws seriously reduce enjoyment of their events, to see if an effective compromise can be reached. I had a great time as a student at Queen's, including one year playing sousaphone (tuba) in the Queen's marching band. We did not benefit from amplified sound and I think that there are many ways to enjoy an event without compromising the well-being of the nearby residents. I am supportive of student life in the district, and am striving to encourage positive dialogue between different age-groups that show mutual respect and understanding. Sincerely, Peter Stroud, RN Candidate, Sydenham District City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

123 Public Meeting Notice West Campus Temporary Noise Exemption Application Wednesday, July 2, :00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Robert Sutherland Hall, Room Union St. The purpose of the meeting is to present information regarding Queen s revised application for a temporary noise exemption for two West Campus fields and Richardson Stadium, and to discuss the application with nearby residents and the Kingston community. Representatives from the Provost s Office, the Vice-Provost and Dean of Student Affairs Office, and Athletics & Recreation will be in attendance to answer questions and hear any comments or concerns regarding the application. All are welcome to attend. Any questions can be City directed Council to: Meeting 24 July 15, Marcia Irving at ext or ardept@queensu.ca.

124 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

125 z July 3 rd, 2014 To Whom It May Concern; At the request of Queen s University, I am writing to confirm the Ontario University Athletics (OUA) regulations that apply to the hosting of OUA events and specifically the use of amplified sound. The OUA, and its member institutions, are committed to conducting and staging events at a league-wide standard that is consistent with recognized sport and entertainment properties. With respect to the hosting of sanctioned university sports/events each OUA institution must provide and comply with: 1. Appropriate risk management and safety standards (facilities, weather, security, etc.) 2. The OUA Sport Model which sets out the presentation standards by which the different categories of OUA sports/events must be hosted; 3. The OUA Hosting Policy which outlines the requirements and regulations related to hosting OUA events in sport other than football (i.e. soccer, basketball, etc.); 4. The Football Game Operations Manual which establishes a league wide framework for the staging and presentation of football games. All members must comply with OUA hosting protocols and requirements in order to maintain their membership. Non compliance will result in a review of that institution s membership and its participation in the sport that does not adhere to OUA regulations. With regard to the specific use of amplified sound the following regulations apply: For the sport of football (OUA Football Game Operations Manual): 4.10 Sound System & Loudspeakers Each team must have a functioning sound system to provide fans with game information, in-game entertainment and security announcements. The system must provide sound throughout the full stadium so that security announcements may be heard by all. Use of the sound system must be done with discretion. Penalties and other discipline can result from inappropriate use of the sound system. For hosting all sports (OUA Hosting Policy): 13. P.A. Announcer: a) The Announcer s role at any games is one of announcing the play in an unbiased manner. b) At all times the announcer is to be positive and respectful of both teams 14. Artificial Noise / Amplified Noise: a) Music (including live bands) and computer generated sounds are only to be played during stoppages of play, time-outs, half-time, etc. It is expected that players will have the opportunity to hear their coach s instructions during a time out. d) At other points during the game nothing to be amplified while the opponent has the ball. b) Music should not be demeaning in nature to the visiting team or to the officials. The host institution must monitor the use of music to ensure that the language and lyrics are consistent with the OUA principles and that these lyrics will not demean, discriminate nor use profanity. c) The use of laser pointers, megaphones, amplified music, air horns, whistles, etc. by fans/spectators (which includes cheerleaders) shall be prohibited during all indoor events. d) The use of Laser pointers are not allowed at any and all events. e) Other noise makers are at the discretion of the event manager City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

126 The hosting standards and expectations of OUA and its member institutions related to the game experience by participants and fans is dynamic and evolving and as is the use of technology related to the staging of these games. Across OUA these standards continue to elevate to a level that is consistent with the profile of the sports as premier market driven properties of OUA and its members. The norm for our institutions, which is in line with industry standards, is to utilize public address announcements, in-game entertainment which includes the use of bands, cheerleaders, amplified music, lighting features, half-time concerts, pyro-technics, licensed viewing areas, video board promotions and replays, tailgating and a wide variety of spectator activities and contests to create an exciting and engaging game environment for the students and communities that enjoy OUA events each season. I hope that this information is helpful. If I can assist further with regard to the hosting of OUA sports and events please feel free to contact me. Regards, Bryan Crawford Executive Director Ontario University Athletics City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

127 July 4, 2014 Ms. Kim Leonard Manager, Licensing and Enforcement City of Kingston 216 Ontario Street Kingston ON K7L 2Z3 O F F I C E O F T H E P R O V O S T A N D V I C E - P R I N C I P A L ( A C A D E M I C ) Richardson Hall, Suite 353 Queen s University Kingston ON Canada K7L 3N6 Tel Fax Dear Ms. Leonard: Re: Application for a temporary exemption to Noise Control By-Law Schedule A (Section 7) and Schedule B (Activity 4) in respect of Richardson Stadium and West Campus Fields I am writing further to my letter of June 20, 2014 related to Queen s University s application for a temporary exemption to Noise Control By-Law , Schedule A (Section 7) and Schedule B (Activity 4), in respect of Richardson Stadium and West Campus sports fields located at the corner of Johnston Street and Sr. John A. MacDonald Boulevard. In sending this letter, we are responding to concerns expressed by neighborhood residents as part of our ongoing consultation process, specifically as related to the use of amplified sound in connection with the fields outlined above. As such, we would submit the following restrictions in addition to those outlined previously in our June 20, 2014 application. For the West Campus Fields (grass and artificial turf field) that the use of amplified sound for the national anthem and intermittent game-related PA announcements (not music) shall be for a maximum of 93 games per year. The game types are outlined below. The maximum use is based on all anticipated season and playoff possibilities being realized, which may or may not eventuate. Regular Season Games (includes exhibition) 39 games Playoff Games 8 games Championship Games (OUA & CIS) 30 games Special Events (e.g. KASAA) 16 games For Richardson Stadium that the use of intermittent amplified sound and music at Richardson Stadium shall be for a maximum of 15 games per year. It would also be appropriate for us to quantify the nature/duration of the sound related to the: national anthem - approximately 90 seconds opening player/game introductions - approximately 2-3 minutes; and intermittent game-related announcement approximately seconds City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

128 As you are aware we have had an extensive consultation process and dialogue and we appreciated the opportunity to hear the concerns of the neighbours regarding our application. In response, we have continued to modify our by-law exemption application to achieve what we believe is a reasonable balance that acknowledges the interests of parties involved. Further, we are very committed to discussing how to best implement the most effective and reasonable noise mitigation strategies identified in the consultant s report. Thank you for your assistance and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have with regard to the details outlined above. Yours sincerely Alan Harrison Provost and Vice Principal Academic City Council Meeting 24 July 15,

129 City Council Meeting 24 July 15,