Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-22 - Marijuana Advisory Committee Minutes MINUTES MARIJUANA ADVISORY COMMITTEE DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 FEBRUARY 22, 2016 – 4:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by facilitator Mary Orton from The Mary Orton Company. Members present were: Josh Rodriguez, Matt Cyrus, Steve Swisher, Andrew Anderson, Jeff Ingelse, Glenn Kotara, Larry Fulkerson, Hunter Neubauer, Alison Hohengarten, Lindsey Pate, Liz Lotochinski, Sam Davis, Tim Elliott. Staff present were: Nick Lelack, CDD Director; Matt Martin, Associate Planner. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Winter Frisch said it seems like a lot of the people in the group have read the OLCC and OHA rules, which is very helpful. She feels that the timing of submitting comments does not work with having to wait until a week after the meetings, and perhaps there should be comments after each topic. Regarding retail regulations, she knows you cannot recreate in public but the opportunity for production and consumption on private property has been done with beer and wine in this town for a long time. A lot of people would love to go to a sampling room and get educated on the process. Nunzie Gould said she lives in rural Deschutes County and has submitted comments regarding retail. There are places such as Tumalo where there is a community center, a slow 25 mph main street, a failing intersection at Highway 20, and these need to be considered in Tumalo and other rural areas. Areas on the map shaded green should not necessarily be automatically considered for retail operations. Adequate septic systems for employees need to be considered. The performance and surety bond system that Deschutes County has in its code are used for things such as solar arrays (at the conclusion of use of the facility, it is removed from the site). These are used for destination resorts to provide surety that conditions of approval are met, as well. Marijuana brings OHA regulations, OLCC, DEQ, OWRD regulations, ODOT and County regulations, and if your retail site is contingent on some regulations, it would provide the community assurance that rules are enforced. 2 III. DISCUSSION ON MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA REGULATIONS - RETAIL Matt Martin gave a summary of the items in the packet for this meeting. Mary reviewed the data on the matrix: the OLCC rules say that recreational sites have to be at least 1,000 feet from schools; the local standard cannot require more than 1,000 feet from another retail operation. The Planning Commission adopted the 1000-foot standard for schools and added licensed child care centers, boys’ and girls’ clubs, and youth centers. OHA requires at least 1,000 feet between dispensaries and there are other standards as well. Matt Martin said OHA has a minimum separation between dispensaries of 1,000 feet; the Planning Commission recommendation was to clarify that and make it 1,000 feet between any and all retail outlets (medical or recreational). Measuring Separation One of the committee members felt that measuring 1,000 feet from lot line to lot line violates the statute, which says from facility to facility. This also coincides with what Jackson County and Clackamas County decided. One member noted that this may be changing in state statutes in a couple of weeks, and perhaps facilities should be located closer to each other rather than spread out. Another member offered that the definition was “property” and not “premises.” Matt quoted the OLCC regulations; several members offered that OLCC regulations should be followed or that state regulations be followed. One member suggested that specific foot distances be stated rather than following regulations. Another member felt that OLCC regulations were very specific. Lot line to lot line versus building to building distances were discussed. Susanna Julber from the City of Bend said their regulations specified 1000 feet for recreational retail, and specified property line to property line because they cannot really measure building to building without being on the property. Nick added that Clackamas County used a hybrid – property line of the school to nearest edge of the retail building. A proposal was made to defer to current state regulations for how separation is measured, acknowledging that they may change; if the state makes those regulations less strict, the County will keep their stricter regulations. If the state makes their regulations stricter, the County would have to conform to the stricter standard. Consensus was not reached as there were three red cards. Alison agreed to write up the “no” position for the report to the Board; Tim will write up the “yes” position. A proposal was considered to use the Clackamas County measurement method, from the lot line of a school, etc., to the closest point of the space occupied by a marijuana retailer. Consensus was not reached as there were two red cards. Sam agreed to write up the “no” position for the report to the Board; Steve will write up the “yes” position. A proposal was considered to measure separation from property line to property line to avoid encroachment where children are located. Consensus was not reached as there were four red cards. Lindsey agreed to write up the “no” position for the report to the Board; Liz will write up the “yes” position. A proposal was considered to measure separation in the way that the state regulations or law prescribes, even as it changes. Consensus was not reached as there were four red cards. Tim agreed to write up the “no” position for the report to the Board; Alison will write up the “yes” position. 3 Mary reminded the group they had a limited time in which to do their work; the members spoke about how to make progress and still give everyone time to speak. Separation Distances Nick said the Planning Commission spent significant time on some issues and deliberated for eight hours. They recommended a separation 1,000 feet from public and private schools, licensed child care centers (excluding in-home child care), licensed preschools and parks and licensed youth activity centers, using a 501(c)(3) boys’ and girls’ club as an example but not as a definition. In addition, they recommended 1,000 feet between all retail outlets. A suggestion was made to add public meeting places such as The Grange in Alfalfa, playgrounds and libraries. Nick mentioned procedures for when the committee recommendations are made to the Board. A concern was raised about defining things like the river because youth and the public use the river – is this all considered a park? This may be a slippery slope. Schools measured from property line to the premises were discussed. The issue of a new school being built where a retail operation exists was discussed. Nick said that once a use is established, we probably cannot require them to relocate. One member said that schools are already planning locations, especially as the City’s urban growth boundary is expanding; but the UGB process will start up again in five years which could change things again. A proposal was considered to require a separation of 1000 feet from public and private elementary and secondary schools, licensed child care centers (excluding in-home child care), licensed pre-schools, national monuments and state parks, and all approved/licensed youth activity centers; and require a separation of 1000 feet between all retail outlets (medical and recreational), and that a change in use (e.g., a new school) shall not cause a violation of this standard. Separation to be measured from the lot line of the school. The proposal was agreed to by consensus. Members voiced their opinions about locations near libraries (not mini-libraries) and the need for educating children about marijuana. The group considered a proposal that no retail marijuana facilities be allowed near public playgrounds, meeting places available for rent such as The Grange, and Deschutes public libraries. Consensus was not reached as there were 8 red cards. Liz will write up the “pro” summary; and Josh will write up the “no” summary, which are due a week from this Friday. Hours of Operation Hours of operation were considered. The Planning Commission proposed 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and the OLCC standard is 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. One member felt that the hours should be 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. because 7:00 p.m. is fairly early for summer hours. You will push traffic into the cities and are telling these people they have to drive on rural roads at nighttime to go into the cities for their medicine. Other businesses can stay open until 10:00 p.m. The operating hours should be more flexible for the County. It was mentioned that law enforcement said there might be issues with dispensaries staying open late and a shorter time requires less manpower. An argument was made that this then pushes Deschutes County law enforcement concerns over to the Bend police department. Also, people will switch to an illegal route if they can’t find a legal one for their medicine. The point was made that rural communities do not have the level of police protection that the cities have, so safety will be compromised if the 7:00 closing time is approved. It was stated 4 that City of Bend went along with state rules (7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.) and has not received any complaints in the five years that dispensaries have been operating. OLCC regulations were also considered for operating hours, and the point was raised that dispensaries in rural areas may find that it’s only viable to stay open four or five hours a day. The following proposals were considered for operating hours, and consensus was not reached on any of them. 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. – 2 red cards(Josh will write up the “pro” position, Liz will write up the “no” position) 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. – 9 red cards. No one volunteered to write this up for the report. March 1 through October 31, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and November 1 to the end of February, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. – 2 red cards. No one volunteered to write this up for the report. 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. – 1 red card. No one volunteered to write this up for the report. 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. – 2 red cards. No one volunteered to write this up for the report. There was further discussion about operating hours and various options. A proposal was considered to use the Planning Commission recommendations (10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.) except in the Spring River area due to the level of tourism there, where OLCC regulations would be followed (7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.). Consensus was not reached due to one red card. Eagle Crest was brought up as another area with a lot of tourism and traffic, but it was decided that dispensaries would probably not be allowed there due to the destination resort overlay. Staff will look further into Eagle Crest. Window Service A proposal was considered to allow no window service at retail outlets, and consensus was reached. Minors OLCC regulations prohibit anyone younger than 21 on the premises of a recreational marijuana retail outlet. OHA allows patients as young as 18 to enter a dispensary and purchase the product. It was stated that there is pending legislation on moving to one regulatory body instead of two. It was also stated that minors with medical marijuana cards do not have to be accompanied by an adult to purchase product. Mary reminded the group they could propose different regulations for recreational and medical. A proposal was considered to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation: “No minors allowed, unless accompanying a parent or guardian as allowed by state law.” Consensus was not reached as there was 1 red card. The group considered a proposal to adopt the current state regulations of a minimum age of 18 years for medical marijuana and 21 years for recreational marijuana. Consensus was reached with all green cards. 5 Co-Location The Planning Commission proposal of no consumption or smoking clubs on site with sales was considered and consensus was reached. Odor Odor was discussed. The City of Bend did not have any specific odor requirements because they cannot objectively measure them. Coffee roasting and hops from beer production also bother some. Clackamas County requires an active carbon filtration system, with specific cubic foot recommendations. One member suggested that if the retail facility is located in the county, people going into the store would not be bothered by odors. Another member disagreed and felt that there could be impacts on neighbors. A doctor’s office would have patients who could be affected, etc. A suggestion was made that this be subject to conditional use approval. Another suggestion was made that this be complaint driven. One member said Denver’s ordinance requires that an odor must be detected at a certain distance from the premises, it has to unreasonably interfere with someone else’s enjoyment of their property, and the department “has to receive five or more complaints,”. Nick said that if we go the conditional use path, some standard should be noted that can be enforced. Permitted uses and conditional uses were discussed. Nick explained conditional use code – these standards could be the baseline and the County could be more restrictive during the conditional use process. A proposal was considered to say that it shall be unlawful for any person to cause an emission of a detectable odor that unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighboring premises, with reasonable being judged as someone with normal sensibilities. It was suggested that this might be something that opens up huge issues for arguments between neighbors. One dispensary owner said he had never received any complaints about odors, nor had other dispensaries, as far as he knows. Susanna Julber from the City of Bend said she would find out if Bend has gotten complaints and get back to the group. One member mentioned the strong smell of hops through the City of Bend at any time due to all of the brewery operations. Another member felt that due to the lack of staff for County code enforcement, and the emphasis on complaints affecting health life and safety, complaints of this nature would never be investigated. It should be written in the code and specifically stated that there be odor control. It is a cost of doing business. One member questioned why the Planning Commission did not address this in its recommendations; Steven noted that with their limited time, dispensaries were considered less of an issue than grow/processing operations. The proposal did not reach consensus due to two red cards. No write-ups by members will be provided. A carbon filter for odor control (engineered fan) was discussed. Building Official Randy Scheid spoke about building codes and said you cannot create a local ordinance that is more restrictive than the code – right now we have no odor control code in the County. The Clackamas regulations were never vetted through the state. Anything we do must be approved by the state. A proposal was made to adopt the Jackson County regulations, plus the requirement that filters be changed according to manufacturers’ minimum standards, and requesting the BOCC to ensure the CFM of the fan be appropriate to the building. The proposal did not reach consensus due to five red cards. Liz will write up the “yes” side; Lindsey will write up the “no” side. 6 Another suggestion was that if a reasonable person with normal senses could smell odors outside, a carbon filter could be used. If you are on a large parcel, the odors would not be a problem. Nick mentioned that we are trying to be very precise, but the conditional use process will address sites on a case-by-case basis. There may be public hearings and competing experts on both sides, and a hearings officer would balance the evidence and make a decision, which is appealable to the BOCC. One member asked if a complaint were filed and it goes at the bottom of a pile of 400 other complaints, what happens? Nick said it depends on what is written in the code, and it could very well be that we have to wait until they reach it in the queue. There is an option of a private right of action where a citizen goes to the County Legal Counsel for enforcement, which is more expensive. Zones Zones were discussed. It was noted that the Planning Commission allowed retail via conditional use. Change of use was questioned – Matt Martin said the BOCC said that conversion to recreational from medical is considered a change of use, and a proposal can be made for a conditional use permit. A proposal was offered that for both recreational and medical marijuana, retail would be allowed in permitted zones under conditional use. Consensus was reached.