[2:02:09] Housing of livestock and or storage sorting grading of agricultural
[2:02:14] products that have not undergone secondary processing and or the
[2:02:19] storage or maintaining of machinery equipment or vehicles that are
[2:02:23] used in connection with the growing of farm crops or
[2:02:27] the care of farm animals on the above described lands.
[2:02:31] I hereby certify that the building shall only be used
[2:02:34] for an agricultural operation further defined by the agricultural operations
[2:02:39] act and have verified that the agricultural operation by signing
[2:02:43] this declaration of use for the building.
[2:02:54] And is not intended use of the farm building exemption
[2:02:57] permit. Thank you. Any other questions of administration.
[2:03:07] No. Mr. Marple, if we could have you come up,
[2:03:09] please, and answer a question for us. Remember, wing.
[2:03:23] Thank you, Chair, you all through the chair. I have
[2:03:26] a questions for Mr. Marble. Serio cover page is that
[2:03:32] stopwater. I would like to know if you understand or
[2:03:36] opponent gets clarify what is auto remedy and stopwater. Could
[2:03:42] we bring up the document in question? Please. It would
[2:03:45] be, I'm not sure exactly you do have seven, page
[2:03:52] one. Exhibit seven page one. Thank you. And could you
[2:04:01] highlight please what you're asking. So sir, I think if
[2:04:10] you read Mr. Marple, the appeal, you do place a
[2:04:14] stop order on the lens described in the question was,
[2:04:18] are you familiar with the difference between a stop order
[2:04:21] and an enforcement order? And is this an error on
[2:04:24] your part. I'll turn your microphone one on, please. Thank
[2:04:29] you. Sorry. It's your bowl for the record. Thank you.
[2:04:36] Yes, I am familiar with the difference between the two.
[2:04:39] And it looks like this copies a covering page. From
[2:04:46] a different submission, in that words, those words just were
[2:04:48] not changed.
[2:05:03] I would rephrase that to say issue a stop order
[2:05:06] on the lounge described as, or sorry, issue an enforcement
[2:05:09] order with respect to the lands described as. Great. Then
[2:05:13] if we could make note of that in the record,
[2:05:16] and we'll make that adjustment. And thank you for confirming
[2:05:19] that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other questions. Thank you.
[2:05:28] Great. The committee is now got topographical map. I think
[2:05:34] we have a topographical map showing the elevations. And we
[2:05:39] did have a question around. And did we get an
[2:05:41] answer back from the other query yet from our fire
[2:05:45] friends. Sure.
[2:05:56] Sure. Two administration. We put a request out to the
[2:05:59] fire department. If they were available to talk to us
[2:06:02] about any other location, if they first attended the property
[2:06:09] themselves, but maybe Mr. Anderson can answer for them, possibly.
[2:06:15] And if there's any other safe or appropriate place where
[2:06:18] these materials could be stored or moved to from their
[2:06:23] current location that wouldn't create a fire hazard.
[2:06:33] Through the chair, to the chair, Lorraine Wesley Manager Enforcement
[2:06:36] Services, I can confirm that the fire department has attended
[2:06:40] the property. I just spoke with one of the fire
[2:06:42] inspectors. The question about moving them to not create a
[2:06:47] fire hazard someplace else was not one that we asked
[2:06:51] was about if there was any area on the property
[2:06:53] where they could be safely burned. In discussion with the
[2:06:59] fire inspector, he said that the safest place to burn
[2:07:02] is where they are currently located. And that is why
[2:07:06] the incinerator was placed there as well. When I did
[2:07:09] ask about the incinerator, he stated that the incinerator would
[2:07:13] allow for safe burning, that they would issue a permit
[2:07:16] for that. And that the winds wouldn't impact the burning
[2:07:22] enclosed area the way it would if they were burned
[2:07:24] in the open because the incinerator does have doors. The
[2:07:29] incinerator is actually a oil - field sea can, which
[2:07:34] would snuff the fire out once those doors were closed.
[2:07:37] So they feel that material can be safely burned in
[2:07:42] that incinerator. Great, thank you very much. Any other questions
[2:07:48] of administration from the board. Mr. Polanski. Blonkowski through the
[2:07:55] church. So I just want to make sure what you're
[2:07:59] saying is that the wind condition doesn't matter if you
[2:08:03] perform burning in the incinerator. Through the chair to member
[2:08:10] Plankowski, they did not say that the wind condition does
[2:08:13] not apply. They said that they are less concerned about
[2:08:17] the wind because the doors can be closed. And the
[2:08:20] incinerator does have, you know, it's completely enclosed. So if
[2:08:26] they had one door open, it is still going to
[2:08:29] block the wind from affecting the fire or moving the
[2:08:34] fire. And again, it needs to be attended to and
[2:08:37] the door can be shut to snuff the fire out.
[2:08:42] Okay, thanks. Ms. Wong. Thank you. Sally walls through
[2:08:52] the chair. I just want to ask the questions. Have
[2:08:56] fire service departments provides clear instructions how oppulanc can burn
[2:09:02] the materials. Through the charita board member weighing, I can't
[2:09:08] comment on whether they've provided clear instructions. Um, I've not
[2:09:12] been a part of that conversation, but based on the
[2:09:15] conversation that I just had, it sounds to me like
[2:09:18] the fire inspector has spoken with Mr. Trensky about the
[2:09:21] burn. And about the safety of using the incinerator or
[2:09:26] the sea can to do that. Thank you. Um, another
[2:09:35] question. You get answer from fair departments just give us
[2:09:39] suggestion haland for this amount of materials in schedule C.
[2:09:45] What takes you to burn. Through the chair to board
[2:09:50] member weighing, uh, we can probably try to reach out
[2:09:52] to them both inspectors are out on an inspection at
[2:09:55] this time. So if there's an opportunity to have another
[2:09:58] break, we can try getting a hold of them on
[2:10:00] the phone again. Yeah, I think we'd like to have
[2:10:04] that possibility, please, if you could reach out to them.
[2:10:09] Can you get them on cell phone. Through the chair,
[2:10:14] uh, to the chair. I believe that, uh, we can
[2:10:17] try to get them on the cell phone again. They
[2:10:19] were just on route to an inspection. Right. Um. Let's,
[2:10:24] let's do a five minute recess and hopefully you can
[2:10:26] get them and you can answer that question. So the
[2:10:28] question is, in their estimation, how long would it take
[2:10:31] to burn the material that's in question in this incinerator
[2:10:35] that's been approved? To use by the fire department.
[2:10:45] Oh, yeah. And secondarily, if there would be an alternative
[2:10:49] place to move those piles too, if burning could not
[2:10:54] or would not happen, is there another place on the
[2:10:57] property that the materials could be moved to. Without creating
[2:11:02] an additional fire hazard. Potential fire hazard. And maybe you
[2:11:08] need 10 minutes to do that, do you? Mr. Chair,
[2:11:12] I think five minutes will suffice. Great. Thank you. We'll
[2:11:14] adjourn for five minutes.
[2:19:11] We need to be retrained after Rebbery recess. I'm sorry.
[2:19:14] My apologies will call this meeting back to order. There
[2:19:16] was a question out to administration for looking for a
[2:19:19] couple of answers. Do we have answers? Thank you, Mr.
[2:19:23] Chair. Lorraine Wesley, manager enforcement services. Yes, I was able
[2:19:27] to speak with the fire inspector. What he said was
[2:19:31] that they feel, or he felt that the burning could
[2:19:35] be concluded within a week if burning was done. Daily.
[2:19:42] He did go on to say from that this matter
[2:19:47] could have easily been addressed by this time. And then
[2:19:52] in relation to the question with regarding to moving these
[2:19:55] piles elsewhere on the property, he said that it's deadfall
[2:19:59] and it could be moved anywhere. There's dead fall on
[2:20:02] the property. And there should be no concern as far
[2:20:05] as that goes. He did note that any part north
[2:20:09] of the house in the existing tree area would suffice.
[2:20:16] Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Anything else from the
[2:20:22] board? Great, thank you. The committee will now recess to
[2:20:25] review the submissions and determine if the board has any
[2:20:28] further questions. The recess will also give Rockyview County administration
[2:20:32] and the appellant time to put together their closing statements.
[2:20:36] Closing statements can only be in direct response to submissions
[2:20:40] made as part of the hearing and cannot introduce new
[2:20:43] information to the appellant and Mr. Marple would five minutes
[2:20:49] be sufficient for you to put together closing remarks. Or
[2:20:56] 10, you let us know. Please, please introduce yourself as
[2:20:59] well. Mike's not on. I had the problem too. It's
[2:21:06] Mr. Marble for the appellant. If we could have 10
[2:21:09] minutes, sir, that would be great. 10 minutes then. We'll
[2:21:11] have a 10 minute recess and we'll reconvene at 1125.
[2:21:18] Thank you.
[2:34:43] We'll call a meeting back to order. Before we get
[2:34:45] on to the rebuttal, I just have one more question
[2:34:49] for administration. In your written submission, should the board, should
[2:34:57] the board uphold the enforcement order? You'd indicated that two
[2:35:02] weeks was a suggested time of extension that would be
[2:35:05] appropriate or. Sufficient. We heard from fire that they thought
[2:35:11] a week - long burning every day might cover that
[2:35:15] up, or it could have been done already. So that's
[2:35:19] question, part one of two questions, I guess. And secondly,
[2:35:24] if the board upheld the enforcement order and the appellant
[2:35:31] didn't take appropriate action within whatever time is designated as
[2:35:35] an extension, could you just inform the board as to
[2:35:40] the next steps that would occur. In that matter. Yes,
[2:35:46] thank you to you, Mr. Chair Lauren Wesley, manager enforcement
[2:35:49] services. I think we're still comfortable with that two -
[2:35:53] week timeline. It gives a little bit of flexibility, so
[2:35:57] burning doesn't have to be conducted every day. And then
[2:36:00] with relation to if the board does uphold the order,
[2:36:04] and it's not complied with, our next steps would then
[2:36:07] be to seek and order through the Court of King's
[2:36:10] bench, allowing the county the ability with the RCMP to
[2:36:15] go in and remove those items from the property at
[2:36:19] the landowner's expense. Thank you very much. And if we
[2:36:27] could just have the appellant up for one quick question
[2:36:32] before we go to closing statements. So either Mr. Marble
[2:36:36] or Mr. Trinsky, one or the other. Thank you, sir.
[2:36:39] The question to you would be given should the board,
[2:36:45] or if the board upheld the enforcement order. Administration has
[2:36:50] suggested a two - week period in which to complete
[2:36:55] the actions that are outlined in the enforcement order. Would
[2:36:58] two weeks be in your or the appellant's position be
[2:37:03] satisfactory. That's Mr. Marble for the appellant. Sir, no, I
[2:37:11] don't think that that would be a sufficient amount of
[2:37:14] time. I did speak with my client's over the brief
[2:37:20] adjournment about this. One of the issues is that depending
[2:37:24] on the volume of word and based on what was
[2:37:28] identified by enforcement, it could be up to about 150
[2:37:31] metric tons of wood. And that's because some of the
[2:37:37] photos in schedule C of the order are of single
[2:37:41] logs that are circled, while some of them are of
[2:37:46] piles of logs that are circled. So based on that,
[2:37:53] it's frankly rather difficult to make a representation as to
[2:37:58] an accurate amount of time to burn. All of that,
[2:38:02] because we don't know with particularity which examples of these
[2:38:07] logs we are being asked to burn or the full
[2:38:11] volume of them, sir. Okay, thank you. Sure, Mr. Trinsky.
[2:38:23] Please introduce yourself again, sir. Please introduce yourself. Thank you.
[2:38:28] Mr. Chair, we should differ between number of days needed
[2:38:35] to burn and number of days when this is possible.
[2:38:40] To do, because there are so many factors that needs
[2:38:42] to be taken in consideration. For example, one is the
[2:38:45] direction of the wind. Can I keep neighbours in a
[2:38:49] smoke. For 24 hours or 48 hours or whatever. Another
[2:38:58] thing is, even when you burn in insignia, through that
[2:39:02] of sparks coming out, and in Alberta Wedder, even when
[2:39:09] in the sum of any dry, and there is no
[2:39:11] fire band, you can have a fire catching grass actually
[2:39:15] as a matter of fact I had to testify in
[2:39:17] court in Cochrane when there was a fire in this
[2:39:20] county caused by unforeseen. The normal
[2:39:30] season for burning is the winter when you have a
[2:39:33] snow cover, sufficient snow cover, so the fire cannot spread
[2:39:39] because in Alberta, also when it's dry, because of a
[2:39:42] dark soil, full of organic matter, you have instances where
[2:39:46] the fire goes into the ground, and it's hard to
[2:39:50] deal with the reason one of reasons why the burning
[2:39:54] season is in the winter. I strongly believe that estimate
[2:40:00] of 14 days is based on a few. Smaller piles
[2:40:08] that the gentleman from the fire and department, and me
[2:40:13] discussed not the whole amount what needs to be burned.
[2:40:21] I estimate it would take at least 30 days working
[2:40:24] 30 days to burn everything. Okay, thank you very much.
[2:40:28] Appreciate your comment. Thank you. Great. Now is the time
[2:40:33] for Rocky View County administration to make their closing statement?
[2:40:37] Please remember that closing statements can only be in direct
[2:40:40] response to submissions made as part of the hearing and
[2:40:43] cannot introduce new material. I think you, Mr. Chair, Lorraine
[2:40:51] Wesley, manager enforcement services. One of the comments that was
[2:40:54] made early on by Mr. Marble was that this is
[2:40:56] not particularly unusual to see these piles on agricultural properties.
[2:41:04] While this is a true statement, it is particularly unusual
[2:41:07] to see the accumulation of materials such as this along
[2:41:12] a shared fence line, uh, with a neighbour. The video
[2:41:15] that was shown, um, was the adjacent landowners walking the
[2:41:19] fence line to see what entering their property looked like
[2:41:22] on a daily basis. They were literally walking along the
[2:41:26] shared fence line to show what it was that they
[2:41:28] saw. This was done for the purpose of change to
[2:41:32] the land use spile off for secans. Um, just to
[2:41:35] put that into perspective, uh, in that, you can see
[2:41:39] the accumulation of the material that formed part of the
[2:41:43] unsightly property that Officer Anderson had spoken to previously. Um.
[2:41:50] Officer Anderson also mentioned that the either unsightly materials were
[2:41:54] removed with the exception of the piles. Um. In the
[2:42:03] submission that was made by the appellant, it did show
[2:42:05] pictures that showed similar piles of material, but again, they
[2:42:10] were not along a shared property line that the adjacent
[2:42:13] neighbour see daily while driving onto their property. Um, enforcement
[2:42:19] services does not, and fire services for that matter does
[2:42:22] not have concerns with the deadfall. Um, it is just
[2:42:25] the accumulation of the piles along the shared fence line.
[2:42:29] Um. Officer Anderson had been working with the appellant to
[2:42:36] deal with the unsightly nature of it. And the appellant
[2:42:39] asked Officer Anderson if he could burn those piles. Uh,
[2:42:42] an officer Anderson did give extensions, um, to have those
[2:42:47] piles burned. And then the incinerator was brought in, I
[2:42:51] would say, relatively recently in the process. Um, fire permit
[2:42:55] approvals are granted within 24 to 48 hours, uh, not,
[2:43:00] you know, weeks, uh, and you can see up to
[2:43:02] a 72 hour delay if it's over the weekend. I
[2:43:06] do want to highlight that the bylaw states, I'm just
[2:43:10] going to pull it up here. My apologies. Um, unsightly
[2:43:15] property means any property or part of which in the
[2:43:18] opinion of a designated officer, being officer Anderson characterized by
[2:43:23] visual evidence of a serious disregard for general maintenance and
[2:43:27] upkeep, examples of which include but are not limited to.
[2:43:32] So. The unsightly nature of a property includes any of
[2:43:37] those items that are listed, but it is not limited
[2:43:39] to. And in the opinion of the designated officer being
[2:43:42] officer Anderson, uh, there was an unsightly issue and there
[2:43:47] continues to be an unsightly issue based on the piles
[2:43:49] of deadfall that are along the shared fence line. Um,
[2:43:54] and I guess just in closing, I want to be,
[2:43:58] uh, clear that we're not asking for the piles to
[2:44:01] be burnt. We are simply asking for them to be
[2:44:04] removed from the shared fence line. And as a fire
[2:44:08] services, uh, answered in the question that was posed by
[2:44:11] the board, they can be moved to anywhere the tree
[2:44:15] area on the property, anywhere that there is existing deadfall.
[2:44:19] Thank you, Mr. Chair and board members. Thank you very
[2:44:24] much for your presentation. Does the committee have any questions.
[2:44:28] Seeing none. Now it's time for 2110524. Alberta limited the
[2:44:34] appellant to make their closing statement. Please remember that closing
[2:44:38] statements can only be in direct response to submissions made
[2:44:41] as part of the hearing and cannot introduce new information.
[2:44:45] Please state your name again. And turn your mic back
[2:44:48] on. Thank you. Mr. Marble for the appellant. I thought
[2:44:54] the mic had been turned off. Thank you Mr. Chair.
[2:45:03] Um. The first thing that I'd like to say in
[2:45:09] closing is that the order is presently issued as we
[2:45:15] were just pointing out to somewhat unclear as to what
[2:45:19] piles of logs precisely are to be burned. We heard
[2:45:23] in the closing from administration that it's those piles along
[2:45:29] the, along the property line. Um, should the board choose
[2:45:34] to issue an order? I think that that's something that,
[2:45:39] uh, with, with respect might need to be addressed so
[2:45:42] that there's some guidance as to what council's compliance. Uh,
[2:45:48] it remains the submission of the appellant that this sort
[2:45:52] of has not been properly issued as a result of
[2:45:56] section three of the nuisance and on site lead property
[2:45:59] bylaw, which relies on the definition of animal material, building
[2:46:05] material or yard material. The issue remains that yard material,
[2:46:12] uh, just doesn't encompass, uh, deadfall, uh, of this nature.
[2:46:19] And the bylaw, uh, doesn't contemplate, uh, material of this
[2:46:26] nature being encompassed.
[2:46:37] The issue with the order being executed aside from what
[2:46:40] precisely is it's going to be burnt is placing a
[2:46:48] time limit on, on Mr. Choniski. It can also be
[2:46:53] somewhat problematic given that the fire permits, if things are
[2:46:58] going to be burnt, uh, place liability on the appellant
[2:47:05] should something happen. Uh, should it not be, should it
[2:47:09] not be safe to burn. Um, so again, this is
[2:47:12] a concern with the time limit with a time limit
[2:47:16] being applied here. Additionally, there's a, there's an issue here
[2:47:21] with, with the fairness of, of this bylaw being applied
[2:47:26] in this manner, um, against this property where, uh, as
[2:47:31] we've pointed out, there are similar, uh, there are similar
[2:47:34] properties with similar wood piles. In fact, including the neighbor's
[2:47:39] property, uh, where enforcement actions such as this, uh, including
[2:47:44] for materials along a property line or close to a
[2:47:47] road in the case of those, uh, those piles pointed
[2:47:52] out in exhibit seven of the board's materials today. If
[2:47:59] there has to be fairness in how this bylaw is,
[2:48:02] is going to be implemented. And I was particularly the
[2:48:06] case given the fact that this is an agricultural property
[2:48:13] and the practices on this property are the sorts of
[2:48:19] practices anticipated under the agricultural operations and practices act in
[2:48:25] Alberta. Which we've cited in the appellant supplemental submissions. I
[2:48:33] wanted to briefly address the issue of the sawmill because
[2:48:37] I think there perhaps may be some confusion over the
[2:48:43] nature of the sawmill. The sawmill is a piece of
[2:48:47] equipment. It is a portable sawmill. This is not a
[2:48:52] permanently affixed sawmill in a purpose building. Uh, it's a
[2:48:59] piece of equipment that sits in a shed. And it
[2:49:05] can be moved as with any other piece of equipment,
[2:49:12] uh, for, for context. And speaking with my client, um,
[2:49:16] I'm told that the, uh, equipment itself is approximately two
[2:49:20] and a half metres wide two metres tall and approximately
[2:49:24] a metre thick. So it's, it's portable and it's similar
[2:49:33] as a piece of equipment to, you know, a large
[2:49:36] chainsaw or, or a log splitter. The building that it
[2:49:40] sits in as a shed that would not require a
[2:49:45] development permit in and of itself to build. So the
[2:49:49] shed is simply a place to store a piece of
[2:49:53] equipment. Sir, in closing, it remains the appellant submission that
[2:50:02] the enforcement order was not properly issued as it's simply
[2:50:06] not issued in line with proper interpretation of the, of
[2:50:12] the bylaw or the definition of yard waste under the
[2:50:16] bylaw. And for that reason, the order, uh, should be
[2:50:20] rescinded. Um, you've heard the appellant's comments, uh, directly from
[2:50:28] the appellant on should the board should the board uphold
[2:50:35] the order or vary the order in some manner as
[2:50:38] to reasonable time period already. So I won't, uh, I
[2:50:42] won't purport to repeat, uh, all of that. Um. It's,
[2:50:49] uh, it's our request at this board. Recind the order
[2:50:54] and, uh, allow the appellant to continue with the management
[2:50:57] of the property, including the return of the deadfaults who
[2:51:00] were at originally fell in conjunction with regular agricultural practices.
[2:51:05] Subject to any questions or I'll ask, I'll turn to
[2:51:09] my client if he has any other comments, perhaps. Thank
[2:51:14] you, Mr. Tinsky. If you come to the podium, please
[2:51:16] state your name. Mr. Chair, it's Marianne Trensky. I would
[2:51:22] just like to point to one very important detail. We
[2:51:29] are talking here about piles. Well, when you look at
[2:51:32] the aerial map at that rate square, it's two acres
[2:51:37] marked. And it's not next to the property line. It's
[2:51:40] up to between 50 and 100 metres from the property
[2:51:43] line. So in such undefined order, it's very hard to
[2:51:52] comply with it. Because if Mr. Anderson has circled single
[2:51:59] log somewhere where he did, my neighbour didn't like to
[2:52:01] see single log. He rounded up, mark some piles. And
[2:52:08] then he went to the extent of marking two acres
[2:52:12] that he needs to be cleaned. So that's very unclear.
[2:52:17] And even if the order would be kept, that, that's
[2:52:26] impossible for me to perform and not to run into
[2:52:30] a trouble. I hope I'm clear enough. It shows two
[2:52:37] acres that needs to be cleaned. And there is no
[2:52:43] point, then it's no markings. So if I clean it,
[2:52:48] let's say 55 metres from the property line in my
[2:52:52] interpretation, Mr. Anderson can come with an order from the
[2:52:55] court that he wants it 56 metres. It's not defined.
[2:53:01] You cannot perform something what is not to define. I
[2:53:06] thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Prinsky. Does the
[2:53:10] committee have any questions of the appellant. No? No? Great.
[2:53:15] Thank you. Um, so the committee does not have any
[2:53:18] further questions. Uh, I think, are you speaking again, sir?
[2:53:23] Just shutting off the mic. Thank you. Sorry. I just,
[2:53:29] if it's of assistance to the board, the, uh, diagram
[2:53:34] that my client, sorry, it's Mr. Marble for the appellant
[2:53:38] for the record. If it's of assistance to the board,
[2:53:42] the two acre rectangle that my client was referring to
[2:53:45] is the orange rectangle that's at page six in exhibit
[2:53:50] two of the board's materials for today. Great. Thanks very
[2:53:53] much for that clarification. Any further questions from the board.
[2:53:58] No, none seeing none, great. Uh, the committee has sufficient
[2:54:02] evidence to close the hearing. The hearing is now closed
[2:54:06] and are written decision, uh, will be issued. In, well,
[2:54:11] before I close a meeting, I guess I should have
[2:54:13] asked the question of the appellant. If you can please
[2:54:15] come up. One or the other, I just would like
[2:54:18] to ask you, do you feel you've had a fair
[2:54:21] and a fair opportunity to present your evidence. Uh, yes,
[2:54:30] Mr. Chair, thank you. Uh, your name again, sir. I'm
[2:54:32] sorry. Mr. Marble for the appellant. Thank you very much.
[2:54:35] Uh, the committee has sufficient evidence to close the hearing
[2:54:37] now. The hearing is now closed and are written to
[2:54:40] shown. We'll be issued to all parties by email. Thanks
[2:54:43] very much to everyone in attendance.