Marihuana Production

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY

COMMITTEE REPORTDATE OF REPORT: January 30, 2014

DATE & TYPE OF MEETING: February 12, 2014 Rural Affairs Committee

AUTHOR: Megan Squires, Planner

SUBJECT: MARIHUANA PRODUCTION FACILITIESFILE: 4800-20-MMG

:SE€TtO?:E?,:SN|Ct|TNfeSy%lK?l^..

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the status of federal regulations for medicalmarihuana, and to recommend amendments to Zoning Bylaws 1675, Area 'G' 1335 (RLUB), as well as the

Comprehensive Land Use Bylaws 2315, 2316, 2317 for Areas A, B, and C to establish Medical MarihuanaProduction as a permitted use in Agriculture land use zones; and to recommend adoption of specific

land use regulations in these zones to help mitigate potential adverse impacts to adjacent property

owners and the community in relation to marihuana production.

-:sEp:tiN^I:,i^KiiiyN»MNiKsls:i?-

In 2011 Health Canada introduced proposed changes to federal policy for the production of medicalmarihuana. The Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) were published in June 2013 andare now in force. Fora period of time, until April 2014 they will be in force along with the MarihuanaMedical Access Program (MMAP). The MMAP will then end on March 31st, 2014 at which time only theMMPRwill be in force.

Under the new regulations Health Canada is no longer issuing "personal use production licenses" or

"designated person production licenses". Instead, producers are licenced to possess, sell, provide, ship,

deliver, transport, destroy, produce, export and/or import marihuana for medical purposes at

centralized commercial indoor production facilities. These facilities can vary in size and scale, and they

are required under the new regulations to incorporate a range of security measures including visual

monitoring and recording, intrusion detection systems, access restrictions.

According to Health Canada, as of December 2012 there were 13,362 individuals in BC who were

authorized to possess dried marihuana. This is up from 4,928 individuals 12 months earlier in January

2013. If the upward trend continues, local governments can expect a high degree of interest in

commercial marihuana production throughout the province.

The Status of Marihuana Production Facilities

At present, there are 5 licensed production facilities in Canada -2 in Saskatchewan, and 3 in Ontario.

Planningstaffareawareof2 production facilities in the RDCK, both of which are licensed to operateunder the existing MMAP. At the time of writing, it is unknown whether these facilities will pursuelicensing under the new MMPR.

Since January 2013 the Planning Department has issued 15 letters of concurrence, and responded to

numerous telephone inquires from individuals interested in pursuing licencing under the new

regulations.

Marihuana Production Facilities

February 12,2014

! Updates Since the March 8 , 2013 Board ReportI

In a report to the Board, dated March 21 Staff recommended that the following steps be taken withregard to medical marihuana production in the RDCK:

1. Undertake a review of the policy and land use implications of locating Marihuana ProductionFacilities (MPFs) on Agricultural lands; and

2. List MPFs as a "permitted use" in Agricultural zones and establish a Development Permit Area

under subsection 919.1(l)(c ) "Protection of Farming" of the Local Government Act.

The Board resolved (Resolution #191/13) that the following staff recommendations be referred to theI April, 2013 Board meeting:

1. Await approval of the Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR). The federalgovernment is expected to make a decision on the regulations in spring 2013. In the meantime,

maintain the status quo which assumes that Medicinal Marijuana Grow Operations (MMGOs)are regulated by the federal government and individual producers are not required to notify theRDCK of their location or status; and

2. Direct Planning Staff to review the land use and policy implications of locating MMGOs on landsdesignated Agriculture. It is recommended that Planning Staff undertake a detailed spatialanalysis of the lands within this zone to determine their location and extent, as well as any

potential land use implications that may result from changes to existing policy and zoning.Planning Staff will compile their findings in a report to the Board.

Prior to the March 21 report, the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) provided verbal confirmation thatMPFs are a recognized "farm use". In October 2013 (updated in January 2014) the Commission

confirmed its stance in an information bulletin to local governments that clarified that licensed MPFs are

consistent with the definition of "farm use" under the ALCAct and are therefore permitted in the ALR

(Attachment A).

As such, and in accordance with RDCK Board Resolution #287/13 (adopted in May 2013) marihuanaproduction facilities are permitted in all of the Agriculture zones in Bylaw 1675 and in the Agriculturezones in the Comprehensive Land Use Bylaws for Areas A, B, and C. They are also, by default permitted

throughout the un-zoned areas 'E' and 'H'. To date, they have not been addressed under the Area 'D'

Ainsworth Rural Land Use Bylaw 1189 because there are no suitably zoned Agriculture properties.

As of November 2013, MPFs also became a permitted use in Area 'G' when the Board passed Amending

Bylaw 2368 to amend Electoral Area G Rural Land Use Bylaw No. 1335 to include 'farm use' as defined

by the ALC regulations to the list of permitted uses in the Agriculture (AG) zone.

i

In a report to the Board, dated April 30 , 2013 Staff provided an analysis of Agricultural, Industrial, andCommercial zones that are subject to RDCK Zoning Bylaw 1675 and Area G Rural Land Use Bylaw, and

that could be deemed appropriate for permitting licensed marihuana production facilities. The report

concluded that the RDCK would need to conduct a more thorough spatial analysis of the supply ofIndustrial and Commercial zoned lands before proceeding with regulations for MPFs in these zones.

Furthermore, it provided the following assessment of Industrial and Commercial zoned land in the

W:\Departments\Plandept\PROJECTS - 5050\4800-20-MMG Medical Marihuana Grow Operations\Reports\2014-02-

12-MPF_RAC_Report.docx


February 12, 2014

Regional District:

"In general, most commercial and industrially designated properties are already in use for such purposes

and were developed prior to land use regulations stipulating appropriate parcel sizes. Commercial and

industrial lands are primarily oriented along highway corridors and/or in close proximity to municipaland/or residential development. If the RDCK was to consider allowing MMGO's on commercial and

industrial zoned properties, consideration of location and parcel size with reference to adjacent property

uses and the ability to accommodate required setbacks, security measures and waste product disposal

may warrant consideration of Development Permit guidelines to mitigate potential conflict with adjacent

property uses."

Next Steps

Staff continue to investigate the policy and land use implications of MPFs on Agriculture lands. Since lastMarch they have sought further clarification from Health Canada on the new MMPR and have continuedto correspond with other jurisdictions and government agencies on how they are proceeding to regulate

MPFs. Staff have also spoken with a marihuana producer in BC who is currently applying for licensingthrough Health Canada.

Respecting the issues and potential impacts discussed in the March 21 report, staff have investigatedwhether to proceed with regulations, and how best to go about it. An analysis of each of the issues

and/or impacts is provided below.

• Parcel size;

• Site coverage;

• Setbacks;

• Parking and loading;

• Size and scale of the production facility;

• Accessory uses;

® Environmental impacts; and

*> Landscaping and buffering.

Parcel Size

Health Canada has confirmed that there is no size requirement for production facilities under the

MMPR, but that all facilities, regardless of their size, must fulfill the requirements of the regulations,including all security measures. Furthermore, the level of security required increases in proportion to

the amount of marihuana produced and stored on a site.

Under the RDCK's current land use regulations the minimum parcel sizes in Agriculture zones for

properties within the ALR range from 2 to 60 hectares. For agricultural properties that are not in the

ALR, the parcels are all 2 hectares. The standard requirement for site coverage is 35%.

I Table 1 outlines the parcel sizes and site coverage requirements for properties in the Agriculture zones,

as specified in the applicable zoning bylaws. It also projects the maximum building footprint and thesetback potential, if a building were constructed to the maximum 35% site coverage.

Table 1 - Potential Setbacks Given Current Requirements for Minimum Parcel Size and Site Coverage

W:\Departments\PIandept\PROJECTS - 5050\4800-20-MMG Medical Marihuana Grow Operations\Reports\2014-02-



February 12, 2014

Area

A

B

c

G

F, 1, J, K

Bylaw

2315

2316

2317

1335

1675

Zone

AG

AG1

AG2

AG3

AG1

AG2

AG3

AG

AG1

AG2

AG2A

AG3

AG4

AG4K

Parcel

Size

3 ha

4 ha

8 ha

60 ha

4 ha

8 ha

60 ha

8 ha

4 ha

8 ha

8 ha

60 ha

2 ha

2 ha

Site

Coverage

35%

35%

35%

35%

35%

35%

35%

n/a

35%

35%

35%

35%

35%

35%

Maximum Building

Footprint

(square feet)

113,021

150,694

301,389

2,260,421

150,694

301,389

2,260,421

n/a

150,694

301,389

301,389

2,260,421

75,347

75,347

Maximum

Setback

Potential (metres)

35

43

58

158

43

58

158

n/a

43

58

58

158

29m

29m

Based on the data in Tables 1, properties ^ 3 ha could accommodate a MPF while allowing for setbacksof up to 35 m (the maximum setback that would be possible on a 3 ha parcel). Many of the properties inthe AG4 and AG4K zones, as well as parcels outside the ALR could not accommodate a facility due to the2 ha minimum parcel sizes in these zones. Parcels 2 hectares or less would not be able to accommodate

sufficient setbacks from property lines.

Setbacks

The District of Maple Ridge has recently passed regulations for MPFs on agricultural lands (in the ALRonly). The required setbacks are 60m from the front and exterior side lot lines, and 30m from the rear

and interior lot lines. These setback requirements are consistent with their requirements for pig farms.

In a report to the Planning and Development Committee, dated Nov 21, 2013, Sunshine Coast Regional

District staff recommended 60m setbacks from all property lines as a way to mitigate potential conflictswith neighbours. They also recommended that MPFs be permitted on parcels >8 ha.

A review of RDCK Zoning Bylaw 1675 indicates that setback requirements for a variety of 'intensive' uses

on agricultural land such as portable sawmills, kennels, small-scale wood product manufacturing, and

small food processing facilities range from 7.5m to 30m.

In developing an appropriate and reasonable setback requirement for MPFs in the RDCK, staff have

considered the issue of potential conflicts with neighbours. They have also considered existing

regulations for other 'intensive' uses in the Regional District, all of which have setback requirement that

within the 7.5 m to 30 m range. Based on their analysis Staff believe that a 30m setback requirements



Marihuana Production Facilities February 12, 2014

from all property lines would achieve objectives for land use compatibility, as well as environmental

protection and enhancement of natural features such as watercourses and ravine banks.

Distances Between Different Land Uses

Several jurisdictions, including the District of Maple Ridge and the City of Ottawa regulate the location ofMPFs in proximity to adjacent land use zones such as residential and institutional zones where the

potential for conflict between the different types of use exists. In the RDCK, land use in industrial zones

must be set back 25 m from adjacent residential and agricultural properties. Similarly, small scale food

production facilities must be set back a minimum of 30 m from adjacent businesses or residences.

Staff believe that adopting 30m setback requirements from all property lines will adequately mitigatethe impacts of MPFs on adjacent properties/ including properties that are zoned for different types ofuse.

Parking and Loading

A marihuana producer in Maple Ridge who is currently applying for licensing under the MMPR expectsthat his facility will operate 7 days a week, and that he will be have between 25 and 30 employeesworking on site, the majority of whom will work between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. In accordance

with the MMPR, marihuana is shipped from the site via Canada Post. Production facilities do not have aretail component, and clients do not visit facilities for any reason.

Consistent with the regulations for uses in an industrial zone (Bylaw 1675, sections 612 and 613), Staffrecommend that parking for MPFs be calculated as follows:

• 1.5 parking spaces per 100m2 of Gross Floor Area.

• 1 loading space per 1200m of Gross Floor Area and 1 additional space per each additional2000m2 of Gross Floor Area.

Size and Scale of the Production Facility

Health Canada has confirmed that there is no size requirement for production facilities, but that the sizeof a production facility is determined, in part by the amount of marihuana that the producer grows (andstores). The more marihuana grown on site, the larger the building size.

By regulating parcel size (>3 ha), site coverage (35%), and setbacks from property lines (30m), the RDCKshould have the tools it needs to effectively manage the size of a production facility.

The RDCK regulates building height in a number of residential, commercial, and industrial zones, and

therefore may wish to regulate building height for MPFs as a way to ensure that buildings areconstructed at a scale that is consistent with the character and form of rural agricultural properties.

Staff recommend a maximum building height of 12 m (~40 ft) for principle buildings, and 6 m (~20 ft) for

accessory buildings.

Accessory Buildings and Uses



IVIarihuana Production Facilities February 12, 2014

The MMPR do not prohibit other uses from occurring on the same site as a MPF. Health Canada has

confirmed that multi-use sites are permitted provided that security requirements for facilities are met. It

is important to note that under the MMPR, licensed producers must not conduct any activity from a

dwelling place.

On ALR properties, it is possible that a producer could develop an MPF that is spread among several

buildings, as the Agricultural Land Commission Act does not restrict the number of buildings that can beused for a designated 'farm use'. Provided that the applicant is able to satisfy the minimum parcel size,

site coverage, and setback requirements, then multiple developments on a site would be permitted.

At present there is no restriction on the gross floor area for accessory buildings in Agriculture zones.

However, in several residential zones throughout the region gross floor area is restricted to 100m , and

the cumulative gross floor area of all accessory buildings and structures cannot exceed the total gross

floor area of the principle use. Staff recommend a maximum gross floor area of 100 m2 for accessory

buildings on Agricultural land for non-farm uses.

In an Information Bulletin, dated January 2014, the ALC confirmed that medical marihuana production is

a 'farm 'use', but that not all activities associated with its production would necessarily qualify as 'farm

uses'. Uses considered accessory to marihuana production include small business offices, testing labs,

processing and drying areas, and packaging and shipping areas. If a land use activity is proposed that is

not specifically related to the growing of medical marihuana, such as a stand-alone research and

development facility, an application to the ALC for non-farm use is required.

Outdoor Storage

Sections 14 and 15 of the MMPR specify the requirements for indoor production, packaging, labeling,and storage of marihuana. Health Canada has confirmed that licensed producers are permitted to

compost organic material outdoors. This includes waste cannabis.

It is expected that the regulations concerning indoor activities, in combination with the site security

requirements under the MMPR will prevent MPFs having outdoor storage. However, in accordance with

the definition for 'storage' in Zoning Bylaw 1675, if a facility has outdoor storage, the area used for

storage will be included in the total site coverage calculation.

Environmental Impacts

1. Visual and Sound Intrusions

As per Part 1, division 3, sections 41-51 of the MMPR, a licensed producer must comply with a range of

I security measures to prevent unauthorized access to a MPF site including:

I

• Visual monitoring of the site perimeter;

• Installed intrusion detection system; and

® Monitoring of the system by personnel.

Discussions with Health Canada and the licensed producer in Maple Ridge suggest that these securityrequirements will not create additional sound or visual intrusion. Akin to greenhouses, MPFs should be

quiet and un-intrusive, so as not to draw attention to themselves.



Marihuana Production Facilities February 12, 2014

As per the MMPR, visual monitoring is restricted to the site perimeter. It should not include any

monitoring of surrounding properties or public areas.

Production facilities have exterior lighting. The facility in Maple Ridge has exterior lighting that is onduring the day, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., 7-days a week. At the advice of a security

consultant, the facility is not lit during the night.

In a rural area where development is limited and there is little or no exterior lighting on buildings, amarihuana facility with exterior lighting could contribute to light pollution. Staff recommend that

lighting for facilities (buildings and structures), as well as areas accessory to the facility such as parkingand loading areas be regulated as a way to minimize the visual impact of MPFs on surrounding

properties. Regulations may include restrictions on the number and location of lighting fixtures, as well

as the fixture style to ensure that light is downcast from the building to the ground.

2. Air Quality (Odour)

Marihuana Production Facilities may result in some odours and air quality issues. The following federal

and provincial regulations address the issue of odours that may result from the production and disposal

ofcannabis (through incineration and composting).

• Division 1, section 20 (1) of the MMPR specifies that cannabis must be destroyed using methodsthat conform to all federal, provincial, and municipal environmental legislation, and one that

does not result in any person being exposed to cannabis smoke. More about incineration.

• Division 3, section 50 of the MMPR specifies that areas where Cannabis is present must be

equipped with a system that filters air to prevent the escape of odours and, if present, pollen.

• As per the Code of Agricultural Practice for Waste Management, under the Agricultural Waste

Control Regulation (1992), wasted cannabis is an agricultural waste product that may becomposted on a property. Under part 6, section 19 of the Code, odours from agricultural

operations are not prohibited, provided that all operations and activities are carried out in

accordance with the Code. The assumption being that odours are an inherent part of

agriculture, and cannot /should not be eliminated.

1 3. Waste Disposal

Division 4, section 53 (1) of the MMPR states that "the microbial and chemical contaminants of driedmarihuana must be within generally accepted tolerance limits for herbal medicines for humanconsumption, as established in any publication referred to in Schedule B to the 'Food and Drugs Act'."

1 The regulations pertaining to pest control as outlined in section 54 (1) of the MMPR confirm that pest] control products may be used to treat medical marihuana.

i

From the regulations it can be inferred that a relatively small amount of hazardous chemicals may also

be used in MPFs, although Health Canada has confirmed that due to the 'medical' nature of the

marihuana being produced, use of chemicals would be limited.

In accordance with the RDCK Resource Recovery Bylaw 2174, items such as biomedical waste, hazardous



Marihuana Production Facilities February 12,2014

or reactive chemicals, hazardous waste, pesticide products, and pharmaceutical products are prohibited

for disposal at regional resource recovery facilities for environmental and health and safety reasons. As

such, management of the waste produced at a MPF would fall under provincial regulations. It will be the

responsibility of the licensed producer to comply with all applicable provincial and federal regulationspertaining to management of hazardous waste.

Typically, vegetation waste that is produced on an agricultural site may be composted and used as a

crop condition on the same site, or another agricultural site. Composting of vegetation waste produced

by a MPF must be done in accordance with the Code of Agricultural Practice for Waste Management and

the Agricultural Waste Control Regulation (1992). At this time, the RDCK does not have a municipal

compost program.

Flood and Hazard

A MPF would be subject to the regulations contained in the Floodplain Management Bylaw 2080.Furthermore, all new construction would require a building permit in compliance with the BC BuildingCode and the RDCK Building Bylaw 2200.

Landscaping

MPFs are a unique example of industrialized agriculture and they present some particular challenges for

land use planning including issues related to architectural form and character (exterior building designand finish), landscaping, siting, and lighting. In agriculture zones, landscaping is addressed under the

general regulations in Zoning Bylaw 1675 and CLUBs 2315, 2316, and 2317. In accordance with sections

919.1 and 920 of the 'Local Government Act', the RDCK has the option to further regulate landscaping,

and form and character through the designation of develop permit areas.

Given the specific requirements for MPFs regarding landscaping, form and character, and siting, Staff

recommend that the a development permit area be developed in accordance with Section 919.1 (c ) and

(f) of the 'Local Government Act'.

Conclusions

In combination parcel size, site coverage (footprint) and setbacks are effective tools to help mitigate any

potential adverse impacts of MPFs on adjacent and/or nearby properties. Furthermore, application of a

development permit area for MPFs to regulate specific aspects such as form and character (including

lighting), and landscaping will help to ensure that MPFs are a positive addition to the regional district.

A summary of the proposed regulations is provided in Table 3.

TABLE 3 - Summary of Proposed Regulations for Marihuana Production Facilities




February 12, 2014

Issue

Parcel Size

Setbacks

Site Coverage

Distance from AdjacentUses or Zones

Parking and Loading

Building Size and Scale

Storage

Accessory Uses

Environmental Impacts

Landscaping & Lighting

Proposed Regulation

>3 hectares (7.4 acres)

30 metres from all property lines

Maximum 35%

30 metres (included in the setback)

1.5 parking spaces per 100m of Gross Floor Area.

1 loading space per 1200m2 of Gross Floor Area and 1 additional space per each

additional 2000m of Gross Floor Area.

12 metres (principle building)

6 metres (accessory buildings)

Indoor or calculated as part of total site coverage

Maximum gross floor area of 100 m2

Visual and Sound - defer to the MMPR for visual monitoring and sound. Regulate

exterior lighting through a Development Permit Area.

Waste Disposal - provincial regulations for management of hazardous waste;

RDCK Resource Recovery Bylaw 2174.

Air Quality - defer to the MMPRand provincial regulations.

Flood and Hazard - Floodplain Management Bylaw 2080; BC Building Code andRDCK Building Bylaw 2200.

Development permit area

;i^ii%ilti^gBaH?ftMWiiia. Financial Considerations - Cost and Resource Allocations:

A MPF is classified as a 'farm use', and is taxed as such in accordance with BC Assessment. As a farm use,

MPFs will qualify for a series of tax exemptions, which will result in less tax revenue for the RDCK.

b. Legislative Considerations (Applicable Policies and/or Bylaws):

If the Board concurs with staff recommendations, amendments will be proposed for Zoning Bylaws

2315, 2316, 2317, and 1675, as well as RLUB 1335 to include a definition of MPFs. The Agriculture zoneswill be amended to include regulations for parcel size, setbacks, site coverage, building size and scale,

and accessory buildings and uses. Parking and loading regulations will also be added to the applicable

sections of each zoning bylaw.

A Development Permit Area for MPFs will be drafted and referenced in each of the agriculture zones.



IVIarihuana Production Facilities February 12, 2014

c. Environmental Considerations:

Environmental considerations for MPFs are discussed in detail above.

With regard to hazardous waste, upon receipt of an application, RDCK Environmental Services staff will

work with the applicant to determine an appropriate process to address waste management issues in

accordance with provincial and federal regulations.

d. Social Considerations:

A priority objective for developing regulations for MPFs is to proactively address public concerns inrelation to potential impacts such as visual and noise intrusions and odours. Staff believe that

developing regulations will address pervasive concerns, which will result in the public being more

supportive (and less worried) about production facilities in their neighbourhoods and communities.

e. Economic Considerations:

It is uncertain at this time how the new MMPR will affect marihuana growing in this Regional District.Historically, the marihuana industry had significant influence on the local economy, contributing income

to many area households. Under the new regulations, the small-scale grow operations that are

characteristic of the Kootenays will likely be replaced over time with larger commercial facilities.

f. Communication Considerations:

Under the MMPR, applicants are required to contact the local government at the time of application.

They are also required to contact the local government if they amend their applications.

If the RDCK moves forward with the proposed regulations, an amending bylaw and development permit

area will be drafted for review and comment by the public at a public hearing.

SECTION 4: OPTIONS & PROS / CONS

1. That the RDCK establish a definition for 'Marihuana Production Facility' in Zoning Bylaws 2315, 2316,2317, and 1675, as well as RLUB 1335. That the Agriculture zones be amended to include regulations

for parcel size, setbacks, site coverage, building size and scale, and accessory buildings and uses; and

that parking and loading regulations be added to the applicable sections of each zoning bylaw.

That a Development Permit Area for MPFs be established in accordance with Local Government Act

section 919.1 (c) and (f), and section 920 to specifically regulate the unique aspects of MPFsincluding landscaping, and form and character (including lighting).

Staff believe that creating a development permit area to further regulate MPFs (in addition to theregulations to be included in the individual Agriculture zones) will ensure a high standard ofdevelopment and completion of permit requirements.

i 2. That the RDCK establish a definition for 'Marihuana Production Facility' in Zoning Bylaws 2315, 2316,2317, and 1675, as well as RLUB 1335. That the Agriculture zones be amended to include regulations

for parcel size, setbacks, site coverage, building size and scale, and accessory buildings and uses; and

that parking and loading regulations be added to the applicable sections of each zoning bylaw.

Instead of establishing a development permit area to regulate MPFs, specific regulations for




February 12, 2014

landscaping, and form and character (including lighting)would be addressed through the zoning

regulations in each of the individual Agriculture zones.

In considering this option, committee members should know that developing regulations for MPFs in

the individual zones will remove the opportunity for staff to require a higher standard of

development for individual MPFs (regulations are not tied to a development permit), which in turn

could increase the likelihood of issues and ensuing conflicts with adjacent neighbours and the

community.

,SE^ON^!Netfili€iBffl?(l9N^t'-.^?i ! • ' . • ' • ^ •

1. That the RDCK establish a definition for 'Marihuana Production Facility' in Zoning Bylaws 2315, 2316,

2317, and 1675, as well as RLUB 1335. That the Agriculture zones be amended to include regulations

for parcel size, setbacks, site coverage, building size and scale, and accessory uses; and that parking

and loading regulations be added to the applicable sections of each zoning bylaw.

2. That a Development Permit Area for MPFs be established in accordance with Local Government Act

section 919.1 (c) and (f), and section 920 to specifically regulate the unique aspects of MPFs

including landscaping, form and character (including lighting), and siting.

Respectfully submitted,

sienature: 1, , -/ •],i '!{ • te,. ^<-.<- •t .&.-J

Name: Megan Squire's, Planner

|^^V^((^g;^^&^:.%^..-^, "^ ^^;^:^ 3 : ''. ...••..... J.»tialst;

Planning Manager

General Manager of Development Services

Chief Administration Officer •-i'iyll <

ATTACHMENTS:Attachment A - ALC Information Bulletins - Medical Marihuana Production in the Agricultural

Land Reserve (October 2013, updated January 2014)

Attachment B - Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (SOR/2013-119) Excerpts

Attachment C - Agricultural Waste Control Regulation, Code of Agricultural Practice for Waste

Management (1992) Excerpts



Attachment A

MARIHUANA PRODUCTION IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVEUpdated January 2014

Health Canada's Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulation (MMPR) htt@://www.laws^lpis.iustice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2013-119/ has changed the parameters for the production ofmedical marihuana in Canada. The current system of personal use licenses and designated personlicenses will be phased out by April 1, 2014. In its place, new Federal licenses are geared to larger scaleproduction/distribution facilities. For further information about the changes see the following websitehttp://wwwj]C-sc,flc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/index-eng.£hEi.

Various local governments in British Columbia are looking at their zoning bylaws to determine where theselarger scale commercial production facilities should be directed. A number of local governments areconsidering industrial, commercial and agricultural zones, within purpose built structures and with sitingregulations from property lines and residential uses. Others are looking to restrict this land use or direct toparticular areas of their community.

The Agricultural Land Commission Act and regulations determine land use in the Agricultural LandReserve (ALR). Due to the number of inquiries from local governments and Medical Marihuanaproduction proponents, the ALC provides the following for clarification purposes with regard to MedicalMarihuana production in the ALR.

Section 1 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act defines "farm use" as:

An occupation or use of land for farm purposes, including farming of land, plants and animals andany other similar activity designated as farm use by regulation, and includes a farm operation asdefined in the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act.

Based on the above definition, if a land owner is lawfully sanctioned to produce marihuana for medicalpurposes, the farming of said plant in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) is allowed and would beinterpreted by the Agricultural Land Commission as being consistent with the definition of "farm use" underthe ALC Act.

Notwithstanding the farming of land for the production of medical marihuana, not all activities associatedwith its production would necessarily be given the same "farm use" consideration. Accessory usesassociated with the farm use include a small business office, testing lab, processing and drying, packagingshipping areas, cloning room and anything else directly related to the growing and processing of the plant.Determining an accessory use is contingent on the use being necessary and commensurate with theprimary function of the property/building to produce an agricultural product. If a land use activity isproposed that is not specifically related to the growing of an agricultural product including a stand-aloneresearch and development facility, an application to the ALC for non-farm use would be required.

Municipalities are responsible for governing the use of land within the respective municipality's jurisdiction.Zoning bylaws enacted by municipalities may set out restrictions on land use, including but not limited tothe use of land for medical marihuana production. Where such restrictions may apply to land within theALR, such restrictions with respect to the particular land use of lawfully sanctioned medical marihuanaproduction would not in and of themselves be considered as inconsistent with VneALCAct.

Proponents of medical marihuana production facilities should contact their local government to determinethe applicability of zoning bylaws, approval processes and to determine building permit requirements thatmay apply.

lAttachment B SOR/2013-119— January 14, 2014

Safekeepiugduringtransportation

Report of loss or

theft

Destruction

applicable, the alternate responsible person

in charge is physically present at the pro-

ducer's site.

18. A licensed producer must, when

transporting imported marihuana between

the port of entry mto Canada and the pro-

ducer's site, or when shipping, delivering

or transporting any marihuana, including to

a port of exit from Canada, take any steps

that are necessary to ensure its safekeeping

dui-rng transportation.

19. If a licensed producer experiences a

theft of cannabis or an unusual waste or

disappearance of cannabis that cannot be

explained on the basis of normally accept-

ed business activities, the licensed produc-

er must

(a) report the occurrence to a member

of a police force within 24 hours after

becoming aware of it; and

(6) provide a written report to the Min-

ister within 10 days after becoming

aware of the occurrence.

20. (1) A licensed producer may de-

stray cannabis only if they do so

(a) in accordance with a method that

(i) conforms with all federal, provin-

cial and municipal environmental leg-

islation applicable to the location atwliicli it is to be destroyed, and

(ii) does not result iu any person be-

ing exposed to cannabis smoke; and

(b) in the presence of at least two per-

sons who are qualified to witness the de-

stmction, one of whom must be a person

referred to in paragraph (2)(a).

Securite duraiitJe transport

Rapport deou de vol

responsable ou. Ie cas echeant, la persoime

responsable suppleante, ne soit physique-

ment presente a son installation.

18. Lorsque Ie producteur antorise

transporte de la marihuana importee entre

Ie point d'entree au Canada et son installa-

tion ou lorsqu'il expedie, livre ou trans-

porte de la marihuana, notammentjusqu'au

point de sortie du Canada, il prend les me-

sures necessau-es pour en assurer la securi-

te durant Ie transport.

19. En cas de perte ou de disparition in-

habituelles de chanvre indien ne pouvant

s'expliquer dans Ie cadre de pratiques nor-

males et acceptables d'operation ou en cas

de vol de chanvre indien, Ie producteur au-

torise satisfait aux exigences suivantes :

a) il en fait rapport a un membre d'un

corps policier dans les vingt-quatre

heures suivant la decouverte du fait;

b) il presente un rapport ecrit au mi-

nistre dans les dix jours suivant la de-

couverte du fait.

20. (1) Le producteur autorise ne peut Dcstniction

deti'uire Ie chanvre indien que si les condi-

tions ci-apres sont remplies :

a) il suit une methode qui, a la fois :

(i) est conforme a la legislation fede-

rale, provinciale et municipale sur la

protection de 1'environnement appli-

cable au lieu de la destruction,

(ii) fait en sorte qu'aucune personne

ne soit exposee a la fumee du chanvre

indien;

b) il Ie fait en presence d'au mains deux

personnes qui sont habilitees a servir de

temoins de la destruction, 1'une d'entre

elles etant visee a 1'alinea (2)a).

perte

12

DORS/2013-119 — 14janvier 2014

Content ofnotice

graphs 38(l)(a) to (c) in the area in whichthe site specified in the licence is located

and provide a copy of the notice to the

Minister.

(2) The notice must contain the follow-

ing information:

(a) the name of the licensed producer

and the address of their site; and

(V) a description of the applicable mat-

ter referred to in subsection (1) and its

effective date and, in the case of an

amendment to the licence, details of the

amendment.

Senior official (3) The notice fflUSt be addressed to a

senior official of the local authority to

whom it is sent.

sonnes visees aux alineas 38(l)a) a c) de la

region ou se situe 1'installation visee par la

licence et fournit copie de cet avis au mi-

nistre.

(2) L'avis contient les renseignements ContenudeP avis

suivants :

a) Ie nom du producteur autorise et

1'adresse de son installation;

b) la description de 1'evenement en

cause et sa date de prise d'effet et, s'il

s'agit d'une modification de la licence,

les precisions eu egard aux changeinents

apportes.

(3) Le destinataire de 1'avis est un cadre cadre superieur

superieur de 1'autorite locale en cause.

DIVISION 3 SECTION 3

SECURITY MEASURES MESURES DE SECURITE

Compliancewith securitymeasures

Unauthorizedaccess

General

41. A licensed producer must ensure

that the security measures set out in this

Division are carried out.

42. The licensed producer's site must be

designed in a manner that prevents unau-

thorized access.

Generalites

41. Le producteur autorise veille au res-

pect des mesures de securite prevues a la

presente section.

42. L'installation du producteur autorise

doit etre con9ue de fayon a prevenu- tout

acces non autorise.

Respect des

mesures de

secunte

Acces non

autorise

Visualmonitoring

Visual recordingdevices

Perimeter of Site

43. (1) The perimeter of the licensedproducer's site must be visually monitored

at all times by visual recording devices to

detect any attempted or actual unautho-

rized access.

(2) The devices must, in the conditions

under which they are used, be capable of

recording m a visible manner any attempt-

ed or actual unauthorized access.

Perimetf'e de I'installation

43. (1) Le perimetre de 1'installation du

producteur autorise doit faire 1'objet, en

tout temps, d'une surveillance visuelle a

1'aide d'appareils d'enregistrement visuel,

de fa9on a detecter tout acces ou tentative

d'acces non autorise.

(2) Ces appareils doivent etre adaptes

aux conditions de leur enviromiement afin

d'enregistrer visiblement tout acces ou ten-

tative d'acces non autorise.

Surveillancevisuelle

AppareilscTenregistremenfvisuel

33

SOR/2013-119—January 14, 2014

Intmsion

detection system

Momtormg bypersonnel

Record ofdetected matters

44. The perimeter of the licensed pro-

ducer's site must be secured by an intru-

sion detection system that operates at all

times and that allows for the detection of

any attempted or actual unauthorized ac-

cess to or movement in the site or tamper-

ing with the system.

45. (1) The system must be monitored

at all tunes by personnel who must deter-

mine the appropriate steps to be taken in

response to the detection of any occurrence

referred to in section 43 or 44.

(2) If any such occurrence is detected,

the personnel must make a record of

(a) the date and time of the occurrence;

and

(6) the measures taken in response to it

and the date and time when they were

taken.

Areas Within a Site where Cannabis is

Present

46. (1) Access to areas within a site

where cannabis is present (referred to in

sections 46 to 50 as "those areas") must be

restricted to persons whose presence in

those areas is required by their work re-

sponsibilities.

Responsible (2) The responsible person in charge or,person in charge .^ ' '^. ^^ ^

present ~ it applicable, the alternate responsible per-

son in charge must be physically present

while other persons are in those areas.

Record (3) A record must be made ofthe identi-

ty of every person entering or exiting those

areas.

Restrictedaccess

44. Le perimetre de 1'installation du

producteur autorise doit etre securise au

moyen d'un systeme de detection des intru-

sions qui est fonctionnel en tout temps et

permet la detection de tout acces non auto-

rise a 1'installation ou mouvement non au-

torise a 1'interieur de celle-ci ou toute alte-

ration du systeme, ou toute tentative a ces

egards.

45. (1) Le systeme doit etre surveille en

tout temps par du personnel qui doit deter-

miner les mesures qui s'imposent en cas de

detection d'un evenement vise aux ar-

tides 43 ou 44.

(2) Le cas echeant, Ie personnel doit

consigner les renseignements suivants :

d) la date et 1'heure auxquelles 1'evene-

ment a ete detecte;

b) la description des mesures prises en

reponse a ce dernier, amsi que la date et

1'heure auxquelles elles 1'ont etc.

Zones de 1'installation oil du chanvre

indien est present

46. (1) L'acces aux zones de 1'installa-

tion ou du chaiivre indien est present (ap-

pelees « zones » aux ai-ticles 46 a 50) doit

etre limite aux seules personnes dont les

fonctions y requierent la presence.

(2) La personne responsable ou, Ie cas

echeant, la personne responsable sup-

pleante, doit etre presente physiquement

dans les zones lorsque d'autres personnes

s'y trouvent.

(3) II est tenu un registre de 1'identite

des personnes entrant dans les zones ou en

sortant.

Systems dedetection des

mtrusions

Surveillance par

Ie personnel

Constat des

evenementsdetectes

Acces restreint

Presence de lapersonuerespousable

Registrc

34

DORS/2013-119 — 14janvier 2014

physical bmiers 47. Those areas must mclude physical

barriers that prevent unauthorized access.

Visualmofutoring

Visual recordingdevices

Introston

detection system

Filtration of air

Monitoring bypersoimel

Record of

detected matters

48. (1) Those areas must be visually

monitored at all times by visual recording

devices to detect illicit conduct.

(2) The devices must, in the conditions

under which they are used, be capable of

recording iu a visible manner illicit con-

duct.

49. Those areas must be secured by an

intrusion detection system that operates at

all times and that allows for the detection

of any attempted or actual unauthorized ac-

cess to or movement in those areas or tam-

pering with the system.

50. Those areas must be equipped with

a system that filters air to prevent the es-

cape of odours and, if present, pollen.

51. (1) The intrusion detection system

must be monitored at all times by person-

nel who must determine the appropriate

steps to be taken in response to the detee-

tion of any occurrence referred to in sec-

tion 48 or 49.

(2) If any such occurrence is detected,

the personnel must make a record of

(a) the date and time of the occurrence;

and

(b) the measures taken in response to it

and the date and time when they were

taken.

47. Les zones doivent comporter des

barrieres physiques qui empechent tout ac-

ces non autorise.

48. (1) Les zones doivent faire 1'objet

d'une surveillance visuelle en tout temps, a

1'aide d'appareils d'em'egistrement visuel,

de fa^on a detecter toute conduite illicite.

(2) Ces appareils doivent etre adaptes

aux conditions de leur environnement afiin

d'enregistrer visiblement toute conduite

illicite.

49. Les zones doivent eti'e securisees au

moyen d'un systeme de detection des intm-

sions qui est fonctionnel en tout temps et

permet la detection de tout acces non auto-

rise aux zones ou mouvement non autorise

a 1'interieur de celles-ci ou toute alteration

du systeme, ou toute tentative a ces egards.

50. Les zones doivent etre equipees

d'un systeme de filtration de 1'air qui em-

peche les odeurs et. Ie cas echeaiit, Ie pol-

len, de s'echapper.

51. (1) Le systeme de detection des in-

trusions doit etre surveille en tout temps

par du personnel qui doit determine!- les

mesures qui s'imposent en cas de detection

d'un evenement vise aux articles 48 ou 49.

(2) Le cas echeant, Ie personnel doit

consigner les renseignements suivants :

a) la date et 1'heure auxquelles 1'evene-

ment a ete detecte;

b) la description des mesures prises en

reponse a la detection de ce dernier, ain-

si que la date et 1'heure auxquelles elles

1'ont ete.

Barrieres

physiques

Siu-veillaiice

visuelie

Appareilsd'euregistrementvisuel

Systeme dedetection des

mtrasions

Filtratioii de Fau-

Suiveillance par

Ie personnel

Coustat des

evenementsdetectes

35

SOR/2013-119— January 14, 2014

Prohibition —

sate or provision

Prohibition —

export

Microbial andchemicalcoatammauts

Analyticaltestmg

Pest control

product

Residue

Premises

DIVISION 4

GOOD PRODUCTION PRACTICES

52. (1) A licensed producer must not

sell or provide dried marihuana under sub-

section 12(4) unless the requirements of

this Division have been met.

(2) A licensed producer must not export

dried marihuana unless the requirements of

this Division have been met.

53. (1) The microbial and chemicalcontaminants of dried marihuana must be

within generally accepted tolerance limits

for herbal medicines for human consump-

tion, as established in any publication re-

ferred to in Schedule B to the Food and

Drugs Act.

(2) Analytical testing for those contami-

nants and for the percentages of delta-9-

tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol re-

ferred to in these Regulations must be

conducted using validated methods.

54. (1) Marihuana must not be treated

— before, during or after the drying pro-

cess — with a pest control product that has

not been registered under the Pest Control

Products Act for use on marihuana for

medical purposes.

(2) Dried marihuana must not contain

any residue of a pest control product in ex-

cess of any maximum residue limit speci-

fied for the product under section 9 of the

Pest Control Products Act.

55. (1) Dried marihuana must be pro-

duced, packaged, labelled and stored in

premises that are designed, constructed and

SECTION 4

BONNES PRATIQUES DE PRODUCTION

52. (1) Le producteur autorise ne peut

vendre ou fournir de la marihuana sechee

en vertu du paragraphe 12(4) que si les exi-

gences prevues a la presente section sent

respectees.

(2) II ne peut exporter de la marihuana

sechee que si les exigences prevues a la

presente section sont respectees.

53. (1) La contamination microbienne

et chimique de la marihuana sechee se si-

tue dans les limites de tolerance generale-

ment reconnues pour les plantes medici-

nales destinees a la consommation

humaine, lesquelles sont etablies dans toute

publication mentiomiee a 1'aimexe B de la

Lot sur les ailments et drogues.

(2) Des tests analytiques concernant

cette contamination ainsi que les pourcen-

tages de delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol et de

cannabidiol vises par Ie present reglement

sont effectues suivant des methodes vali-

dees.

54. (1) Que ce soit avant, pendant ou

apres Ie processus de sechage, la marihua-

na ne peut etre ti-aitee au moyen d'un pro-

duit antiparasitaire que si celui-ci a ete ho-

mologue en vertu de la Loi sur les produits

antiparasitaires pour utilisation avec la

marihuana a des fins medicales.

(2) La marihuana sechee ne peut conte-

nil- de residus d'un produit aiitiparasitaire

au-dela de toute limite maximale de residu

fixee porn- ce produit en vertu de 1'article 9

de laZoz szir les prodnits antiparasitaires.

55. (1) La marihuana sechee est pro-

duite, emballee, etiquetee et stockee dans

des locaux qui sont census, constmits et

Interdiction —

vente oufourniture

Interdiction —

exportation

Contaminationnucrobienne et

clumique

Tests

aiialytiques

PraduitauUparasitaire

Residus

Locaux

36

Agricultural Waste Control Regulation | ^f

Environmental Management Act only if, in addition to complying with the Code,that

person registers in accordance with subsection (4) before May 1, 2009.

(3) A person, other than one referred to in subsection (2), who carries out an agricultural

operation in which a boiler or heater is used is, for the purposes of carrying out that

agricultural operation, exempt from section 6 (2) and (3) of the Environmental

Management Act only if, in addition to complying with the Code, that person has

registered in accordance with subsection (4) before the boiler or heater is used.

(4) To register for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3), the person carrying out the

agricultural operation must complete the form and comply with the procedures specified

by a director.

(5) A person registered under subsection (4) must notify a director of any change in the

information provided in the person's registration.

[am. B.C. Regs. 321/2004, s. 1; 377/2008, Sch. s.1.]

Code of Agricultural Practice for Waste Management,

April 1, 1992

[am. B.C. Regs. 321/2004, s. 2; 377/2008, Sch. ss. 2 and 3.]

Part 1 — Purpose

Purpose

1 The purpose of this Code is to describe practices for using, storing and managing agricultural

waste that will result in agricultural waste being handled in an environmentally sound

manner.

Part 2 ~ Interpretation

Interpretation

2 (1) In this Code:

"agricultural unit" means a live weight of 455 kg (1 000 Ibs) of livestock, poultry or

farmed game or any combination of them that equals 455 kg;

"agricultural waste" includes manure, used mushroom medium and agricultural

vegetation waste;

"biogas" means a gas derived from the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter;

"biomass" means

(a) agricultural fuel products, including agricultural pellets, manure pellets, corn

kernels, corn stalks and seed hulls, or

(b) wood or wood products,

but does not include

lrttp://wvw.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/fi-eeside/10_131_92[29/01/2014 9:55:32 AM]

Marihuana Production

Documents

Transcript of Marihuana Production