County looking to loosen cannabis production regulations

By Sean Feagan, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

Wheatland County is considering easing its regulations surrounding cannabis production and cultivation.

During the Wheatland County council regular meeting on July 4, a bylaw to amend the county’s land use bylaws to ease restrictions on producing and cultivating cannabis passed first reading. The bylaw proposes several changes affecting where facilities can be sited in the county and how they can be operated.

The changes would open more of Wheatland County to cannabis operations. Currently, facilities are permitted in the West Highway 1 Area Structure Plan Area, located to the west of Strathmore, in industrial general zoned parcels only.

But some prospective producers have eyed other areas of the county, explained county Reeve Amber Link, in a statement. “When cannabis first became legal our staff received several inquiries regarding building cannabis production facilities on agriculturally-zoned parcels,” she said. “Though the initial excitement has died down, staff is still looking for ways to support agricultural diversification.”

While the changes might make Wheatland County more attractive to prospective cannabis operations, the county is not actively working to attract growers or cultivators, said Link. Rather, the changes will make the county’s land use bylaw closer match the regulations and experiences of other municipalities.

“No other municipalities that we are aware of restrict their cannabis production facilities to a geographical area, and other than concerns raised during the development permit application circulation period, few complaints have been received after the facilities are built,” said Link. “They attribute this to the rural location of the facilities.”

The bylaw would introduce a new discretionary land use, “cannabis cultivation,” defined as land, buildings or structures for licensed growing of cannabis. This is a more narrow use than that of the existing “cannabis production facility” use, for which producing, processing, labelling and packaging, testing, researching, destroying, storing and transporting is also permitted, besides growing.

“From the outside, the infrastructure (of a production versus cultivation facility) may not look different,” said Link. “Cultivation operations aren’t necessarily smaller in area, but they are restricted with the types of uses allowed within the development itself.”

The proposed changes would allow production as a permitted use in all intensive industrial land use districts and would allow cultivation as a permitted use in industrial general districts, and as a discretionary use in agricultural general districts and rural business districts.

Cultivation would be excluded as a use within agricultural operations, agricultural processing, greenhouse and nursery land uses. Under the bylaws and federal regulations, outdoor cultivation is permitted, although this type of operation is rare, if not non-existent, in the province at this time.

The bylaw would also ease setbacks for cannabis operations. The setback distances that production and cultivation facilities could be sited from schools (or other institutions involving childcare) and houses would decrease from 500 metres to 150 metres and 100 metres, respectively. These setbacks would be measured from the boundary of the proposed development area, rather than the property line.

The requirement for all activities at cannabis production facilities to occur within fully enclosed, standalone buildings would also be removed under the bylaw amendment. This includes loading, receiving and shipping of cannabis or other materials. It would also remove the requirement that all garbage containers and waste materials are contained within an enclosed building. Under the bylaw, cultivation operations would not require a waste management or landscaping plan, as it is considered an agricultural use. 

The proposed changes remove a requirement in the county’s bylaws for air filtration systems. However, federal regulations require air filtration to prevent the escape of odours associated with cannabis plant materials to the outdoors, so the county’s requirement was seen as redundant, explained Link. Facilities would thus still require systems to prevent the escape of odours.

Furthermore, the land use bylaw prohibits “off-site nuisances,” including odours, contraventions of which are enforceable by the county. If a complaint was made, the county would ensure the complainant is a resident within the area, typically within a mile of the development, said Link.

“A person who drove by and then made the complaint wouldn’t be considered an affected party,” she said. They would need to explain how the odour is affecting their day-to-day life, and potentially need to defend their views in court.

The federal government provides “micro” licenses that restrict operations to 200 metres square. But the county has decided to treat all operations the same in terms of requirements, which includes proving the facility can be serviced with water and wastewater, and potentially a biophysical impact assessment or traffic impact assessment, depending on its proposed location, said Link.

A public hearing to discuss the changes is proposed for Sept. 1, 2020, to be held in the Wheatland County council chambers.