Local cops now once again have a place to detonate explosives now that a county board has quashed an appeal against an explosives disposal site in Sturgeon County.
Sturgeon County's subdivision and development appeal board released its decision last week on an appeal of a development permit issued for the RCMP's explosives disposal site.
The site is located in a gravel pit in a 147-acre county-owned plot west of Villeneuve and has been in operation for about 15 years. The nearest home is about 800 metres away.
Prior to 2011, when detonations were suspended due to noise complaints, the RCMP's K-Division bomb squad used the site to dispose of seized explosives and ammunition collected in Alberta by burning/detonating it.
The RCMP received a permit to resume burns and explosions at the site last January. Area residents Calvin Verbeek, Louis Verbeek and Audrey and Harold Granger challenged the permit, triggering last month's appeal before the board.
Residents at the appeal hearing said the site was a safety and security risk, with some saying it was a possible terrorist target. Others raised concerns about how potential noise from detonations would affect property values and waterfowl at nearby Gladu Lake.
The decision
In its written ruling, the board noted that it had heard evidence that the RCMP has operated this site for many years in a responsible manner. Based on evidence at the hearing, it believed the RCMP had addressed all safety concerns surrounding explosives storage and handling.
"Based on the evidence presented, the board is of the view that the development is a suitable use in the Gravel Extraction Land Use District," the board wrote.
The board therefore denied the appeal, but imposed new conditions on the site's operations.
The RCMP can now dispose of explosives at this site a maximum of five times a year instead of an unlimited number of times, for example. Sturgeon County planning officer Craig Walker clarified that this meant five one-day periods of disposal, not five explosions or burns. Disposal must also occur between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays with advance notice given to residents within one mile of the site.
The board also required the RCMP to only conduct detonations during the summer and winter months, not the spring/fall ones, in order to protect waterfowl on Gladu Lake during breeding and migration. (The original permit suggested, but did not require, this ban.)
And it required the RCMP to renew its permit within five years – the previous permit had been permanent once its conditions were met, Walker said.
The board found that these new conditions would address the noise, environmental and property enjoyment concerns raised during the hearing.
The board noted that although residents had raised concerns about the mining company Orica – which also stores explosives at this site – at the hearing, those concerns weren't relevant to this permit. Arguments that alternative sites were available were "irrelevant," as this appeal was about the appropriateness of this site in particular.
The board also found that "insufficient" evidence was presented to support claims at the hearing that the site would reduce property values. While legal documents such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were referenced in the hearing, the board found that those laws did not apply to the issues raised in the appeal.
Booms to resume
Walker called the decision "a very reasonable compromise" that addressed property value concerns by capping the number of disposal days per year and environmental issues around Gladu Lake.
The RCMP will comply with all conditions of the permit and continue to work with local residents on the site's operation, said Insp. Glenn de Goeij, who spoke for K-Division's bomb squad at last month's hearing.
"We'll continue to work with the county and other partners to ensure we have the highest possible security measures in place."
de Goeij said the RCMP would work with locals to figure out when birds on Gladu Lake would be migrating or breeding before it resumes detonations at the site.
Appellant Calvin Verbeek said he was still reviewing the decision and did not want to make a comment at this time.
