STRATHCONA COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT … · STRATHCONA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE. If you have concerns about the proposed facility, we urge you to contact. MEGHAN THOMPSON

STRATHCONA COUNTYSUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

AGENDA

Date: July 30, 2020

Call to Order: 9:00 a.m.

Location: Council Chamber

401 Festival Lane

Sherwood Park, AB

Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ADDITIONS / DELETIONS / CHANGES TO AGENDA

3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

4. CONFIRMATION OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

4.1 April 16, 2020 Record of Proceeding 5 - 6

5. APPEALS

5.1 #3-2020

5.1.1 Application 7 - 178

5.1.2 Decision of Development Officer 179 - 207

5.1.3 Notice of Appeal 208 - 212

5.1.4 Notice of Hearing 213 - 220

5.1.5 Submissions from Development Officer 221 - 244

5.1.6 Submissions from Appellant

5.1.6.1 Request for Hearing Postponement from J. Agrios on behalf ofN. and J. Larsen

245 - 246

5.1.6.2 Response to Postponement Request from R. Weisner(Appellant)

247 - 248

5.1.7 Submissions from Landowner

5.1.7.1 Response to Postponement Request from B. and C. Maciej(landowner)

249

5.1.8 Submissions from Other Persons

5.1.8.1 Letters Neighbours and Affected Persons

5.1.8.1.1 S. and B. Wort 250

5.1.8.1.2 M. Thiessen 251 - 252

5.1.8.1.3 S. and G. Clark 253

5.1.8.1.4 D. Talsma 254 - 255

5.1.8.1.5 C. and M. Wolen 256

5.1.8.1.6 R. Scriven 257 - 260

5.1.8.1.7 M. and Q. Huillery 261 - 262

5.1.8.1.8 J. and J. Klarenbach 263

5.2 #4-2020

5.2.1 ApplicationSee 5.1.1. Application (SDAB 3-2020)

5.2.2 Decision of Development OfficerSee 5.1.2. Decision of Development Officer (SDAB 3-2020)

5.2.3 Notice of Appeal 264 - 269

5.2.3.1 Letter from N. Bonnett re: Notice of Appeal (request towithdraw as an appellant)

270

5.2.3.2 Letter from F. Marrazzo (appellant) authorizing L. Marrazzo asan agent

271

5.2.4 Notice of Hearing 272 - 280

5.2.5 Submissions from Development OfficerSee 5.1.5 Submissions from Development Officer (SDAB 3-2020)

5.2.6 Submissions from Appellant

5.2.6.1 Request for Hearing Postponement from L. Marrazzo 281 - 282

5.2.6.2 Response to Postponement Request from L. Marrazzo 283

5.2.7 Submissions from Landowner

5.2.7.1 See 5.1.7 Submissions from Landowner (SDAB 3-2020)

5.2.8 Submissions from Other Persons

5.2.8.1 Letters from Neighbours and Affected Persons

2

See 5.1.7.1. Letters from Neighbours and Affected Persons(SDAB 3-2020)

6. OTHER BUSINESS

7. ADJOURNMENT

3

8. ITEMS HOLDAdditional Submissions received at the hearing(s).

4

1

STRATHCONA COUNTY

SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

April 16, 2020

10:00 a.m.

Council Chamber/ Via Conference call

401 Festival Lane

Sherwood Park, AB

Members Present: Aaron Corser

Liam Kelly

Richard Paterson

Gary Peckham

Administration Present: Lana Dyrland

Sandy Bugeja

_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:11 a.m.

2. ADDITIONS / DELETIONS / CHANGES TO AGENDA & ADOPTION OF AGENDA

The Chair called for additions/deletions/changes to the agenda.

There were no changes to the agenda.

Moved by G. Peckham

THAT the agenda be adopted as presented.

In Favour (5): A. Corser, L. Kelly, G. Peckham, R. Paterson

Carried

3. CONFIRMATION OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

3.1 March 26, 2020 Record of Proceedings

Moved by A. Corser

THAT the record of proceedings for the January 9, 2020 Subdivision and Development Appeal

Board be confirmed as written.

In Favour (5): A. Corser, L. Kelly, G. Peckham, R. Paterson

Carried

5

2

4. APPEALS

4.1 #2-2020

PROPOSED HOME BUSINESS, MAJOR USE Trucking Business – “HB1 Trucking”

Re: Development Permit Number: 2019-0892-DP

Legal Description: Lot 9, Plan 6756 NY

Municipal Description: 25, 52257 Range Road 231

The Board heard a presentation from the Development Authority, the Appellant, speaker in

addition to the Appellant on his behalf, and an Affected Person. Each party was able to

respond to each presentation following the conclusion of the presentation.

Moved by A. Corser

THAT the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board meet in private at 11:49 a.m. to

deliberate.

In Favour (5): A. Corser, L. Kelly, G. O’ Brien, G. Peckham, R. Paterson In Favour (4): A. Corser, and L. Kelly, G. Peckham

Carried

Moved by G. Peckham

THAT the Board revert to open session at 12:47 p.m.

In Favour (5): A. Corser, L. Kelly, G. O’ Brien, G. Peckham, R. Paterson In Favour (4): J. Ramotar, A. Corser, and L. Kelly, G. Peckham

Carried

_________________________

Liam Kelly, Chair

_________________________

Lana Dyrland, Secretary

6

1.1 Notification to Adjacent Property Owners of Development Permit Application

7

8

9

10

11

3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments

First Referral Circulation

12

MEMORANDUM

TO: SEE DISTRIBUTION LIST

DATE: October 4, 2019

DP#2019-0667-DP

FROM: Meghan Thompson

Industrial Planning Officer

Permitting, Inspections & Customer Service

RE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Proposed Cannabis Production Facility Use

LOCATION

51033 Range Road 232

SW 2-51-23-W4

STRATHCONA COUNTY

You are hereby notified that a development permit application has been submitted to Planning &

Development Services for approval of the above-mentioned development. The application was

submitted by David Robinson Construction Ltd.

The applicant proposes to operate a Cannabis Production Facility Use from a proposed building

(24.38m x 30.48m). The facility will operate twenty-four (24) hours a day, with 7-8 employees

working in the facility at any given time. The facility will be fenced for security purposes. The

proposed building will be designed to prevent odour release. Plant waste and bio matter will be

neutralized and expunged as per Alberta Waste guidelines.

The subject property is zoned: AG – Agriculture: General

The proposed development is a DISCRETIONARY use within the district.

If you have any concerns or comments with respect to the above, please provide them

to Planning & Development Services in writing before October 18, 2019.

If we do not receive a response by October 18, 2019 we will assume you have no

concerns with this development as proposed.

Planning & Development Services

Meghan Thompson



Direct Line: (780) 410-6517

2001 Sherwood Drive, Sherwood Park, AB T8A 3W7 Phone 780-464-8080 www.strathcona.ca

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

13

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2001 Sherwood Drive, Sherwood Park, Alberta T8A 3W7

780-464-8111www.strathcona.ca

DISTRIBUTION LIST: DPA # 2019-0667-DP

A. Internal Departments

❑ Land Development Engineering –[email protected]

❑ Land Development Planning – [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

❑ Permitting, Inspections & Customer Service – [email protected]

❑ Development Permitting – [email protected]

❑ Building Regulations – [email protected] ; [email protected]

❑ Customer & Technical Services (Addressing) – customer&[email protected] ;

[email protected] ;

❑ Land Management Services – [email protected]

❑ Environmental Planning – [email protected]

❑ Emergency Services – [email protected]

❑ Utilities – [email protected]

❑ RCMP / Enforcement Services – [email protected];[email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

❑ Economic Development and Tourism – [email protected]; [email protected]

❑ Assessment & Taxation – [email protected]

B. External Agencies

❑ Alberta Health Services, Attn: Environmental Health Officer –

[email protected]

❑ ATCO Gas – Attention: Mia Romano [email protected]

❑ ATCO Pipelines – Attention: Isabel Solis – [email protected]

❑ Shaw Cablesystems Ltd. – [email protected]

❑ Telus – Attention: Rick Brost – [email protected]

❑ Fortis Alberta – Attention: Tom Aylard – [email protected]

❑ Alberta Gaming & Liquor Commission, Kate Whelpton; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]

❑ Alberta Environment & Parks; [email protected] and Cody Nahirniak,

[email protected]

14


First Referral Plans & Information

15

Cam Matheson Senior Project Manager David Robinson Construction Ltd. 780.221.6558 [email protected]

Strathcona County Planning and Development

To whom it may concern:

I am pleased to provide you with this letter of intent accompanying our development permit application for the approval of our future cannabis micro grow facility in the county of Strathcona Alberta. The proposed site address is Meridian 4 Range 23 Township 51 Section 2 with the particulars shown on the attached plot plan. It is our intent to construct this facility as per Health Canada’s micro grow legislation and will meet or exceed the precedent they’ve set forth.

During the construction stages it is expected that there will be additional light traffic on RR 232 and the southerly township cross road. This will include smaller vehicles and trailers driven by sub trades assisting in the construction of the facility. Further to that, there will be semi truck and trailer traffic with deliveries for such things as lumber, trusses and paneling. In the early stages there will be equipment deliveries for ground work, concrete trucks and concrete pump trucks. The expected construction period will be approx. 8-10 months once approved by council and at this point we will be applying for the most easterly unit of a future 5 bay condo style building. The footprint of the proposed building is 8000 sqft and the attached drawings reflect such.

During production stages it is expected that there will be additional light traffic for employees of the facility and mid size delivery vans bringing supplies to the facility and hauling of processed cannabis. Canada Post is the planned method of transport at the time being for all processed cannabis and will handle the product until delivered to a Licensed Producer. All processed cannabis stored at the facility prior to pick up will be stored in a high security storage and heavily monitored as per Health Canada’s legislation.

Our facility will be designed to operate 24 hrs a day with a stronger employee presence during peak business hours and minimal attendance after peak hours. At any given time there could be as many as 7-8 employees working in the facility. The entire area will be fenced during construction and production for security purposes. Odour mitigation has been carefully designed through a coal filtration system and none of the flower rooms will be exhausted outside the building keeping smell contained within the facility. Plant waste and bio matter will be neutralized and expunged as per Alberta waste guidelines.

It is our intent as project management leaders in the construction and cannabis industries with decades of experience to construct the facility with minimal inconvenience on our community and the environment. We see this project as a step in the right direction in assisting with the infrastructure and having a positive affect on Strathcona County and its residents. It’s important to embrace the changes made by the federal government with the legalization of recreational cannabis and utilize the legislation to positively affect the community and help control qualities of these products.

We appreciate your consideration for this project and welcome any questions that will help alleviate concerns brought forth by members of council, adjacent properties and Strathcona County as a whole.

Sincerely, Cam Matheson

David Robinson Construction Ltd.

16

750.34

750.37

749.78

750.21

749.75749.08

748.36

748.26747.94

746.94

745.58744.25

743.63

743.1

1742.48

742.25742.58

742.87

743.13

743.46

744.00

745.26

746.61

747.51

748.07

748.11

748.64

748.99

749.99

749.99

750.73

750.33750.15

749.29748.37

748.08

747.90

746.98

746.14

744.79

743.72743.46

743.55

743.22

742.81743.09

743.90

744.27

744.16

744.08

744.60

745.84

746.89

747.99

748.51

749.06

749.72

750.38

750.78

750.80751.29

751.16

750.77

750.19

749.47

748.77747.93

747.10746.26

745.55

745.61

745.74

745.3

7

744.50

743.20744.02

744.46

745.57

746.39

746.94

746.86

747.07

747.69

748.13

748.49

749.07

749.93

750.55

751.32

751.70751.83

751.54

750.93749.90

748.89

748.55

748.31747.71

747.63747.89

747.24

746.25

745.69

745.51

745.14745.48

746.24

746.48

746.45

746.70

747.15

747.12

747.12

747.42

748.41

749.09

749.83

750.93

751.63

751.68751.33

751.19

750.57749.54

749.08

748.34

747.73

747.81747.67

747.24

746.76

746.95

746.86746.40745.53

745.24

746.00

746.55

746.91

747.26

747.22

747.51

748.02

748.53

748.85

748.82

749.18

749.92

750.55

751.06750.78

750.25

749.54749.34

749.21

749.22748.98

748.22

747.44746.76746.73746.44

745.89

745.15

745.16

745.85

745.96

745.85

746.25

747.06

747.33

747.76

748.30

748.76

748.88

749.26

749.22

749.51

750.15

751.01

(eoa) 751.45

(eoa) 750.64

(eoa) 749.81

(eoa) 748.93

(eoa) 748.11

(eoa) 747.21

(eoa) 746.36

(eoa) 745.33

(eoa) 744.39

(eoa) 743.38

(eoa) 742.81

741.

62

(bob) 741.64

(tob)

742.07

(tob)

742.86

(dcl) 742.61

(bob) 742.63

(bob) 743.52

(bob) 744.47

(bob) 744.91

(dcl) 74

4.75

(tob)

745.

10(to

b)74

7.80

(dcl)746.38

(bob) 746.38

(bob) 746.92

(dcl) 746.94

(tob)

748.

48

(tob)

748.17

(dcl) 747.52

(bob) 747.55

(bob) 748.48

(dcl) 748.23

(tob)

749.3

7

(tob)

750.

28

(dcl)749.36

(bob)749.45

(bob) 749.68

(dcl) 749.61(tob)

749.78

(dcl)

749.

80

(bob

) 749

.91

792.

71

585.65

751

750

749749

747

746

746

745744

743

746

747

748

745

744

748

750

47'

47'

91°47'

DESIGN ELEVATION

745.56

744.00

746.00

19'-6" [5943.60]

80' [24384.00]

19'-6" [5943.60]

100' [30480.00]

61' [18592.80]

1.51

SHAPE ROAD AND PARKING LOT TO DIRECT WATER TO HOLDING POND

746.50FLOOR ELEV

DITCH

OVERFLOW DITCH

A

DRAINAGE ON EAST SIDE IS TOWARD THE POND WITH AN OVERFLOW CHANNEL AROUND THE SITE IN THE EVENT THAT THE POND FILLS

CASTLE ENGINEERING WILL VERIFY FINAL OVERFLOW CHANNEL GRADING

AFTER BUILDING AND LANDSCAPING IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE

N

TOTAL POND VOLUME = 1850 m3

SPECIFIED VOLUME WITH 1.2m OF ICE COVER = 1290 m3

REQUIRED FIRE WATER = 280 m3

ABC 2014 DETAILS:3.2.5.7TABLE 3.2.5.7WATER SUPPLY COEFFICIENT = 50LIMITING DISTANCES > 7.5m2 STOREY BUILDING > 600 m2 (100ft x 80 ft = 8000 ft2)

746.475SIDE WALK ELEV.

746.325

745.90

4% SLOPE

DRAINAGE DIRECTION

GAS, TELEPHONE AND POWER SERVICES TBD BY UTILITY

B

SECTION A

SECTION B

OCT. 3, 2019

CASTLE ENGINEERING LLP.145-1ST AVE NE.SWIFT CURRENT, SK S9H 2B1(306) 774-8168 DRAWN BY:

CAROLYN EMPERINGHAMASSOCIATE ENGINEERCASTLE ENGINEERING LLP.STRATHCONA COUNTY, AB SCALE: DO NOT SCALE

DWG. NO. 2

CASTLE

ARTISAN SITE DRAINAGE PLAN

CASTLE ENG. PROJ.# 19-2214

ISSUED FOR PERMIT

OCT. 4, 2019

ACCESS APPROACH SLOPES AND TURNING RADIUS TOCONFORM TO HEAVY TRUCK REQUIREMENTSPROPOSED - SHAPE EDGE OF GRAVEL SHOULDER RADIUSTO 3m WITH 1:2 BACK SLOPE. SHAPE TO MATCH EXISTINGSLOPES AND TURNING RADIUSCONFIRM WITH COUNTY

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30


First Referral Comments

31

From: Andrya FriesenTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: RE: Development Permit Circulation 2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production FacilityDate: October 4, 2019 12:09:46 PMAttachments: image005.jpg

image006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage009.pngimage010.pngimage011.pngimage012.png

Good afternoon Meghan,

Enforcement services have no concerns pertaining to this application.

Andrya FriesenMunicipal Peace Officer Assistant

Strathcona County

911 Bison Way

Sherwood Park, AB T8H 1S9

Phone: 780-449-0162

Fax: 780-449-1265

strathconalogo

[email protected]

www.strathcona.ca Find us on:

From: Meghan Thompson <[email protected]> Sent: October 4, 2019 10:01 AMTo: Diana Mossing <[email protected]>; Robin Baxter <[email protected]>;Deanna Cambridge <[email protected]>; Ryan Hall <[email protected]>;Scott Olson <[email protected]>; Linette Capcara <[email protected]>; ChrisGow <[email protected]>; buildingregulation <[email protected]>; KevinLaumbach <[email protected]>; customer&tech <customer&[email protected]>;Elaine Shukle <[email protected]>; Paula Laplante <[email protected]>;Jocelyn Thrasher-Haug <[email protected]>; FirePrevention<[email protected]>; UT Referrals <[email protected]>; Darren Anderson<[email protected]>; Andrya Friesen <[email protected]>; ChrisNarbonne <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Trina West<[email protected]>; Gerald Gabinet <[email protected]>; scedt<[email protected]>; Wayne Minke <[email protected]>;[email protected]; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>;[email protected]; '[email protected]'<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; [email protected];AEP NSR Water Act ([email protected]) <[email protected]>;'[email protected]' <[email protected]>Subject: Development Permit Circulation 2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production Facility

32

From: Project Manager - Northern AlbertaTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: RE: Development Permit Circulation 2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production FacilityDate: October 15, 2019 1:13:19 PMAttachments: image011.png

image012.pngimage013.pngimage014.pngimage001.jpgimage002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage015.pngimage016.png

Hi Meghan, Shaw has no facilities in this area and has no concerns about this work.

Thanks

Murray Tippett Planner III, TOPSShaw Communications Inc. 10450 178 St Edmonton, ABT: 780-784-1567E: [email protected]

This message is confidential and may contain privileged information. We ask that you not use or disclose this message other than withour consent. If you are not an intended recipient, please immediately notify us and delete this message. Thank-you.

From: Meghan Thompson <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 4, 2019 10:01 AMTo: Diana Mossing <[email protected]>; Robin Baxter <[email protected]>;Deanna Cambridge <[email protected]>; Ryan Hall <[email protected]>;Scott Olson <[email protected]>; Linette Capcara <[email protected]>; ChrisGow <[email protected]>; buildingregulation <[email protected]>; KevinLaumbach <[email protected]>; customer&tech <customer&[email protected]>;Elaine Shukle <[email protected]>; Paula Laplante <[email protected]>;Jocelyn Thrasher-Haug <[email protected]>; FirePrevention<[email protected]>; UT Referrals <[email protected]>; Darren Anderson<[email protected]>; Andrya Friesen <[email protected]>; ChrisNarbonne <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Trina West<[email protected]>; Gerald Gabinet <[email protected]>; scedt<[email protected]>; Wayne Minke <[email protected]>;[email protected]; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>;[email protected]; Project Manager - Northern Alberta<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; [email protected];AEP NSR Water Act ([email protected]) <[email protected]>;

33

From: UT ReferralsTo: Meghan ThompsonCc: UT ReferralsSubject: RE: Development Permit Circulation 2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production FacilityDate: October 21, 2019 10:53:59 AMAttachments: image001.png

image002.pngimage003.pngimage004.png

Utilities has no comments for the proposed development permit. Cody Cavers, P.Tech. (Eng.)Senior Infrastructure TechnologistUtilitiesPhone: [email protected]

From: Meghan Thompson <[email protected]> Sent: October 4, 2019 10:01 AMTo: Diana Mossing <[email protected]>; Robin Baxter <[email protected]>;Deanna Cambridge <[email protected]>; Ryan Hall <[email protected]>;Scott Olson <[email protected]>; Linette Capcara <[email protected]>; ChrisGow <[email protected]>; buildingregulation <[email protected]>; KevinLaumbach <[email protected]>; customer&tech <customer&[email protected]>;Elaine Shukle <[email protected]>; Paula Laplante <[email protected]>;Jocelyn Thrasher-Haug <[email protected]>; FirePrevention<[email protected]>; UT Referrals <[email protected]>; Darren Anderson<[email protected]>; Andrya Friesen <[email protected]>; ChrisNarbonne <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Trina West<[email protected]>; Gerald Gabinet <[email protected]>; scedt<[email protected]>; Wayne Minke <[email protected]>;[email protected]; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>;[email protected]; '[email protected]'<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; [email protected];AEP NSR Water Act ([email protected]) <[email protected]>;'[email protected]' <[email protected]>Subject: Development Permit Circulation 2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production Facility Good morning, Proposed Development – Cannabis Production Facility Use Please see attached documents outlining the proposed development.

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

From: Colin RichardsTo: Meghan ThompsonCc: Laurie JohnsonSubject: RE: Development Permit Circulation 2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production FacilityDate: October 25, 2019 9:30:32 AMAttachments: image007.png


Hi Meghan, Thank you for the (re)referral of this application. In response to the proposal, Leduc County does not object to the proposal from a land useperspective, however, does have the following comments and questions: From a transportation standpoint, Leduc County has several paved roads in the area that are bannedroads. We would not anticipate them utilizing these roadways as the logical path would be using TR510 to Hwy 21, however, they should be made aware of these road bans for future planning. Theywill require road use agreements to be able to use any roads within Leduc County. This is also a highly populated area with country residential lots that are either on wells or haul inpotable water for their own use. This package doesn’t say how the facility will be getting water? Cannabis sites are extremely high water users and we would like assurances that this facility will notaffect the water table for an area that already has water issues. Many Thanks, Colin Richards, Team Lead, Development.Planning & Development, Leduc County.Phone (direct) - 780-979-6180

From: Meghan Thompson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: October-18-19 1:41 PMTo: Benjamin Ansaldo <[email protected]>Subject: FW: Development Permit Circulation 2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production Facility

From: Meghan Thompson Sent: October-04-19 10:53 AMTo: [email protected]: Development Permit Circulation 2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production Facility

42


Second Referral Circulation

43

From: Meghan ThompsonTo: Diana Mossing; buildingregulation; Kevin Laumbach; FirePrevention; Jocelyn Thrasher-Haug;

[email protected]; [email protected]; Chris Gow; Linette CapcaraSubject: Applicant Response to Referral Comments DPA#2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production FacilityDate: April 8, 2020 9:03:00 AMAttachments: image001.png


Good morning,

Proposed Development – Cannabis Production Facility Use

Plans and information for this project are located on our ftp site.

Kindly provide your department and/or agency comments regarding the proposed development byApril 29, 2020. No reply by the requested date will be considered as no concern with the proposed

development.

Thank you,

Meghan ThompsonIndustrial Planning Officer



Strathcona County

2001 Sherwood Drive

Sherwood Park, AB T8A 3W7

Phone: 780-410-6517

Fax: 780-464-8145

[email protected]


44


Second Referral Plans & Information

45

March 3, 2020

Attn: Meghan Thompson

Strathcona County Industrial planning officer Development Permitting 2001 Sherwood Drive Sherwood Park, AB T8A 3W7

RE: Proposed Cannabis Production facility Use 51033 Range Road 232 SW 02-51-23-W4M Strathcona File # 2019-0667-DP


This letter is prepared to satisfy all comments provided to us from the county of Strathcona regarding the use of land for a proposed cannabis facility and is to be circulated back to its professionals for review. For any additional questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact myself directly.

Development Permitting Comments

1. Fees paid

2. A.) Canada Post or equivalent delivery system is expected to visit the facility every 12-14 days as per harvest schedules. An alternative would be to have a Licensed Producer pick the product up directly from the facility which could then be approximately every 40 days dependant on product weights in storage and market demand.

B.) Water will be trucked in by standard water truck (3000 gal) as required by the facility (expected once every 12-14 days). Although the plants consume large amounts of water (750 litres/day), our system is designed to recovery 75%-80% of its wasted water (560 litres). This is to be collected in a reservoir inside the facility in a closed loop system and treated for reuse. Water trucks will access the property from the North, using the route from Hwy 14.

3. Our security fence will be 6’ high, black chain link with three rows of barbed wire at the top. Entry will be made at the designated fobbed gates, one pedestrian, one traffic, all of which interphase into our central security and monitoring system. There is no sales of product on the property so access is only granted to those with security clearance (employees of the facility, 6-7 people to operate at max. 3-4 consistent).

4. Refer to attached plot plan provided by Pals survey for information pertaining to the proposed development and its location in relation to existing structures.

5. There will be exterior lighting on the building for security purposes only, typically above egress man doors and also the loading doors. There will not be street light standards installed on the property. A security light will be installed at the entry gates as well (possibly solar operated).

Comments by Adjacent landowners:

1. The facility is a commercial building with an agricultural purpose. Growing and harvesting cannabis in an extremely controlled production facility. Strathcona County “supports the prioritization of small scale agricultural operations by considering small and medium scale indoor agriculture”. Based on square footage, we would consider this small scale.

2. Proximity concerns and land value concerns, our facility is designed with an aesthetic look not to stand out like an “eyesore” to neighbouring properties and local traffic. We will be going the extra mile to create an appealing end product through the use of contouring the land and planting trees. Exterior finishes to exceed those of surrounding out buildings and barns.

46

3. The business is not a home business and the application doesn’t support that information. The Long term goal isto establish the single building with no expectations of expansion at this time and absolutely no future plans for onsite sales or dispensaries. Health Canada legislation prohibits any sales at a production location.

4. Water will be trucked in so no water will be used from the areas wells and ground water. The power grid isplentiful to support the demand required by the facility, there is a main power line to the south that has adequatepower to handle the draw as per Fortis Alberta. The majority of light fixtures will be LEDs, humidifiers and fans areminimal draws.

Sanitary and sewage are minimal, equivalent to a single family home. There is one washroom for staff which at most will consist of 6-7 people. Water is recycled and plant matter is removed and disposed of as per Health Canada and Alberta Sanitary guidelines.

5. The design of our building and production of cannabis in the facility is aimed towards the craft recreationalmarket. Security protocols set forth by Health Canada are very strict and any default could result in completesuspension of the Micro cultivation license. Selling to the black market or “out the back door” is not an option, tomuch time and effort has gone into our design, applications etc. to throw it away by risking breaking the rules.

6. At this time, the development has no future signs of expansion.

7. The building is 8000 sqft, similar to surrounding farm buildings or barns. The building is set back off the roadover 130 M. We’ve gone above and beyond to create an appealing exterior design to conform to similar surroundingout buildings.

8. Environmental concerns: The facility does not dump its water anywhere, including surrounding creeks andwaterways, water is recycled. Septic and sewage will be collected in a holding tank, this will include one washroomand a few floor drains. Septic to be pumped and hauled off site, no fields or mounds will be installed.

The use of pesticides and herbicides is strictly prohibited by Health Canada and our goal is to be 100% Organically certified. That would mean that any plant matter would be 100% biodegradable and disposal becomes much easier.

9. Nuisance concerns: The entire facility is basically a building built inside another building, the cannabis presentareas are sealed entirely and there is no exterior venting. For example,“ Existing” near by facilities ie greenhouse arenot comparable by design. The greenhouse design has to many holes and requires exhausting to the atmosphere.Odour mitigation technology will be implemented into Hvac systems not does not exhaust to the outside.

The building does require exterior lighting for security purposes, expect similar to a barn yard light. There will not be any light poles, minimal lighting at the entry gates. Keeping light pollution down is a priority of ours not to disturb neighbours but security is also a important. Exterior pot lights will be also be installed to focus light downwards and not create large amounts of light pollution.

Air quality will not be an issue, we will not be exhausting cannabis odours to the outside air. Windows are only in the office area, none in production. The main concern of ours and the clients is to work in and along with the neighbours and not create a burden that could jeopardize there country lifestyle.

The chiller for the Hvac equipment will be sitting outside the building to the east but will generate fan noise comparable too an oversize A/C unit (which we will minimize with compressor blankets), any other noise would come via light traffic.

10. Security Concerns: The security system consists of the 6’ high chain link fence with barbed wire, key fobbedgates integrated into our central security and attached to cameras where required by Health Canada legislation.Criminal activity is not a concern since large amounts of product will not be stored on site, there will be no on sitesales and no cash on site.

47

11. Traffic Concerns: Additional light traffic to be expected for up to 2-6 staff members daily, minimal weeklydeliveries and product pick ups. Water truck 2-3 times a month, with no on site sales there will be no customers andonly Health Canada approved employees can enter.Land Development Engineering:

T1. After further review of the site we’ve come to the conclusion that consolidating one of the existing approaches makes the most sense and creates the least disturbance to the surrounding properties. It will change the shape of the driveway, see attached mark up from Pals and the engineer.

T2. See attached plot plan, there are no approaches opposite our access within 90M. Center line is marked on civil drawing.

T3. N/A, Existing road approach to be upgraded to meet standard set forth by Strathcona County and no approaches opposite within 90M

T4. N/A, will use existing driveways/approach. Turn radius has been shown on the engineers drawing.

T5. See attached civil engineer comments, allowed 12M turning radius for fire trucks

T6. No pavement to be installed on access roadway and parking lot, concrete skirt and sidewalk to be installed to front of building and pad to be poured at chiller. Engineer notes have spec for gravel build up on access road and parking lot.

T7. See attached civil engineer comments, details of surface structure provided to meet Alberta Transportation guidelines.

Land development Engineering- Utilities comments

U1. Deposit to be decided

U2. a.) Design provided by civil engineer and plot plan by Pals show drainage away from building and towards storm pond and ditches

b.) See attached civil design, ditches noted. No asphalt, gravel roadway shows parallel ditch and proper drainage

c.) See attached engineers comments and design regarding fire pond including dry hydrant.

d.) Design provided by civil engineer shows to update existing roadway and approach to meet or exceed Alberta transportation guidelines. Structure construction noted on drawings, existing culvert to be left at approach. No material will be stock piled, any fill will be incorporated into the contour of the land and assistance in creating positive drainage.

e.) No future development at this point

f.) No power poles conflict with approach since we will be using an existing driveway with upgrades.

U3. Fire protection: See attached design by civil engineer, all information is on the drawings

U4. No future development at this point

U5. We will be installing a water cistern in the building with a fill connection on the exterior. Septic will go into a holding tank and be trucked out as required. Septic is shown on the civil drawing inside the fence, water will be shown on the mechanical drawings inside the feed room with fill connection plumbed to exterior.

U6. Fence and gate locations shown on civil drawings, fence details attached

48

U7. We’ve made contact with Atco Gas and the line at the property can support the 250,000 BTU load expected to support the facilities gas appliances.

Fortis does have the ability to support the facility, we are waiting for a project manager to get back to us as to where to bring the feed in. All signs as of now show a line to the south running parallel to the township that could support us.strathciona

49

26.29792.

71

808.69

20.12

397.

00

585.65

417.20

453.0620.12

395.

75

807.25

848.02

91°

1°1°

794.

25

751

750

749749

747

746

746

745744

743

746

747

748

745

744

748

750

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

RO

AD

ALL

OW

AN

CE

20.5 ha.

N.W.1/4 SEC.2-51-23-4

CAN

ADIAN

NATIO

NAL R

AILWAY

R/W

PLAN 982 AT

353.62

S.W.1/4 SEC.2-51-23-4

N.E.1/4 SEC.3-51-23-4

S.E.

1/4

SEC

.3-5

1-23

-4

S.W.1/4 SEC.2-51-23-4

N.W.1/4 SEC.2-51-23-4PLAN 932 1727

LOT 1

PLAN 142 4729

LOT 3 ERLOT 2 ER

BLOCK 2

PLAN 142 4731

15.2

4 R

/W P

LAN

566

6 N

Y

18.2

9 R

/W P

LAN

792

028

1

N.E.1/4 SEC.33-50-23-4PLAN 922 2223

LOT 1

PLAN 992 2596LOT 5

N.W.1/4 SEC.34-50-23-4 PLAN 922 2223LOT 4

PLAN 012 5188

LOT 3BLOCK 1

S.E.1/4 SEC.2-51-23-4

S.E.1/4 SEC.2-51-23-4

PLAN 972 4072LOT 1

S.W.1/4 SEC.2-51-23-4

S.W.1/4 SEC.2-51-23-4

ROAD PLAN 4280 BM

RAILWAY RESERVOIR

PLAN 1442 BQ

47'

47'

21"

21"

91°

91°

1°

47'

15'

55'

38'

49'91°

48'

40"

33"

21"

02"

39"

GOVERNMENT ROAD ALLOWANCE

PLAN 1951 TRLOT A

Fd. I. E.1/4 3Mk'd 1/4

Mp. 0.30 E.

C.S. 0.30

Mp.

0.3

W.

Mp. 0.3

0 W.

Mk'd 1/4Mp. 0.30 S.

Fd. I.

Centre

Sec.2

R/W PLAN 132 0968

R/W PLAN1442 BQ

R/W PLAN 132 0968

R/W

PLA

N 1

32 0

968

PLAN 002 0370

LOT 1BLOCK 1

Fd. I. S.1/4 2

R/W

PLA

N 5

638

NY

R/W

PLA

N 7

82 3

266

R/W

Doc

. 130

3 PG

R/W

Doc

. 792

040

118

No Registration on Title

Mp. 0.3

0 E.

Fd. I. S.E.1/4 3

C.S. 0.30

(eog toa) 747.41

(toa)

747.5

8(toa)

747.41(toa)

747.12

(toa)

747.2

1(to

a)

746.7

1

(toa)746.77

(toa)746.67

(toa)

746.87

(toa)

746.80

(eog toa)746.80

(bld conc)746.90

(conc

)

746.5

3 (conc

)

746.4

8(bl

d)

745.5

7(bld)

746.5

0

(pond

) 747.8

4

(pond)

748.13

(pond)

749.19

(pond

) 748.5

3

Proposed Pond24.40 x 30.50

Existing approach

Proposed Building24.38 x 30.48

(bld conc)746.62

198.

48 (P

erp.

)

132.89 (Perp.)

343.45 (Perp.)

Existing Driveway

Buildings

Buildings

Building

Building

Note: Existing features derived fromonline aerial imagery.

PLAN 2477 TRBLOCK 1

S.W.1/4 SEC.11-51-23-4 S.W.1/4 SEC.11-51-23-4

N.W.1/4 SEC.2-51-23-4

R/W

PLAN 792 0281

163°

09"

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

RO

AD

ALL

OW

AN

CE

Fd. I. E.1/4 2Mk'd 1/4

Mp. 0.30 E.

10704 - 176 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta T5S 1G7

Phone: (780) 455 - 3177 Fax: (780) 451 - 2047

Email: [email protected] Corp. DRAFTED BY:

FILE NO.

CHECKED BY:

11900223PB

JFMK

FIELD BY: IC

ALL DISTANCES AND ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN IN METRES AND DECIMALS THEREOF.

ELEVATIONS ARE GROUND LEVEL UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN.BEARINGS ARE NAD 83, UTM GRID AND ARE DERIVED FROM G.N.S.S. OBSERVATIONS.COMBINED FACTOR IS 0.999770.

PLAN SHOWING

STRATHCONA COUNTY - ALBERTA2020

PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION, EXISTING GRADES

S.W.1/4 SEC.2-TWP.51-RGE.23-W.4TH MEROF PART OF

SURVEY WAS PERFORMED ON JUNE 25, 2019.

REVISIONSREVISION NO. DATE ITEM CHECKEDBY

0 JUNE 26, 2019 MKORIGINAL PLAN COMPLETED JF

Note: The location of underground facilities marked (and depth if applicable) are approximate only, represent the information available at the time of survey, and are to assist the physical location at the time of construction. Pals GeomaticsCorp. and its directors and employees are not responsible or liable for the location of any underground conduits, pipes, cables or other facilities whether shown on or omitted from this plan. Before excavating with machinery within 5m of thecrossing area, facilities involved must be exposed by hand digging or hydro vac. Clients and/or contractors are responsible to perform a Alberta One Call prior to construction.

TITLE INFORMATION IS BASED ON TITLE 972 383 978 +1, DATED JUNE 24, 2019.PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO :REGISTRATION No. DATE(D/M/Y) PARTICULARS1303PG 09/06/1967792 040 118032 290 180072 453 902142 362 084REFER TO REGISTERED DOCUMENTS ON TITLE FOR DETAILS.

SCALE: METRES3000 20 10040 60 80

1:20002000

SYMBOL LEGEND

ELEVATION SYMBOLS AND LINEWORK LEGEND

EDGE OF GRAVEL LINEWORK SHOWN THUS ELEVATIONS SHOWN THUS

(eog)

670.1

1

TOP OF ASPHALT ELEVATIONS SHOWN THUS 670.1

1 (toa)

TOP OF CONCRETE ELEVATIONS SHOWN THUS 670.1

1 (conc

)

AREA DEALT WITH BY THIS PLAN SHOWN THUSSTATUTORY IRON SURVEY POSTS FOUND SHOWN THUS

ABBREVIATIONS DENOTED THUS:

G.N.S.S. - GLOBAL NAVIGATION

C.A. - CENTRAL ANGLE

C.S. - COUNTERSUNK

C. of T. - CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

M. - MOUND

MER. - MERIDIAN

Mk'd - MARKEDMk. - MARK

ER - ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE

I. - STATUTORY IRON SURVEY POST

E. - EAST

ha. - HECTARE

Fd. - FOUND

Mp. - MARKER POST

MR - MUNICIPAL RESERVE

SATELLITE SYSTEM

TWP. - TOWNSHIP

SEC. - SECTION

Res. - RESTOREDRGE. - RANGE

Ref. - REFERENCE

Re-est. - RE-ESTABLISHED

N. - NORTH

Pl. - PLANTEDPUL - PUBLIC UTILITY LOT(R) - RADIALR - RADIUS

W. - WEST

R/W - RIGHT OF WAYS. - SOUTHPerp. - PERPENDICULAR

OH - OVERHANGA.S.C.M. - ALBERTA SURVEY

CONTROL MARKER

Pos. - POSITIONInacc. - INACCESSIBLE

Wit. - WITNESS MONUMENT

Doc. - DOCUMENT toa - TOP OF ASPHALT

m - METRE

ELEV. - ELEVATION

P - PATIO

sq.m. - SQUARE METRES

B - BALCONY

D - DECK

Approx. - APPROXIMATE

INV. - INVERT

FRAC. - FRACTIONAL

E.P.A. - EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION AREA

P. - STANDARD POST

Dist. - DISTURBED

Est. - ESTABLISHED

No. - NUMBER

RN - ROMAN NUMERALORIG. - ORIGINAL

Reg. - REGISTERED

REFERENCE MERIDIAN IS 111°.

ELEVATIONS ARE CGVD28 (HTv2.0) AND ARE DERIVED FROM POST-PROCESSED G.N.S.S OBSERVATIONS.

21/02/197911/08/200329/07/200728/10/2014

UTILITY RIGHT OF WAYCAVEATCAVEATMORTGAGE

UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY

CONTOURS ARE AT INTERVALS OF 0.25m WITH INDEX CONTOURS IN BLUE LINES AT 1.00m INTERVALS.

EXISTING ELEVATION AT DESIGN LOCATION SHOWN THUS

(???)

670.1

1

eog - EDGE OF GRAVEL

THEO. - THEORETICAL

conc - TOP OF CONCRETE

1 SEPT. 3, 2019 MKTOPO PLAN CONVERTED TO PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION, EXISTING GRADES TP

BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHOWN THUS 670.1

1 (bld)

POND LINEWORK SHOWN THUS 670.1

1 (pond

)

ELEVATIONS SHOWN THUS

2 JAN. 22, 2020 ETADD EXISTING BUILDINGS AND PERP. TIE JF

3 JAN. 30, 2020 ETADD EXISTING APPR. AND REMOVED PROPOSE DRIVEWAY JF

50

748.31

747.71

747.63

747.89

747.24

746.25

745.69

745.51

746.24

746.48

746.45

746.70

747.15

747.12

747.12

747.42

748.41

749.09

749.08

748.34

747.73

747.81

747.67

747.24

746.76

746.95

746.86

746.40

746.00

746.55

746.91

747.26

747.22

747.51

748.02

748.53

748.85

749.22

748.98

748.22

747.44

746.76

746.73

745.89

745.15

745.85

746.25

747.06

747.33

747.76

748.30

748.76

748.88

746

747

748

746.44

747.325

747.50

FLOOR ELEV

746.475

SIDE WALK ELEV.

747.325

747.100

4% SLOPE

13m turning radius

for fire trucks

ROA

D E

LEVA

TIO

N T

RACK

S EX

ISTI

NG

GRA

DE

PLU

S 0.

9m

8' PERIMETER FENCE.BOTTOM 6' TO BE BLACK CHAIN LINK C/W 3 ROWS OF BARBEDWIRE ABOVE.FENCE CONSTRUCTED AS PER EP1

GATED ENTRANCE74

2.80

746.700

746.700

746.700

746.700

745.500

745.500745.500

745.500

747.325

747.97

749.

41

PROPOSED HYDRANTASSEMBLY

PROPOSED 25m150mmØ PVC PIPE

PROPOSED STRAINER

AREA ALLOCATEDFOR 1.2m ICE COVER

TIE IN TOORIGINAL GROUND

-7.7:1

-3.0

:1

-6.7:1

-24.

0:1

-24.

2:1

HWL PONDDISCHARGEPOINT

-3.0:1

-3.0:1


PROPOSEDDITCH

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

PROPOSED FINISHED GRADEELEV 747.10

PROP HYDRANTFLANGE ELEV 747.70

AVAILABLE WATERFOR THE FIREPROTECTION

3:1 SLOPE

PROPOSED HYDRANT ASSEMBLYNO VALVE REQUIRED

BOTTOM OF THE PONDELEV 742.80

INVERT OF 150mmØ STRAINERELEV 743.10

ICE BOTTOMELEV 745.50

HIGH WATER LEVELELEV 746.70

1.2m ICECOVERAGE

TIE TO EXISTINGSURFACE

PROPOSEDPARKING LOT

3:1 SLOPE

ORIGINALGROUND

-

--

--

MAR 20/20

TWS - -

AS SHOWN

-to print-2

9918 - 75 AVENUEEDMONTON, AB. T6E [email protected]

Phone: (780) 468-5477Fax: (780) 465-5368

www.twsengineering.com

TWS-CAD-DWG#

0m 2 4 6 8 10

0.50m 0.25 1.00.75

SECTION C-C

ALL FIRE PROTECTION WORKS TO BEDONE AS PER NFPA 1142 REQUIREMENTS

S.W.1/4 SEC.2-TWP.51-RGE.23-W.4TH MERARTISAN SITE DRAINAGE PLAN

INLET AND DISCHARGE FROM THE PONDAS PER CASTLE ENGINEERING LLP.

CASTLE ENG. PROJ.# 19-2214 ARTISAN SITE DRAINAGE PLAN STRATHCONA COUNTY, AB

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT

-to print-2 C0151

-

--

--

MAR 20/20

TWS - -

AS SHOWN

-to print-2


Phone: (780) 468-5477Fax: (780) 465-5368


TWS-CAD-DWG#


DETAILS

-to print-2 C02

AL HYDRANT ASSEMBLY TO BE AS PER STRATCONA DESIGNAND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS SECTION 4.3 pp 4.3.2.6

52

750.34

750.37

749.78

750.21

749.75749.08

748.36

748.26747.94

746.94

745.58744.25

743.63

743.1

1742.48

742.25742.58

742.87

743.13

743.46

744.00

745.26

746.61

747.51

748.07

748.11

748.64

748.99

749.99

749.99

750.73

750.33750.15

749.29748.37

748.08

747.90

746.98

746.14

744.79

743.72743.46

743.55

743.22

742.81743.09

743.90

744.27

744.16

744.08

744.60

745.84

746.89

747.99

748.51

749.06

749.72

750.38

750.78

750.80751.29

751.16

750.77

750.19

749.47

748.77747.93

747.10746.26

745.55

745.61

745.74

745.3

7

744.50

743.20744.02

744.46

745.57

746.39

746.94

746.86

747.07

747.69

748.13

748.49

749.07

749.93

750.55

751.32

751.70751.83

751.54

750.93749.90

748.89

748.55

748.31747.71

747.63747.89

747.24

746.25

745.69

745.51

745.14745.48

746.24

746.48

746.45

746.70

747.15

747.12

747.12

747.42

748.41

749.09

749.83

750.93

751.63

751.68751.33

751.19

750.57749.54

749.08

748.34

747.73

747.81747.67

747.24

746.76

746.95

746.86746.40745.53

745.24

746.00

746.55

746.91

747.26

747.22

747.51

748.02

748.53

748.85

748.82

749.18

749.92

750.55

751.06750.78

750.25

749.54749.34

749.21

749.22748.98

748.22

747.44746.76746.73746.44

745.89

745.15

745.16

745.85

745.96

745.85

746.25

747.06

747.33

747.76

748.30

748.76

748.88

749.26

749.22

749.51

750.15

751.01

(eoa) 751.45

(eoa) 750.64

(eoa) 749.81

(eoa) 748.93

(eoa) 748.11

(eoa) 747.21

(eoa) 746.36

(eoa) 745.33

(eoa) 744.39

(eoa) 743.38

(eoa) 742.81

(dcl)

741.

62(bob) 741.64

(tob)

742.07

(tob)

742.86

(dcl) 742.61

(bob) 742.63

(bob) 743.52

(bob) 744.47

(bob) 744.91

(dcl) 74

4.75

(tob)

745.

10(to

b)74

7.80

(dcl)746.38

(bob) 746.38

(bob) 746.92

(dcl) 746.94

(tob)

748.

48

(tob)

748.17

(dcl) 747.52

(bob) 747.55

(bob) 748.48

(dcl) 748.23

(tob)

749.3

7

(tob)

750.

28

(dcl)749.36

(bob)749.45

(bob) 749.68

(dcl) 749.61(tob)

749.78

(dcl)

749.

80

(bob

) 749

.91

792.

71

585.65

395.

75

751

750

749749

747

746

746

745744

743

746

747

748

745

744

748

750

S.W.1/4 SEC.2-51-23-4

S.E.

1/4

SEC.

3-51

-23-

4

15.2

4 R/

W P

LAN

566

6 N

Y

18.2

9 R/

W P

LAN

792

028

1

91°47'Mp.

0.3 W

.

R/W

Doc

. 130

3 PG

R/W

Doc

. 792

040

118

DESIGN ELEVATION

745.56 747.325

SHAPE DITCH WITH 2m BOTTOM2:1 SIDE SLOPE AND 0.5% GRADE TO THE NORTH

747.50FLOOR ELEV

BOTTOM OF DITCH

OVERFLOW DITCHDRAINAGE ON EAST SIDE IS TOWARD THE POND WITH AN OVERFLOW CHANNEL AROUND THE SITE IN THE EVENT THAT THE POND FILLS

CASTLE ENGINEERING WILL VERIFY FINAL OVERFLOW CHANNEL GRADING

AFTER BUILDING AND LANDSCAPING IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE

N

TOTAL POND VOLUME = 632 m3

SPECIFIED VOLUME WITH 1.2m OF ICE COVER = 1611 m3

REQUIRED FIRE WATER = 280 m3

ABC 2014 DETAILS:3.2.5.7TABLE 3.2.5.7WATER SUPPLY COEFFICIENT = 50LIMITING DISTANCES > 7.5m2 STOREY BUILDING > 600 m2 (100ft x 80 ft = 8000 ft2)

746.475SIDE WALK ELEV.

747.325

747.100

4% SLOPE

DRAINAGE DIRECTION

GAS, TELEPHONE AND POWER SERVICES TBD BY UTILITY

EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BE UPGRADED TO MEETTRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTSCONSTRUCTED AS PER STRATHCONA COUNTY DESIGNSTANDARDS RURAL TRANSPORTATION 5.1.14.1 ACCESS

42'-814" [13009.70]

49'-1112" [15229.01]

13m turning radiusfor fire trucks

15m turning radius minimum

RR 2

32

150mm PREPARED SUBGRADE100% SPDT200mm OF 20mm GRANULAR25mm MINUS GRAVEL SURFACE OR 100mm ASPHALT

CENTER LINE CONTOUR OF ROAD TO BE 0.9mABOVE EXISTINGGRADE AND 3:1 SIDE SLOPES

ROA

D E

LEVA

TIO

N T

RACK

S EX

ISTI

NG

GRA

DE

PLU

S 0.

9m

NOTE: EXISTING FEATURES DERIVED FROM ONLINE AERIAL IMAGERY

EXISTING DRIVEWAY

C

A

1.2m ICE COVER


GATED ENTRANCE

1200 GAL SEPTIC TANKFINAL LOCATION TBD BY OWNERLOCATION TO COMPLY WITH STRATHCONA COUNTY REQUIREMENTS

2 - 2000 GAL WATER HOLDING TANKS TO BE INSTALLEDWITHIN THE BUILDING - FINAL LOCATION TBD BY OWNER

DWG 112

0'-4

3 4" [3

6699

.59]

110'-434" [33648.65]

86'-914" [26447.75]

96'-

91 4" [2

9498

.69]

39'-7" [12065.10]30' [9144.08]

743.

80

49'-

7" [1

5116

.03]

40' [

1219

5.01

]

742.

80

746.700

746.700746.700

746.700745.500

745.500 745.500

745.500

b.berm 746.60

b.berm 746.30

b.berm 745.90

b.berm 745.80

747.325

747.97

750.80

749.

41

751.70

TYP. OVERFLOW DITCH DETAIL ON DWG 2

NATURAL G

ROUND

T/O ROAD - ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN

BOTT. DITCH 0.9m FROM T/O ROAD

3

1

3

1

DETAIL C - TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF ROAD

NATIVE GROUND ELEVATIONVARIES

DITCH IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN ROADIS HIGHER THAN NATIVE GROUND ELEVATION

B

PARKING STALLS

FENCED OF AREA: 11,500ft2 (1068 m2)BUILDING FLOOR AREA: 743 m2

7 STANDARD STALLS PROVIDED (2.9mX6.0m)2 HANDICAP STALL PROVIDED (3.6mx6.0m)STRATHCONA COUNTY BYLAWS REQUIRE:PART 4 PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS - TABLE 4.4INDUSTRIAL USES - WAREHOUSE & STORAGE3 PARKING STALLS PER ESTABLISHMENT or 1.0 PER 100m2 GFA up to2000m2 plus 0.2 per additional 100 m2

MARCH 31, 2020



DWG. NO. 1

CASTLE



PERIMETER FENCE, SEPTIC HOLDING TANK AND WATER HOLDING TANKMARCH 2, 2O20

ELEVATION CLARIFICATION, POND SIZE REVISED

MARCH 12, 2O20

REVISIONS - DESCRIPTION & DATE

MARCH 31, 2020P14850MEMBER # 50328REIVISION 3 - MARCH 31, 2020

53

23'-7" [7188.00]

110'-434" [33646.07]

SECTION A30' [9144.00]

13'-434" [4083.68]

86'-914" [26446.09]

1'-714" [487.68]

39'-714" [12070.08]

7'-1014" [2396.00]

1.2m ICE LAYER

11

TYP. DRAINAGE DITCH3

1

3

1

747.

71

747.

1274

7.12

747.

4274

8.41

749.

0974

9.83

749.

5474

9.08

748.

3474

7.73

747.8174

7.67

747.

5174

8.02

748.

5374

8.85

748.

8274

9.18

749.

3474

9.21

749.

2274

8.98

748.

2274

7.44

747.

7674

8.30

748.

7674

8.88

749.

2674

9.22

749

748

742.

80

746.700

746.700746.700

746.700

745.500

745.500 745.500

745.500

b.berm746.60

NATIVE GROUND AROUND PONDELEVATIONS & TOPOGRAPHY VARY

NATIVE GROUND AROUND PONDELEVATIONS & TOPOGRAPHY VARY

A

23'-7" [7188.04]

120'-434" [36694.14]

40' [12192.00]

3

1

SECTION B

13'-434" [4083.69]

96'-914" [29494.15]

49'-714" [15118.08]

1.2m ICE LAYER

0.5m COVER FOR DRY HYDRANT LINE

T/O ICE ELEV. 746.70

ELEV. 742.80ELEV. 743.10

ICE BOTTOM ELEV.745.501

1

7'-1014" [2396.01]

NATIVE GROUNDELEV. VARIES

B

MAR. 31, 2020



DWG. NO. 2

CASTLE



MARCH 31, 2020P14850MEMBER # 50328REIVISION 3 - MARCH 31, 2020

54

55

56

57

2103421 AB LTD.

#31 St.Vital Ave, St. Albert, AB

T8N 1K6 (780)220-6696

Business No.765597117 RT0001

QUOTATION FOR EXCAVATION SERVICES

April 29th, 2020

Dave Robinson Construction Ltd.

RE: Castle Eng. Proj. # 19-2214

SCOPE OF WORK

Fire Pond Excavation:

Excavate fire pond as per received drawings. Stockpile material on edges of excavation. Includes MOB’s of all equipment to site.

PRICE: $27,000.00

Fire Pond Liner:

Supply and install water tight liner. Priced as Heavy Duty spec as per Cam Matheson.

PRICE: $60,720.00

Fire Suppression System:

Supply and install Strainer, 25M of 150mm water line, Dry Hydrant, all beddingmaterial, and thrust blocks as per received drawings.

PRICE: $25,000.00

TOTAL PRICE: $112,720.00 + GST

PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE:

Surveying, Compaction testing, Hydrovac, Crossing of utilities, Trucking of clay,Ripping of winter frost, or replacement of unsuitable backfill material.

58

From: Cam MathesonTo: [email protected]; Meghan ThompsonSubject: Proposed micro cannabis facility for strathconaDate: March 5, 2020 10:17:05 AM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.

Good morning Colin,

Meghan forwarded us your email showing a couple concerns brought forward by Leduc county, see commentsbelow:

1. We are aware of the sensitivity of the roads in the area in both strathcona and Leduc counties and driving heavytraffic down them. Construction of the facility will have deliveries, concrete and pump trucks etc. Similar to that of alarge residential application so we will make sure to strictly enforce road bans with our contractors. The majority oftraffic will flow from the north (hwy 14).

Once the facility is operational, traffic will consist of light traffic for employees (6-7 maximum on a daily basis) andproduct pick up by mid size commercial vehicles at most. Health Canada prohibits on site sales of any product at amicro production facility keeping traffic consistent to employees only.

2. We will be trucking water in, same as the surrounding residential properties. Although cannabis has a high waterdemand, the system we have designed recycles 80% of the water used, treated it and puts it back into circulation.We are not building mounds or pump outs for septic so contamination of ground water is not an issue. Bio matter isshipped off site and disposed of at appropriate waste sites.

If you have any other questions or concerns please don't hesitate to contact me directly. I appreciate your feedback.

Thanks,

Cam MathesonSenior Project ManagerDavid Robinson Construction Ltd.780.221.6558

59


Second Referral Comments

60

N:\PDS Admin\4000 - 4499 Land Use Services\4145 Development Permits\Agriculture\Cannabis Production Facility\2019-

0667-DP\2019-0667-DP Second Referral Comments Letter to applicant 1

May 1, 2020

Sent by email: [email protected]

Jamie Gamlin & Cam Matheson

3103 Winspear Crescent SW

Edmonton, AB T6X 1P3

DP#: 2019-0667-DP

Attention: Cam Matheson

RE: SECOND REFERRAL COMMENTS LETTER

Proposed Cannabis Production Facility Use – Cannabis Production Facility (743.22m2)


SW 2-51-23-W4

STRATHCONA COUNTY

As a result of circulation of plans and information provided for the above noted Development Permit

Application, the following comments are provided for your attention prior to a decision on your

Development Permit Application.


DP1. Due to the sensitivity of the proposed cannabis production facility use landscaped screening

will be required to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development from adjacent

properties and the road. The fencing that has been proposed does not provide a visual

screening of the proposed development or the parking area. A marked up site plan has been

included to the areas that landscaping should be provided. Please note that the landscaping

does not need to be solid along the indicated areas.

Land Use Bylaw 6-2015 Section 3.10 Landscaping provides more details on the regulations

pertaining to landscaping.

Please see specifically Section 3.10.20, which details that a parking area having eight (8) or

more parking spaces and which is visible from a road shall be fenced or have a screen

planting. Section 3.10.22 details that the Development Officer shall require the planting of

trees and shrubs, and may require the construction of berms, the planting of a solid hedge,

other vegetative screen, fencing or any combination thereof to adequately buffer an adjacent

site from a nuisance or adverse effect. Section 3.10.26. details that screen plantings shall be

maintained to provide effective screening from the ground to a height of 2.0 m to the

satisfaction of the Development Officer.

A landscape plan is required to show where and the types of landscaping will be proposed.

Please see Section 3.10 for guidelines on the Landscape Plan.

DP2. Land Use Bylaw 6-2015 Section 3.10 Landscaping, details that a landscape security be

provided in the amount of 115% of the established landscaping costs. This security is to

ensure that the landscaping is provided and maintained for two (2) years. Please provide a

landscape cost estimate to establish the landscape security amount.

Land Development Engineering – Transportation Comments

61



T1. Access to the proposed site must include asphalt surface from Range Road 232 to property line

at minimum. Please reflect this on plans and provide asphalt structure. Refer to section

5.1.14.1 of Design & Constructing Standards for minimum requirements.

T2. Provide proposed access return radii dimension.

T3. Proposed access appears to exceed maximum standard geometry of 9m wide with 15m return

radii. Should a larger access be desired, provide design vehicle information and turn

templates to support the proposed design.

T4. Provide the load of the water trucks being hauled to the site, as well as their number and route

taken to arrive at the site. A Road Use Agreement may be required through Transportation and

Agricultural Services depending of the haul route.

Please contact Nazia Ahsan at 780-416-6775 if you require additional information.

Land Development Engineering– Utilities Comments

U1. The requested on-site servicing and grading security is to be just for the Fire Suppression

System ($25,000 + 15%) for a total security amount of $28,750. A security deposit or letter of

credit for the amount of $28,750 must be submitted prior to the start of construction. This

refundable deposit shall be released by the Development Authority upon issuance of a Project

Completion Certificate by Land Development Engineering.

U2. Fire Hydrant drawing C01:

a) Label and identify the pond’s proposed minimum useable firewater storage volume (m3),

and maximum total storage volume (m3);

b) Label that the dry hydrant is to be complete with a 125mm diameter STORZ pumper

connection; and

c) Please ensure that emergency services are in agreeance of the proposed dry hydrant

design and location.

Please contact Devin Boudreau at 780-464-8258 if you require additional information.

General Comments

G1. The engineering drawings are not accepted at this time. Be advised that the engineering

drawings must be accepted prior to any onsite construction or issuance of building permit(s).

G2. Once all of our comments have been addressed in entirety, please have the applicant submit

three (3) stamped and signed copies of the revised servicing and site grading plans for further

review, along with a letter individually addressing each of the above items. The drawings can

be forwarded to the attention of the undersigned, if completed after the development permit

has been issued, otherwise should be submitted to the Development Authority as per previous

submissions.

Please contact Felicity Kay at 780-464-8033 if you require additional information.

Strathcona County Emergency Services Comments

Strathcona County Emergency Services has the following comments:

1. Demonstrate using applicable drawings that the dry hydrant meets NFPA 1142-12 that

includes

a. access for fire department use under all weather conditions. Refer to section 7.5

‘Access to Water Sources’ and article 8.4.2.

b. no parking within 20 ft or 6 meters from the access side of the hydrant (8.4.5)

62



c. there must not be less than 2 ft of water above the strainer and not less than 1 ft/0.3

meter below the strainer (8.5.1)

d. a minimum of 1000 gpm/3800 L/min flow is possible at draft.

2. Include the hydraulic information of the system to ensure available pressure exceeds the

resistance in the system. Use of Annex I Dry Hydrant Design in NFPA 1142 is encouraged.

3. Ensure the dry hydrant is designed recognizing the frost line of the area (8.4.6 and A-

8.4.6). The fire truck works best up to 10 feet lift of water. Use the height of a fire truck as 3

feet above the ground included into the estimate of total lift of the system.

4. Indicate the volume of fire water which will be maintained at all times.

5. Include a swept path analysis that shows the turning curves of a fire truck and its

maneuver from available access points. The dimensions of the fire department vehicle are

attached and must be available on the plan for the fire department review.

6. Ensure the hydrant is flow tested annually to ensure that the minimum design flow is

maintained.

7. SCES requires a fire department key lock box mounted near the main entrance of the

building. Refer to the attached information sheet.

8. Ensure the civic addressing signs are installed on the entrance and labels are provided to

the building. The civic address must be displayed in a location plainly visible from the road.

9. Be advised a Construction Site Fire Safety Plan conforming to National Fire Code Alberta

Edition 2019 article 5.6.1.3 will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The

plan must include procedures for exposure protection and hot works. The information is

available on the Fire Prevention website at the following link:

https://www.strathcona.ca/business-and-development/development/commercial-and-

industrial-permitting/construction-site-fire-safety-plan/

Please contact Modusser Tufail at 780-400-2175 if you require additional information.

Alberta Health Services:

Please see attached letter. Alberta Health Services has provided clarification that more details

regarding the maintenance and monitoring of the effectiveness of the odour mitigation system for

the facility should be provided.

Building Regulations Comments:

In response to Alberta Health Services concern relating to the cross-connections. The cross-

connections would be something our plumbing inspectors would look for during the construction

process. There are no other concerns associated with the AHS.

For more details please contact Phillip Barth at 780-464-8131.

Please review all comments and provide an itemized written response to the comments

and submit a complete revised sets of plans and digital copy. If you have any questions,

please call me at 780-410-6517.

Yours truly,

STRATHCONA COUNTY

Meghan Thompson




63

Page 16 of 24

Figure 3: Fire Truck Specifications - Tower 6

• Overall length: 15.13 m• Overall width: 2.4 m

• Wheelbase (tandem rear- center of axle group): 6.3 m• Lock to lock time: 6 seconds

• Gross vehicle weight: 85,000 lb• Turn Angle: 44o

• Very low speed rolling lock to lock 8 seconds.

• Full with water – 78400 lb• Left side with water – 39,480 lb

• Right side with water – 37,000 lb• Empty (no water) – 75,840 lb

• After (road test) – 78,240 (loss of water and fuel on road test) lb• Total weight with crew and gear 82,150 lb

• Turn Radius – Outside curb to curb 39.80 ft, and wall to wall 43.68 ft

64

Updated August 1, 2019 Page 1

Office of the Fire Marshal Emergency Services - 915 Bison Way, Sherwood Park, AB T8H 1S9 Phone 780.449.9651 Email [email protected]

FIRE DEPARTMENT LOCK BOX

As of January 1, 2017, the Knox-Box is the only approved key lock box in Strathcona County. As part of a regional collaboration, surrounding municipalities will also be implementing the Know-Box system within their jurisdiction. Municipalities using the Knox-Box include City of Edmonton, City of Spruce Grove, City of Leduc, City of Fort Saskatchewan and Strathcona County. Benefits of Knox-Box:

• Increased security, including an optional tamper switch that can be connected to the premise's intrusion alarm. • Decreased incidences of operational issues, such as keys stored inside jamming the exposed lock mechanisms. • Audited trails of when the key lock box is accessed using the E-KeySecure system. • Removed reliance on power supply or batteries like other boxes on the market that use electronic keys. • Provides Strathcona County Emergency Services with access to your building during incident response.

Order a Knox-Box:

1. Go to: www.knoxbox.com 2. Click ‘Buy’ 3. Search ‘Alberta’ and ‘Strathcona’ 4. ‘Strathcona Co Emerg Svcs’ will appear. Click on ‘select department’ 5. Select and configure required Knox-Box capacity:

a) Standard (1-10 keys) b) Maximum (11-50)

6. Mount Type: Recessed or surface 7. Tamper Switch Type: Optional 8. Add to cart 9. Enter business name and address 10. Click ‘Submit’

Purchase the Knox-Box: After you submit your order, Fire Prevention reviews the order to make sure the appropriate lock box was ordered. Once you receive an email advising your order has been approved, you must enter payment information to complete the order. Retail cost of the standard Knox-Box is approximately $500 USD. Installing the Knox-Box: Lock boxes must be mounted so the top of the box is 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the ground and located at the principal entrance to the building. To ensure safety of your keys, lock boxes must be mounted following the manufacturer's instructions. For multi-facility managers, boxes are recorded by serial number to specified properties. Be sure to mount the right box to the right property. Once your lock box is installed, please call Fire Prevention at 780.449.9651 or email [email protected] to request a Fire Inspector to label and lock your keys in the lock box.

65


Office of the Fire MarshalEmergency Services - 915 Bison Way, Sherwood Park, AB T8H 1S9 Phone 780.449.9651 Email [email protected]

NATIONAL FIRE CODE – ALBERTA EDITION 2019 REQUIRES THE INSTALLATION OF A FIRE

DEPARTMENT APPROVED LOCK BOX IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES:

1) A building that incorporates fire protection equipment, elevator control or door access outlined in Sentence (2) shall provide a keybox constructed, keyed, and located in a manner acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction containing a set or sets of keys ordevices required to be used in an emergency.

2) A fire department key box shall be installed and provided with keys and devices in conformance with Sentence (1) in a buildingequipped with

a) a fire alarm system whose control features, including those for emergency voice communication systems, are located

behind a locked panel,

b) a fire alarm system in which manually operated devices require a key or device in order to be reset,

c) a fire alarm system in which the electrical circuit breaker is located within a locked panel or room,

d) an automatic sprinkler system in which the main control valve is locked in the open position,

e) an automatic sprinkler system in which the main control valve is located within a locked room or enclosure,

f) firefighting standpipe and water supply connections in a locked room or area,

g) a key-operated elevator control feature that will permit exclusive use of elevators by firefighting personnel,

h) a key-operated elevator control feature that will switch selected elevators to operate on emergency power,

i) stairway doors that have been locked on the stairway side in conformance with the Alberta Building Code, or

j) locked access doors to a roof provided for firefighting purposes.

66

From: Emily KabotoffTo: Meghan ThompsonCc: Keltiesha ReinholtSubject: RE: Applicant Response to Referral Comments DPA#2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production FacilityDate: April 14, 2020 11:11:11 AMAttachments: image001.png


Hi Meghan,

Environmental Planning has no further comments or concerns with the proposed Artisan CannabisProduction Facility.

Cheers,Emily

From: Jocelyn Thrasher-Haug <[email protected]> Sent: April 8, 2020 9:15 AMTo: Emily Kabotoff <[email protected]>Subject: Fwd: Applicant Response to Referral Comments DPA#2019-0667-DP Artisan CannabisProduction Facility

I think this is yours?

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Meghan Thompson <[email protected]>Date: April 8, 2020 at 9:04:01 AM MDTTo: Diana Mossing <[email protected]>, buildingregulation<[email protected]>, Kevin Laumbach<[email protected]>, FirePrevention <[email protected]>,Jocelyn Thrasher-Haug <[email protected]>,"[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, Chris Gow <[email protected]>, Linette Capcara<[email protected]>Subject: Applicant Response to Referral Comments DPA#2019-0667-DP ArtisanCannabis Production Facility

Good morning,


67

Strathcona County Health Centre 2 Brower Drive, Sherwood Park, AB T8H 1V4 p: (780) 342-4664 f: (780) 449-1338 [email protected] ahs.ca

April 27, 2020

Strathcona County Attn: Meghan Thompson Planning and Development Services 2001 Sherwood Drive Sherwood Park, AB T8A 3W7

E-mail: [email protected]@strathcona.ca

Dear Ms. Thompson:

RE: Proposed Cannabis Production Facility Use 51033 Range Road 232 SW 02-51-23-W4M Strathcona County File# 2019-0667-DP

This application proposes the operation of a Cannabis Production Facility that will employ 6-7 people at maximum operating capacity. The application states odour mitigation will be installed as part of the air systems for the building and there will be no exhausting of cannabis odours to the ambient air.

How will the effectiveness of the odour mitigation strategies be monitored and maintained? The close proximity of residences near the facility can create land use conflict if odours are released. Has a process for receiving and dealing with public complaints been considered? What steps could be taken to resolve odour issues?

The applicant states water will be delivered via water hauler every 12-14 days with 75-80% of the water in the facility being recovered and reused. It is recommended the system be evaluated by a Safety Codes Officer to ensure there are no cross-connections that could result in contamination of the potable water supply for the workers on site. Sewage and waste-water will be hauled away from the septic holding tank proposed for the facility.

AHS Environmental Public Health has no objections to this proposed facility. Adequate odour-mitigation from the facility is essential for the residents in the surrounding area.

Sincerely,

Koreen Anderson, B.Sc., CPHI(C) Public Health Inspector / Executive Officer

68

From: Phillip BarthTo: Meghan ThompsonCc: Kevin Laumbach; Devin BoudreauSubject: RE: 2019-0667-DP Proposed Cannabis Production FacilityDate: April 28, 2020 4:13:02 PMAttachments: image001.png

image002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage009.jpgimage010.pngimage011.pngimage012.png

Meghan,

The cross-connections would be something our plumbing inspectors would look for during theconstruction process. There are no other concerns associated with the AHS letter from Koreen.

Phillip BarthSenior Building Safety Codes OfficerStrathcona County2001 Sherwood DriveSherwood Park, AB T8A 3W7Phone: 780-464-8131Fax: 780-464-8142

[email protected] Find us on:

From: Meghan Thompson <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 11:45 AMTo: Phillip Barth <[email protected]>Cc: Kevin Laumbach <[email protected]>; Devin Boudreau<[email protected]>Subject: FW: 2019-0667-DP Proposed Cannabis Production Facility

Good morning Phil,

Please find attached comments from Alberta Health Services with regard to DevelopmentPermit Application 2019-0667-DP (Cannabis Production Facility). Alberta Health Services hasrecommended the system is evaluated by a Safety Codes Officer for cross-connections. Is thissomething that would occur with the building permit? If not, can you provide some feedbackon this and whether there are any concerns with what is being proposed.

69

From: Koreen AndersonTo: Meghan ThompsonCc: Chris GowSubject: RE: 2019-0667-DP Proposed Cannabis Production FacilityDate: May 1, 2020 8:12:28 AMAttachments: image001.png


CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Hi Meghan,

I agree the applicants have stated their basic strategies for odour mitigation. I would suggest thatthe maintenance and monitoring for the effectiveness of the system should be done by the facilityand I didn’t see any specific information in regards to that. I don’t necessarily need to see anydetails of it, it’s more of a just a statement that it should be included in their operations. In addition,setting up a system for receiving and responding to complaints may be helpful in the planning stageand provide feedback to the operators whether or not there are issues that may be impacting othersoff-site. Based on their odour mitigation design and maintenance, it shouldn’t be an issue, but itmay give neighbours peace of mind that there is a method for voicing their concerns if they haveany.

Overall, I am satisfied with the information provided. Handling complaints and the method in whichit is done, by Strathcona County or the company itself should be addressed prior to operation toavoid confusion or delayed response at the time of an issue. Let me know if you have any otherquestions.

Sincerely,

Koreen Anderson, B.Sc., CPHI(C)Public Health Inspector / Executive OfficerAlberta Health Services, Environmental Public HealthStrathcona County Health Centre, 2 Brower DriveSherwood Park, AB T8H 1V4Cell: (780) 993-0124Office: (780) 342-4664Fax: (780) [email protected]

From: Meghan Thompson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:20 PMTo: Koreen Anderson <[email protected]>Cc: Chris Gow <[email protected]>

70

Subject: RE: 2019-0667-DP Proposed Cannabis Production Facility Caution - This email came from an external address and may contain unsafe content. Ensure you trustthis sender before opening attachments or clicking any links in this message.

Good afternoon Koreen, I wanted to reach out to you, as I noticed in your letter that Alberta Health Services still hadconcerns with odour mitigation for this proposed development permit application. In the re-circulation response letter the applicants did go into detail for the Development Permittingcomment responses about odour mitigation (see attached response letter). The applicant stated thefollowing: The entire facility is basically a building built inside another building, the cannabis present areas aresealed entirely and there is no exterior venting. For example,“ Existing” near by facilities iegreenhouse are not comparable by design. The greenhouse design has to many holes and requiresexhausting to the atmosphere. Odour mitigation technology will be implemented into Hvac systemsnot does not exhaust to the outside. Air quality will not be an issue, we will not be exhaustingcannabis odours to the outside air. Windows are only in the office area, none in production. The mainconcern of ours and the clients is to work in and along with the neighbours and not create a burdenthat could jeopardize there country lifestyle. Would the above response address the odour concerns AHS has with odour, as the applicant hasdetailed how odour will be mitigated? If it does not address the concerns, could AHS provide moredetails about the concerns relating to this proposed development. It appears some of the concernsmay be with how Strathcona County handles odour complaints and the monitoring of odour and notrelated to the specific development. Please be advised that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I am working from home and do not haveaccess to my work phone (other than to retrieve voicemails). The best way to contact me is throughemail. If you need additional information relating to this development permit application please letme know. Thank you, Meghan ThompsonIndustrial Planning Officer



Strathcona County

2001 Sherwood Drive


Phone: 780-410-6517

Fax: 780-464-8145

[email protected]


71


Third Referral Circulation

72

From: Meghan ThompsonTo: Diana Mossing; FirePreventionCc: Chris GowSubject: Applicant Response to Second Referral Comments DPA#2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis Production FacilityDate: May 22, 2020 1:31:00 PMAttachments: strathcona comments 2.pdf

image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngDave Robinson Fire Pond revised pricing.pdfdry hydrant design worksheet.pdfLandscape quote.pdfSecond Referal Response May 7, 2020-SITE PLAN DWG 1.pdftws hydrant design.pdf2019-0667-DP Second Referral Comments Letter to applicant.pdf

Good afternoon,


Please see attached documents outlining the proposed development.

Kindly provide your department and/or agency comments regarding the proposed development byJune 5, 2020. No reply by the requested date will be considered as no concern with the proposeddevelopment.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Thank you,

Meghan ThompsonIndustrial Planning Officer



Strathcona County

2001 Sherwood Drive


Phone: 780-410-6517

Fax: 780-464-8145

[email protected]


73


Third Referral Plans & Information

74

May 14, 2020

Attn: Meghan Thompson

Strathcona County Industrial planning officer Development Permitting 2001 Sherwood Drive Sherwood Park, AB T8A 3W7

RE: Proposed Cannabis Production facility Use 51033 Range Road 232 SW 02-51-23-W4M Strathcona File # 2019-0667-DP


This letter has been prepared to satisfy the second referral of comments provided to us from the county of Strathcona and its professionals in regards to the proposed use of land for a micro cannabis facility. Please don’t hesitate to get back to me with any questions or concerns.


DP1. Landscaping screening has been added to the civil drawings attached in the form of a coniferous trees planted as per bylaw 6-2015 section 3.10 landscaping.

DP2. See attached landscaping quote showing topsoil, seeding of areas where grass is required and planting of landscaping trees.

Land Development Engineering- Transportation Comments

T1. Access upgrades to include asphalt surface from the range road to the property line. Noted on the attached civil drawings.

T2. Return Radii dimensions noted on the attached civil drawings.

T3. Proposed access has been adjusted to 9M wide and 15M return radii, noted on the attached civil drawings.

T4. Water trucks will be carrying a maximum of 3000 gal of water at any given time (dependant on road bans), filling up in Sherwood Park and travelling East on Hwy 14 to RR 232. Then head south on 232 to the proposed development. We have not committed to any one water hauling company but if required we will apply for our road use agreement.

Land Development Engineering- Utilities Comments

U1. Noted, Deposit to be made prior too construction. See attached revised quote with suitable liner for our application, price has been adjusted.

U2.

A.) Attached civil drawings show a minimum usable firewater of 280 cubic meters and a maximum total storage of 632 cubic meters assuming 1.2 M of ice coverage. Specified volume 1611 cubic meters.

B.) Attached drawings show 125mm Storm pumper connection

C.) Emergency services have been included in this submission for comment.

75

General Comments

G1. Engineering to be submitted with building application

G2. Submitted with this response will be the updated drawings that required any alterations.

Strathcona County Emergency Services Comments

1.

A.) Access granted through all weather road, noted in drawing C02. The facility will be operational 365 days a year. Existing driveway to be upgraded to all transportation requirements including emergency services.

B.) Proposed hydrant shows location at south east corner of parking lot. No parking stalls will be within 6 meters minimum. “No parking” signs can be added to ensure the space is available to emergency services.

C.) The drawing notes that the strainer elevation is 743.10 and bottom of pond is 742.80 (0.3M)

D.) Updated calculations have been provided

2. Calculations have been provided on attached design worksheet

3. Frost line is marked on the drawing C02, 15 ft maximum and 10ft preferred.

4. 280 cubic meters is the volume of water available at all times as a minimum.

5. Drawings indicate swept path for the fire trucks in the form of a turning radius on the attached drawings,13M, civil drawing 1.

6. Noted

7. Noted

8. Noted

9. Fire safety plan conforming to the national fire codes of Alberta will be provided prior to the approval ofoccupancy. Emergency Services will be invited to inspect the facility to ensure compliance is met.

Alberta Health Services Comments

Odour mitigation is done within the facility through the use of charcoal filters and UV lighting. UV information will be available in the mechanical submission for review by the counties engineers. The building operates within itself, not exhausting to the exterior. Charcoal filters and UV light are both proven methods of extracting terpenes from the air that cause the smell.

Health Canadas legislation requires a form of odour mitigation as part of our SOPs, this is done as a part of the maintenance of the facility. Things such as cleaning filters, changing filters, changing bulbs in the UV system etc. All parts of the odour mitigation program require maintenance and upkeep to stay efficient and operate properly.

Building Regulations Comments

Concern with the recycled water will be noted in the mechanical drawings to ensure no cross contamination before treatment.

76

JUNE 4, 2020P14850MEMBER # 50328REIVISION 4 - JUNE 4, 2020

1

2

3

4

77

JUNE 4, 2020P14850MEMBER # 50328

78

748.31

747.71

747.63

747.89

747.24

746.25

745.69

745.51

746.24

746.48

746.45

746.70

747.15

747.12

747.12

747.42

748.41

749.09

749.08

748.34

747.73

747.81

747.67

747.24

746.76

746.95

746.86

746.40

746.00

746.55

746.91

747.26

747.22

747.51

748.02

748.53

748.85

749.22

748.98

748.22

747.44

746.76

746.73

745.89

745.15

745.85

746.25

747.06

747.33

747.76

748.30

748.76

748.88

746

747

748

746.44

747.325

747.50

FLOOR ELEV

746.475

SIDE WALK ELEV.

747.325

747.100

4% SLOPE

13m turning radius

for fire trucks

ROA

D E

LEVA

TIO

N T

RACK

S EX

ISTI

NG

GRA

DE

PLU

S 0.

9m


GATED ENTRANCE74

2.80

746.700

746.700

746.700

746.700

745.500

745.500745.500

745.500

747.325

747.97

749.

41

PROPOSED HYDRANTASSEMBLY

PROPOSED 25m150mmØ PVC PIPE

PROPOSED STRAINER

AREA ALLOCATEDFOR 1.2m ICE COVER


-7.7:1

-3.0

:1

-6.7:1

-24.

0:1

-24.

2:1

HWL PONDDISCHARGEPOINT

-3.0:1

-3.0:1


PROPOSEDDITCH

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

PROPOSED FINISHED GRADEELEV 747.10

PROP HYDRANTFLANGE ELEV 747.70

AVAILABLE WATERFOR THE FIREPROTECTION1155m3

3:1 SLOPE

PROPOSED HYDRANT ASSEMBLYNO VALVE REQUIRED

BOTTOM OF THE PONDELEV 742.80

INVERT OF 150mmØ STRAINERELEV 743.10

ICE BOTTOMELEV 745.50

HIGH WATER LEVELELEV 746.70

1.2m ICECOVERAGE

TIE TO EXISTINGSURFACE

PROPOSEDPARKING LOT

3:1 SLOPE

ORIGINALGROUND

VERT. SECTION:747.10-743.10=4.00m (13.12ft)LIFT747.70-747.50=2.20m (7.21ft)

-

--

--

MAY 21/20

TWS - -

AS SHOWN

-to print-2


Phone: (780) 468-5477Fax: (780) 465-5368


TWS-CAD-DWG#

0m 2 4 6 8 10

0.50m 0.25 1.00.75

SECTION C-C

ALL FIRE PROTECTION WORKS TO BEDONE AS PER NFPA 1142 REQUIREMENTS

S.W.1/4 SEC.2-TWP.51-RGE.23-W.4TH MERARTISAN SITE DRAINAGE PLAN

INLET AND DISCHARGE FROM THE PONDAS PER CASTLE ENGINEERING LLP.


PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT

-to print-2 C01

125mm Ø STORM PUMPER CONNECTIONTO BE USED

STORM POND VOLUME CALCULATIONCOMPLETED BY CASTLE ENGINEERING LLP.

79

-

--

--

MAY 21/20

TWS - -

AS SHOWN

-to print-2


Phone: (780) 468-5477Fax: (780) 465-5368


TWS-CAD-DWG#


DETAILS

-to print-2 C02

AL HYDRANT ASSEMBLY TO BE AS PER STRATCONA DESIGNAND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS SECTION 4.3 pp 4.3.2.6

80

2103421 AB LTD.

#31 St.Vital Ave, St. Albert, AB

T8N 1K6 (780)220-6696

Business No.765597117 RT0001

QUOTATION FOR EXCAVATION SERVICES

April 29th, 2020

Dave Robinson Construction Ltd.

RE: Castle Eng. Proj. # 19-2214

SCOPE OF WORK

Fire Pond Excavation:

Excavate fire pond as per received drawings. Stockpile material on edges of excavation. Includes MOB’s of all equipment to site.

PRICE: $27,000.00

Fire Pond Liner:

Supply and install water tight liner. Priced as per Cam Matheson.

PRICE: $30,000.00

Fire Suppression System:

Supply and install Strainer, 25M of 150mm water line, Dry Hydrant, all bedding material, and thrust blocks as per received drawings.

PRICE: $25,000.00 TOTAL PRICE: $82,000.00 + GST

PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE:

Surveying, Compaction testing, Hydrovac, Crossing of utilities, Trucking of clay, Ripping of winter frost, or replacement of unsuitable backfill material.

81

Dry Hydrant Hardware Layout Worksheet NFPA 1142

Pipe Diameter (inches) 6Minimum Flow (gpm) 1000PVC Conversion Factor 1Friction Loss (psi/100') 0.0312

Strainer 5 1 0.15627' Straignt Pipe (horiz) 27 1 0.8426" Long Sweep Elbow 13.57 1 0.42313.12' Straignt Pipe (vert) 13.12 1 0.4091 ft of 6" pipe 1 1 0.031Pressure Loss in System 1.862

A. Description and Size B. Straight Line

Equivalent Feet of

Pipe

C. Conversion for

Pipe Coefficient

D. Loss (psi)

82

83

David Robinson Construction Ltd.

185, 25015 TWP RD 544 ASturgeon County, Alberta T8T 0B9Canada

QUOTE

Quote No.:

Date:

Page:

116

2020-05-21

1

Sold To:

51033 RR 232Strathcona County, AB

Strathcona Microgrow

Ship To:

Strathcona Microgrow51033 RR 232Strathcona County, AB

Comments

Business No.: 808632442 RT0001

PO:

Quantity Description Tax Unit Price Amount

Scope of Work:

- Supply 4' top soil and seed for fenced area around micro cannabis facility and fire pond birms (drainage ditches along entry road to be included)- Labour and equipment to spread evenly- Supply and plant coniferous trees for landscaping screen as per civil engineers drawing

1 Top soil, 300 cubic meters (including trucking) G 6,500.00 6,500.00

1 Grass seed, 150kg or 40,000 sq ft coverage G 1,199.00 1,199.00

1 Equipment and labour to spread top soil (20 hours) G 2,300.00 2,300.00

1 Labour to spread grass seed G 800.00 800.00

1 Supply and install landscape screen, 1 tree per 25 cubic meters G 4,600.00 4,600.00

Subtotal: 15,399.00

G - GST 5%GST/HST 769.95

16,168.95Total Amount

84


Third Referral Comments

85

Document #14517546 - PDRS Subdivisions.5012 Referral #165

MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 2020 FILE: SW 2-51-23-W4 TO: Meghan Thompson Industrial Planning Officer Permitting, Inspections & Customer Service Planning & Development Services FROM: Felicity Kay RE: Proposed Development: Artisan Cannabis Holdings Ltd. Cannabis Production Facility Use with proposed building (24.38m x 30.48m). 51033 Range Road 232 DPA #2019-0667-DP Third Submission

Upon reviewing the plans received in our office May 25, 2020 and subsequent submission of June 8, 2020, Land Development Engineering has conditionally accepted the above referenced engineering drawings on June 8, 2020. Conditions of acceptance are as noted below and on the attached accepted for construction drawings. Once the Development Permit is available, please forward a copy of the accepted drawings and all associated conditions/advisements contained herein. Please be reminded that as per Strathcona County’s Design and Construction Standards the developer/owner is responsible for complying with all other applicable legislation, regulations, codes, standards, agreements, permits and licenses prior to the start of construction. Conditions of acceptance:

C1. That all site servicing and grading securities are received. We acknowledge receipt of the April 29, 2020 Fire Suppression System cost estimate in the amount of $25,000.00. A security deposit or letter of credit equal to 115% ($28,750.00) of the estimated costs must be submitted prior to the start of construction.

C2. That a Road Use Agreement is in place prior to any hauling activity. Please ensure the Transportation and Agriculture Services office is provided a minimum of five (5) business days notice to make the appropriate arrangements. Please apply for a Road Use Agreement through County Connect on the Strathcona County website.

C3. That on drawing C01 - Proposed Hydrant Detail the wording is changed from “Storm pumper connection” to “Storz pumper connection”.

C4. That all changes be updated on any subsequent drawing distributions and/or submissions.

Advisement: Our acceptance excludes acceptance of the landscape drawings as these fall under the jurisdiction of the Development Officer. Please have the developer/owner submit the construction schedule, with a 48-hour notice of pre-construction, to the attention of Brant Poyser, Planning and Development Services at [email protected]. In case of design changes during construction, please have the developer/owner submit three (3) copies of the affected drawings showing the proposed changes in red for review and acceptance prior to implementation.

86

Page 2

Document #14517546 - PDRS Subdivisions.5012 Referral #165

Upon completion of the work, Strathcona County requires that the developer/owner submit as-built drawings along with an engineer’s certification that states: (Engineer’s name) has inspected the work laid out in (reference to legal title, approved design drawings, reports, etc.) and certifies that the work has been constructed and will function as described. The certificate and as-built drawings must be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed to practice in the Province of Alberta. For any questions, please contact the undersigned at 780-464-8033. Regards, Original signed by Felicity Kay Felicity Kay, P. Eng. Coordinator, Land Development Engineering Utilities Enclosure: (Copy of Accepted for Construction Drawings) cc: Brant Poyser, Land Development Engineering Kevin Laumbach, Permitting, Inspections and Customer Service Henry Odermatt, Transportation & Agriculture Services

FK/dm

87

From: Modusser TufailTo: Meghan Thompson; Chris Gow; Diana MossingCc: FirePrevention; Rodney KuhnSubject: SCES Comments RE: Applicant Response to Second Referral Comments DPA#2019-0667-DP Artisan Cannabis

Production FacilityDate: June 5, 2020 10:22:39 AMAttachments: strathcona comments 2.pdf

image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngDave Robinson Fire Pond revised pricing.pdfdry hydrant design worksheet.pdfLandscape quote.pdfSecond Referal Response May 7, 2020-SITE PLAN DWG 1.pdftws hydrant design.pdf2019-0667-DP Second Referral Comments Letter to applicant.pdfDry Hydrant Hardware Worksheet.pdfSEALED DWGS ROAD CONSTRUCTION JUNE 4 2020.pdf

Meghan,

The applicant has addressed the outstanding SCES comments for this project. Strathcona CountyEmergency Services acknowledges the response and has no further comments.

Please let me know if there are any questions.

Regards,ModP.S : I have included the two files I received in the 2 separate emails – fire truck turning curves anddry hydrant calculations.

From: Meghan Thompson <[email protected]> Sent: May 22, 2020 13:32To: Diana Mossing <[email protected]>; FirePrevention<[email protected]>Cc: Chris Gow <[email protected]>Subject: Applicant Response to Second Referral Comments DPA#2019-0667-DP Artisan CannabisProduction Facility

Good afternoon,


Please see attached documents outlining the proposed development.

Kindly provide your department and/or agency comments regarding the proposed development byJune 5, 2020. No reply by the requested date will be considered as no concern with the proposeddevelopment.

88

2.1 Development Permit Application

89

90

91

92

93

3.2 Comments from Adjacent and Affected Property Owners

94

95

From: CliffTo: Meghan Thompson; [email protected]; Rod Frank; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Linton Delainey;[email protected]

Subject: 51033 Range Road 232- SW 2-51-23-W4- Strathcona County. Proposal of Cannabis facilityDate: December 20, 2019 3:22:42 PM


Good day,The challenges before us are many and as individuals and leaders of our communitywe have great responsibility to protect our agricultural land. We are at a profoundtime and we must use common sense.This proposal causes stunning concerns and will have a major impact on our way of life that is presently beingenjoyed by so many. I believe we have a serious responsibility to preserve farm and country land in the midst ofcities.I also believe that the only benefit would be solely to the developer/investors andowners of the proposed facility and would bring residents here nothing but grief and problems. What homeownerwould want a cannabis facility next to them?There are obvious and glaring problems with such an invasion, which includes waterimpact and air pollution and plummeting home values. Any factory permitted to be builtwould destroy the lifestyle and livelihood of many.If this proposal is permitted, there would be an implosion of such facilities until wewould not even recognize our own community.We urge you and your colleagues to not approve a permit for this development.Respectfully,Arlene Anderson

Sent from my iPad

96

From: Robin BaileyTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: 51033 RR232 Proposed Industrial Cannabis Production FacilityDate: December 5, 2019 7:33:36 PM


Ms. Thompson,

As a local resident, I was just informed of the intention to build the above facility.

I apologize for my ignorance but I don’t understand how this facility fits into the local zoning requirements.

Is the permit fully approved or is there some chance it might be stopped?

Any info you can give would be greatly appreciated.

Robin Bailey+1 780 257 [email protected]

97

From: Jane BlairTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Proposed Cannabis Production Facility UseDate: October 18, 2019 4:02:55 PM

Meghan Thompson,

Regarding proposed development at:51033 RangeRoad 232SW 2-51-23-W4Strathcona County

My concern with this proposed development is the poor communication that has not happened between StrathconaCounty and Leduc County. Very little information was even given to the adjacent property owners in StrathconaCounty and no communication to the nearby residents of Leduc County.I would like to know how much research has been done as to how it will fit into the rural community and what thebenefits would be.We really need to know about the additional traffic on rural roads, possibility of unpleasant odours and the effect onthe value of the adjacent properties.I hope to hear from you within the next week.Thank youJane Blair

Sent from my iPad

98

From: Anita ClarkeTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Proposed Cannabis production facility - reply from Shirley V. ButnerDate: October 16, 2019 10:44:04 PMAttachments: Shirley Butner page1.jpeg

Shirley Butner page 2.jpeg

Dear Ms. Thompson:Please find attached a reply in regard to DPA#2019-0667-DP from my mother Shirley V. Butner.

Yours truly,Anita Clarke

99

100

101

From: Tyler ChambersTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Re proposed Cannabis grow operationDate: October 17, 2019 6:30:19 PM

I am a neighbour in Lina County. It has come to my attention that there is a proposedCannabis grow operation one range road West of my home!

DPA 2019-0667-DP

I am writing to inform you that I strongly opposes this development for the following reasons.

1. Cannabis odour. Although there are prescribed measures regarding this they areinadequate. Especially when the predominant winds blow right into an rurual residentialsubdavision. This is a new regulation and odour is subjective. I work at the YEG airportalthough they have pervisions for the cannabis odour they are not adequate. Itolerate it on my way to / from work but I definitely don't want it at home!

2. I don't agree with rezoning agricultural land to an industrial facility that requires a securityfence...

I suggest they build his facility somewhere less populated.

Sincerely

Tyler Chambers

241 51149 Range Road 231

102

103

From: Louise CottTo: Meghan ThompsonCc: Linton DelaineySubject: 51033 Range Road 232 Proposed Cannabis FacilityDate: November 15, 2019 9:17:06 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Hello Meghan,

As you are aware, there is a proposal for a cannabis production facility to be built at 51033Range Road 232, Strathcona County. This is only a couple of miles from my home and Ihave several concerns about this proposal. I have spoken with Linton Delainey, and he advisedme to share my concerns with you. I understand that comments should have been in to youearlier, and I appreciate you taking the time to review them now.

Increased Traffic

The introduction of an industrial facility in this area will increase traffic on our roadssignificantly. I understand that the current proposal is only for eight employees, but thesearen't the only travelers required to go to and from this facility. There will be a need to truckin supplies and truck out product.

Power and Water

To run an operation this size for 24 hours a day will put a strain on our electrical grid andwater supply. The water in the area is not abundant and tapping into the underground reservescould have a negative impact on existing residential wells. If water is trucked in, that willmean even more traffic and wear and tear on local roads.

Dark Sky Policy

Strathcona County has a dark sky policy and I have questions around how a facility that is run24 hours a day will be in compliance with the policy. These concerns are related to growlights as well as security lighting.

Land Use Zoning

The proposal suggests building this facility on land that is zoned for agricultural use. I do notunderstand how a cannabis production facility could be deemed agricultural rather thanindustrial.

Communication

I think that the communication from the county around this proposal has not been adequate. The only reason that I found out about this is because I happened to run into a neighbor. Ithink that there should be significant public discussion around a proposal that is thiscontroversial.

Thanks Meghan. I look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions, or wouldlike to talk about any of this you can reach me at 587-785-6262.

Louise Cott

104

From: James FaulknerTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Marijuana grow oppDate: December 7, 2019 12:16:51 PM


Hello Megan, please don't approve this development, we live south of TWP510, down wind from this site along with at least a hundred otheracreage and farm owners, surely there would a better option than thissite, such as an industrial site.

Jim and Shirley [email protected]

105

From: diane forsterTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Cannabis production and processing plant .Date: December 22, 2019 4:56:26 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Please don't allow this grow-op to proceed on agricultural/rural land at 51033 Range Road232. We live about 600 meters (50563-RR233) from this proposed industrial operation and arevery concerned about the negative impacts this will have on us.

Diane and Ken Forster (780-467-0995) [email protected]

106

107

108

From: Lorraine Hebert-SoucyTo: Meghan Thompson; [email protected]; Linton Delainey; [email protected]; Rod

Frank; [email protected]: Cannabis Industrial PlantDate: December 11, 2019 11:15:12 AMAttachments: Opposing Marijuana Plant.docx

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Hello,

Please see attached. Thank you,

Lorraine Hebert-Soucy andBen Soucy

109

December 9, 2019 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to oppose the proposed development of an Industrial Cannabis Production Plant near my home. This is the Plant being considered for 51033 RR 232 Strathcona County. We live nearby at 50516 RR 233, Leduc County. We received no notification that this Plant was being considered, even though we live in close proximity. As you are aware, the county line is Twp 510, however residents and landowners in Leduc County should have been notified as well as those in Strathcona County. We are very concerned and very much opposed to this facility. Our home is for sale currently and we are worried that this will affect land values in the area, making them lower. A lot of people do not want marijuana used nearby where they live or work. An industrial plant will create a noticeable smell in the area. We ride our bicycles in this area and this will be extremely unpleasant for us. Many cycling groups and events use this area due to its proximity to Edmonton and for its scenic values. Further, an industrial plant will impact water usage, affecting water tables in the area. There will be lighting, traffic, fertilizer impacts and many other negatives for our neighborhood. There is good agricultural land in this area and this is a poor choice of land. Growing marijuana does not feed people or livestock. This plant only serves to make one or a few people rich while negatively impacting the health of many. We are referring to those who use marijuana and the unfortunate ones who live nearby the Cannabis Plant. Sincerely, Lorraine Hebert-Soucy and Ben Soucy

110

111

From: Dawn KickTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Proposed Cannabis Production FacilityDate: October 18, 2019 3:11:52 PMAttachments: Strathcona County.docx

Please see attached and be advised we also intend to provide a hard copy of this letter directly bymail, as a follow-up to this email. Dawn and Jeremy Kick Sent from Mail for Windows 10

112

October 18, 2019

Strathcona County

PLANNNING AND DEVELOPMENT

2001 Sherwood Drive,

Sherwood Park, AB

T8A 3W7

Attention: Meghan Thompson

We are responding to your letter of October 4, 2019, concerning the proposed development of a

Cannabis Production Facility to be located at 51033 Range Road 232 in Strathcona County.

We live at 23247 Township Road 510 in the County of Leduc and we wish to register the following

concerns regarding the application from David Robinson Construction Ltd. for a development permit:

1. We, like other neighbours in the immediate vicinity were not sent your letter directly.

2. The letter itself is dated October 4, 2019 and requests that any comments or concerns be made

in writing before October 18, 2019. The timeframe provided is inadequate for resident

homeowners and stakeholders in the area to provide informed consent.

3. The letter contains very little information and because we only just found out about this

proposal, we have had no time to research and assess the realities of having this type of

business development in our neighbourhood.

4. Potential downsides that spring to mind immediately, include, but may not be limited to, a

decrease in property values, an increase in criminal activity, odors and/or fumes resulting from

the proposed cannabis grow operation, safety issues, environmental concerns, etc.

5. We also fail to understand why a residential area would be considered for a facility of this type

when there are suitable sites available in nearby industrial parks.

We look forward to your response and learning more regarding this matter in the near future.

Yours truly,

Dawn and Jeremy Kick

113

From: Norm LarsenTo: Meghan ThompsonCc: Linton DelaineySubject: Proposed Cannabis Production FacilityDate: October 17, 2019 9:08:46 AMAttachments: Strathcona County Cannabis Production Facility Letter.doc

Hello, Meghan. I have attached a letter from my wife Janice and myself. Regards, Norm Larsen

114

NORM AND JANICE LARSEN 51024 Range Rd 231, Sherwood Park AB T8B 1K5

Tel: 780-417-2897 Fax: 780-467-2163

October 17, 2019 STRATHCONA COUNTY 2001 Sherwood Drive Sherwood Park, Alberta T8A 3W7 Attention: Meghan Thompson, Industrial Planning Officer Permitting, Inspections & Customer Service, Planning & Development Services

Dear Ms. Thompson:

RE: PROPOSED CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITY USE

We farm on the property to the east of the proposed site, growing traditional crops such as wheat, canola

and hay and have lived on this property for over 20 years, and Norm has been in the area for over 50 years.

We feel that the county made a very poor decision with the Land Use Bylaw in allowing agricultural land to

be classed for cannabis production facilities. We live on a farm and grow plants that sustain life. That is

what agriculture is. The production of cannabis has nothing to do with sustaining life.

We are outraged at the possibility of this type of facility coming to our neighbourhood. Here’s a list of our

reasons:

▪ First and foremost is the air quality/air pollution issue. Aurora has promised to fix the smell at the

airport facility; they easily list all the machines that are going to mitigate odours, and yet there are

continuing complaints from businesses nearby. David Robinson Construction was involved in the

Aurora facility; if they can’t control the odour there, how can they control it here? When Norm

goes to the racetrack to deliver hay, he feels some lightheadedness, and that’s after being there for

a very short time. Not 24/7.

▪ Once the air is contaminated, how can that not negatively affect land values? Who would want to

buy our land with prevailing westerly winds carrying the stench of cannabis?

▪ The possibility of increased light pollution from the high security required to secure the facility.

And if there are no lights, then we’ll have an increase in crime.

▪ It will undoubtedly attract a criminal element requiring increased police presence. Everyday there

is someone in a rural area affected by crime, and police just can’t make it out to rural locations fast

enough to make an arrest, and the criminals know this. As we are 20 kilometres from the county

detachment, this is a possible risk to families and children in the area.

115

NORM AND JANICE LARSEN 51024 Range Rd 231, Sherwood Park AB T8B 1K5

Tel: 780-417-2897 Fax: 780-467-2163

▪ Damage to the creek from contaminated waste water, affecting the rare Leopard frog that Brian

Maciej is trying so diligently to protect by not allowing the dammed up creek to flow freely. The

proposal says that plant waste and biomatter will be neutralized and expunged. But when the gold

rush is over, corners will likely be cut, and since the site is such a great distance from conservation

officers and people to monitor the creek, there will be no watchdog.

▪ The consequence of operating a facility 24/7 is increased noise, especially at night, with trucks,

workers, and increased road traffic. No one in this area is operating a business 24/7. During

harvest, we may work some late nights, but that is only a couple of nights per year.

▪ This area doesn’t provide the types of services that are required for a business that isn’t involved in

traditional agriculture—which is the growing of plants for food. Cannabis production is not a

business that requires a rural address, and it would be better suited for medium or heavy

industrial, which has support services for the increased demands it would require—like electricity,

water, sewage, and water treatment.

We think allowing this type of business in this area sends the wrong message to people who move away

from the noise, lights, smells, and crime of urban areas to enjoy the country.

Yours truly,

Janice and Norman Larsen

116

From: Sigrid LarsenTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Fwd: Proposed Cannabis Production Facility UseDate: October 18, 2019 4:13:13 PM

We have Jane Blair's permission to add our name to this letter.

Paul and Sigrid Larsen, 50532 Rge Rd 232 Leduc County T4X 0L1Megh


From: Jane Blair <[email protected]>Subject: Fwd: Proposed Cannabis Production Facility UseDate: 18 October, 2019 4:05:55 PM MDTTo: Sigrid Larsen <[email protected]>

Sent from my iPad


From: Jane Blair <[email protected]>Date: October 18, 2019 at 4:02:50 PM MDTTo: [email protected]: Proposed Cannabis Production Facility Use

Meghan Thompson,

Regarding proposed development at:51033 RangeRoad 232SW 2-51-23-W4Strathcona County

My concern with this proposed development is the poor communication that has not happened between Strathcona County and Leduc County. Very little information was even given to the adjacent property owners in Strathcona County and no communication to the nearby residents of Leduc County.I would like to know how much research has been done as to how it will fit into the rural community and what the benefits would be.We really need to know about the additional traffic on rural roads, possibility of unpleasant odours and the effect on the value of the adjacent properties.I hope to hear from you within the next week.Thank youJane Blair

117

From: [email protected]: Meghan ThompsonCc: Linton Delainey; Rod FrankSubject: Notification of Proposed cannabis production facilityDate: November 14, 2019 11:57:04 PMAttachments: Letter to Meghan Thompson, public consultation (AC).docx

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Please see enclosed letter regarding proposed production facility in south Strathcona.

118

November 14, 2019

Meghan Thompson


County of Strathcona

Re Proposed Cannabis Production Facility

Dear Ms. Thompson

On November 10, 2019, 24 neighbours representing their families came together at less than 24

hours notice to discuss the proposal and voice their concerns in regard to having a cannabis

production facility in our neighbourhood.

There is an overwhelming sentiment that this will have an adverse effect on our neighbourhood.

We need more answers to our concerns as this area does not have the infrastructure to support this

type of business citing security, adequate water supply, power and waste management as

unsustainable. Many of the residents attending this meeting have been in this area for 50 years plus

and see this operation as out of the scope of what is expected for a traditional agricultural operation

providing food or fibre. Therefore, this type of operation should not be zoned agricultural but

should be in an industrial area.

We also think that adequate notice was not given to neighbouring residents of this proposed

operation and should have included residents from at least 4 miles away and also residents in the

neighbouring county of Leduc which has many more people living within the proximity of this

proposed development.

As legally grown cannabis production is relatively new to Canada, we insist that as much

information be dispensed to residents as necessary to avoid future legal action.

Because of this, we have enclosed a list of names of resident neighbours who demand that we have

a public consultation with development and planning to further discuss how this type of business

possibly fits into an agriculturally zoned area and to discuss other concerns as listed above.

Thank you very much for your kind attention to our request.

Yours truly,

Norman Larsen for

Concerned neighbours

One Attachment:

Cc: Linton Delainey ([email protected]), Mayor Rod Frank

([email protected])

119

Listing of neighbours in attendance to discuss Cannabis production facility

Name Telephone Address email

Bill Thomas 780-920-

1511

23154 Township Rd

510 Sh Pk

[email protected]

Margie & Roland

Schneider

780-935-

4702

51347 Range Rd 232 Sh

Pk

[email protected]

a

Ralph Schneider 51356 Range Rd 232 Sh

Pk

[email protected]

Frank Marrazzo 23263 Township Rd

510 Leduc Cty

Frankjr@Franksandblasti

ng.com

Francis & Lana

Strytveen

780-467-

3476


Pk

[email protected]

Sheldon & Louise Cott 587-785-

6262


Pk

[email protected]

Susan & Bert Wort 51046 Range Rd 231 Sh

Pk

[email protected]

m

George & Jane Blair 23208 Looma Rd Leduc

Cty

luckyduckiepoo@yahoo.

ca

Sigrid Larsen 780-467-

3424

50532 Range Rd 232

Leduc Cty

[email protected]

Nate Utley 23213 Township Rd

510 Leduc Cty

[email protected]

Dennis Hildebrandt 780-499-

6870


Pk

Anita Clarke 780-913-

0709


Pk

[email protected]

Dawn Weisner 780-964-

5408

23237 Township Rd

510 Leduc Cty

[email protected]

Darren Latty 50538 Range Rd 232

Leduc Cty

[email protected]

Alan & Julie McInnes 780-993-

2711


Pk

thetartanteam@rocketma

il.com

Janice L& Norm

Larsen

780-417-

2897


Pk

[email protected]

120

From: Norm LarsenTo: Rod Frank; Robert Parks; Dave Anderson; Brian Botterill; Bill Tonita; Paul Smith; Linton Delainey; Glen Lawrence;

Katie BerghoferCc: Meghan Thompson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]: Do Cannabis grow ops fit into the Strathcona Ag master Plan "A time to choose"Date: December 9, 2019 9:39:50 PMAttachments: ANTI_GROW_02 (3).pdf

510 sign Dec 5 2019.JPG

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Dear Sirs, I wonder what Jerry Bouma’s (Strathcona Agricultural Master Plan) thoughts would be on integratingcannabis into the mix of what he used as the definition of agriculture? How many hundreds ofthousands of dollars did Strathcona County taxpayers pay to have this well-researched, insightfuldocument prepared--only to disregard the very essence of what agriculture is: food? Has the visionfor Strathcona gone from “Canada’s most livable community” to “Pot capital of Canada”? Introducing cannabis into agricultural-zoned land is setting the stage for a shift in principles andwhat defines agriculture. It will tear apart a vision for a livable community, our agricultural heritage.It will pit neighbour against neighbour, ruin the county’s rural character, and change communitydynamics. Cannabis is a reality in Canada now. The argument isn’t whether cannabis is good for society, butwhere it should be grown. Overwhelmingly, neighbours can’t understand why this is not anindustrial-zoned industry. There are at least two good industrial areas in Strathcona and plenty morein the region with the necessary infrastructure to support these facilities. Council decided to shift the decision process to an administrator—an industrial planning officer—who seems oblivious to the concerns and sensitivities of the people in an agriculturalneighbourhood and the impact a cannabis production facility will have on it.I might also add that it would be extremely disappointing if the County of Strathcona Developmentofficer does not take into consideration the Leduc County master plan of a “Country ResidentialArea”. This “Country Residential Area” of Leduc County (50-23-W4) is less than .5 km away from theproposed industrial cannabis facility. This area of Leduc County has a number of populated acreagesubdivisions that would be affected if this proposal is approved. Our goal is to impress upon council that this is a political issue, and the zoning for this cannabisproduction facility and for agricultural land has to be revisited. We will fight this. Regards, Norm Larsen forN.A.I.C.O.A.L.

121

N E I G H B O U R S A G A I N S T

INDUSTRIAL CANNABISO N A G R I C U L T U R A L L A N D

STRATHCONA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE If you have concerns about the proposed facility, we urge you to contact

MEGHAN THOMPSONIndustrial Planning Officer - Planning & Development Services780.410.6517 - [email protected]

LEDUC COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE If you’re an adjacent landowner of Leduc County, and you’re unhappy that you weren’t notified of the proposed development, you can contact

COLIN RICHARDSTeam Lead, Development - Planning and Development780.979.6180 - [email protected]

CONTACT YOUR RESPECTIVE COUNCILORS, MAYORS, MLA & MP If you’re concerned that the respective counties consider industrial cannabis production a discretionary agricultural land use

LINTON DELAINEYCouncillor, Ward 6 - Strathcona [email protected]

KELLY-LYNN LEWISCouncillor, Division 2 – Leduc County780.955.4562 [email protected]

ROD FRANKMayor - Strathcona County780.464.8000 [email protected]

TANNI DOBLANKOMayor - Leduc [email protected]

HONORABLE RICK WILSON (UCP)MLA for Maskwacis-Wetaskiwin780.360.8003Maskwacis.Wetaskiwin@assembly.ab.ca

HON. MIKE LAKE, PC, MPMP for Edmonton – Wetaskiwin780.495.2149 [email protected] C O M M U N I T Y M E E T I N G

Thursday December 12 @ 7:00 PMWWW.STOPTHEGROWOP.COM EMAIL: [email protected]

FACEBOOK: WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/GROUPS/NAICOALThe Looma Hall (160 – 50516, AB-21, Leduc County, AB)

WWW.STOPTHEGROWOP.COM122

123

T H E I N T R O D U C T I O N O F A N

INDUSTRIAL CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITY

MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON OUR COMMUNITIES

Strathcona County issued a Notification to Adjacent Property Owners on October 4th 2019 with limited details of the proposed development. This notice serves to inform residents of Leduc and Strathcona county of a development permit application currently under review to construct a 8,000 square foot cannabis production facility at: 51033 Range Road 232 - SW 2-51-23-W4 - Strathcona County

Community members and adjacent land owners of Leduc County were not notified. Members of the community had until October 18, 2019 to submit their concerns in writing to the Strathcona County Planning and Development offices; we’ve been informed that the Strathcona Planning and Development office is no longer accepting concerns.

A letter was sent to the developer by Strathcona County Planning & Development; the developer is required to address concerns raised, at that time the Planning and Development office will either approve or deny the application. Until the application is denied or approved, the developer’s response or concerns raised by Strathcona County are not available to the public. Members of the community can appeal the decision and have 21 days to do so from the date of the approval. Similarly, if the application is denied, the developer can appeal. Members of Leduc County were provided no notice and had no ability to voice our concerns with respect to the proposed development. The south side of Township Road 510 is primarily residential acreages, conforming to Leduc County’s long-term plan for this area. Both counties have allowed for Cannabis Production Facilities to be built as discretionary agricultural developments, whereas cannabis production facilities are far more industrial in nature as cannabis is grown, processed and packaged for sale at these facilities.

STATUS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT & HISTORY

AIR QUALITY Marijuana grow facilities create noticeable air quality issues relative to smell and the release of VOCs into the air. Air filtration is utilized in these facilities but typically does not fully mask the smell, which can be considered a nuisance to adjacent land owners who live near the proposed facility. Plant waste & bio-matter waste created by these facilities could be stockpiled & neutralized on site, creating more air quality issues related to smell and the release of VOCs into our community’s air. WATER IMPACT A typical commercially-grown cannabis plant requires 22 litres of water per day. That means a facility this size could be drawing as much as 22,000 litres of water per day, potentially impacting residential wells in the area surrounding the facility.

LAND There is the potential for fertilizers from plant waste and bio-matter stockpiled on-site to leach into the soil and impact wells in the surrounding communities.

LIGHT POLLUTIONAs we understand, a cannabis production facility requires security lighting at night, which will contravene Strathcona County’s dark sky policy.

ZONING A cannabis production facility redefines the acceptable uses of agricultural land. Cannabis production will be taxed at a commercial tax rate but allowed to occur in residential and agriculturally-zoned areas. We strongly believe this is an industrial land use.

LAND VALUE The introduction of a commercial cannabis production facility into our neighbourhood will likely impact residential land value for the above noted reasons

124

125

From: LaTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Opposition To Proposed Cannabis Production Facility UseDate: October 16, 2019 12:54:50 PMAttachments: Sharp MX-3070_20191016_124501.pdf

PastedGraphic-4.pngimage012.jpgcor.pngPastedGraphic-8.pngISN.pngECA.png

Dear Meghan Thompson,

Please confirm receipt of this email and the attached letter.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Laura Marrazzo

Frank’s Sandblasting & PaintingPlant 1 – 2303 4 Street, Nisku AB T9E 7W7Plant 2 – 3906 81 Avenue, Leduc AB T9E 0C3Plant 3 – 1304 7 Street, Nisku AB T9E 7P9P: 780-955-2633 | F: 780-955-8061 | C: 780-691-0913www.franksandblasting.com

126

127

From: Julie McinnesTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: ObjectionDate: October 16, 2019 12:46:24 AM

Dear MeghanThis email is in response to the notification I received about the proposal to build a Cannabis Production Facilitynext door to my property.I wish to make it clear that I am firmly opposed to this sort of development and also disappointed that the countyeven let this be considered on a rural property when it is not even the landowner who is the applicant for such afacility.Here are some of my concerns.Volume of traffic will increase on Twp Rd 510 and RR 232 which are already very busy and being narrow makesthem difficult to travel on especially in winter with drivers who are unsure of safe travel on narrow roads.The possibility of further crime in an area that is already seeing too much crime with very little police presence andpoor response times when crime happens.Odour will be a major problem despite promises. When I visit Ritchie Bros. auction site in Nisku 1/2 a mile east ofthe Edmonton Airport, Aurora facility the smell is overwhelming when the wind is blowing in that direction and Isure don't want to wake up to that or try to enjoy my property with this type odour.I know for a fact there are many commercial buildings lying empty in Nisku and maybe even Strathcona county inareas zoned commercial that would be better suited to this type of facility and if we let one shed be built I'm surethat expansion will be the next issue.Why would the county want to spoil a farming/acreage area of the county where people are paying high propertytaxes because they keep their properties to a high standard. Something like this will lower property value for surewhich in turn will mean the property taxes will need to be reduced. We have invested lots of time and money intoour properties on RR232 to create attractive properties for me and my family to enjoy for generations and thisfacility will make us reconsider our future in this area were it to be passed.Hope my opinion and I'm sure the neighbors opinions too are considered before any further decisions are maderegarding this facility and let us keep our area free from the commercial investors who have charmed or bought theirway into letting a neighboring landowner give them permission to use his agricultural land for this type ofdevelopment with his name not mentioned on your paperwork. This seems strange to me that a constructioncompany can suddenly be considered involved in agriculture.Your map of the proposed development is not specific to where the facility will be,showing a large unspecified areaso I might be looking right at it being next door which will be unacceptable in my opinion. Things like this need tobe addressed and more specific where the building would be before throwing out ideas for development andupsetting neighbors without more specific details.Please acknowledge receipt of this email as I want to make sure my objection to this development is received.Yours sincerelyAlan McInnesCell 780 993 2711

Sent from my iPhone

128

From: [email protected]: [email protected]: Meghan ThompsonSubject: GROW OPDate: January 31, 2020 3:50:32 PM


With the current economic downturn in Alberta leasing a suitable facility in the industrial areas in StrathconaCounty could easily be accomplished and would make more business sense !

To us it would be easier on everyone and everything !

Regards ,

Terry and Elaine Merriman .

129

From: [email protected]: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Proposed development.Date: October 17, 2019 6:35:08 PM

Hi Megan,

This is Corey Milburn my address is 23225 Twp 510 Leduc County.

I am writing about the proposed development at 51033 RR 232. The cannabis facility.I am strongly apposed to this development. I believe that this type of development does not belong in a countryacreage setting. This has the potential to attract crime to this area, decrease property values, and the smell that thesefacilities put off cannot be completely controlled. I believe this facility belongs in an industrial/ commercial typesetting.

Thank you,

Corey MilburnP: (780) 699-5095

130

From: Julie MillerTo: Rod FrankCc: Meghan Thompson; Linton Delainey; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]: Growop twp Rd 510 Rg Rd 232Date: December 8, 2019 7:53:49 PM


Here we go again, do none of the representatives listen to the people who vote them in. We have said continuouslythat Cannabis growing is not an Agricultural endeavour. We told the County of Strathcona when they proposed oneopening on Rg Rd 214 which eventually did not proceed, the battle is still ongoing for the proposed one on Rg Rd213. The only reason these ventures are looking to use Agricultural land is because it is cheaper & taxation ischeaper. Put them where they belong in land zoned Industrial & tax them as industrial. I am absolutely positive ifthe urban residents realized the tax money that would be gained from this approach they would not hesitate inagreeing that Industrial should be their classification, instead of upsetting rural residents lifestyle from the Stench,Light Pollution, More Traffic on rural roads, Water consumption, Air Quality etc.Listen to your rural constituents, these are the people whose lives these Cannabis Grow Ops will effect.A concerned rural county resident.Julie Miller

Sent from my iPad

131

From: CindyTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Opposing DPA#2019-0667-DPDate: October 17, 2019 8:57:32 PM

Hello, I have recently been made aware of this proposal of DPA#2019-0667-DP.I am writing on behalf or myself and my children as well as a neighbor who has no internet at themoment. Please contact me in regards to this. This letter is for 2 opposition families. No we cannot agree to this business.Whether it is a fenced in business or not, is not a concern to us. But if security is needed then it will bringtrouble for the rest of us.The type of person who gets into this type of business will only bring crime to our neighborhood andopportunities of break in. This is not a welcomed business to a family friendly neighborhood. No building will keep that smell out of the fresh air we breath. This is proven by the government built andrun facility by the airport. It heavily stinks. This is a facility that needs to be in an industrial environment not in residential acreages. We don't spendthousands of dollars to move out of the city to be living in a neighborhood with unfriendly locked facilitiesand with a stanch in which I do not want my children to breath or be associated with. No Absolutely not. Cindy Rainer780-619-2223

132

From: Raymond ScrivenTo: Meghan Thompson; [email protected]; [email protected]: [email protected]: NAICOAL- industrial cannabis concernsDate: December 11, 2019 9:09:49 AMAttachments: image001.png

image003.jpgImportance: High

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Good day Mayor Doblanko, Mr. Richards, and Mrs. Thompson.I’m emailing with great concern over the proposed development of the cannabis production facilityto be located at 51033 RR232 Strathcona county.

The first I had heard of this was Dec 8th 2019, as a concerned Strathcona county resident stoppedby, and hand me a brochure.Being this proposed facility has major impacts on our homestead I am disappointed, and beyondfrustrated that we (Leduc County) were not properly consulted along with adjacent (Strathcona

county) home owners on Oct 4th 2019.Furthermore, limiting land owners with 10 business days to submit concerns in writing, is insufficienttime to provide meaningful opportunity for a home owners to research, and question the impactsimposed on the community, and investment.Please remember that home owners pick these areas because of the absence of industry. There isplenty of industrial lands to build cannabis operations on, go there. You will still make your taxrevenueA grow operation is not ‘agricultural’ as marketed. The addition of buildings, processing equipment,major power and water consumption, security lights, security fencing, heavy vehicle traffic, constant24/7 activity, with guards, is not farming, its industrial. It does not belong adjacent to residentialhomes.This facility is 2.2 Km (as the crow flies) north of our home. If the EIA airport cannabis facility is anyindication of the air quality to come, it will certainly drive us, and many others out of the area, with areduced resale value on our home.Additionally township 510 and RR232 are already dangerously narrow roads, and have been insubstandard condition for years. Additional trucking will create increased safety hazards and roaddeterioration.Where is the water consumption coming from? We have a residential well, and it could certainly beimpacted by the 20,000-30,000 L/day this 8000 sq ft facility will draw.If water is being trucked in, expect further deterioration of the roads, especially when road bans areimposed as more trucking volumes will be required to meet the daily water demands.See you ThursdayRay ScrivenOperations ManagerPrimoris Canada1103 95 Street SWEdmonton, AB T6X 0P8T: (780) 400 – 4200D: (780) 400 – 3379

133

C: (780) 235-4230www.prim.com

“No business objective is so important that it will be pursued at the sacrifice of safety.”

134

From: Raymond ScrivenTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: RE: NAICOAL- industrial cannabis concernsDate: December 11, 2019 10:59:13 AMAttachments: image001.png

image007.pngimage009.pngimage010.pngimage011.pngimage012.jpgimage002.jpg

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Thank you for the reply.I might get more questions or answers on Thursday at Looma hall, we’ll see I guess. A few that cometo mind off the top of my head are

It would be good to know what the time line is for the proposed cannabis facility?Is it approved?What is the next steps?Why was Leduc residents not consulted when it is so close to the division line?What is the developers plans with security?Air pollution management? EIA gro op has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and it is stilla major issue there. How is this different?Increased road traffic?Water consumption ground or trucked in?How many people are expected to work there?What is the main travel routes for trucking

Ray ScrivenOperations ManagerPrimoris Canada1103 95 Street SWEdmonton, AB T6X 0P8T: (780) 400 – 4200D: (780) 400 – 3379C: (780) 235-4230www.prim.com

“No business objective is so important that it will be pursued at the sacrifice of safety.”

135

From: Ray ScrivenTo: Meghan Thompson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]: Shama ScrivenSubject: Development Permit Application 2019-0667-DP. Strathcona county industrial cannabis concernsDate: December 13, 2019 4:01:09 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Afternoon,I attended the Looma hall community gathering last night, where about 100 of us all shared thesame concern as I listed below, and additional impacts I did not consider.Two common frustrations that I heard

1. frustration amongst the community is the lack of communication from both the County’s.Notifying only abutting properties (Land Use Bylaw 6-2015) is absurd when this many impactsare present.

2. This is not a agricultural operation, Its industrial, its invasive, and it belongs in industriallocation. It doesn’t matter what the mitigation is, this cannabis operation does not belongbeside homes.

As I’m in Leduc County I’ll speak to it.Few things I learned last night I find unbelievable, and irresponsible

Leduc planning department thought this proposed cannabis operation was not advisable, yetCouncil proceeded/sided with a yes vote with Strathcona County. Why have a planningdepartment then?Leduc county thought it was insignificant to discuss this with any of the Leduc county homeowners. I would guess they don’t live anywhere near the proposed location, so they don’tcare. Fact is, due to the local housing proximity, this cannabis operation would impact Leduccounty home owners more than Strathcona county residents.Leduc indicated it didn’t have the funding or means to send out notifications. Funny howNAICOAL informed hundreds of people for about $550.RCMP feedback on increased crime, security issues is, they see no issues what so ever. That isa ridiculous assessment. A mom and pop grow op with little to know RCMP presence in thearea is not going to attract bad people. Come on get real.

Dec 11th I emailed the Leduc Mayor, and County planning offices with ZERO response. Really.Nothing. Meghan of Strathcona did reply with limited details, and an update to the approvalprocess.The County knew we would be having an information gathering last night, yet could not find itimportant to attend.

The lack of Leduc’s analysis, consideration, or value of community opinion is very worrisome. Whatother cannabis operations will be presented in the future, what land use bylaws are being changedor considered? These actions (or lack of) demonstrate the low standards Leduc county is setting forinvestors. If a cannabis operation can set up in residential area with no consultation, and little toshow for planning/mitigation strategies, they will come in droves.The application submitted by the developer does not address all the concerns raised, frankly I don’tcare if they do address majority of them. Aurora Cannabis has spent millions on VOC managementand air quality improvements, and the odor is still a major problem for them. I can’t see itreasonable to predict how a startup operation with much smaller capital can do better than a world

136

class facility at managing the VOCs.The proposed location is not the place for industry, and once industry is allowed, it will continue topush its way in, and community out.I would hope that Leduc can find this important enough to address the community, and work toprotect our quality of life and investments, vs stepping aside.

Ray

137

From: Janet SigurdsonTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Concern Letter re: Cannabis Plant on Range Road 232Date: October 17, 2019 10:21:43 AMAttachments: DPA#2019-0667-DP Concerns Janet Sigurdson.pdf

Dear Ms. Thompson,

Please find attached my letter of concern regarding DPA#2019-0067-DP.

Thank you,

Janet Sigurdson

138

139

From: Bill SputekTo: Meghan ThompsonCc: [email protected]: Proposed Cannabis Grow Operation - 51033 Range Road 232Date: December 16, 2019 10:02:15 AM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Hello Ms. Thompson,I am a resident in Golfveiw Estates, located approximately 1 km from this proposeddevelopment site. I recently attended a meeting at the Looma Hall regarding thedevelopment proposal and was shocked that it would be allowed in this location. I have tosay, what angered me most was that Leduc County residents, located this close to thedevelopment site, we were not informed or offered an opportunity to voice an opinion onthis development proposal. This area is highly populated with residential acreages that willcertainly be impacted by this site and the problems associated with Cannabis productionfacilities, primarily, the environmental effects that are impossible to eliminate. Although Ihave nothing against Cannabis use or those who grow it, allowing a production facility nextto residential areas cannot be allowed. This, simply stated, is an industrial process. I wouldlike you to consider rejecting this proposal, in consideration of the many residents of LeducCounty, your neighbor, that will be impacted by this decision.Please take a moment contact Mr. Richards from Leduc County planning who can clarifythe land use designation just across the road from this proposed site before you make yourdecision.Best Regards,Bill Sputek180 23361 Township Road 510Leduc County, AB, T4X 0S8C. 780-777-3852

140

From: Bill SputekTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: RE: Proposed Cannabis Grow Operation - 51033 Range Road 232Date: December 16, 2019 4:14:01 PMAttachments: image001.png


CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Hi Meghan,Thank you for your response. I hope you will consider us in your decision making process. Ido not want to leave you with the impression that I would interfere with businessdevelopment in your county. I understand the importance of small business in ourcommunities. This particular location will have minimal impact on Strathcona CountyResidents because of its location, but the impact will be far greater for Leduc Countyresidents because of the land use designation by our county along the south side ofTownship Road 510 where I live. If there is a way that I can be kept advised of theprogress on this application, possibly through email, I would appreciate be added to themailing list.Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for you and your family in the new year.Thank You,Bill Sputek180 23361 Township Road 510Leduc County, AB, T4X 0S8C. 780-777-3852

141

From: Bill Sputek <[email protected]> Sent: December-16-19 10:02 AMTo: Meghan Thompson <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Proposed Cannabis Grow Operation - 51033 Range Road 232


Hello Ms. Thompson,I am a resident in Golfveiw Estates, located approximately 1 km from this proposed development site. I recently attended a meeting at the Looma Hall regarding the development proposal and was shocked that it would be allowed in this location. I have to say, what angered me most was that Leduc County residents, located this close to the development site, we were not informed or offered an opportunity to voice an opinion on this development proposal. This area is highly populated with residential acreages that will certainly be impacted by this site and the problems associated with Cannabis production facilities, primarily, the environmental effects that are impossible to eliminate. Although Ihave nothing against Cannabis use or those who grow it, allowing a production facility next to residential areas cannot be allowed. This, simply stated, is an industrial process. I would like you to consider rejecting this proposal, in consideration of the many residents of Leduc County, your neighbor, that will be impacted by this decision.Please take a moment contact Mr. Richards from Leduc County planning who can clarify the land use designation just across the road from this proposed site before you make your decision.Best Regards,Bill Sputek180 23361 Township Road 510Leduc County, AB, T4X 0S8C. 780-777-3852This communication is intended for the recipient to whom it is addressed, and may containconfidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact the sender immediately if youare not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take actionrelying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted ordestroyed.

142

From: Anne StephensTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Proposed Cannabis Production FacilityDate: October 17, 2019 9:22:02 PM

Ms.Thompson,

I am writing in opposition of the proposed cannabis production facility planned for 51033 Range Road 232 inSherwood Park. I have recently learned of this permit application from a neighbour and am greatly concerned.

I live on 51149-Range Road 231, a “stone’s throw” away from the site of the proposed facility, and have no interestin raising my family so close to the production of cannabis products with such harmful potential and unpleasantaromas. This is a rural area of family homes, ranches and acreages. A commercial facility would lower the value ofour properties and taint the beautiful, natural views we enjoy on our country roads.

I strongly oppose the proposal for the building of this facility and ask that those with the ability to do so wouldreject it completely.

Sincerely,

Anne Stephens

Sent from my iPhone

143

From: Trevor StephensTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Proposed Cannabis Production Facility 51033 RR 232Date: October 17, 2019 9:30:14 PM

Hello,

I wanted to write to relay my concern regarding the proposed cannabis production facility.I live in Lina Country Estates which is 51149 RR 231 which is very close to this proposed facility.My concern is with this business being set in a rural country setting with the potential for smells even though care issupposedly being taken to mitigate this.A 24/7 facility so close is not desirable as well for an area in which we moved chiefly zoned for agricultural andcountry residential for people to raise their families.I am opposed to this going forward.

Thank you for your time.

~ Trevor Stephens

Sent from my iPhone

144

145

146

147

From: PaulineTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Cannabis Production FacilityDate: December 12, 2019 12:44:06 PM


Hello,

I’m a Strathcona County resident, I live on 97 23054 TWP RD 512 and have just recently learned of a proposedcannabis production facility at 51033 RR 232. As someone with a young family I’m deeply concerned about thisproposed facility. I am worried about the side effects of having an industrial facility so close to my home as therehas been no long term studies on how this may impact long range health outcomes.

I’m concerned if the air quality is compromised it will result in increased respiratory ailments, which will negativelyimpact quality of life not to mention the impact it would have on already stressed health resources.

Another major concern would be the security lights required for such a facility. The required lighting would have anegative impact on those of us that moved into the County and away from city lights. Surely if you’re havingindustrial security lightening then a residential area is not the right fit for an operation such as this. One has towonder if there would not be any industrial areas that would be better suited for this sort of operation.

I’m also deeply concerned about the potential for increased criminal activity and the impact it would have on RCMPresources. As a homeowner that has had my place broken into I am concerned about the vehicle traffic that might bein the area and how it may negatively impact those around it. Not everyone can afford industrial security making ourhomes a viable alternative if those criminal minded individuals decide they would like an easier score.

I have to say I’m all for business and enterprise and typically can’t understand those that stand up against it. Yet thisproposed facility is a completely wrong fit for the area in question and I would kindly asked you to consider denyingthis proposal.

Thank you,Pauline Thomas

Sent from my iPhone

148

From: Nate UtleyTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Cannabis Production FacilityDate: October 24, 2019 3:10:23 PM

Hello Meghan, I’m writing to express my concern regarding the potential Cannabis Production Facility to be locatedat 51033 Range Road 232. I live a few hundred meters southeast of that location at 23213 TownshipRd. 510, and don’t believe I have personally received any correspondence from your offices about it.I would imagine that’s because the facility is in Strathcona County and I’m on the other side of 510 inLeduc Country. I recognize that I’m writing later than you requested. This is due largely to the factthat I was informed about this second-hand through my neighbors, not first-hand by StrathconaCounty. So, if it’s not too late, I would graciously ask Strathcona County to slow down on issuing apermit and consult those of us just south of 510 in Leduc County too. After all, the proximity of thispotential facility to the county line would not only impact Strathcona Country residents, but Leduccounty residents as well. Here are a few items I would ask you to consider:

· Something tells me that a Cannabis Production Facility isn’t going to do anything positive forthe property value of my home or my neighbors’. It seems like an industrial area would be amuch better suited for the facility, not a beautiful rural area like ours. For most of us outhere, acreage life comes at a premium. Please respect that, and work hard to protect whatwe’ve worked hard for.

· Given the way the wind blows around here, whatever comes out of that facility, is comingstraight to my house. Our windows are open all summer long, day and night, because likemany home owners we don’t have A/C. Over the last couple of weeks my wife, children, andI have been enjoying the rich smells of the Fall season. The last thing we want is for thosesimple pleasures to be replaced by the foul exhaust of cannabis. You talk about limiting thesmells of the facility, but I would question the effectiveness of that.

· I would assume there’s a great safety concern at such facilities. You mention that the facilitywould be fenced for security purposes. So, basically right up the street from my housesomeone would be producing a valuable product that people all over Canada are addictedtoo and will do stupid things to get. I have three kids under 4. I really don’t want all theproblems that go with that safety concern on my front door.

· At the end of the day, we love our beautiful rural lifestyle and want to fight to keep it thatway. Please respect that.

Thank you kindly for your consideration. Nate587.988.9330

149

From: Steve WebsterTo: Meghan Thompson; [email protected]; [email protected]: 51033 Range Road 232 Cannabis Grow OpDate: January 5, 2020 11:08:24 AM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Dear Ma'am & Sir's,

I bought property within 1/2 mile of the proposed cannabis grow operation approximately 11years ago. When looking for property, the biggest consideration my wife and I had was to beout of the city and its inherent risks. We wanted a place our daughter could play with minimalworry of the criminal element. We also wanted a place that was away from the traffic, noiseand pollution of city living while still maintaining a close distance to the conveniences of thecity. At the time there was no indication that the country was going to legalize the growth anduse of cannabis and this was never a consideration in our purchase. Moving forward to today,things have changed; however the fact the county is considering this grow op in such apopulated area seems assinine to me especially with the drastic failure of the one that was putup at the international airport and the air pollution created in the city of Leduc. This failure isapparently forcing the grow op to move to a remote part of the province (I am not sure atwhose cost). Some questions for the county while they are deciding on this application are asfollows:

As a land owner, what guarantees are the proposed company providing for pollutioncontrols, in particular odor and waste controls as this will directly affect the area and itsresidents. I would like to know the acceptable PPM for the stacks and/or vents as well asradial emissions. How is it monitored and $$ fines associated to higher emissions? Iam in the oil and gas sector and the regulations for pollution (against popular belief) areof the highest in the world and are very prescriptive and I would expect that a productsuch as this in such a populated area would have prescriptive controls. RCMP action plan to ensure it does not attract higher criminal activity in the area.Negative business success of the Eagle Rock Golf Course, also effecting my home value(I live directly on the course). Not many people will want to go golfing in an area thatsmells of cannabis.In the event the property values in the area disproportionately decrease due to thefacility, how will land owners be reimbursed for such loss? Will the company proposingthe development be held accountable?What are the improvements to the scrubber systems, as well as air quality controls,proposed from that supplied at the YEG airport cannabis plantation? Currently you cansmell the one at the airport across the highway and throughout town. Area lighting plans. I would like to see the area lighting plans along with the lightingstudy that shows the extent of the land effected by the lighting plan.Through airborne pollution, what is the expected cannabis levels in residents, wheredoes that sit within the Canadian model for industrial testing?

150

The area proposed, is an acreage intense area that has been very attractive to raising a family,many of which (including myself) work in an atmosphere where D&A testing are stillrequired. One of my fears is, with a development such as this, we will no longer attractproductive families in the area and put those who live here in a tentative situation foremployment. In the event our vehicles and clothing smell of cannabis, the job sites will stopand search our belongings, including the use of drug dogs. By rights this will be dismissed bythe fact there will be no drugs on our person, however from a reputational stand point, thecompany will judge based on the fact we get stopped every time the searches happen. This inturn puts the reputation of every worker in the area that requires D&A testing for employmentin danger. Currently the employment situation in Alberta does not need this kind of help asgood, hard workers will be replaced due to reputational issues associated to the newlylegalized business.

RespectfullySteve Webster(587)783-8858

151

From: Robert WeisnerTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Opposition to Proposed Cannabis Production Facility Development Permit # 2019-0667-DPDate: October 15, 2019 10:02:04 AMAttachments: County of Strathcona Opposition Letter DP#2019-0667-DP 10-15-19.pdf

Meghan Thompson Please include this attached letter showing my opposition to the Proposed Cannabis ProductionFacility Development Permit # 2019-0667-DPat 51033 Range Road 232, legal land description SW 2-51-23-W4, Strathcona County. Please confirm receipt of this email and that this letter will be placed into the development permitapplication file showing opposition toto commercial business. Regards R.J. (Rob) WeisnerBranch Manager, Edmonton ClusterDirect Dial # 780-989-7628 Try our new 60,000 square foot processing center in Nisku3855 - 13 StNisku, ABT9E 1C6

152

153

From: Robert WeisnerTo: Linton DelaineyCc: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Proposed Cannabis FacilityDate: December 9, 2019 3:53:39 PM


Linton

I am sending you this email in the hopes you are monitoring the ongoing processFor the proposed cannabis facility at 51033 RR 232. I believe you have heard from a number of your constituentswho are against this proposal. I trust you are listening to your constituents. The momentum that is gaining traction isphenomenal www.stopthegrowop.comAs one of the concerned individuals from the area I can tell that I and many others are not against cannabis but weprefer for these facilities to be built in industrial areas that have services to support these businesses. I know thisplant falls under the Discretionary Use bylaw for agricultural land use but when there is this level of concern I hopeMeghan Thompson is listening. I know she is not voted in but you are. Please lend us a hand in dealing with thissolution.

Rob Weisner

154

From: patTo: Meghan ThompsonCc: Linton DelaineySubject: Cannabis proposed facilityDate: December 8, 2019 2:32:53 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.To all those concerned

My husband and I live on RR231 and Twship 511. WE DO NOT WANT A CANNABIS FACILITY IN THISAREA. We are a rural community and there are lots of industrial properties that could be used. Or better yet buildit next to your homes and see if it suits you.

Also would like to know why the first information on this proposal was just delivered on Friday past. Not from anygovernment official but from the No Stopthegrowop organization. Are the days gone by when taxpayers are notifiedand kept informed or do we just sit by and let the counties do whatever they want.

We pay top dollar to live in Strathcona County and get very little in return. We should not have to put up with anindustrial proposal for Cannabis.

Pat and Gary Wheeler

155

From: Susan and Bert WortTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: Proposed Cannabis Production Facility DPA#2019-0667-DPDate: October 8, 2019 4:43:27 PM

Regarding your Notification to Adjacent Property Owners of October 4, 2019 advising ofDavid Robinson Construction Ltd.'s proposed Cannabis Facility on 51033 Range Road 232,Strathcona County, we are writing to let it be known how very much opposed we are to thisfacility being built in our neighborhood. We own and live on 36 acres on 51046 Range Road231, which is one range road over from the proposed facility. First off, we have concernsabout the nature of the product itself being grown, not withstanding ourconcerns regarding odor, security and increased traffic in our beautiful, peacefuland wildlife filled, country neighborhood. Also, as amateur astronomers, weappreciate security lighting not marring our dark skies. We do not consider this to be the typeof agriculture we wanted to be close to when we moved out of the City and we feel this is farto close to our property. We hope you will take our concerns into your consideration. Thankyou.

Albert and Susan Wort October 10, 2019

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

TWP

RD 510

RN

G R

D 2

32

TWP RD 510 TWP RD 510

RN

G R

D 2

32

Proposed Cannabis Production Facility Use


SW 2-51-23-W4

LOCATION MAP

Subject Property .

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICESDrawn By:Date Drawn:

Scale:

M. Thompson

September 17, 2019

Not to scale

2019-0667-DPDPA No.:

Revision Date:N:\PDS Admin\4000 - 4499 Land Use Services\4145 Development Permits\Agriculture\Cannabis

Production Facility\2019-0667-DP\Location Map

176

!

!

!

!

!

!

RN

G R

D 2

32

51033

51041

51045

51041C

51033A

51045C


Drawn By: M. ThompsonDate Drawn: September 17, 2019Scale: Not to Scale

2019-0667-DPFile No.:.

AIR PHOTO

Subject Area

51033 Range Road 232SW 2-51-23-W4

N:\PDS Admin\4000 - 4499 Land Use Services\

4145 Development Permits\Agriculture\Cannabis

Production Facility\2019-0667-DP\Airphoto Map 177

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

RN

G R

D 2

32

TWP RD 510 TWP RD 510TWP RD 510


Drawn By: M. ThompsonDate Drawn: September 17, 2019Scale: Not to Scale

2019-0667-DPFile No.:.

AIR PHOTO

Subject Area

51033 Range Road 232SW 2-51-23-W4

N:\PDS Admin\4000 - 4499 Land Use Services\

4145 Development Permits\Agriculture\Cannabis

Production Facility\2019-0667-DP\Airphoto Map 178

1.4 Development Permit Decision and Letter

179

180

181

182

183

184



FIRE DEPARTMENT LOCK BOX

As of January 1, 2017, the Knox-Box is the only approved key lock box in Strathcona County. As part of a regional collaboration, surrounding municipalities will also be implementing the Know-Box system within their jurisdiction. Municipalities using the Knox-Box include City of Edmonton, City of Spruce Grove, City of Leduc, City of Fort Saskatchewan and Strathcona County.

Benefits of Knox-Box:

• Increased security, including an optional tamper switch that can be connected to the premise's intrusion alarm. • Decreased incidences of operational issues, such as keys stored inside jamming the exposed lock mechanisms. • Audited trails of when the key lock box is accessed using the E-KeySecure system.

• Removed reliance on power supply or batteries like other boxes on the market that use electronic keys. • Provides Strathcona County Emergency Services with access to your building during incident response.

Order a Knox-Box:

1. Go to: www.knoxbox.com 2. Click ‘Buy’ 3. Search ‘Alberta’ and ‘Strathcona’ 4. ‘Strathcona Co Emerg Svcs’ will appear. Click on ‘select department’ 5. Select and configure required Knox-Box capacity:

a) Standard (1-10 keys) b) Maximum (11-50)

6. Mount Type: Recessed or surface 7. Tamper Switch Type: Optional 8. Add to cart 9. Enter business name and address 10. Click ‘Submit’

Purchase the Knox-Box: After you submit your order, Fire Prevention reviews the order to make sure the appropriate lock box was ordered. Once you receive an email advising your order has been approved, you must enter payment information to complete the order. Retail cost of the standard Knox-Box is approximately $500 USD.

Installing the Knox-Box: Lock boxes must be mounted so the top of the box is 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the ground and located at the principal entrance to the building. To ensure safety of your keys, lock boxes must be mounted following the manufacturer's instructions. For multi-facility managers, boxes are recorded by serial number to specified properties. Be sure to mount the right box to the right property. Once your lock box is installed, please call Fire Prevention at 780.449.9651 or email [email protected] to request a Fire Inspector to label and lock your keys in the lock box.

185



NATIONAL FIRE CODE – ALBERTA EDITION 2019 REQUIRES THE INSTALLATION OF A FIRE

DEPARTMENT APPROVED LOCK BOX IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES:

1) A building that incorporates fire protection equipment, elevator control or door access outlined in Sentence (2) shall provide a key

box constructed, keyed, and located in a manner acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction containing a set or sets of keys or

devices required to be used in an emergency.

2) A fire department key box shall be installed and provided with keys and devices in conformance with Sentence (1) in a building equipped with

a) a fire alarm system whose control features, including those for emergency voice communication systems, are located

behind a locked panel,

b) a fire alarm system in which manually operated devices require a key or device in order to be reset,

c) a fire alarm system in which the electrical circuit breaker is located within a locked panel or room,

d) an automatic sprinkler system in which the main control valve is locked in the open position,

e) an automatic sprinkler system in which the main control valve is located within a locked room or enclosure,

f) firefighting standpipe and water supply connections in a locked room or area,

g) a key-operated elevator control feature that will permit exclusive use of elevators by firefighting personnel,

h) a key-operated elevator control feature that will switch selected elevators to operate on emergency power,

i) stairway doors that have been locked on the stairway side in conformance with the Alberta Building Code, or

j) locked access doors to a roof provided for firefighting purposes.

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

1.2 Notification to Adjacent Property Owners of Development Permit Approval

199

200

201

202

1.3 Notification of Development Permit Approval Adjacent Municipality

203

From: Meghan ThompsonTo: "[email protected]"; "Colin Richards"; "Benjamin Ansaldo"Cc: Chris Gow; Linette CapcaraSubject: Development Permit Approval 2019-0667-DP Notification to Adjacent MunicipalityDate: June 12, 2020 10:49:00 AMAttachments: image001.png

image002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngNotification to Adjacent Municipality.pdfNotification to Adjacent Property Owner.pdfDevelopment Permit Approval 2019-0667-DP.pdf

Good morning, You are advised that the following development permit application (2019-0667-DP CannabisProduction Facility Use) has been approved, pursuant to Land Use Bylaw 6-2015. A copy of thedevelopment permit decision and approved plans have been attached for your reference. A copy ofthe notification that was sent to Adjacent Property Owners has also been included. Please note, thatthe Adjacent Property Owner notification was sent to the Owners of those lots that abut or wouldabut the subject property if not for a road, lane, walkway, watercourse, railway or similar feature (asper Land Use Bylaw 6-2015). This decision may be appealed to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board within twenty-one(21) days after the decision date pursuant to Section 686 of the Municipal Government Act, RSA2000, C M-26. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best Regards, Meghan ThompsonIndustrial Planning Officer



Strathcona County

2001 Sherwood Drive


Phone: 780-410-6517

Fax: 780-464-8145

[email protected]

www.strathcona.ca

Find us on:

204

205

From: Colin RichardsTo: Meghan ThompsonSubject: RE: Development Permit Approval 2019-0667-DP Notification to Adjacent MunicipalityDate: June 22, 2020 1:22:50 PMAttachments: image007.png

image008.pngimage009.pngimage010.pngimage001.jpg

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Good Afternoon Meghan, Thanks again for circulating the decision of the aforementioned application. In accordance with our previous conversations relating to this application, Leduc County Planning &Development confirm that the information provided on March 5, 2020 by the applicant satisfied anyquestions raised by the County concerning the application as originally circulated in late 2019.Following the receipt of said information, Leduc County Planning & Development had no furtherquestions, comments or planning concerns in relation to application 2019-0667-DP.

Regards, Colin Richards, Team Lead, Development.Planning & Development, Leduc County.Phone (direct) - 780-979-6180 Leduc_email_301

From: Meghan Thompson <[email protected]> Sent: June/12/2020 10:51 AMTo: Denise Nahajowich <[email protected]>; Colin Richards <[email protected]>;Benjamin Ansaldo <[email protected]>Cc: Chris Gow <[email protected]>; Linette Capcara <[email protected]>Subject: Development Permit Approval 2019-0667-DP Notification to Adjacent Municipality Good morning, You are advised that the following development permit application (2019-0667-DP CannabisProduction Facility Use) has been approved, pursuant to Land Use Bylaw 6-2015. A copy of thedevelopment permit decision and approved plans have been attached for your reference. A copy ofthe notification that was sent to Adjacent Property Owners has also been included. Please note, thatthe Adjacent Property Owner notification was sent to the Owners of those lots that abut or wouldabut the subject property if not for a road, lane, walkway, watercourse, railway or similar feature (asper Land Use Bylaw 6-2015).

206

This decision may be appealed to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board within twenty-one(21) days after the decision date pursuant to Section 686 of the Municipal Government Act, RSA2000, C M-26. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best Regards, Meghan ThompsonIndustrial Planning Officer



Strathcona County

2001 Sherwood Drive


Phone: 780-410-6517

Fax: 780-464-8145

[email protected]

www.strathcona.ca

Find us on:

This communication is intended for the recipient to whom it is addressed, and may containconfidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact the sender immediately ifyou are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or takeaction relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should bedeleted or destroyed.

207

208

209

Reasons for Appeal

Development Permit Number 2019-0667-DP

• Our appeal should be delayed until the Josephburg bylaw revision 6-2015 (to allow for a setback of 500m for any facility with a total area greater than 1000m2) hearing has been held, to ensure that this facility cannot be approved and constructed before this bylaw is approved, as the facility could then be grandfathered “as is”.

• We need information from Planning and Development as to what the applicant is doing to filter the system for smell. The only evidence we could find regarding this is one sentence within an undated letter from Cam Matheson stating, “Odour mitigation has been carefully designed through a coal filtration system and none of the flower rooms will be exhausted outside the building keeping smell contained within the facility.” Air must be released from the facility, despite what they wrote. This response is insufficient to the point that the project should not go ahead.

• Property values also have not been addressed.

• Water – The applicant hasn’t confirmed what they are doing for water. If they are using the water from Irvine Creek, they need permission from the Government of Alberta. - There is currently an investigation underway into the damming of the creek on

this property (see Incident #712993, Alberta Environment and Parks). The hearing needs to be delayed until this investigation has been completed and the situation resolved.

- Further to the above, contamination into the creek is also a concern.

• Will we receive an Environmental Mitigation Plan? What happens if there is a solid waste spill or liquid spill (fertilizer phosphates or waste water); Irvine Creek runs downhill from the facility.

• RCMP response time has not been addressed. How fast will they arrive if there is an issue?

• Traffic concerns have not been addressed. School buses will be travelling down Range Road 232. What is the direction of the traffic?

• As the cannabis industry is struggling financially, it is possible that the facility

could be opened and then abandoned (Mountainview, Medicine Hat, etc.). Who

is going to ensure that the clean-up is done to standard? What about abandoned

wells? Ground contamination?

210

• Based on the information available to date, the proposed cannabis facility is not compatible with the surrounding area. Depending on additional information that is made available, there may be further grounds of appeal raised at the hearing.

211

List of Additional Appellants for the Notice of Appeal

Development Permit Number 2019-0667-DP Rob Weisner, 23237 Twp Rd 510, Leduc County, AB

212

1

STRATHCONA COUNTY Subdivision and Development Appeal Board

2001 Sherwood Drive Sherwood Park, AB T8A 3W7

Phone: 780-464-8140 Email: [email protected]

NOTICE OF HEARING - #3-2020

July 8, 2020

APPELLANT Norm and Janice LARSEN c/o AGENT:

Janice Agrios Kennedy Agrios LLP 1325 Manulife Place

10180 – 101 Street Edmonton, AB T5J 3S4

APPLICANT: Cam Matheson Box 1046

Onoway, AB T0E 1V0

LANDOWNER: Brian and Cheryl Maciej 51033 Range Road 232

Sherwood Park, AB T8B 1K6

RESPONDENT:

Meghan Thompson, Development Officer Planning and Development Services Strathcona County


RE: APPEAL #3-2020 PROPOSED CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITY USE – Cannabis Production Facility (743.22 m2)

Development Permit Number: 2019-0667-DP Legal Description: SW-2-51-23-4 Municipal Description: 51033 Range Road 232

The SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD (“SDAB”) will hold a hearing to

consider an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer of Strathcona County to issue a development permit with conditions for a proposed Cannabis Production Facility Use, Cannabis Production Facility on the above described property as follows:

DATE: Thursday, July 30, 2020 TIME: 9:00 a.m.

LOCATION: Strathcona County Council Chamber Main Floor, Community Centre 401 Festival Lane, Sherwood Park, Alberta

A copy of the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant is enclosed.

213

2

Please note that the Board intends to hear this appeal concurrently with SDAB Appeal #4-2020 since both appeals pertain to Development Permit 2019-0667-DP.

Should any party object to this approach, the Board will hear the objection as a preliminary matter before the Board hears the merits of either appeal.

You or any person acting on your behalf may present verbal, visual or written submissions to the SDAB at the hearing. If you require the use of any computer or audio visual equipment for your presentation, please contact the Clerk of the SDAB in advance of the hearing.

If you wish to submit visual or written material to the SDAB prior to the hearing, one copy should be delivered to the Clerk of the SDAB no later than 4:30 p.m. on July 23, 2020.

Materials delivered will be included in the hearing package prepared for the SDAB and will be distributed to the SDAB and made available to the appeal participants prior to the hearing.

If you are unable to meet the submission deadline, please bring ten (10) copies of your visual or written material to the hearing.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOUR ENTIRE SUBMISSION WILL FORM PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT:

1. any visual or written material received by the Clerk of the SDAB in advance of the hearing will form part of the public record and will be made available for public inspection pursuant to section 686(4) of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c

M-26 as amended;

2. while the Clerk of the SDAB will accept visual or written material in advance of the

hearing, the ultimate decision as to whether any or all of the materials will be considered by the SDAB remains with the SDAB; and

3. since the SDAB and appeal participants may not have an opportunity to review any materials you bring with you to the hearing prior to the hearing, the SDAB may be required to adjourn the hearing to allow the SDAB and appeal participants opportunity

to review any materials you bring with you to the hearing and, if necessary, for the appeal participants to provide responding materials.

Relevant documents and materials respecting the appeal will be available for public inspection at 1:00 p.m. on July 24, 2020 at the office of the Legislative and Legal Services Department of Strathcona County located on the third floor of the North Tower of the

Community Centre at 401 Festival Lane, Sherwood Park, Alberta.

214

3

Covid-19 and Physical Distancing:

In the interest of public health and safety, we are taking measures to ensure adequate physical distancing. For this reason, the in-person capacity of Council Chamber is

reduced. We will also have options for parties to participate by remote means should that be desired or necessary. If you intend to participate by remote means, please contact the Clerk of the SDAB no later than 4:30 p.m. on July 23, 2020 to ensure that you are prepared to

participate remotely.

If you have any questions concerning this appeal, please contact Lana Dyrland, Clerk of the SDAB, at (780) 464-8140.

Sincerely,

Lana Dyrland Clerk, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board

STRATHCONA COUNTY Enclosure

215

216

217

Reasons for Appeal


• Our appeal should be delayed until the Josephburg bylaw revision 6-2015 (to allow for a setback of 500m for any facility with a total area greater than 1000m2) hearing has been held, to ensure that this facility cannot be approved and constructed before this bylaw is approved, as the facility could then be grandfathered “as is”.

• We need information from Planning and Development as to what the applicant is doing to filter the system for smell. The only evidence we could find regarding this is one sentence within an undated letter from Cam Matheson stating, “Odour mitigation has been carefully designed through a coal filtration system and none of the flower rooms will be exhausted outside the building keeping smell contained within the facility.” Air must be released from the facility, despite what they wrote. This response is insufficient to the point that the project should not go ahead.

• Property values also have not been addressed.

• Water – The applicant hasn’t confirmed what they are doing for water. If they are using the water from Irvine Creek, they need permission from the Government of Alberta. - There is currently an investigation underway into the damming of the creek on

this property (see Incident #712993, Alberta Environment and Parks). The hearing needs to be delayed until this investigation has been completed and the situation resolved.

- Further to the above, contamination into the creek is also a concern.

• Will we receive an Environmental Mitigation Plan? What happens if there is a solid waste spill or liquid spill (fertilizer phosphates or waste water); Irvine Creek runs downhill from the facility.

• RCMP response time has not been addressed. How fast will they arrive if there is an issue?

• Traffic concerns have not been addressed. School buses will be travelling down Range Road 232. What is the direction of the traffic?

• As the cannabis industry is struggling financially, it is possible that the facility

could be opened and then abandoned (Mountainview, Medicine Hat, etc.). Who

is going to ensure that the clean-up is done to standard? What about abandoned

wells? Ground contamination?

218

• Based on the information available to date, the proposed cannabis facility is not compatible with the surrounding area. Depending on additional information that is made available, there may be further grounds of appeal raised at the hearing.

219

List of Additional Appellants for the Notice of Appeal

Development Permit Number 2019-0667-DP Rob Weisner, 23237 Twp Rd 510, Leduc County, AB

220

1

STRATHCONA COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

APPEAL #3-2020 AND APPEAL #4-2020

APPELLANT IN APPEAL #3-2020 Norm and Janice Larsen Represented by Janice Agrios, Kennedy Agrios LLP

APPELLANT IN APPEAL #4-2020 Frank and Joanna Marrzaao Represented by Justin Danzo, Main Street Law LLP

APPLICANT Cam Matheson

LANDOWNER Brian and Cheryl Maciej

RESPONDENT Strathcona County Development Officer

SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT STRATHCONA COUNTY DEVELOPER OFFICER

JULY 23, 2020 I. INTRODUCTION [1] This submission is made by the Strathcona County Development Officer (the "DO") in

response to the appeal of the DO's decision to issue a development permit for a proposed cannabis production facility (the "Facility"). The purpose of this submission is to provide information regarding the application for the development permit, and to explain the planning considerations underlying the decision and the reasons behind granting the development permit.

[2] On July 7, 2020 the DO provided documentation to the Strathcona County Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (the "SDAB"). The DO understands that this documentation will be included in the hearing package prepared for the SDAB and will be distributed to the SDAB and made available to the appeal participants prior to the hearing for Appeal #3-2020 and Appeal #4-2020. Accordingly, that documentation is referred to in this submission but not attached as an exhibit to this submission.

[3] The DO does not intend to appear at the hearing for Appeal #3-2020 and Appeal #4-2020 to make verbal submissions to the SDAB.

II. PRELIMINARY MATTER – ADJOURNMENT REQUESTS [4] With respect the correspondence from the clerk of the SDAB of July 21, 2020, the DO

does not make any submissions and does not take any position with respect to the

221

2

requests to have an adjournment of the hearing for Appeal #3-2020 and Appeal #4-2020 scheduled for July 30, 2020. No information with respect to future availability is provided in this submission since the DO does not intend to appear at the hearing for Appeal #3-2020 and Appeal #4-2020 to make verbal submissions to the SDAB.

III. APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Application [5] On September 5, 2019, the DO received the application for a development permit for the

Facility. Such application was numbered 2019-0667-DP. A copy of the application was provided to the Strathcona County Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (the "SDAB") on July 7, 2020 (document identified as '2.1 Development Permit Application').

Subject Property [6] The Facility was proposed to be located at 510 Range Road 232 (the "Subject Property").

A copy of the location map showing the location of the Subject Property was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (document identified as '3.3 Location Map').

[7] The Subject Property is 79.46 acres (32.16 hectares) and is shown outlined in red on the

copy of the air photos provided to the SDAB (document identified as '3.4 Air Photo' and '3.5 Air Photo') on July 7, 2020. As shown in such air photos, the Subject Property currently contains: a dwelling, single; a dwelling, secondary; and approximately 12 accessory buildings.

[8] Attached as Exhibit 1 to this submission are County aerial images of the Subject Property. The purpose of the inclusion of such aerial images in this submission is to provide visual information to the SDAB about the Subject Property upon which the Facility is proposed to be located pursuant to the application for the development permit.

[9] Attached as Exhibit 2 to this submission are County photographs of the Subject Property and views of adjacent properties taken on July 15 and 16, 2020. The purpose of the inclusion of such photographs in this submission is to provide visual information to the SDAB about the Subject Property upon which the Facility is proposed to be located pursuant to the application for the development permit.

Proposed Facility [10] The application for the development permit for the Facility was for construction and

operation of a 'cannabis production facility' consisting of indoor cultivation, production, and distribution of cannabis in accordance with federal legislation.

[11] A copy of the letter of intent for the Facility was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (page 5 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments'). The letter of intent details the anticipated operations of the Facility including traffic, number of employees, hours of operation, and odour mitigation strategies.

222

3

[12] A copy of the overall site plan for the Facility was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020

(page 10 of the document identified as '1.4 Development Permit Decision and Letter'). The overall site plan shows the setbacks of the proposed building for the Facility from the property lines of the Subject Property.

[13] A copy of the focused site plan for the Facility was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (page 11 of the document identified as '1.4 Development Permit Decision and letter'). The focused site plan shows the firewater pond, building, access, landscaping, fencing, and parking for the Facility on the Subject Property. As shown on the focused site plan: a. the Subject Property has 2 existing accesses and the Facility will utilize the

existing southern access;

b. existing vegetation to the north and east of the Facility will be maintained and 51 trees will be installed on the Subject Property to provide screening to the west and south boundaries of the Facility;

c. the fencing will be located around the building and area containing the parking spaces for the Facility, and will consist of a 2.44 m (8') chain link fence; and

d. 10 parking spaces will be provided on the Subject Property for the Facility.

[14] A copy of the building specifications for the Facility was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (pages 15-20 of the document identified as '1.4 Development Permit Decision and Letter'). With respect to those building specifications: a. the floor plan (A1 / page 15) shows the total area of the building as 743.22 m2,

and the rooms and areas of the rooms in the building as follows: six (6) flowering rooms – 16.5’ x 35.0’ each one (1) harvest room – 9.5’ x 24.5’ one (1) integrity room – 9.5’ x 35’-5” three (3) dry rooms – one room at 16’-5” x 8’-4”, two rooms at 16’-5” x 8’-4” one (1) packaging room – 20’-9” x 8.5’ two (2) veg. stage rooms – one room 15’-11” x 14.5’, one room 15’-11” x 12.0’ one (1) potting room – 15’-11” x 12.0’ one (1) mothers room – 4’-2” x 6’-8” one (1) clones room – 4’-2” x 6’-8” one (1) storage room – 9.5’ x 10’ one (1) security office – 11’ x 14’ one (1) washroom – one (1) staff area – 8’ x 21’-4” one (1) locker room – 7’-3” x 11’-10” one (1) holding room – 14.5’ x 9’-10” one (1) shipping & receiving room – 16’ x 17’-3”

223

4

two (2) mechanical/electrical rooms – mechanical room 9.5’ x 7.5’, electrical room 8’ x 7.5’;

b. the building elevations drawing (A2 / page 16) shows the elevations of the

building from all sides for the Facility and shows the location of exterior lighting on the building (typically above egress man doors and the loading doors);

c. the building cross-section (A3 / page 17) shows the height of the building as 7.65 m; and

d. the detailed building notes (A4a / page 19) shows that the exterior lighting for the building consists of wall mounted LED lights that are ground directed to minimize any potential light spill.

[15] Copies of the additional information provided by the applicant in response to requests for

information from the DO were provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (documents identified as pages 35-48 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments' and pages 64-73 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments'). This additional information further details the Facility and its proposed operation including: a. the operations include: (i) growing of cannabis plants (seedlings, cuttings,

vegetative, and flowering plants); (ii) harvesting, drying, and package of cannabis; (iii) mechanical heating and cooling systems, water treatment systems, and electrical systems; (iv) secure storage of cannabis products prior to commercial sale; and (v) monitoring security, business operations, and shipping of completed cannabis product;

b. traffic to the Subject Property will include: (i) daily employee traffic (passenger vehicles); (ii) weekly Canada Post pick-up of completed cannabis product; and (iii) water truck delivery (approximately once every 12-14 days);

c. operating hours will be 24 hours each day with approximately 7-8 employees

attending at the Subject Property during regular business hours and a minimal number of employees attending at the Subject Property after regular business hours;

d. water will be trucked to the Subject Property by standard water truck (3000

gallons) approximately once every 12-14 days. While the plants consume large amounts of water (750 litres per day), the water treatment system within the building will be designed to recover 75-80% of the used irrigation water (collected in a reservoir within the building in a closed loop system and treated for re-use); and

e. no street light standards are proposed to be installed on the Subject Property. The

only additional exterior lighting to be added to the Subject Property related to the

224

5

Facility will be: (i) a solar powered security light on the entry gate for the existing southern access; and (ii) the exterior lighting on the building for security purposes only.

Referral Circulations to Internal Departments and External Agencies [16] On October 4, 2019, the DO circulated information for comment related to the proposed

Facility to applicable County internal departments and external agencies. A copy of the first referral circulation to applicable County internal departments and external agencies was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (pages 2-3 and 5-19 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments').

[17] A copy of the comments received in response to the first referral circulation to applicable County internal departments and external agencies was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (pages 21-23 and 30-31 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments').

[18] On October 23, 2020 the DO requested further information from the applicant with respect to the Facility. A copy of the DO's request was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (pages 24-29 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments').

[19] On and before March 31, 2020, the applicant provided further information in response to the DO's request for information. A copy of the information provided by the applicant was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (pages 35-48 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments').

[20] On April 8, 2020, the DO again circulated information for comment related to the proposed Facility to applicable County internal departments and external agencies. A copy of the second referral circulation to applicable County internal departments and external agencies was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (page 33 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments').

[21] A copy of the comments received in response to the second referral circulation to applicable County internal departments and external agencies was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (pages 56-59 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments').

[22] On May 1, 2020, the DO requested further information from the applicant with respect to the Facility. A copy of the DO's request was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (pages 50-55 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments').

[23] On May 14, 2020, the applicant provided further information in response to the DO's request for information. A copy of the information provided by the applicant was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (pages 64-73 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments').

225

6

[24] On May 22, 2020 the DO again circulated information for comment related to the

proposed Facility to applicable County internal departments and external agencies. A copy of the third referral circulation to applicable County internal departments and external agencies was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (page 62 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments').

[25] A copy of the comments received in response to the third referral circulation to applicable County internal departments and external agencies was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (pages 75-77 of the document identified as '3.1 Development Permit 2019-0667-DP Circulations and Comments').

Comments from Adjacent Property Owners [26] On October 4, 2019, the DO wrote to property owners of land adjacent to the Subject

Property of the application for a development permit for the Facility. The DO was not required to send such letter to such property owners pursuant to the Strathcona County Land Use Bylaw (the "LUB"), but sent such letter to assist the DO with gaining an understanding of any concerns and opinions of affected persons. A copy of the letter was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (document identified as '1.1 Notification to Adjacent Property Owners of Development Permit Application').

[27] A copy of the comments received in response to the letter was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (document identified as ' 3.2 Comments from Adjacent and Affected Property Owners').

IV. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT [28] The paragraphs contained within this part IV of this submission reflect the DO's

considerations and determinations when it made the decision to approve the application for the development permit for the Facility.

Use Definition [29] Section 1.17 of the LUB provides the following definition for 'Cannabis Production

Facility':

"CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITY means a facility, comprised of one or more buildings or structures, used for the purpose of growing, producing, cultivating, testing, processing, researching, destroying, storing, packaging or shipping of cannabis by a federal government licensed commercial producer in accordance with federal legislation. This does not include the growing or processing of plants that are considered by federal legislation to be industrial hemp. (Bylaw 68-2017 – Jan 26, 2018)"

[30] Based on the application for a development permit for the Facility (specifically the

proposal to grow and produce cannabis), the DO determined that the proposed

226

7

development and activities relating to the cannabis production fit the definition for the use 'cannabis production facility' in the LUB.

Zoning District and Development Regulations [31] The Subject Property is located within the AG – Agriculture: General zoning district

pursuant to Schedule "B" of the Strathcona County Land Use Bylaw (the "LUB"). [32] The use 'cannabis production facility' is included on the list of discretionary uses for the

AG – Agriculture: General zoning district pursuant to section 9.5 of the LUB. [33] Section 9.5.6 of the LUB contains development regulations applicable to the Facility, and

the Facility complies with those regulations. Specifically: a. section 9.5.6(a) prescribes the maximum height as 10.0 m. The Facility complies

with this regulation as the highest building is proposed to be 7.65 m (as shown on the building elevations drawing); and

b. sections 9.5.6(b) through 9.5.6(f) prescribe specific setbacks from certain lots lines. The Facility complies with these regulations as the proposed building is set back 198.48 m from the north side property line, 343.45 m from the rear (east) property line, 166.7 m from the south side property line, and 132.89 m from the front (west) property line and the rural road (as shown on the focused site plan).

Discretion of the DO [34] Section 2.15.2 of the LUB provides that a discretionary use may be approved provided

the DO makes certain determinations with respect to the proposed development. The DO considered section 2.15.2 of the LUB since the Facility is a 'cannabis production facility' which is a discretionary use in the AG – Agriculture: General zoning district.

[35] Section 2.15.2(a) of the LUB provides the DO must determine that the proposed

development is consistent with an applicable statutory plan and policies adopted by the County. The Subject Property is governed by section 5.4 (Agriculture Small Holdings Policy Area) of the County's municipal development plan (County Bylaw 20-2017) (the "MDP"). The DO considered all applicable sections of the MDP, and specifically the following: a. Section 5.4 of the MDP:

"Agriculture - Support the prioritization of small scale agricultural operations by considering: 1. small and medium scale indoor agriculture where the development: a. mitigates environmental impacts; b. mitigates nuisance impacts on adjacent land uses; and c. has levels of infrastructure which meet the requirements of municipal and provincial standards and regulations."; and "Commercial - Support opportunities for livework, local food production and local food distribution by considering: 17. the development of small scale

227

8

agriculture support services, agricultural product processing and associated sales where the proposed development: a. mitigates environmental impacts; b. mitigates nuisance impacts on adjacent land uses; and c. has levels of infrastructure which meet the requirements of municipal and provincial standards and regulations."

b. the following definitions in Section 7 of the MDP:

"Agricultural Operations: Means an agricultural activity conducted on agricultural land for gain or reward or in the hope or expectation of gain or reward, and includes the cultivation of land, the raising of livestock, including diversified livestock animals within the meaning of the Livestock Industry Diversification Act and poultry, the raising of fur-bearing animals, pheasants or fish, the production of agricultural field crops, the production of fruit, vegetables, sod, trees, shrubs and other specialty horticultural crops, the production of eggs and milk, the production of honey, the operation of agricultural machinery and equipment, including irrigation pumps, the application of fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides, including application by ground and aerial spraying, for agricultural purposes, the collection, transportation, storage, application, use, transfer and disposal of manure, composting materials and compost, and the abandonment and reclamation of confined feeding operations and manure storage facilities."; "Indoor Agriculture: Means the commercial production of plants or aquatic organisms within a structure. This may include but is not limited to vertical farms, aquaculture, aquaponics or hydroponics."; "Scale, Medium: Means activities that are medium in nature and moderate in scope, extent, traffic, servicing and employees. Medium scale developments are those that may require limited upgrades to the road network."; and "Scale, Small: Means activities that are minor in nature and limited in scope, extent, traffic, servicing and employees. Small scale developments are those that do not require upgrades to the road network.".

[36] With respect to section 2.15.2(a) of the LUB, based on the above the DO determined that

the Facility is consistent with applicable statutory plans and policies, and complies with the MDP, because:

a. the proposed growing and producing of cannabis within a structure and the use of

hydroponics for the Facility is considered 'indoor agriculture' based on the definition in the MDP and is therefore supported based on the included policies for the Agriculture Small Holdings Policy Area;

b. based on the scope of the Facility (specifically considering the traffic, servicing, and employees) and based on that there are no impacts to the road network, the Facility is considered 'small scale' based on the definition in the MDP and is

228

9

therefore supported based on the included policies for the Agriculture Small Holdings Policy Area;

c. there is adequate mitigation for any environmental impacts that were identified in

the application for the development permit, the additional information provided by the applicant, the comments received in response to the referral circulations to applicable County internal departments and external agencies, and the comments received in response to the letter to adjacent property owners;

d. there is adequate mitigation for any nuisance impacts on adjacent land uses that were identified in the application for the development permit, the additional information provided by the applicant, the comments received in response to the referral circulations to applicable County internal departments and external agencies, and the comments received in response to the letter to adjacent property owners; and

e. the comments received in response to the referral circulations to applicable County internal departments and external agencies did not identify any lack of compliance with requirements of municipal and provincial standards and regulations.

Additionally, while not a statutory plan, on June 23, 2015 County Council approved the Agriculture Master Plan which outlines the future of agriculture in the County. The DO determined that the Facility is consistent with the County's Agriculture Master Plan.

[37] Section 2.15.2(b) of the LUB provides the proposed development must be compatible with the general purpose of the zoning district. Section 9.5.1 of the LUB sets out the purpose for the AG – Agriculture: General zoning district and provides:

"To foster agriculture and conserve agricultural land outside of the Urban Service Area by providing for a compatible range of agricultural uses with regulations that maintain large parcel sizes."

Based on the detailed information regarding the agriculture operations of the Facility provided as part of the application for the development permit and provided as additional information by the applicant, and the addition of the 'cannabis production facility' use to the list of discretionary uses for the AG – Agriculture: General zoning district in the LUB by way of bylaw passed by County Council in 2018, the DO determined that the Facility is compatible with the general purpose of the zoning district.

[38] Section 2.15.2(c) of the LUB provides the DO must determine that the proposed development will not cause traffic impacts (in terms of daily and peak hour trip generation) and parking or public transit impacts unsuitable for the area. The DO determined that the Facility:

229

10

a. will not cause traffic impacts since the proposed development will not generate a significant increase in traffic that is uncharacteristic of the area of the Subject Property. At the high end, the Facility will generate approximately 28 vehicle trips per day (conservatively estimated based on 8 employees during regular business hours (16 trips), 4 employees during non-regular business hours (8 trips), weekly Canada Post pick-up (2 trips), water truck delivery once every 12-14 days (2 trips)). The current County traffic count (2019) for Range Road 232 near the intersection of Township Road 510 is approximately 1350 vehicles per day. The County's Sustainable Rural Roads Master Plan classifies Range Road 232 as a Class I roadway which has a capacity of more than 1000 vehicles per day. The respective minimal additional traffic generated by the Facility will not impact the operational characteristics of Range Road 232 and is not a significant increase based on current usage of the roadway. Additionally, the comments received in response to the referral circulations to applicable County internal departments and external agencies did not identify any related concerns. Both the Sustainable Rural Roads Master Plan and the traffic count are available at www.strathcona.ca;

b. will not cause parking impacts unsuitable for the area since there are only 10 parking spaces and they are located on the Subject Property; and

c. will not cause public transit impacts unsuitable for the area since there is not

public transit in the area of the Subject Property.

[39] Section 2.15.2(d) of the LUB provides the DO must determine that the proposed development is serviceable with a road and adequate capacity for drainage, water, sewage and other utilities. Based on the comments received in response to the referral circulations to applicable County internal departments and external agencies, the DO determined that the necessary services are accommodated on the Subject Property and do not impact the location of the proposed building for the Facility.

[40] Section 2.15.2(e) of the LUB provides the DO must determine that the proposed development is compatible with surrounding areas in terms of land use, scale of development, and potential effects on the stability or rehabilitation of the area. To determine compatibility with the surrounding area, the DO considered that: a. the majority of agricultural properties have residential land uses located on them,

and dwellings located in proximity to the Subject Property are located on land that is within the AG – Agriculture: General zoning district. This is characteristic of the AG – Agriculture: General zoning district given certain residential uses (including 'dwelling, single') are listed as permitted uses within the AG – Agriculture: General zoning district and the purpose of such zoning district includes fostering agriculture;

b. the types of land use and activities on adjacent properties and the surrounding

area, which consists of agricultural support service (animal feed business), agricultural crops, dwellings, and accessory buildings. Attached as Exhibit 3 to

230

11

this submission are County photographs of examples of the types and scales of developments adjacent to the Subject Property;

c. the AG – Agriculture: General zoning district allows for a broad scale of developments since there is no development regulation contained in section 9.5 of the LUB that provides for a maximum site coverage or floor area ratio; and

d. there are no identified potential effects on the stability or rehabilitation of the area

related to the Facility. Based on the above, the DO determined that the Facility is compatible with the surrounding areas.

[41] Section 2.15.2(f) of the LUB provides the DO must determine that the proposed development is appropriate having regard for geotechnical considerations such as water table location, potential for flooding and slope stability. Attached to this submission as Exhibit 4 is a County image showing the approximate distance from the existing vegetation to the environmental feature (Irvine Creek). As shown in Exhibit 4 the Facility is set back at least 80.0 m from the top of bank of Irvine Creek, and so it complies with the regulations in section 3.6.3 (Environmental Features) of the LUB. Based on such setback, the operations on the Subject Property would not impact Irvine Creek. Based on the foregoing and that the comments received in response to the referral circulations to applicable County internal departments and external agencies did not identify any related concerns, the DO determined that the Facility is appropriate.

[42] Section 2.15.2(g) of the LUB provides the DO must determine that the proposed development will not cause a negative effect on community services and facilities such as schools, parks, fire protection, and health. The Facility is not located in proximity to any community facilities, parks, or schools. Based on the foregoing and that the comments received in response to the referral circulations to applicable County internal departments and external agencies did not identify any negative impacts related to fire protection or health, the DO determined that the Facility will not cause a negative effect on community services and facilities.

[43] Section 2.15.2(h) of the LUB provides that the DO must determine that any potential adverse effect can be adequately mitigated. Section 2.15.5 of the LUB provides that the DO may consider, but is not bound by, any known concerns and opinions of of affected persons. The comments received in response to the letter to adjacent property owners related included concerns and opinions about the Facility with respect to scale, lighting, security, odour, environment (water and waste), and parking and traffic. The DO considered and determined the following: a. any potential adverse effect with respect to the scale of the Facility is adequately

mitigated due to: (i) the existing vegetation and topography of the Subject

231

12

Property; and (ii) the additional landscaping proposed to help buffer adjacent properties along the west and south boundaries of the Facility. To ensure such mitigation, it is a condition of the development permit that landscape buffers consisting of 51 coniferous trees (minimum 2.5 m height) must be installed on the Subject Property);

b. any potential adverse effect with respect to lighting on the Subject Property is adequately mitigated due to: (i) the specifications and placement of the outdoor lighting for the Facility; and (ii) the requirement that the Facility comply with section 3.1.1 of the LUB and County Policy SER-009-038 Light Efficient Community. To ensure such mitigation, it is a condition of the development permit that the outdoor lighting be installed in conformance with the building plans for the Facility, and that any additional lighting or alternations will be submitted to the DO for review and acceptance prior to installation. Further, it is also a condition of the development permit that any indoor growing lights used after dusk shall not be visible from the exterior;

c. security for this industry is federally regulated and is not a municipal land use issue. Regardless, any potential adverse effect with respect to security related to the Facility is adequately mitigated due to: (i) the fencing that will be located around the building and area containing the parking spaces for the Facility, which allows entry through a designated fob system which interphases into the central security and camera monitoring system for the Facility; (ii) that there is no sale of completed cannabis product on the Subject Property; and (iii) that access to the completed cannabis product on the Subject Property is only granted for those persons with the requisite security clearance;

d. any potential adverse effect with respect to odour related to the Facility is adequately mitigated due to: (i) compliance with the federal regulation with respect to odour for this industry; (ii) the coal filtration system designed for odour mitigation for the Facility and that none of the flower rooms contained within the building will be exhausted outside of the building thus keeping the odour contained within the building; and (iii) any room in the building where cannabis is present will not have exterior venting thus keeping the odour contained within the building;

e. any potential adverse effect with respect to the environment (specifically related to water and waste) related to the Facility is adequately mitigated due to: (i) that water will be trucked to the Subject Property approximately once every 12-14 days, which will ensure the ground water table for surrounding areas is not impacted; (ii) the water treatment system within the building will be designed to recycle the water within the building (recover 75-80% of the used irrigation water through collection in a reservoir within the building in a closed loop system and

232

13

treated for re-use); (iii) water and waste will be contained and disposed of by proper means; (iv) compliance with the federal regulation of the use of pesticides and herbicides (prohibited); and (v) the disposal of plant matter in compliance with the provincial regulation and guidelines for such waste; and

f. any potential adverse effect with respect to parking and traffic related to the

Facility is adequately mitigated due to: (i) except for emergencies, all activities of the Facility related to shipping and administration are proposed to take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and there no vehicle traffic related to Facility between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; and (ii) the maximum of 10 parking spaces for the Facility on the Subject Property, which provides sufficient parking spaces to accommodate any employee shift change overlap and flexibility for incidental parking needs.

To ensure such mitigation and help regulate the amount of traffic generated by the development, it is a condition of the development permit that there be a maximum of 10 parking spaces on the Subject Property for the Facility.

Based on the above, the DO determined that any potential adverse effect of Facility is adequately mitigated.

[44] Section 2.15.2(i) of the LUB provides the DO must determine that the proposed development is consistent with municipal land, right-of-way or easement requirements. The DO determine that the Facility is consistent based on the lack of any issues being identified related to inconsistency with municipal land, right-of-way, or easement requirements in the application for the development permit, the additional information provided by the applicant, the comments received in response to the referral circulations to applicable County internal departments and external agencies, and the comments received in response to the letter to adjacent property owners.

[45] Section 2.15.2(j) of the LUB provides that the DO must determine that the proposed development does not create a nuisance. Based on that the application for the development permit, the additional information provided by the applicant, the comments received in response to the referral circulations to applicable County internal departments and external agencies, and the comments received in response to the letter to adjacent property owners, the DO determined that the Facility would not create a nuisance since it would not cause adverse effects to the amenities of the neighbourhood or interfere with the normal enjoyment of adjacent properties or buildings in a manner that it uncharacteristic within the AG – Agricultural General zoning district.

V. ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT [46] Based on the above considerations and determinations, and subject to the conditions set

out in the development permit, the DO approved the Facility as a 'cannabis production

233

14

facility' as a discretionary use in the AG – Agriculture: General zoning district in accordance with the LUB.

[47] On June 12, 2020, the DO issued the development permit for the Facility and gave notice

in accordance with the LUB. A copy of the development permit and decision and the notification was provided to the SDAB on July 7, 2020 (documents identified as '1.4 Development Permit Decision and Letter', '1.2 Notification to Adjacent Property Owners of Development Permit Approval', and '1.3 Notification of Development Permit Approval Adjacent Municipality').

234

15

EXHIBIT 1

A. North Aerial View (County aerial image dated May 19, 2018)

B. East Aerial View (County aerial image dated May 19, 2018)

235

16

C. South Aerial View (County aerial image dated May 19, 2018)

D. West Aerial View (County aerial image dated July 20, 2007)

236

17

EXHIBIT 2

A. View of Subject Property looking East*

*NOTE: Red arrow indicates approximate located of proposed building B. View of Subject Property looking North-East*

*NOTE: Red arrow indicates approximate located of proposed building

237

18

C. Proposed Access looking East

D. Street View looking South

238

19

E. Street View looking North

F. View of Adjacent Property to the North of the Subject Property looking East

239

20

G. View of Adjacent Property to the West of the Subject Property looking West

240

21

EXHIBIT 3

A. Example of Scale in the Surrounding Area (County photograph dated 2019)

B. Example of Scale Adjacent (South) to the Subject Property – Dwelling & Accessory

Buildings – 23154 TWP RD 510 (County photograph dated 2019)

241

22

C. Example of Scale Adjacent (North) to the Subject Property – Dwellings, Garden Suite & Accessory Buildings – 51045 RR 232 & 51041 RR 232 (County photograph dated 2019)

D. Example of Scale Adjacent (East) to the Subject Property – Agricultural Support

Service (Animal Feed Business) – 51024 RR 231 (County photograph dated 2019)

242

23

E. Example of Scale Adjacent (West) to the Subject Property - Agricultural Crops (County photograph dated 2019)

243

24

EXHIBIT 4

244

245

246

From: Robert WeisnerTo: SDABCc: Robert WeisnerSubject: FW: SDAB Appeal 3-2020 and SDAB Appeal 4-2020 - Adjournment Request (Response Required)Date: July-17-20 1:13:54 PMAttachments: Letter to Lana Dyrland.pdf

FW_ Hearing Inquires.pdfImportance: High

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Sandy I request that the Marrazzo appeal, appeal # 4-2020 and the associated Larsen appeal # 3-2020 tobe adjourned to October 22, 2020.The postponement of the appeal date will enable the affected parties (myself included) to reviewthe County’s file and the development authority’s report to prepare our submissions. I do askthat all relative documentation/files related to this appeal be made available to us by StrathconaCounty/SDAB on the original date of July 23, 2020 (which was 7 days in advance of the originalappeal date). Please advise us when the package is compiled to be sent out as I will be sure tocome and pick it up in person. Regards R.J. (Rob) WeisnerBranch Manager, Edmonton ClusterDirect Dial # 780-989-7628 Try our new 60,000 square foot processing center in Nisku3855 - 13 StNisku, ABT9E 1C6

From: SDAB <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:47 AMTo: SDAB <[email protected]>Subject: SDAB Appeal 3-2020 and SDAB Appeal 4-2020 - Adjournment Request (Response Required) Importance: High Hello Everyone,You are receiving this communication because you are a party to Subdivision andDevelopment Appeal Board (SDAB) Appeal 3-2020 and/or SDAB Appeal 4-2020. The SDAB has received two adjournment requests from appellants in the abovenoted appeals. The requests are attached for your reference. At this time, the SDAB is asking all parties involved in this matter for their response to

247

the adjournment request. If consent on the adjournment request is received, theappeals could be scheduled for any of the following regular SDAB hearing dates:

August 20, 2020September 10, 2020October 22, 2020

Please provide your response in writing by 9am on Monday, July 20, 2020. In the event that there is no consent to the adjournment request, the request for anadjournment will be addressed as a preliminary matter on the originally scheduledhearing date of July 30, 2020. Sincerely,Sandy Sandy BugejaCLERK, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board

Strathcona County

2001 Sherwood Drive


Phone: 780-400-2007

[email protected]

This communication is intended for the recipient to whom it is addressed, and may containconfidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact the sender immediately if youare not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take actionrelying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted ordestroyed.

248

Eins Development Consulting Ltd. 404, 9808-103 Street NW

Edmonton, AB T5K 2G4

www.eins.ca

July 18, 2020

Sandy Bugeja CLERK, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Strathcona County 2001 Sherwood Drive Sherwood Park, AB, T8A 3W7

RE: SDAB Appeal 3-2020 and SDAB Appeal 4-2020 - Adjournment Request

Dear Sandy:

On behalf of Brian and Cheryl Maciej, the registered owners of the approved DP subject to the above-noted appeals, I am writing this letter to inform the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board that we do not agree to adjourn the meeting scheduled for July 30, 2020 to a later date.

Both adjournment requests that were submitted come from nearby landowners that have already been in contact with the registered landowners regarding this proposed facility for some time. One of the Appellant’s was even taken on a tour of another Cannabis Production Facility by members of the project team to help address concerns raised. The Respondents have been working on this proposal for two years, and the Appellant’s have been aware of (and in some cases involved in) the project long enough to develop a case against it. This is also apparent in the formal letters of appeal – in which both Appellants populated similar two-page letters containing their arguments. This does not indicate a lack of time to consider a case against the approved use.

Furthermore, with Covid-19 related restrictions still in place, there is no reason to delay the hearing – most people are at home and unable to travel. The argument that the hearing falls in the middle of summer and people are unable to attend is irrelevant given our current situation.

Lastly, it is the Respondents desire to commence construction on the facility this year. Postponing the hearing will result in construction delays that potentially push completion of the facility into 2021. The facility requires approval through Health Canada and AGLC, and construction timing is a crucial element in securing all necessary approvals.

To conclude, the Respondents have no desire to postpone the hearing, and believe the rationale for doing so has no merit. We look forward to the Board hearing on July 30th, as originally scheduled, to conclude what has been a very long Development Permit process.

Regards,

Ryan Eidick, MCP Director, Eins Consulting 780.298.4179 [email protected]

249

From: Susan and Bert WortTo: SDABSubject: Cannabis Production Facility 51033 RR 232 SW 2-51-23-W4 Strathcona CountyDate: July 11, 2020 8:42:43 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.My Wife and I live at 51046 RR 231 Strathcona County, which backs onto the land the abovefacility is proposed to be built on. We specifically moved to the country in 2001 to enjoyclean air, clean water, peace and quiet and wildlife whilst riding our horses in the Summer andcross country skiing across our land in the Winter. When the Planning Department ofStrathcona County informed us by letter that they had accepted an application to build thisfacility we were extremely upset, and were surprised to hear that only 3 of our neighbors werealso informed of this. There are hundreds of residences in this area that we feel will beimpacted by this facility that we felt should have been informed. We wrote a letter to thePlanning Department advising of our concerns which we were advised may not have anyaffect on their decision regarding approval which it obviously did not. None of our concernswere ever addressed to us personally. We are concerned about odor, taxing and contaminationof our wells and land, increased traffic and crime, disturbance of wildlife with security lightingand decrease in house and land value as are the hundreds of other property owners in the areawho have signed a Petition opposing this facility. We are also concerned as the County hashad problems with the property owner of the facility site regarding an illegal dam heconstructed on Irving Creek that runs through his property causing flooding of many farmingproperties upstream, including ours. He is not someone who follows direction fromauthorities. We feel this industry should not be deemed agricultural and facilities should bebuilt in industrial areas where they will not interfere with the quality of life of people livingnearby, just as it would not be welcomed in residential areas in a city. Please stop thisunwanted and highly unwelcome facility.

Albert and Susan Wortcc [email protected]

250

From: Melissa Thiessen <[email protected]> Sent: July-16-20 9:52 AMTo: SDAB <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]: Norm Larsen <[email protected]>; Curtis Thiessen <[email protected]>Subject: Proposed Cannabis Facility

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.To Whom it May Concern: I would like to add my name to the list of those against the proposed industrial cannabisfacility at the corner of RR 232 & TWP 510. While I’m not a neighbouring landowner directly affected by this proposal, my family and I doreside in Leduc County, not far from this site. I am standing in support of those residing in thearea immediately affected and I am voicing my concerns as a county resident who may also beimpacted by this facility. Cannabis facilities don’t belong in agricultural/residential areas andI certainly wouldn’t want to see one in my neighbourhood. Firstly, this would affect property values. Homeowners work tirelessly to maintain theirproperties. Should they decide to sell, property value shouldn’t be adversely affected by acannabis facility in the area. Not only would it drive property values down, it would makeproperties more difficult to sell, should a landowner choose (or be required) to do so. Secondly, and maybe more importantly, this is a quality of life issue. Cannabis facilities,promise as they may, have not been able to contain the smell of their product. Just ask anyonedriving on the QE II near the airport on any given day, or even shopping in Leduc when thewinds are right. This is not something residents should have to get used to. It’s somethingthat should be contained to industrial areas. Residents should be able to enjoy their homes andyards without the appalling smell of cannabis in the air. People choose county living largelyfor the fresh, clean air! Lastly are concerns about traffic, noise and the building site itself. These may bring additionaldifficulties to the area, affecting property values and quality of life. I ask that you take landowner concerns into account; those adjacent, and those in thesurrounding area. Many families and individuals would be negatively impacted by theapproval of such a facility. Best regards, Melissa [email protected] 780.512.7975 (Cell)

251

From: SDABTo: Melissa Thiessen; SDAB; [email protected]; [email protected]: Norm Larsen; Curtis ThiessenSubject: RE: Proposed Cannabis FacilityDate: July 16, 2020 2:16:54 PM

Hello Melissa, Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, we cannot “add” you to the list of appellantsfor an appeal that has been filed, but you certainly can attend the SDAB appeal andmake a request to be heard as an affected person or you can provide a writtensubmission for the Board’s consideration. Generally speaking, an “affected person” is a neighboring property owner or groupthat claims to be impacted by the appeal. Ultimately, the SDAB determines affectedpersons on a case-by-case basis. For example, an affected person could besomeone who feels the enjoyment, use or value of their property may be affected bythe proposed development. The person is responsible to show they are affected bythe development. If you like, I can treat your email below as your written submission and provide it tothe SDAB as a submission from a person claiming to be affected (again it is the boardwho decides who is affected). Please note that there has been a request from some of the parties in the appeal tohave the hearing (July 30) on this matter postponed to a different date. I won’t be ableto advise you on whether or not the postponement is granted until later next week.You can check back in with our office to see if the hearing is postponed or check theSDAB webpage. If you could let me know how you wish to proceed (i.e. do you want to attend thehearing in person and speak as an affected person, do you want to make a writtensubmission, or do you want to do both things), I would be happy to help you. Sincerely, Sandy Sandy BugejaCLERK, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board

Strathcona County

2001 Sherwood Drive


Phone: 780-400-2007

[email protected]

www.strathcona.ca

252

From: Susan ClarkTo: SDABCc: [email protected]: Cannabis Production Facility Permit Approval ConcernsDate: July 17, 2020 11:58:20 AM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Good afternoon,

I am writing to express our concerns with the cannabis production facility development approvalnorth of Township Road 510 on Range Road 232. My family owns property south of TownshipRoad 510 on Range Road 233. Our concerns are:- future expansion- groundwater usage and effects on surrounding wells for residential properties and livestockoperations- runoff and resulting contamination of surface water and groundwater - smelllight- increased traffic - deterioration of roadsdecrease in property values - increased crime

This type of development does not belong in an agricultural/country residential area! It is muchmore appropriate for an industrial area.

We are in full support of the appeals submitted by Strathcona County and Leduc County residents.

Best regards,Susan and Greg Clark

Susan [email protected]

253

From: Dara TalsmaTo: SDABCc: SDABSubject: Cannibis facility appealDate: July 18, 2020 1:26:18 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.To whom it concerns,

This email is to let you know that our family feels distressed regarding the permit that hasbeen granted to allow the cannibis facility to develop north of township 510 which boardersthe Leduc county. As you are well aware of all the issues our community is feeling regardingthis I want to add to it in total agreement. I also ask that you look at how this has createdissues in other parts of the country. Residents who are now trying to force closures onfacilities because of the negative impact it is having. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4862596 This is just one example. If youdig in there are many more.

That you would even consider placing residence and land of another county in jeopardy seemsalmost worse. The long term effects are not known but there is enough evidence to say theyprobably are not good. The area where this facility has been permitted is not heavilypopulated with Strathcona residence but south of 510 it is more populated with residence ofanother county. Your decision should not only be regarding the people in your jurisdiction buton the other side of its boarders.

I’m not sure if I have all my facts straight regarding how this has made it so far but if ourcounty gave the okay, that is not okay, and this information should hit the stands to let votersknow how irresponsible our municipal government has been. I also believe that the outragewe have seen here in our community will not let up but will become worse if this goesthrough.

Please do not allow this to go further. Think of how bad it could become if you do. Classaction lawsuits because of health issues. News stories that say how residence fought againstthis and yet the county employees made this decision without regard for residence and theirfamilies in the neighbouring community. The list could go on. Decisions for the greater goodis your responsibility, decisions to help protect people’s land and health is your responsibility,making the necessary changes to bylaws is your responsibility. All of these decisions that wenot only trust in your hands but we also pay taxes to enable you to better protect our rights.

We lived in Sherwood park for 14yrs before moving to our acreage. While in Sherwood parkwe built multiple homes using builders and developers in Summer Wood and Lakeland area. At one point our house was built too close to the next house and it did not meet Albertabuilding code. We trusted that your department would back us up and protect our investmentand you did. You made sure that the builder made things right for us. That is the same actionwe are asking for now.

I was taught that official emails should not hold emotions only facts but the fact is that if thispermit goes through it could severely impact so many families and that is cause for emotion.At this point it is our community outside of your jurisdiction begging you to stop this and onlyallow the permit of development to happen in industrial zoning.

254

Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider how our community feels.

Dara Talsma

80 50506 range road 233Leduc county

255

From: Carlene WolenTo: SDABCc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Linton DelaineySubject: Cannabis Production Facility ConcernsDate: July 20, 2020 12:24:55 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.I am writing today to express our concerns regarding the cannabis production facility that hasbeen arbitrarily approved despite the concerns of not only the residents of Strathcona Countybut of also the hundreds of homeowners just across in Leduc County.

It seems you have failed to take into account that we moved to this country residential areabecause it was just that, country residential. Not an industrial area where a facility like thisshould be placed. There are so many reasons why this facility should not be erected in thiscommunity including decreased property values, air quality (smell), light pollution,deterioration of roads, increased traffic, ground water usage and contamination, increasedcrime and that is to name a few.

If you think this is OK, then why don't you put in your backyard nice and close to SherwoodPark but of course that would not be an option because it doesn't belong there either. Itbelongs in an industrial park because it's a production facility not a farming facility period.

As a community, we will fight this until the end with whatever it takes...class action lawsuits,media, whatever it takes. You may have thought you would be up against the small amount oflandowners adjacent to this facility and you could quietly slide this through but this affectsentire communities and we will all stand together to fight this and protect our own.

I think it's time you actually listen to not only your own community members but to those ofus to the south who are also directly affected by this irresponsible decision.

Carlene and Mike Wolen10-50507 Range Road 233Leduc County

256

From: rgscrivenTo: SDABCc: [email protected]: Proposed Cannabis facilityDate: July 20, 2020 7:23:55 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.To be clear I am opposed of this proposal. Feels like Strathcona and Leduc are hiding behindpolicy (which need to be amended) and have no consideration for the long time residents wholive in the proximity of this grow op.

Nisku is empty, build what you want there.

In 2019 I sent a couple emails (seen below) with great concern to county offices, and I stillhave all of the same concerns. I have not had any of the below concerns addressed How canany permit be granted, without addressing concern and silence when requesting details.I know Strathcona feels they have met its obligations, but the residents of Leduc certainly donot. Why couldn't the Development permit be shared. Of the details provided by NAICOAL, thereis still many unanswered questions.

From: Raymond Scriven <[email protected]>Date: Wed., Dec. 11, 2019, 9:09 a.m.Subject: NAICOAL- industrial cannabis concernsTo: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>

Good day Mayor Doblanko, Mr. Richards, and Mrs. Thompson.

I’m emailing with great concern over the proposed development of the cannabis productionfacility to be located at 51033 RR232 Strathcona county.

The first I had heard of this was Dec 8th 2019, as a concerned Strathcona county residentstopped by, and hand me a brochure.

Being this proposed facility has major impacts on our homestead I am disappointed, andbeyond frustrated that we (Leduc County) were not properly consulted along with adjacent(Strathcona county) home owners on Oct 4th 2019.

Furthermore, limiting land owners with 10 business days to submit concerns in writing, isinsufficient time to provide meaningful opportunity for a home owners to research, andquestion the impacts imposed on the community, and investment.

257

Please remember that home owners pick these areas because of the absence of industry. Thereis plenty of industrial lands to build cannabis operations on, go there. You will still make yourtax revenue

A grow operation is not ‘agricultural’ as marketed. The addition of buildings, processingequipment, major power and water consumption, security lights, security fencing, heavyvehicle traffic, constant 24/7 activity, with guards, is not farming, its industrial. It does notbelong adjacent to residential homes.

This facility is 2.2 Km (as the crow flies) north of our home. If the EIA airport cannabisfacility is any indication of the air quality to come, it will certainly drive us, and many othersout of the area, with a reduced resale value on our home.

Additionally township 510 and RR232 are already dangerously narrow roads, and have beenin substandard condition for years. Additional trucking will create increased safety hazardsand road deterioration.

Where is the water consumption coming from? We have a residential well, and it couldcertainly be impacted by the 20,000-30,000 L/day this 8000 sq ft facility will draw.

If water is being trucked in, expect further deterioration of the roads, especially when roadbans are imposed as more trucking volumes will be required to meet the daily water demands.

--------- Forwarded message ---------From: Ray Scriven <[email protected]>Date: Fri., Dec. 13, 2019, 4:01 p.m.Subject: Development Permit Application 2019-0667-DP. Strathcona county industrialcannabis concernsTo: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>Cc: Shama Scriven <[email protected]>

Afternoon, I attended the Looma hall community gathering last night, where about 100 of us all shared thesame concern as I listed below, and additional impacts I did not consider.

258

Two common frustrations that I heard1. frustration amongst the community is the lack of communication from both the County’s.

Notifying only abutting properties (Land Use Bylaw 6-2015) is absurd when this manyimpacts are present.

2. This is not a agricultural operation, Its industrial, its invasive, and it belongs in industriallocation. It doesn’t matter what the mitigation is, this cannabis operation does not belongbeside homes.

As I’m in Leduc County I’ll speak to it.Few things I learned last night I find unbelievable, and irresponsible

Leduc planning department thought this proposed cannabis operation was not advisable, yetCouncil proceeded/sided with a yes vote with Strathcona County. Why have a planningdepartment then?Leduc county thought it was insignificant to discuss this with any of the Leduc county homeowners. I would guess they don’t live anywhere near the proposed location, so they don’tcare. Fact is, due to the local housing proximity, this cannabis operation would impact Leduccounty home owners more than Strathcona county residents. Leduc indicated it didn’t have the funding or means to send out notifications. Funny howNAICOAL informed hundreds of people for about $550.RCMP feedback on increased crime, security issues is, they see no issues what so ever. That isa ridiculous assessment. A mom and pop grow op with little to know RCMP presence in thearea is not going to attract bad people. Come on get real.

Dec 11th I emailed the Leduc Mayor, and County planning offices with ZERO response. Really.Nothing. Meghan of Strathcona did reply with limited details, and an update to the approvalprocess.The County knew we would be having an information gathering last night, yet could not find itimportant to attend.

The lack of Leduc’s analysis, consideration, or value of community opinion is very worrisome. Whatother cannabis operations will be presented in the future, what land use bylaws are being changedor considered? These actions (or lack of) demonstrate the low standards Leduc county is setting forinvestors. If a cannabis operation can set up in residential area with no consultation, and little toshow for planning/mitigation strategies, they will come in droves. The application submitted by the developer does not address all the concerns raised, frankly I don’tcare if they do address majority of them. Aurora Cannabis has spent millions on VOC managementand air quality improvements, and the odor is still a major problem for them. I can’t see itreasonable to predict how a startup operation with much smaller capital can do better than a worldclass facility at managing the VOCs. The proposed location is not the place for industry, and once industry is allowed, it will continue topush its way in, and community out. I would hope that Leduc can find this important enough to address the community, and work toprotect our quality of life and investments, vs stepping aside.

259

Ray

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

260

From: Malissa HuilleryTo: SDABSubject: Grow op North side of TWP 510Date: July 21, 2020 1:50:22 PM


Good afternoon, We are writing to express our concerns with the proposed cannabis development on the north side of Township Road 510 and RangeRoad 232 in Strathcona County. We own property on Range Road 233 in Kenick Estates and are very near to the development site. We strongly believe that this type of development does not belong on agricultural lands, and are disappointed that Strathcona Countyconsiders this development agricultural. This should be an industrial development on industrial lands.

This is a ridiculous investment for the country to encourage. Many large growers and production facilities are going bankrupt andlaying off numerous workers. There is no need/demand for more cannabis facilities, especially on lands that we require foragricultural purposes. As Leduc County residents, we are very familiar with the terrible smell/pollution that is produced by Aurora from their productionfacility near the airport. We are distressed that we may need to deal with the same pollution so near the acreage where we areraising our family. There are more than 400 households (see map) on the sections of land surrounding this cannabis facility. Our concerns shouldmatter, especially when this development has the potential to affect us in so many ways.

Our other concerns with the facility being built are as follows:Groundwater usage and effects on surrounding wells for agricultural and household purposesRunoff and contamination of surface water and groundwater (there is a creek on this property)Future expansion, which has been indicated in the approval. After this facility is built an application for a 4 bay condominiumdevelopment will be submitted.SmellLight pollutionIncreased road trafficDeterioration of roadsDecrease in property valuesIncreased crime

We are adding our names to the appeal being submitted by adjoining property owners in Strathcona County and Leduc County, and areoffering our full support to opposing this development.

Sincerely,Malissa and Quentin Huillery

261

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

262

From: Jocelyn KlarenbachTo: SDABCc: [email protected]: Cannabis Production Facility APPEALDate: July 22, 2020 9:43:08 AM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.To whom it may concern,

We were very surprised to hear of the approval for a proposed cannabis production facilityjust over a mile north of where we live. The location of the proposed facility is on agriculturalland north of Township Road 510 on Range Road 232.

We strongly believe these types of facilities belong in industrial areas as they are not typicalfarming operations.

There are jurisdictions fighting to have similar facilities shutdown after they are in operationand obviously that is proving difficult. It is easy to learn from these situations though as theconcerns prove that municipalities should not permit these developments in agriculturalzones.

Some of the biggest issues are poor air quality, odour complaints, waste management,groundwater usage, runoff and contamination, light pollution, increased traffic, deteriorationof roads, and policing. Even if there is an effort to address these issues, there will be anegative effect on the property values of surrounding land and communities. There are alsolong term damages that have not come to light yet.

We strongly support the appeals being brought forward. The County of Strathcona and Countyof Leduc should be looking out for the best interests of their residents, and this should be aneasy decision.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are any questions or if we can be of any assistanceat all.

Thank you,

Jocelyn and Jeremy Klarenbach180 - 50507 Range Road 233, Leduc County780-910-0308

263

264

265

Reasons for Appeal


Myself, and a dense population of home/land owners within a 2-mile radius are positioned in Leduc County which is referred to as a Transitional Country Residential Zone. Stated below are a few of the numerous concerns with property owners that are logistically wise to the cannabis facility. • We need a significant amount more information from Planning and Development as to what

the applicant is doing to filter the smell. It is not a matter of question whether air will be released from this facility. Air must be released from this facility. Environmental experts in a CTV News stated that, ““For every kilogram of cannabis that’s produced, we generate about 4.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide,” Antweiler…”(CTVNEWS.ca Staff, 2018) How will the applicant be able to grow this type of plant without smell when Aurora itself cannot achieve this a year later. The excerpt below was taken from CBC, from one of the many responses to people who have been complaining about the smell from the cannabis facility,

“Aurora Cannabis, the company that operates the facility, is going to great lengths to

mitigate any pot odour wafting over to the airport, as well as local hotels and outlet stores. Since the completion of the facility in January, the company has introduced two new exhaust units for

deodorization, added 800 HVAC filters throughout processing areas and added 1,360 pocket filters throughout the grow bays.” (Germano, 2019)

Even with the additions of the fans, the smell is very present in the wide area surrounding the cannabis facility. There have been insufficient responses as to how the applicant is going to ensure this smell does not happen. I assume there will be a cease order in place when the oder from this plant is identified. What type of protocols will you put in place to effectuate this?

• Decreased property values have not been addressed. Who will compensate this loss? • Usage of water. • As of now, the applicant has not confirmed their plans for water usage, or where they

are going to obtain the water from. If they are going to use the water from the Irvine Creek, they are going to need permission from the Government of Alberta. If they are going to use well-water, will this affect the well water flow rate for other residents?

• How much water does this type of facility need to operate? • Currently, there is an investigation underway into the damming of the creek on this

property (please see Incident #712993, Alberta Environment and Parks). Until this investigation is completed and concluded, the hearing must be delayed in order to receive an accurate answer.

266

• The Irvine Creek is an issue itself. This creek runs downhill from the potential facility through many acres of land, including farmland. How will we be sure that this water will not become contaminated? Will we be receiving an Environmental Mitigation Plan? What happens if there is a solid waste spill or liquid spill? Anything including fertilizer phosphates or waste water seeping into the surrounding area.

• RCMP response time has not been addressed. How quickly will RCMP arrive?

• Will crime rate increase in the area with such a facility being built?

• Traffic concerns have not been addressed. Will there be more traffic because of this facility? What will the direction of the traffic be, is it going to affect and/or interfere with the school buses that travel down RR 232 and pick up many children? Large vehicles that will be traveling down this road will cause damage to the current road, who will pay for these repairs? It this new facility responsible for these repairs?

• Based on the little information that has been available, the proposed cannabis facility does not coincide with the surrounding area.

267

References

• "From electricity to water, pot production is far from green: experts." CTV News, CTV News,

13 Oct. 2018, www.ctvnews.ca/canada/from-electricity-to-water-pot-production-is-far-

from-green-experts-1.4133157.

• Germano, Daniela. "Pot plant deals with cannabis stink at Edmonton airport." CBC, The

Canadian Press, 24 Apr. 2019, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-airport-

pot-stink-aurora-cannabis-1.5108667.

268

List of Additional Appellants for the Notice of Appellants for the Notice of Appeal

Development Permit Number 2019-0667-DP Nicole Bonnett, Hooke Rd NW, Edmonton, AB T5A 4A5 BSc Urban and Regional planning MA Human Geography PhD Candidate Planning

269

From: Nicole BonnettTo: SDABSubject: Revision to Appeal 4-2020Date: July-21-20 1:18:58 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Good afternoon,

My name is Nicole Bonnett and I have been listed on appeal #4-2020. Initially, I was asked toanswer some questions the Marrazzo's had regarding basic concepts in land use planning andpolicy, development regulations, area structure plans, etc. I am fit to answer these questionsgiven my BSc, MA, and Ph.D. (in progress) in Planning. However, my name was listed on theappeal prior to myself informing them that I cannot consult on the case, or be affiliated withthe case/appeal given that I am still a Ph.D. student associated with the University of Alberta.

I would like to ask that my name be removed from this appeal. I can confirm that I am notconsulting on the case outside of providing basic definitions (e.g. what does a land use bylawdo?).

Thank you,

Nicole BonnettBSc Planning, MA, Ph.D. Planning CandidateSchool of Urban and Regional PlanningEarth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept.University of Alberta

270

271

1

STRATHCONA COUNTY Subdivision and Development Appeal Board


Phone: 780-464-8140 Email: [email protected]

NOTICE OF HEARING - #4-2020

July 8, 2020

APPELLANT Frank and Joanna MARRZAAO c/o AGENT:

Justin Danzo Main Street Law LLP Box 3407, 115 Main Street

Spruce Groove, AB T7X 3A7 APPLICANT:

Cam Matheson Box 1046 Onoway, AB T0E 1V0

LANDOWNER: Brian and Cheryl Maciej

51033 Range Road 232 Sherwood Park, AB T8B 1K6

RESPONDENT: Meghan Thompson, Development Officer Planning and Development Services

Strathcona County 2001 Sherwood Drive Sherwood Park, AB T8A 3W7

RE: APPEAL #4-2020

PROPOSED CANNABIS PRODUCTION FACILITY USE – Cannabis Production Facility (743.22 m2)

Development Permit Number: 2019-0667-DP

Legal Description: SW-2-51-23-4 Municipal Description: 51033 Range Road 232

The SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD (“SDAB”) will hold a hearing to

consider an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer of Strathcona County to issue a development permit with conditions for a proposed Cannabis Production Facility Use, Cannabis Production Facility on the above described property as follows:

DATE: Thursday, July 30, 2020 TIME: 9:00 a.m.

LOCATION: Strathcona County Council Chamber Main Floor, Community Centre 401 Festival Lane, Sherwood Park, Alberta

A copy of the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant is enclosed.

272

2

Please note that the Board intends to hear this appeal concurrently with SDAB Appeal #3-2020 since both appeals pertain to Development Permit 2019-0667-

DP. Should any party object to this approach, the Board will hear the objection as a preliminary matter before the Board hears the merits of either appeal.

You or any person acting on your behalf may present verbal, visual or written submissions to the SDAB at the hearing. If you require the use of any computer or audio visual equipment for your presentation, please contact the Clerk of the SDAB in advance of the

hearing. If you wish to submit visual or written material to the SDAB prior to the hearing, one copy

should be delivered to the Clerk of the SDAB no later than 4:30 p.m. on July 23, 2020. Materials delivered will be included in the hearing package prepared for the SDAB and will be distributed to the SDAB and made available to the appeal participants prior to the

hearing. If you are unable to meet the submission deadline, please bring ten (10) copies of your

visual or written material to the hearing. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOUR ENTIRE SUBMISSION WILL FORM PART OF THE PUBLIC

RECORD.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT:

1. any visual or written material received by the Clerk of the SDAB in advance of the

hearing will form part of the public record and will be made available for public inspection pursuant to section 686(4) of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 as amended;

2. while the Clerk of the SDAB will accept visual or written material in advance of the

hearing, the ultimate decision as to whether any or all of the materials will be

considered by the SDAB remains with the SDAB; and

3. since the SDAB and appeal participants may not have an opportunity to review any

materials you bring with you to the hearing prior to the hearing, the SDAB may be required to adjourn the hearing to allow the SDAB and appeal participants opportunity to review any materials you bring with you to the hearing and, if

necessary, for the appeal participants to provide responding materials. Relevant documents and materials respecting the appeal will be available for public

inspection at 1:00 p.m. on July 24, 2020 at the office of the Legislative and Legal Services Department of Strathcona County located on the third floor of the North Tower of the Community Centre at 401 Festival Lane, Sherwood Park, Alberta.

273

3

Covid-19 and Physical Distancing:

In the interest of public health and safety, we are taking measures to ensure adequate physical distancing. For this reason, the in-person capacity of Council Chamber is

reduced. We will also have options for parties to participate by remote means should that be desired or necessary. If you intend to participate by remote means, please contact the Clerk of the SDAB no later than 4:30 p.m. on July 23, 2020 to ensure that you are

prepared to participate remotely.

If you have any questions concerning this appeal, please contact Lana Dyrland, Clerk of the SDAB, at (780) 464-8140.

Sincerely,

Lana Dyrland Clerk, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board

STRATHCONA COUNTY Enclosure

274

275

276

Reasons for Appeal


Myself, and a dense population of home/land owners within a 2-mile radius are positioned in Leduc County which is referred to as a Transitional Country Residential Zone. Stated below are a few of the numerous concerns with property owners that are logistically wise to the cannabis facility. • We need a significant amount more information from Planning and Development as to what

the applicant is doing to filter the smell. It is not a matter of question whether air will be released from this facility. Air must be released from this facility. Environmental experts in a CTV News stated that, ““For every kilogram of cannabis that’s produced, we generate about 4.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide,” Antweiler…”(CTVNEWS.ca Staff, 2018) How will the applicant be able to grow this type of plant without smell when Aurora itself cannot achieve this a year later. The excerpt below was taken from CBC, from one of the many responses to people who have been complaining about the smell from the cannabis facility,

“Aurora Cannabis, the company that operates the facility, is going to great lengths to

mitigate any pot odour wafting over to the airport, as well as local hotels and outlet stores. Since the completion of the facility in January, the company has introduced two new exhaust units for

deodorization, added 800 HVAC filters throughout processing areas and added 1,360 pocket filters throughout the grow bays.” (Germano, 2019)

Even with the additions of the fans, the smell is very present in the wide area surrounding the cannabis facility. There have been insufficient responses as to how the applicant is going to ensure this smell does not happen. I assume there will be a cease order in place when the oder from this plant is identified. What type of protocols will you put in place to effectuate this?

• Decreased property values have not been addressed. Who will compensate this loss? • Usage of water. • As of now, the applicant has not confirmed their plans for water usage, or where they

are going to obtain the water from. If they are going to use the water from the Irvine Creek, they are going to need permission from the Government of Alberta. If they are going to use well-water, will this affect the well water flow rate for other residents?

• How much water does this type of facility need to operate? • Currently, there is an investigation underway into the damming of the creek on this

property (please see Incident #712993, Alberta Environment and Parks). Until this investigation is completed and concluded, the hearing must be delayed in order to receive an accurate answer.

277

• The Irvine Creek is an issue itself. This creek runs downhill from the potential facility through many acres of land, including farmland. How will we be sure that this water will not become contaminated? Will we be receiving an Environmental Mitigation Plan? What happens if there is a solid waste spill or liquid spill? Anything including fertilizer phosphates or waste water seeping into the surrounding area.

• RCMP response time has not been addressed. How quickly will RCMP arrive?

• Will crime rate increase in the area with such a facility being built?

• Traffic concerns have not been addressed. Will there be more traffic because of this facility? What will the direction of the traffic be, is it going to affect and/or interfere with the school buses that travel down RR 232 and pick up many children? Large vehicles that will be traveling down this road will cause damage to the current road, who will pay for these repairs? It this new facility responsible for these repairs?

• Based on the little information that has been available, the proposed cannabis facility does not coincide with the surrounding area.

278

References

• "From electricity to water, pot production is far from green: experts." CTV News, CTV News,

13 Oct. 2018, www.ctvnews.ca/canada/from-electricity-to-water-pot-production-is-far-

from-green-experts-1.4133157.

• Germano, Daniela. "Pot plant deals with cannabis stink at Edmonton airport." CBC, The

Canadian Press, 24 Apr. 2019, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-airport-

pot-stink-aurora-cannabis-1.5108667.

279

List of Additional Appellants for the Notice of Appellants for the Notice of Appeal

Development Permit Number 2019-0667-DP Nicole Bonnett, Hooke Rd NW, Edmonton, AB T5A 4A5 BSc Urban and Regional planning MA Human Geography PhD Candidate Planning

280

From: LaTo: Lana DyrlandSubject: Re: Hearing InquiresDate: July-14-20 1:45:32 PMAttachments: PastedGraphic-4.png

cor.pngPastedGraphic-8.pngISN.pngECA.png

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Good afternoon Lana,

I am sorry I missed your call last night. I tried calling you back early this morning but there was no answer and I am on a tight timeframe. As this is a complex case involving two different counties with varying regulations, more time is needed to build a robust caseand I would like to ask for an extension of a minimum of 30 days for the Appeal Hearing scheduled for July 30, 2020.

Please give me a phone call at your earliest convenience to further discuss this.

Thank you in advance.

Laura

On Jul 13, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Lana Dyrland <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Laura, Yes, I will give you a call shortly. I have a few fires that have sprung up.As soon as I am able I will give you a call. Thank you,Lana

From: La <[email protected]> Sent: July 13, 2020 1:06 PMTo: Lana Dyrland <[email protected]>Subject: Hearing Inquires

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Good afternoon Lana, I just have some questions regarding the Appeal Hearing for July 30, I was just wondering if you could give me a call at 780-691-0913. Thank you in advance. Regards,

Laura Marrazzo

<image001.png>

Frank’s Sandblasting & Painting Plant 1 – 2303 4 Street, Nisku AB T9E 7W7Plant 2 – 3906 81 Avenue, Leduc AB T9E 0C3Plant 3 – 1304 7 Street, Nisku AB T9E 7P9P: 780-955-2633 | F: 780-955-8061 | C: 780-691-0913www.franksandblasting.com

<image002.jpg> <image003.png> <image004.png><image005.png> <image006.png>

This communication is intended for the recipient to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged information.

281

Please contact the sender immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relyingon it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.

Regards,

Laura Marrazzo


282

From: LaTo: SDABSubject: SDAB Appeal 3-2020 and SDAB Appeal 4-2020 - Adjournment Request (Response Required)Date: July-18-20 11:36:09 AMAttachments: PastedGraphic-4.png

cor.pngPastedGraphic-8.pngISN.pngECA.png

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization.Good morning Sandy,

We would like to request October 22, 2002 as well. Given the change in appeal dates, wewould like to ask if we will still be receiving the appeal documents on July 23 as specified inprevious emails.

Thank you,

Regards,

Laura Marrazzo


283

Documents

STRATHCONA COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT … · STRATHCONA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE. If you have concerns about the proposed facility, we urge you to contact. MEGHAN THOMPSON