BY JOHN CHICK Special to the VOICE
The Town of Pelham’s public meeting regarding cannabis regulations brought out a standing-room-only crowd to the community centre last Tuesday, with Fire Chief Bob Lymburner estimating attendance of 280 in the main meeting room, and another 60 attendees watching by video link in a spillover room on the other side of the building.
Anticipation built as the 5:30 start time drew near. A pair of video technicians—attired in customary black—made final adjustments to their gear in preparation to go live on YouTube.
The meeting opened with Town staff outlining their draft proposals for new bylaws around cannabis production. It included potential bylaws unique to zoning, fencing, fortification, nuisance and odor.
Inside those specific drafts were proposals such as:
●Designating cannabis production as a separate use by no longer zoning it agriculturally.
●Requiring producers install odor and light mitigation systems.
●Mandating any outdoor cannabis production require a zoning bylaw amendment.
●Instituting a waste management plan.
●Prohibiting “excessive” security at cannabis facilities such as electric fencing and bulletproof glass.
Staff also included a draft proposal which would allow the Town to fine producers that discharge too much odour and light —something that could extend to industries beyond cannabis.
But despite a pragmatic sampling of potential regulations, the majority of attendees came ready to poke holes in them and urge the Town to hold producers accountable.
As expected, protestations were made loud and clear.
Most striking was Grade 8 student and Fenwick resident Harrison Chatford, who first received a round of applause for referring to his school as “E.W. Farr-slash-Wellington Heights.”
The youngster then proceeded to describe how he and classmates were pulled inside due to a strong cannabis odor earlier this year.
“One day last school year, around February, we got called in because of the odour from the plant, which is decently far away,” Chatford said. “We need to have some rules and guidelines about that.”
Chatford’s school is two kilometres from the nearest active cannabis facility, CannTrust. In other words, if the odour is noticeable from Wellington Heights, it is noticeable from nearly anywhere in town, depending on wind patterns.
Given that odour concerns remain a major issue for residents, is there even a realistic solution?
Mayor Marvin Junkin told the Voice after the meeting the Town is focusing on requiring that producers employ odour-mitigating technology.
“I have said from the get-go that the technology exists to eliminate the odours emitting from these facilities, and now they will be forced to adopt it,” Junkin said.
Other members of the public to speak at the meeting on the matter of smell went into even darker territory.
“Do we know what is a health-related level of this odour?” Patrick Hempscob asked aloud. “We don’t know what this odour is doing to us, so why are we allowing it?”
Another speaker, who only identified herself as Jillian from Welland, said that because her email queries to Health Canada about the “effects of odour and light” have gone unanswered, she has concluded there must be some negative health effect.
To date, no scientific study has linked the odour of non-burning cannabis to any health effects. In a report last year, Public Health Ontario only summarized that “detection of unpleasant odors may affect an individual’s sense of well-being by triggering a physiological response.”
Still, when children can’t play outside because someone has determined an odour is too strong, there’s a problem. That played into the discussion around frontages and setbacks of cannabis facilities. The Town’s draft proposal calls for a setback of 150 meters. That’s not enough, according to several speakers.
“We need bigger setbacks,” said Pelham resident Rick McCombs.
However, when it comes to the aforementioned odour, the size of the setbacks may be a moot point.
“It’s not a matter of 150 meters, or 300 meters, or a kilometer,” Cannabis Control Committee member Jim Jeffs said. “It’s more than that.”
Lawyers from local cannabis producers CannTrust and Redecan also made appearances at the meeting.
Tom Richardson, a St. Catharines-based attorney for CannTrust, issued a vague threat.
“Municipal bylaws cannot conflict with federal legislation or regulations,” he said, citing the federal government’s full legalization of cannabis products last year. “We urge the Town to be cautious.”
Richardson particularly took issue with the idea of removing cannabis production from an agricultural classification — undoubtedly a major tax-based reason why licensed producers chose municipalities such as Pelham as growing locations in the first place.
“These additional requirements, which are not imposed on other agricultural uses, are arguably discriminatory,” Richardson said, to a chorus of groans from the crowd.
“Under provincial policy, which this Town must follow, cannabis is an agricultural use … the [proposed] bylaw is vague, and is therefore unenforceable.”
When asked later by a resident, Pelham CAO David Cribbs was unable to directly answer what the tax rate is that CannTrust pays, but said the Government of Ontario is in the process of re-evaluating taxation on cannabis facilities.
“The province is looking at a different way of taxing cannabis production facilities,” Cribbs said. “We should be hearing from them in due course. We’ve been told straight to our faces … that they’re going to try and create a specific rate for these properties.”
Hamilton-based attorney John Hammond, lawyer for cannabis producers Redecan, whose facilities are on Foss Road, followed closely after Richardson, but appeared to win the crowd over early with a facetious remark.
“I’m the second-most unpopular man in the room right now,” Hammond said to laughter, before making Redecan’s case in a somewhat more tactful manner.
“Our client is committed to compliance with [the new] regulations,” he said. “We have reviewed the bylaws and we think they are a step in the right direction, but they are far from perfect. There should be clarity in terms as to jurisdiction, certainty as to meaning and consistency to application.”
Humour and tact aside, North Pelham resident Paul Crookham wasn’t sold by Hammond’s presentation.
“The applause the second lawyer got was, in my opinion, very concerning, because any time you have a lawyer for the opposition putting their arm around you and telling you they’re helping, you’re already getting screwed,” Crookham said during his turn at the microphone.
Another resident, Mike Hall, took issue with both Town staff over the timing of the public meeting, as well as CannTrust’s lawyer.
“The Town staff does not have our best interest in mind. To [have a meeting] at 5:30 p.m. [on a weekday], you probably got rid of half the people that would come to this meeting,” he said, despite the strong attendance. He then lambasted Richardson for a presentation he made to Town Council last year.
“Tom Richardson from CannTrust stood before council and told you, ‘Cannabis from CannTrust does not emit a skunk odor,’” Hall said, to uproarious laughter.
“YouTube it...October 15, 2018, at 12 minutes and 42 seconds, he said it creates a fruity aroma … you need to use our taxes to fight this. Any lawyer worth his money will find an argument to counter what you’re saying. I’m challenging you and I’m begging you, don’t be afraid. We are behind you.”
Despite Director of Community Planning and Development Barb Wiens and Cannabis Control Committee chair Tim Nohara both stressing during the meeting that municipal prohibition of cannabis production is not a legal option in the wake of federal legalization, some residents called for just that.
“Forget the bylaw,” resident Bernie Law said, noting the upcoming federal election—even though the federal Conservatives pledged in June to keep cannabis legal. “Go to Ottawa and change the government, and rewrite cannabis laws in Canada.”
Resident David Horton asserted CannTrust should be charged criminally for growing unlicensed cannabis, and wondered aloud what would happen if a resident was caught growing more than the four pot plants individuals are allowed to cultivate under federal regulations.
“David went against Goliath and he won!” Erica Church exclaimed to staff and councilors, casting the Town as underdogs against pot producers.
Nohara closed the meeting by thanking residents.
“Your input is invaluable, he said. “We cannot explicitly prohibit cannabis … but there is a balance between the rights of any party in our town, and you the resident. Your proper enjoyment of your property is good planning justification. The concerns you are raising are heard loud and clear.”
Junkin concurred, calling the meeting a rousing success.
“The fact that approximately 400 residents turned out for the meeting shows how deeply the residents feel about the effects this industry has had on their community,” the Mayor said. “I thought it was very productive, the residents made it clear to council that they expect us to bring forward bylaws that outline in no uncertain terms, how the community wants these companies to operate.”
Cannabis Control Committee member Bill Heska added that the situation is brand new and evolving everywhere, and said other municipalities from as far away as western Canada have reached out to find out what Pelham is doing. “We’re on a learning curve and it’s going to take time,” he said.
Input from the public meeting will be included in the committee’s report at a special meeting of Council on September 23. That meeting has been moved to the same room at the community centre in order to handle an expected large crowd. It remains possible the Town could vote to extend its Interim Control Bylaw on cannabis production at that time.
