Council support cannabis interim control bylaw

Clearview council has approved an Interim Control Bylaw to restrict the development of cannabis production, processing and growing facilities within the municipality for a period of one year while a study is undertaken.
The bylaw, which will exempt existing licensed cannabis operations, was tabled by Ward 2 Councillor Doug McKechnie on Oct. 5 and passed unanimously.
McKechnie said rapid growth of the cannabis industry has created a “wild west” of regulations.
“Other municipalities are now putting the brakes on cannabis production approvals,” he said. “Clearview Township finds itself in a perfect storm. Cannabis production is a new land use and is not addressed by the township’s zoning regulations or Official Plan provisions.”
Township staff is tasked with reviewing how the municipality should classify cannabis, which is currently allowed as an agricultural crop without much process or approvals. McKechnie also wants staff to investigate imposing setbacks and performance standards.
“We also need to consider that existing cannabis production facilities are changing the character of the rural agricultural area. Residents have compared cannabis production facilities with industrial uses, in terms of their appearance and operation,” said McKechnie. “I would argue the regulation of cannabis facilities is now considered a best practice expected of an Ontario municipality.”
At the top of the meeting, residents Chris Skelton and Kevin Elwood spoke in support of the bylaw, on behalf of 115 families. They cite odour, noise, light, traffic and security requirements as factors that change the character of the rural agricultural area.
They say, because cannabis is permitted in agricultural zones, which cover a majority of the township, anyone who owns property with this zoning and who has a licence from Health Canada may set up a commercial cannabis growing and processing operation.
“Clearview is a perfect landing pad for any cannabis entrepreneur, licensed or otherwise, to set up shop… Our current wide open status is worrisome for residents,” said Skelton.
“It appears our municipality is the only level of government that is well positioned to protect the interests of residents while allowing for the growth of the cannabis industry. Thus, on behalf of the residents of Clearview, not only those of us living on or adjacent to agricultural lands but all across the township, I ask you to carefully consider the compelling information our group is presenting, and to recognize that we need time to prepare for the growth of the cannabis industry in the township.”
Elwood said Clearview council opted out of allowing cannabis retail in the township but took no further action to regulate its production.
“It is resulting in Clearview Township being an attractant for the cannabis industry…” said Elwood. “We are attracting producers, responsible producers and irresponsible producers. The experience of the township so far is that it’s do-as-you-will with regulatory environment, with good and bad experiences in the past several years. Licensed and non-licensed operations appearing with no knowledge to the township staff, enforcement agencies and area residents, and worst out of all of this is rumours of incoming operations. This current state of Clearview Township making a name for itself as a willing host has alerted us to the entire township and current producers’ vulnerability. This current open status is resulting in conflict between all stakeholders.”
The rumours that led to the community uprising turned out to be unfounded, say the landowners.
Residents were worried about the fate of a Concession 6 property, which was put up on the market by Bob Giffen.
“I have no idea how these guys ever got the idea that there was going to be a mega cannabis operation going onto that property,” said Giffen.
He said there were some inquiries from potential buyers looking for places with three-phase power, for the purposes of growing cannabis, but Giffen said that anyone interested in doing anything other than farming on the property might as well forget it, because the neighbours will never agree. He said the neighbours, who aren’t farmers, have in the past complained about the noise and odour associated with farming.
“I said, for sure, they’ll have nothing but grief if anybody comes in here thinking of putting in anything to do with growing cannabis. So, I certainly discouraged it,” said Giffen.
He said there was never a proposal for a large operation. The inquiry was about converting the barn to a small growth facility.
Giffen said he has been very frustrated by the ordeal and was upset that no one talked to him to get the truth.
There is a firm deal in on the property and the buyers are also interested in setting the record straight.
“We would like to bring your attention to the incorrect information reported about the intended use of the property on Sideroad 21/22,” wrote Sylvia Held and Kevin Mayne in a letter to council. “We have entered in a firm purchase agreement with the seller and have no intention of constructing a large cannabis operation on the property.”
They said they were approached by the parties initially interested in the property with a proposal to sublet the barn for a cannabis operation, but they declined.