Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-07 - Marijuana Advisory Committee Minutes MINUTES MARIJUANA ADVISORY COMMITTEE DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 MEETING #7: APRIL 7, 2016 – 4:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER The 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 and Matt Martin, Associate Planner. II. INTRODUCTIONS AND OPENING REMARKS Mary summarized the committee’s progress to date and outlined goals for this evening’s discussion. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Petsche spoke about the greenhouse near his property and submitted photos. Toni Oliver of Redmond testified that she lives on a small farm. She is concerned about setbacks and noise from fans, which animals don’t like. Jan Dorgan of Redmond asked about the ratio of industry representatives on the committee. She also suggested a screening process for workers on farms and is concerned about hiring of convicted felons. She questioned why taxpayers are subsidizing the industry – there are more taxes on properties, more emergency room visits, responsibilities when we are sued by surrounding counties that have opted out. Why is this panel also not considering electrical uses? Jon Olsen from Tumalo spoke about setbacks and greenhouses. To have the County put automatic restrictions in place puts the County at risk. Perhaps we need a waiver between neighbors who have agreed to work together. Right now there are no restrictions on unsightly international shipping containers and they can be stacked up for screening. If EFU 2 property holders are farming marijuana with a mortgage, they are in violation and will lose their properties. Ron Radebaugh said he has owned property in Tumalo for 20 years. The industry is here, and attempts to make it go away by using slang terms such as “marijuana” and “pot,” will not work. Many support this industry because it gives them better lives. Canada and the rest of the U.S. are watching what goes on in Bend. He started taking CBD (hemp) for arthritis and back pain and it works. He sells lights to people in the marijuana industry, who informed him about this committee. Dan Harrison said he lives in Tumalo and is a veterinarian who provides services for farms and ranchers. These are friendly neighbors; they are kind and will help you out in the rural areas. Many people have chosen that as a lifestyle – they like quiet nights. He urges the Board to protect this environment and get ahead of the curve. There is no setback that wouldn’t infringe on the fabric of their lifestyle. Lori Sullivan testified that she is a rural resident and has been present for each meeting of the committee. She works in the horticultural industry and began doing patient advocacy in 1996. Her daughter has special needs and has benefitted from cannabis. She had a previous career in solar energy. Larger parcel sizes and increased setbacks only attract out- of-state businesses that can afford the properties. She spoke about lighting requirements as discussed during previous committee meetings. She would like to have the committee reconsider outdoor grows. Jeff Glasburg talked about the committee’s attempt to develop reasonable regulations. He showed Jim Petsche’s map and asked who would buy the property if the grow is next door. The value would plummet. He asked the committee to be sensitive and talk about what is reasonable for mitigating impacts. Justin Gottlieb said that Jackson County filed a LUBA lawsuit today which has direct impact on these proceedings. IV. FINAL APPROVAL OF CONSENSUS ITEMS Mary suggested that the members set aside production and processing for now, because they are incomplete, and focus on retail and wholesale. Affirmation of consensus items for retail and wholesale. All green cards indicated consensus. V. DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS BUILDING ON MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA REGULATIONS: PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING IN EFU Matt gave an overview of Deschutes County Code and said processing of a farm crop in EFU is permitted outright as a result of state law. Two primary components are important – one quarter of the crop being processed has to come from the same farm; and the size of the processing facility cannot exceed 10,000 square feet. There needs to be a specific relationship between the subject property and the farm operation. One member asked about two types of processing for marijuana – with and without extracts, one of which is much more 3 dangerous. Can we permit non-extract processing and exclude extract processing in EFU? Matt said yes, and limits can also be established such as allowing certain processing only on properties within a fire district. A proposal was made to allow no extract processing on EFU parcels. If this is found to not be legal, then a recommendation was made to allow processing of extracts only on 80 acres or above to minimize potential fire damage. A suggestion was added for 500-foot setbacks. a. Lot size for processing, including extracts: One member offered an alternate proposal for farming and processing to be outright permitted uses on EFU, with no additional restrictions. Another member related that ORS says if the facility is located on a farm operation providing at least one quarter of the crops for processing, and a building is provided for processing, the processing area may not exceed 10,000 square feet. It must comply with all applicable standards but state statutes specifically preclude the County from imposing reasonable regulations. Nick discussed the language and whether reasonable regulations may be adopted. Another member wanted to clarify that processing-related words like “explosion,” may sound a little bit aggressive. She stressed that processing is described and clarified based on public safety standards. There are policies and procedures in place to regulate the business. Another member felt that 10,000 square feet was a lot of space and more than is usually needed. He proposed ten- acre minimums for processing extracts, 100-foot setbacks from property lines; 300 for residences. He also discussed closed-loop systems used on the black market which are not engineered and approved by the Fire Marshall and do not cost $10-$20,000 as a good system does. We should not force legal processors with high quality machines out of processing – this will drive more black-market operators into the area. The good machines contain 99% of the gas, and there are large differences between machines. We could see more explosions if unsafe machines come into the area. A member confirmed that they had gotten consensus on noise, lighting and odor. Mary said County staff had indicated we could not completely disallow processing in EFU because state law allows it. We are talking about extract processing only. Another member felt no additional restrictions are necessary because licensed processors will have to meet the OLCC requirements. Additional restrictions will only encourage non-licensed operations to do this. She is more concerned about fires from neighbors’ burn piles. To get a license through OLCC or OHA, there are rigorous rules that have to be followed. It is a highly regulated industry. Another member said a good way to compare processes is to look at Bendistillery which is on EFU and uses a high-pressure, flammable process and has to follow safety procedures. That is what OLCC will do for marijuana processing. Local fire departments will have to sign off on all building requirements. This is a real business and if we don’t regulate it, we will find our community in a much worse situation than we are in now. Also, processing is not practical outdoors. Matt added that processing has to take place in a fully enclosed room. Another member said that probably the most dangerous processing is grain processing, which is very explosive. A member said that in Colorado all marijuana facilities have to be in industrial-zoned areas, not EFU. There is concern about quantity, inspection and risk. Another member felt that if setbacks are included, they should be zero on the property line but there should be a setback for a house not on the property. If there aren’t a lot of houses near the property, more jobs can be created. 4 A proposal was modified for a 200-foot setback from any house not on the property. Another member expressed concern about not having setbacks. Matt said there is already a minimum setback of 25 feet for all buildings; dwellings have a 100-foot setback. One proposal was modified for setbacks of 300 feet from a residence not on the property and the County minimum of 25 feet from the property line otherwise. A proposal was made to double the requirements of the County Code for setbacks and 300 feet from a residence not on the property. One member suggested using the Planning Commission recommendations which were 200- foot setbacks from any property line; additionally no processing within 300 feet of an adjoining structure (residence not on the same property). Another member wanted to add language stating that closed-loop engineered systems as required by the OLCC be mandatory. The possibility of the OLCC and OHA codes changing was considered. Proposal A: No extract processing on EFU; or if it is illegal to prohibit it, only on 80- acres minimum with 500-foot setbacks. Vote: 2 green cards 10 red cards 1 yellow card Liz will write up the “pro,” and Lindsey will write up the “con.” Proposal B: No additional restrictions on processing of extracts other than current Code/OLCC minimums - closed-loop system required; 25-foot setback from the lot line; 300-foot setback from any residence not on the property. Discussion: A member asked if the committee can make restrictions that are stricter than OLCC and whether they would stand up in court. Nick said the committee can make them, but we don’t know how they will stand up. Another member said there are only 60-80 applications pending right now with the state. One member felt that the number of licenses submitted to date really has no bearing on those that may be submitted in the future. Vote: 4 greens 5 red cards 4 yellow cards Josh will write up the “pro,” Sam will write up the “con.” 5 Proposal C: Minimum parcel size for processing extracts of 10 acres; 100-foot setback from lot line, 300 feet from a residence not on the profperty; closed-loop sytems. Vote: 4 green cards 6 red cards 3 yellow cards No write-ups. Proposal D: Setbacks of double the County Code requirement plus 300 feet from a residential property. Vote: 6 green cards 4 red cards 3 yellow cards Lindsey will write up the “pro,” Sam will write up the “con.” Proposal E: 200-foot setback from the lot line; 300 feet from a residence not on the same property. Vote: 3 green cards 7 red cards 3 yellow cards Proposal F: No processing within 300 feet of a property line for an existing or applied for/permitted primary residence not on the property. A member was concerned about de-valuing properties next door (for a residence). Another member reminded everyone that property values and economics were not part of the discussion. Vote: 11 green cards 2 red cards Hunter will write up the “pro,” Sam will write up the “con.” Matt clarified that the above discussions and votes were for processing extracts. b. Separation (production and processing) One member suggested using the retail consensus plus churches, public playgrounds, libraries and separation between licensed facilities as the City of Bend does. If you have an unlimited number of OLCC licenses, there could be a clustering in one area which should be avoided. She recommends a three-mile separation. Another member asked whether the idea was to put them all out in the middle of nowhere as was previously suggested; the member recommending a three-mile separation asked if all of the growers present would 6 agree to that right now. Another member asked for clarity on Bend’s separation requirements. It was stated that this was only for retail (recreational or medical); processing can occur right next to a school or park. A member said it was an interesting idea to group everything “in the middle of nowhere,” which was referred to by a previous governor as “everything east of the Cascades.” The language used by the Planning Commission was considered and a proposal made to use that, without the 501(c)(3) language (retail consensus). Proposal A: No separation at all. Vote: 6 green cards 6 red cards 1 yellow card Proposal B: Retail consensus, addition in protecting areas. Vote: 1 green 10 red cards 2 yellow cards Liz will write up the “pro.” No one volunteered to write up the “con.” Proposal C: Retail consensus (separation of 1000 feet from public and private elementary schools, state parks, national monuments, licensed youth and activity centers, licensed day care centers). No separation between processing and production sites. Vote: 8 green cards 5 yellow cards Mary asked if existing licensed medical facilities should be addressed differently. A member suggested that if there is a pre-existing facility there be a grandfather clause. Nick said we could impose noise, odor and lighting considerations within a reasonable time period but not setbacks. Matt said we use the term “lawfully established,” rather than “licensed.” If someone has an existing grow that is within the parameters of the medical marijuana program, the County would consider it lawfully established. A member asked if there was consensus on measurements; Mary said it was from the buildings. Proposal D: Existing medical marijuana processing and production sites that are lawfully established shall be exempted from this standard; if they apply for a new license, the separation rules apply. Vote: 12 green cards 1 yellow cards 7 Measurement regulations were discussed, and a proposal was made for 1000 feet from the lot line of the school to the actual premises, whether inside or outside/grow site. c. Setbacks Proposal A: For new production/processing, County minimum setbacks for any existing building; 300 feet setback from an existing residence not the same property. Lot sizes were considered and limiting parcel sizes via setbacks, some of which was discussed during the last meeting. Vote: 5 green cards 7 red cards 1 yellow card Josh will write up the “pro,” Liz will write up the “con.” Proposal B: 200 feet from a lot line and 300 feet from the lot line to an existing dwelling, not measured from the area used for production. On member felt that the committee has worked a lot on odor, noise and lighting and would propose 100 feet from the property line, 300 feet from a permitted residence. Jackson County also dropped its setback to 75 feet; 200 feet was considered unreasonable by some committee members. Another member proposed a 200-foot setback from a lot line; 300 feet for indoor grows; 1000-foot setback from an outdoor grow to an existing building. A member said that from the agriculture side we may be going about this backwards. This is an EFU zone where residences are not supposed to be there – the homes should have to be set back from the property line in order to protect the farms producing agricultural products next door. Another member said that, regarding people who bought into EFU land and should not complain, the same theory could apply to new recreational marijuana businesses which could move to less- restrictive areas than Deschutes County if it ends up that way. A comment was offered by one member that she lives on a uniquely-shaped property and this would actually work against her neighbors. What are all of the implications of a 200-foot setback? She saw wording in the language regarding wineries on EFU applying for variances. She should like to see language that encourages variances. She would like to see 100 feet for the setback and 300 feet from a residence, adding language that encourages variances (if the applicant fits one of the four criteria on the variance application). Vote: 5 green cards 8 red cards No write-ups. 8 Proposal C: 100 feet from the lot line; 300 feet from a residence. Vote: 5 green cards 2 red cards 6 yellow cards Lindsey will write up the “pro,” Liz will write up the con.” Proposal D: Indoor grows - 200 feet from the lot line, 300 feet from a residence; outdoor grows 1000 feet from a residence not on the property, either existing or applied for; 200 feet from a lot line. It was proposed to add language to each proposal regarding neighbors agreeing to lesser setbacks and signing a written statement. Mary said this could not be added to others’ proposals but a separate proposal could be made. Renters versus owners were considered. Nick said that many setbacks are allowable for variances. It is in the winery section because we took it from statute. We do have neighbors’ signoffs for solar variance and surface mining impact areas. Vote: 5 green cards 8 red cards Sam will write up the “pro,” Lindsey will write up the “con.” Proposal E: Include language to the effect of “unless a variance is granted.” Vote: 11 green cards 2 red cards Allison will write up the “pro.” Proposal F: Include language allowing neighbors to agree to lesser or no setbacks. Vote: 9 green cards 2 red cards 2 yellow cards Proposal G: Existing lawfully permitted buildings in place as of the date of the Board’s decision are exempt from the lot line requirement. The members considered promoting use of existing agricultural structures and improving them as needed for processing. 7 green cards 5 red cards 1 yellow card 9 Dates were discussed for compliance with odor and lighting requirements (#33) – applied to existing sites after one year. One member wanted to reconsider the date requirement and the original proposal was reviewed. Mary asked if there were other consensus items that the members wanted to revisit. A member asked for clarification about mitigation technologies and that they should be appropriate – noise, odor and light – and meeting one year of time for compliance. Mary said that noise compliance was not given a year. For lighting, existing sites would have a year to comply. The committee was silent on odor compliance timelines. An email from Matt to members summarized a decision that marijuana processing/production sites in EFU shall comply with noise control standards of DCC 8.08; one member objected to “noise from mechanical equipment used shall not produce sound measured at any lot line of the subject property line in excess of 50 dBA.” There was disagreement also as to whether this applies to existing sites. One member read from County Code standards regarding noise control and felt that the previous meeting’s decision weakens the Code language. She would like the County Code to apply 24/7, however, rather than 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Members could not agree on whether the second sentence reduces or strengthens and requirement. Another member asked if the County receives complaints when tractors and bailers are running. Nick said that the County does not enforce noise ordinances. Another member clarified that right now he could run a tractor next to a house all night long; a distinction was made that fans are a permanent nuisance rather than a tractor which would go away. One grower felt that fans from greenhouses are extremely quiet. Mary reminded members that in 8.08 the noise cannot disturb a neighbor from 30 feet away per County Code. One member asked which of the two standards would be enforced by a hearings officer versus the sheriff – the existing ordinance applies to all EFU, and we are talking about only applying something to marijuana grows. One member commented that a single grower’s fan may not run all year long, but they may be staggered if there is more than one facility involved. Mary said that what would remain is that marijuana processing and production sites in EFU shall comply with DCC 8.08. Vote: 11 green cards 2 red cards Reconsideration of odor (there was previous consensus) on which the members were silent about existing medical. For lighting, existing medical has a year to comply. Vote: 12 green cards 1 yellow card Proposal: A waiver from adjoining property owners can reduce setbacks. Otherwise, 100 feet from a residence; indoor grows 300 feet from the residence; if outdoor then 1000 feet from a residence. Vote: 3 green cards 2 red cards 8 yellow cards 10 Proposal: One member proposed that the Board look at Jackson County’s and Clackamas County’s ordinances for issues not addressed by this committee. This proposal was not voted on. Mary thanked all of the members for their participation on the committee. The Board will be conducting a public hearing on May 2 at 10:00 a.m. Writeups are due April 15.