Notice of Appeal Decision - Intermunicipal SDAB for Town of Bruderheim
Development Permit No.: 044-019-004
Land Description: SW1/3-33-55-20 W4
Proposal: Agricultural Hemp Processing Facility
Applicant: Canadian Rockies Hemp Company
was considered by the INTERMUNICIPAL SUBDIVISION & DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD on August 9, 2019, and the decision of the INTERMUNICIPAL SUBDIVISION & DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD with regard to the appeal is as follows:
Background Facts and Evidence
The purpose of the hearing was to gather evidence and information from involved and concerned parties in order to give the Board Members enough information to make an informed decision on the appeal of this development. An overview of the information and evidence gathered is as follows, provided in the order presented.
Development Authority
Jane Dauphine, Sherry Cote, and Mike Dowhun appeared on behalf of the Development Authority.
Ms. Dauphine, a consulting planner, raised the issue of whether or not this Board has jurisdiction to hear an appeal in this matter. She indicated the development had been determined to be under the use of “Agricultural, Extensive” and as this was a permitted use for the land in question and given the per-mit had been issued with no variances, there was no appeal in accordance with section 685 Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 (“MGA”).
Sherry Cote, Director of Planning and Legislative Services with the Town of Bruderheim, presented information in relation to the various steps and stages which had been followed in regard to the development. This included information that an Open House had been held in regard to the matter. MS. Cote stated while an Open House had been held, there was no requirement for one.
She also stated any further development than what had been submitted and approved would require further approval and permitting before it could proceed.
Mr. Dowhun, a consulting engineer, presented information with regard to the management of water at the development. He indicated storm water management had been planned for a 1 in 100-year event whereas the normal standard was the lower standard of a 1 in 5-year event. He described the storm water ponds which were planned as well as flow control devices which were to be deployed to manage the flow of water from the storm water ponds. Mr. Dowhun indicated perimeter fencing was to be placed around the storm water ponds.
Mr. Dowhun addressed access and roadways and indicated only minimum design standards were required for the proposed development. Mr. Dowhun also addressed whether a traffic impact assessment had been done and advised Alberta Transportation had reviewed the development and determined no traffic impact assessment was required.
Mr. Dowhun also presented information regarding the lighting plan which had been designed to address light pollution and advised light would also be screened from neighbouring residences by trees which would be planted along the property line. He advised noise would be the same noise as would emanate from normal agricultural practices.
Appellants
The Appellants, Ronald and Shawna Ewasiuk appeared on their own behalf. They expressed concerns with the process which had been followed in relation to the development which is adjacent to their property. They indicated the process followed was not what they had expected, the developer was not acting as a good neighbor, and they had concerns as to the significant impacts which it would have on their asset.
They expressed how they found information had not been forthcoming and the scope of the project minimized. They explained they felt as though they had not been heard and they had limited influence.
The Ewasiuks advised of their concerns about what the development would become in the future.
They described how water and drainage had been something they were able to manage in the past, but the development was raising concerns. Those concerns had caused them to increase their insurance coverage in relation to water.
Other concerns which the Ewasiuks raised in their appeal submissions included those in regard to the lack of a hydrogeological report, a traffic impact assessment, and issues relating to potential noise and light pollution.
Developer
Aaron Burr and Spencer Tighe appeared on behalf of the Developer, Canadian Rockies Hemp Company. These representatives declined to make a presentation to the Board but instead offered to answer questions.
In response to Board questions, the representatives explained the development would include a sales office and processing building. They talked about how hemp straw would be turned into raw fibre.
The representatives estimated approximately 1 truck per hour could come to the site. They explained there was extensive site grading which would be done and since drainage was a known issue so four large ponds were to be built.
Others
The Board also heard from other members of the community with regard to their opposition or support of the development.
Decision
Upon hearing the evidence presented and upon having reviewed the provisions of the MGA, and the Town of Bruderheim Land Use Bylaw, Bylaw 33-2015 (“Bylaw 33-2015”) and the amendment to the Land Use Bylaw, Bylaw 10-2018 (“Bylaw 10-2018”), the Board finds Development Permit No. 044-019-004 was issued in relation to a permitted use and there was no relaxation, variation or misinterpretation of the Land Use Bylaw. Therefore, in accordance with section 685(3) of the MGA, there is no appeal in respect of the development permit.
Reasons
In accordance with Bylaw 33-2015, the applicable land use district is “Urban Reserve” under which “Agriculture, extensive” is a permitted use. The definition for Agriculture, extensive is found in Bylaw 10-2018. Based on the evidence before it, the Board concluded “Agriculture, extensive” is the use which best describes the development given the outdoor cultivation of industrial hemp will occur at the site and given raw materials will be leaving the site for processing into product elsewhere. Furthermore, the Board finds the land and the buildings relating to this development are to be used for the purposes of an agricultural operation. On the evidence before it, the Board finds the development permit has been issued in accordance with Bylaw 33-2015 and Bylaw 10-2018 as they are written. All of this leads to the necessary conclusion that there is no appeal in respect of this development permit.
August 20, 2019
NOTE:
A decision of the Subdivision & Development Appeal Board is final and binding on all parties and persons, subject only to an appeal upon question of jurisdiction or law pursuant to the Municipal Government Act. An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be made:
a) to a judge of the Court of Appeal;
b) within 30 days after the issue of the order, decision, permit or approval sought to be appealed.