There are two notable aspects of HAZCO's intention regarding their appeal:

1. HAZCO filed their request for an appeal on April 26, 2006.
2. On April 28, 2006, two days after filing for an appeal of the MPC decision, HAZCO requested an adjournment of the SDAB appeal hearing.

Summary: The 2006 05 24 SDAB hearing was regarding the matter of HAZCO's request to have the SDAB appeal hearing adjourned. (To adjourn: 1 : to suspend a session indefinitely or to another time or place; 2 : to move to another place)  As things turned out at the SDAB hearing of HAZCO's adjournment request, it appears that HAZCO wishes to have the SDAB appeal hearing adjourned for two years or indefinitely, whichever comes later.  The SDAB decision regarding HAZCO's request for an adjournment will be issued in writing within 14 days following the May 24, 2006 SDAB hearing.

Details: The following is a more detailed report on the 2006 05 24 Lamont County SDAB hearing of HAZCO's adjournment request.

2006 05 30

Hello Friends and Neighbours,

FOLC and other interested individuals, about 30 people in all, attended the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) hearing last week, May 24, 2006, to object to HAZCO's request to have the hearing for their appeal against the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) decision against HAZCO application adjourned, apparently indefinitely.

HAZCO wanted to have the SDAB hearing adjourned until after the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) hearing for which an Order in Council has been issued by the Alberta Government. (An Order in Council is issued by the provincial cabinet, so as to bypass the normal democratic process and public discussion on a given issue.) That hearing will take place in about 1½ to two years from now.  The reason for that long interval being required is that Alberta Environment had ruled that HAZCO must do a study to assess 1.) environmental impact, 2.) health impact, and 3.) socio-economic impact of their proposed sulphur handling facility.  That assessment will take one year of work by HAZCO, with perhaps another six months of time being required before the NRCB can convene to consider a decision on HAZCO's application and assessment study report.

We will have input into the formulating of the terms of reference for HAZCO's assessment study.

At the SDAB hearing, Barry Eastwood (a member of FOLC) explained that there is reasonable apprehension of bias by Ray Lopushinsky, as the latter also is a member of the board of directors of the Alberta Industrial Heartland Association (AIHA).  The AIHA is funded by the municipalities in the Strathcona-, Sturgeon- and Lamont Counties and Fort Saskatchewan area. There is mutual involvement of the AIHA and the boards of various industrial associations, such as the NCIA (North-Central Industrial Association), funded by the large industry players in our area.
  Shell's and other corporations' names appeared prominently on some of the drawings that obviously had been produced by Shell and others for HAZCO, and that HAZCO had presented in connection with promoting its intentions for a sulphur storage and forming facility in the County of Lamont.  A major portion of the sulphur to be processed by HAZCO will be owned by Shell.  

Barry then asked that Ray Lopushinsky should remove himself from the SDAB hearings regarding HAZCO's application. (Barry Eastwood's presentation can be accessed at <http://fathersforlife.org/Bruderheim/sulphur_storage/SDAB_Adjournment_Hearing_20060524_BE.doc>.)

Following Barry's request, the SDAB held a short in-camera session.  When the SDAB reconvened, Ray Lopushinsky excused himself from the hearing, although he expressed that he did not agree with everything said by Barry.  Ray Lopushinsky was intended to be the chairman of the SDAB hearing of HAZCO's appeal.  He was replaced by one of the two members-at-large that sit on the SDAB, that is Gordon Kadatz from the Chipman area.

Here are some of the highlights of what transpired next at the SDAB hearing.

HAZCO's lawyer played down the importance of the 119 statements sent in by people who objected to having the SDAB appeal hearing postponed.  He said that the SDAB should note that the objections were largely in the form of a form-letter, that many of the objections involved individuals living at common addresses, and that he noted that none of the landowners from locations adjacent to HAZCO's intended sulphur plant site were present.  Upon that there were laughter and protestations from the audience, comprised of a considerable number of adjacent landowners, in the Lamont County Office Council Chamber.

HAZCO's lawyer explained the reasoning for the request to have the SDAB hearing adjourned, by claiming that the SDAB has a legal obligation not to disagree with the NRCB ruling.  He failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how the SDAB could possibly anticipate right now what the NRCB may decide two years from now, but he did state that, because of the long interval until then, the SDAB appeal hearing now would be pointless.  (Of course, that means that if he has his way, the SDAB hearing would never take place.  According to HAZCO's lawyer, it appears that a ruling by the SDAB regarding HAZCO's appeal would always be pointless, as the NRCB has the power to overrule any SDAB decision.)

Other objectors stated that HAZCO's lawyer was wrong in attempting to intimidate the SDAB.  Some humour was introduced by Dennis McCartney (a member of FOLC and a veterinarian), when he indicated that HAZCO was attempting to neuter the SDAB.  Luanne Penner (a member of FOLC) provided an overview of the history of HAZCO's long-standing reluctance and failure to come forth with straightforward answers to requests for detailed technical information regarding their proposal, implying that HAZCO had more than enough time to be ready for an appeal hearing now.  Luanne stressed, countering HAZCO's lawyer's downplaying of the opposition to HAZCO's application, that 98 percent or more of the large number of letters of concern sent by residents of Lamont County are in opposition to HAZCO's application. (Luanne's presentation will also be posted to folc.ca
's Web pages)

Other people present at the meeting made short presentations in opposition to HAZCO's adjournment request, while those being adjacent landowners also stressed (obviously tongue-in-cheek and in reference to HAZCO's lawyer's mistaken claim to the contrary) that they were adjacent landowners and how close to HAZCO's plant site their farms or homes were located.

All of the presenters opposing HAZCO's adjournment request expressed the wish to have HAZCO's appeal heard as soon as possible, not 1½ or two years from now or perhaps never.  There was one short statement in support of HAZCO (by Steve Andrais, a former mayor of Lamont), although that statement should perhaps have been ruled inadmissible because, rather than addressing HAZCO's wish to have the SDAB hearing postponed, it addressed the wish to have HAZCO locate their sulphur plant here because Lamont County needs the tax revenue and that the HAZCO sulphur plant would attract more industry.  Steve Andrais said nothing about why HAZCO should be entitled to an adjournment of their appeal.

I stated that the SDAB needs to hear HAZCO's appeal as soon as possible because, collectively, the residents of Lamont County have a far greater capital investment in our county than HAZCO's intended plans represent, and that we would all like to get on with our lives, of which relatively little remains in my case.

Barry Eastwood asked how things would work out if an SDAB hearing would be required at a much later date, as the composition of the SDAB may potentially be affected by the upcoming municipal elections.  The SDAB's lawyer explained that, regardless of the possible outcome of the next municipal elections, the responsibilities and composition of the present SDAB as a quorum in relation to HAZCO's appeal would continue beyond the date of the pending municipal elections.

A question was asked (I don't recall by whom) as to what would happen in case of a tied vote of the SDAB (the SDAB will now have only four members when hearing HAZCO matters).  The temporary County Chief Administration Officer (I don't recall his name), now sitting in for Harvey Prockiw (whose employment with the Lamont County has recently been terminated), stated that a tied vote would be a vote against the claimant, that is HAZCO.

Gordon Kadatz, the chairman of the SDAB, then asked HAZCO's lawyer how much time HAZCO would require to be ready for the SDAB hearing of HAZCO's appeal.  HAZCO's lawyer responded that HAZCO would require two to three months to be ready for an SDAB hearing of their appeal.

Gordon Kadatz responded that the SDAB decision on HAZCO's adjournment request would be issued in writing within 14 days following the adjournment request hearing.

That's all for now,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org/Bruderheim/sulphur_storage/Hazco.htm

PS.  Are any of you aware that Sylvia Holowach dropped off HAZCO propaganda material at some schools in the area?