Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-17 - Marijuana Advisory Committee Minutes MINUTES MARIJUANA ADVISORY COMMITTEE DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 FEBRUARY 17, 2016 – 4:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Nick Lelack. Members present were: Josh Rodriguez, Matt Cyrus, Steve Swisher, Andrew Anderson, Jeff Ingelse (new member), 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. Mary Orton from The Mary Orton Company attended as Facilitator. II. INTRODUCTIONS Josh Rodriguez (absent from first meeting) and Jeff Ingelse (new member) introduced themselves. Josh said he wanted to be on the committee because he has rural properties and the only approved dispensary in Deschutes County. He is very much a proponent of fair land use on all sides and wants to hear everyone’s thoughts. He is inspired by his mother and family; he would like to be able to say he helped accomplish something fair and successful for the County. Jeff Ingelse said he also lives on EFU acreage and hobby farms hay and cows, in addition to a day job. He observed a lot of the process regarding this issue so far and feels that the more time and thought that go into decisions, the better. He is glad we are taking another longer look at this. He is inspired by his wife and would like to be proud of the work the MAC will do – we need compromise and logic in making good decisions. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Petsche testified that he lives in Tumalo and showed a photo which he had brought to Board and Planning Commission meetings. He built a retirement home and a medical marijuana facility was built by the neighbor 39 feet from his property line. The neighbor owns 38 acres and built close to Jim’s house. We need reasonable regulations – right now someone can build a greenhouse 25 feet next to a neighbor. Jim asked the committee to consider this as they move forward. 2 Justin Gottlieb said he has been involved with the process for over a year. He was in Salem and spoke to state legislators recently. The greatest threat to Oregon’s continued prosperity and health is poverty, not cannabis. He would like to committee to discuss marijuana handlers’ cards and get information out to the general public. The OLCC has done a good job with agricultural and retail policy but we don’t know how to connect the two, and there are communication problems on both sides. Andy Andrews testified that he lives in Alfalfa and would really like to see everyone get together and work things out. The traffic on his road has increased 75% and they can no longer ride horses there. Someone knocked down a telephone pole the other day; someone was pulled over on another recent occasion. We don’t know who these people are, going back and forth until 2:00 a.m. and it is dangerous. He has had someone drive into his driveway and look into his shop; he has been run off the road. He has spoken to the sheriff’s department because we don’t know if these people are armed or what they are doing. Some kids from the high school may get drunk and come out and die out there. This has turned the whole community around, and the road is insane. We need to know who these people are and what they are doing – someone will get killed. Winter Frisch said she has kids and has worked with a lot of businesses in town. She hopes the committee can see that everyone isn’t like those Andy spoke about. The cannabis business can help farmers and families, and she hopes we do not allow fear to make the decisions. There are options and choices. Regarding security and views that are not attractive – she would like to see the committee really take a look at this. Cyclone fencing makes people more scared and will make it harder for people to want to meet their neighbors. Also, is there any way for processes to be more streamlined? There are groups here and there and she spends hours trying to figure out how to get to the meetings; meetings get cancelled, etc. Mary reminded committee members that all committee-related discussions should take place in this room and not via email. Matt said he is forwarding comments submitted by the public to all committee members as well as uploading them to the web page. Nick clarified that sending information to all committee members is all right, but a discussion outside the actual meetings cannot take place. IV. DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS BUILDING ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA REGULATIONS Zoning Overview Nick discussed zoning and permitted vs. conditional uses (handout: “Marijuana Retail and Wholesale: Summary of Zones for Consideration to Allow”). It is a subjective process, and some applications can be decided by staff; others may go to a hearings officer or the Board. Dispensaries were at one time permitted uses; the Board has suggested they be conditional uses. Mary asked about the difference in cost between permitted and conditional uses. Nick said that permitted uses with standards that require site plan reviews can cost $2-3,000. If the application is for a conditional use it may be $3,000 plus site plan review. If the application goes to a hearings officer (independent land use attorneys hired by the County), it’s $175 per hour and a $5,000 deposit must be paid by the applicant. Sometimes there are refunds and sometimes a balance is due. Public notice is required on some permitted uses but not all. Matt added that some projects do not require prior notice but may require notice of decision. Most new site plans and all conditional uses do require mailings to surrounding 3 property owners as well as a sign being posted on the property. Nick said the “reasonable time and manner” regulations can run a full range. Wholesale Use Standards Overview Matt explained the matrix included in the meeting packets (handout: “Marijuana Wholesale (Recreational Marijuana Only): Specific Use Standards for Consideration”) that included the original proposal from the Board, Planning Commission recommendations and information from other counties. Recommendations made by the MAC would be subject to OLCC rules in the far right column. Nick said we can be more restrictive than those but not less. The Planning Commission in some cases duplicated in their recommendation what was in OLCC rules, because they found that rule important and wanted it to remain in the County Code even if it is changed by the state. Matt clarified that if a school moved within 1000 feet of an existing dispensary, the dispensary would be grandfathered in. Secure disposal of waste was mentioned and whether the garbage would be dropped at a secure site. Matt said that OLCC standards have a specific section for waste management. One of the committee members said she has to deal with the waste separately – it isn’t like regular garbage. The amount of waste has to be tracked into the cannabis tracking system along with weight (less as it dries out if not disposed of immediately). Wholesalers really don’t have waste, or if they do it isn’t much. The question was raised about how many wholesalers we would really have; some members felt that wholesaling would be a very small percentage of the industry. Discussion and Determination of Consensus: Wholesale Use Standards Mary reminded the group that they had agreed to determine consensus with colored cards as follows: green means “I support the proposal,” yellow means “I can live with the proposal,” and red means “I cannot live with the proposal.” A red card blocks consensus, and in that case, volunteers would be requested to write up the various points of view among the members for the report to the Board. Starting at the top of the matrix, Mary asked the group if anyone would like to consider home occupation; the members had consensus, with all green cards, to prohibit this. [Note that this consensus was reconsidered later in the meeting.] Storage was discussed; if storage were not allowed, a broker would organize a sale from a producer to a retailer for a fee while storing the product at the producer’s site or elsewhere. That would mean that the wholesale operation would be just an office. Warehousing and onsite storage were discussed. Matt mentioned that a wholesaler may just have an office and work with another wholesaler who has an approved storage location, perhaps within a city. Hours and signage requirements, cash on site and inspection requirements were raised. Matt said there are no specific hours of operation for an office, which would be similar to any other office use as far as County Code is concerned. Sign code for an office would be regulated by our existing sign code. The County does not regulate monetary transactions. Inspections would be handled through the licensing program; the storage component would be regulated by local code. The County would not conduct regular inspections since its code enforcement process is complaint driven. The potential traffic volume at a wholesale operation was raised; if there is no storage, there might be a van for pickups and drop-offs but no regular traffic coming in and out. One committee member suggested regular, unannounced site visits to ensure there is no onsite storage if it is not allowed. Cameras for security were mentioned; if there were only paper and pencils, would security and/or impromptu inspections be needed? It was indicated that any 4 licensed marijuana facility has to have cameras online 24 hours a day. Mary suggested that the question of regular inspections could be considered as a separate item. The group reached consensus with all green cards on the proposal of wholesale operations being an office only with no onsite storage of marijuana items or products. Members discussed home occupations again, now that the wholesale operations would have no storage. Some members felt that they should be prohibited due to opportunities for abuse; others felt they should be allowed as long as there was no onsite storage. A potential issue of home occupations was raised as to the number of mail/delivery trucks which may arrive and leave. Consensus was not reached on the proposal to allow wholesale operations as a home occupation, with several red cards. Alison will write, for the Board, the reasons in favor of allowance of home occupations; Tim will write the reasons against allowing home occupations. These write-ups are due in a week. Inspections were discussed and a proposal was offered that once a license is granted, perhaps within six months of the business being open there should be an initial inspection; then a random, unannounced inspection would be done once a year after that. A member noted that OLCC currently does random inspections on all licensed businesses. Nick asked what the inspections would involve. He noted the County only has two code enforcement officers so the Board would have to agree to fund an increase in staff. One of the members said he owns a bar and is familiar with OLCC procedures and random inspections – it would seem to be unnecessary for the County to duplicate this and take on more work. Some members strongly disagreed with using County resources for inspections. Others felt that OHA has not done a good job with inspections for medical marijuana. Still others noted there is no wholesale provision for medical marijuana, and the OLCC is more highly regulatory than OHA, and the medical “side” has much less regulation. The group did not reach consensus on random, annual, unannounced inspections with 12 red cards. Alison will write, for the Board, the reasons against requiring inspections; Liz will write the reasons in favor.. These write-ups are due in a week. Because it was agreed that storage was not allowed in wholesale operations, the remaining elements of the matrix were moot and thus not discussed. Discussion and Determination of Consensus: Wholesale Zones HB 3400 was discussed as it relates to sales by medical marijuana dispensaries. The Board adopted standards for medical marijuana dispensaries last spring. Dispensaries cannot convert to recreational sales without new land use approval. Separate legislation allowed medical growers to sell surplus to dispensaries and the dispensaries to sell the surplus, with a sunset clause at the end of this calendar year. The group reached consensus on the Planning Commission recommendations on zones. This would permit wholesale operations with no storage in the following commercial zones: 18.65.020, 18.65.021, 18.66.040, 18.66.050. 18.67.040, 18.74.027, 18.108.050, 18.108.110, and not allow them in 18.67.060, 18.74.020, 18.74.025, and 18.100. Retail Use Standards Overview Matt summarized OLCC’s requirement for recreational marijuana retail outlets of a minimum 1000-foot separation from schools but a maximum 1,000-foot separation from other recreational marijuana outlets. OHA has the same 1,000-foot buffer around schools, and 5 dispensaries cannot be within 1,000 feet of other dispensaries. The Planning Commission recommended a 1,000-foot buffer (property line to property line) from schools and expanded it to include parks or youth activity centers. Matt reviewed maps showing buffers around schools in Terrebonne, Tumalo and Three Rivers. The Planning Commission proposed a limit in hours to 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., no drive-up windows, no minors on premises unless allowed by law (patient/cardholder); no retail outlets on the same property or in the same building as social clubs; there is no odor requirement (though Clackamas and Jackson Counties have considered this). Members briefly discussed whether the 1,000-foot requirement should be from property line to property line, or from business to business. Discussion and Determination of Consensus: Wholesale Use Standards Members reached consensus with all green cards that home occupations for retail marijuana operations should be prohibited. Members reached consensus with all green cards that “waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the licensee.” Wrap-Up and Adjourn Nick suggested that the group extend its meetings to 8 pm starting at the next meeting, and the group agreed. Meetings can end earlier if possible. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 pm.