There are two sides to every story and in some cases, even more.
Such is the case of the barking dogs in the former township of West Garafraxa.
Residents of the area surrounding a local pet product testing facility say they have had to deal with the issue of barking dogs for years.
Ontario Nutri Lab specializes in nutrient analysis, palatability trials and digestibility.
Nearby resident Kelsye Coulter says neighbours have been disturbed for years on a daily basis by barking dogs at the facility. She explained the noise happens “periodically, but daily” when the dogs are let outside.
Coulter stressed the impact for her is not like car traffic, but akin to hearing a crying baby. Simply put, she says the ongoing noise is bad for her health.
At the same time, Coulter admits the volume and duration often depends on wind direction and weather conditions, which can either help or hinder how sound travels.
“If this were eight hours a day, 365 days a year … we wouldn’t be living here,” said Coulter. “As is, the sound can be unbearable in the morning.”
And for someone who works from home, the noise has a big impact. She sees no help coming from Centre Wellington Township and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is defering to the township.
Coulter readily admits to being charged with harassment by Ontario Nutri Labs because she has phoned the owners at their business and home phone numbers when the barking has bothered her.
“I was told by the police to stop doing it. I felt I was being bullied by the police,” said Coulter.
She questions why additional work could not be done to provide sound absorption materials inside the outdoor kennels.
The owners of the facility did create an earthen berm around the facility – an approach often used by gravel pits to reduce noise levels.
Dr. Christine Stec, owner of Ontario Nutri Labs, offers a different take on the issue.
In her opinion, “There is no story,” she says. Stec says that the business has been investigated “by everyone”.
“We’ve complied with every known bylaw.”
Stec added two sound engineers confirmed there are no noise issues but, “I do not deny there may be times when sound travels.”
Because of that, she said the dogs are not allowed outside on Sundays – to keep potential noise indoors. In addition, the dogs are not outside all day long.
However, she said sounds are monitored and remain at less than 46 decibels.
Stec said Coulter’s campaign amounts to harassment with “virtually thousands of phone calls, emails and faxes.”
Stec noted that during one of the first neighbourhood meetings, one of the suggestions was to install a berm around the property. That berm is now in place.
But Stec said the work is not yet complete. While tree plantings have started, “you can’t rush nature.”
Stec expressed frustration with the ongoing complaints.
“Financially I cannot do much more to appease a noise issue which does not exist.” She said her goal is to operate low-key.
“We are a confidential pet food tasting company,” said Stec. “Our duty is to protect our staff and the welfare of the animals from terrorist activities.”
Compared to Coulter, other residents had a lesser degree of concern, though all agreed there were issues with the noise.
Giselle Maerz said there was a meeting with the neighbours and the company when it first moved to the location a number of years ago.
She said the noise arises as the dogs are let outside in stages – with each group of dogs being outdoors for about 90 minutes.
Like others, Maerz agreed the issue was dependent on wind direction and how the sound travelled. But when conditions are right, “it is not pleasant outside.”
Maerz added she did not believe the berm did much to address the noise and speculated the berms were either too far from the outdoor runs to make an impact, or the fencing for the runs was metal.
Neighbour Debbie Gauthier said she too hears the barking “a fair bit.”
Though not as close as Coulter, Gauthier said, “It is definitely disturbing at times when one is outside gardening or on the deck.”
She added friends, family and workmen at her residence have all commented on the sound.
What nearby resident Paul Rappolt expressed most was a feeling of disappointment. Rappolt said there was a meeting with the company owner early on in the process and the idea of the berm brought forward. However, he said the way it was constructed did little to deal with the noise.
Rappolt said, “We had hoped for a cooperative effort to diminish the noise, but that has not happened.”
Question of enforcement
However, when it comes to enforcement, the issue becomes murky.
Neither the township nor the MOE take claim to being able to enforce any noise regulations.
“The Township has previously responded several times to a resident who has raised an issue with regards to the dog barking at the Ontario Nutri Lab facility in Fergus to our staff,” Centre Wellington CAO Andy Goldie stated in an email.
“Our noise bylaw or our dog control by-law do not apply to this complaint, therefore we have advised the owner that this issue is a private matter between the resident and Ontario Nutri Lab.”
Coulter emailed the Advertiser office copies of the township bylaw and a legal opinion sent to the township regarding its bylaw.
Under miscellaneous matters within the municipality’s dog control bylaw, Section 9.2 states, “no owner of a dog shall permit the dog to make any persistent barking, calling or whining noise likely to disturb the residents of adjacent properties.”
However, a June 2012 legal opinion from the Smith Valeriote law firm, suggests township bylaws that could potentially deal with the matter can not be effectively applied.
In a letter to Centre Wellington, Nicola Melchers said the municipality’s noise bylaw makes no reference to dog barking and refers generally to motorized vehicles, construction equipment and electronic devices.
And Centre Wellington’s dog control bylaw, Melchers wrote, refers to the licensing and control of dogs – and the Nutri Labs facility is not a kennel. The facility is governed under the provisions of the Animals for Research Act.
But the Act itself provides no guidelines regarding noise control.
Melchers stated: “In our opinion, the preferred recourse for the owners of the properties neighbouring the facility would be under the Act, through OMAFRA as the appropriate office charged with monitoring the facility.”
However it seems the Ministry of the Environment and OMAFRA contend it is a local issue only – under the jurisdiction of the municipality.
Coulter provided the Advertiser with a copy of a letter responding to the township’s legal opinion.
Amy Shaw, district supervisor with the MOE’s Guelph office, noted the MOE continues to field calls and emails from several neighbours of the Ontario Nutri Lab Facility located near Fergus alleging ongoing noise issues from barking dogs at the facility.
Shaw stated, “There is no authority under this Act for the Ontario Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) to regulate noise coming from this facility as is suggested by Nicola Melchers, LLP in her response letter.
“Since OMAFRA has no authority to regulate noise, and there are no requirements within the Animals for Research Act to have the dogs placed outside during the day, the Act cannot serve as a basis for an exemption to local bylaws.
“The MOE’s position is that the Animals for Research Act does not exempt the facility from having to abide by Section 9.2 of bylaw 2005-007; nor does it exempt the township from enforcing it.”
Shaw stated noise from barking dogs is a municipal bylaw issue and does not fall under the jurisdiction of OMAFRA.
“We ask that you work with the facility to enforce your bylaw,” she wrote to the township.
But it appears little has been resolved on the issue, leaving neighbours upset about the noise and Nutri Lab officials claiming there is no issue.
