Hello fellow residents of Pelham. As you know, I came before council on June 7 to assist our new council in moving the “odour ball over the finish line” by establishing the Redecan Community Liaison Committee (CLC) agreed to by the Pelham and Redecan and approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) last summer in Minutes of Settlement (MOS) that accompanied our OLT-approved cannabis Official Plan Amendment (c-OPA) and Zoning Bylaw Amendment (c-ZBA).
The Redecan CLC, which is fully defined in the MOS, is designed to improve the adverse impacts that residents surrounding Redecan continue to experience from Redecan’s odour emissions.
I have heard from residents this summer on their continued loss of enjoyment and how our bylaw department’s use of their Nasal Ranger in front of Redecan does not work. Fortunately, the Redecan CLC does not involve the use of a Nasal Ranger but rather substantiated complaints and adverse impacts as defined under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act.
Complaints are intended to be substantiated by an odour professional hired by Pelham, not by a Nasal Ranger used by bylaw. And since Redecan has agreed to work with the Town and residents by implementing additional odour controls when more than five substantiated complaints are received from residents within 1 km of Redecan in 90 days, Pelham showed additional good faith by conditionally granting Redecan two valuable gifts: (i) permanent site-specific zoning for its cannabis facility (Redecan only has legal non-conforming status, which disappears if they cease operations, just like it now has for CannTrust/Phoena); and (ii) pre-approval of a new warehouse and offices.
Pelham staff urged council to delay moving forward with the CLC until council received a report from staff, which occurred at a council meeting on September 6, 2023; I attended as a delegation in the capacity as the Chair of the former Cannabis Control Committee (CCC). Regrettably, I am unable to tell you whether we made any progress at that council meeting due to a lack of transparency and erroneous and confusing information in the staff report on how the CLC will function, and, in particular, what constitutes a substantiated odour complaint.
The staff report confirmed that the cost for the Town’s odour professional, Mr. Phil Girard, P.Eng, for the purposes of the CLC is modest and affordable. Mr. Girard supported the CCC and our external legal counsel Aird & Berlis in the development of our c-OPA, c-ZBA, Odorous Industries Nuisance Bylaw (OINBL) and the MOS. This is good news for taxpayers.
The staff report also confirmed that Redecan has not complied with the MOS. I recommended to council that we instruct Aird & Berlis to take the legal steps afforded by the OLT, given Redecan’s noncompliance. I also addressed the errors in the staff report concerning substantiated complaints and the need to follow the terms of reference detailed in the MOS.
Regarding lack of transparency, I was told by staff in advance of the September 6 council meeting I would be invited into the closed session as has been the practice throughout my four years as Chair of the CCC; yet during the meeting, staff informed me that I was not welcome. Mr. Girard was not given the opportunity to respond to the staff report. Aird & Berlis were not present for the closed session. And after council returned from the closed session, they approved a resolution not described in the staff report that directed staff to meet with Redecan and report back to council by the fourth quarter.
It seems as though we have called a timeout at the one-yard line of the championship game, but we have not been told what the timeout is for. So, while we seem to have avoided a fumble, it’s not clear when our external counsel Aird & Berlis will be instructed to address Redecan’s noncompliance with the MOS.
Stay tuned.
I encourage you to watch the relevant parts of the council meeting using the two links below:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwyXXIxrdWM
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6YKDtuqWMc
Tim J. Nohara
Fenwick
