Pubdate: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 Source: Trinity Journal, The (CA) Copyright: 2012 The Trinity Journal Contact: http://www.trinityjournal.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4890 Author: Sally Morris PLANNERS PROPOSE POT REGISTRY FOR AGGREGATE GROWS Now for a second time, Trinity County Planning Commissioners have wrapped up their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for controlling large-scale medical marijuana farming in the county. Previous recommendations relied on a use permit system crafted over many months to regulate aggregate grows serving multiple patients. The recommendations have since been revised to include a mandatory registration program - growers who comply with 31 standards, register their operations and submit to inspection would be immune from county code enforcement actions. The move away from use permits was based on legal advice and recent court rulings indicating that issuing permits to grow marijuana would potentially place the county in conflict with federal law against controlled substances. While most of the Planning Commission's proposed standards for personal marijuana gardens were adopted into a county ordinance by the Board of Supervisors in June, progress on another section that deals with the large scale, aggregate grow side of marijuana cultivation was delayed for additional work as marijuana laws keep evolving. "If the county issues discretionary approval through permits, we run the risk of being perceived as sanctioning marijuana cultivation. You have seen others that tried that and the feds went after them, so I don't feel comfortable doing anything that gives an appearance that we are authorizing it," said County Counsel Derek Cole during last Thursday night's session of the Planning Commission. He said he doesn't have the same problem with a registration program "because it just gives us a means of enforcement and verification. It gives growers a means to work with us and us a means to verify who is out there wishing to comply with our standards." State law would prohibit the county from profiting on its registration program, but not from collecting reasonable fees to cover its costs of administration and inspections. "It could probably be a very lucrative source of funds for local government, but agencies that have tried that have received opposition from the federal government," Cole said. The Planning Commission's aggregate grow recommendations would limit collective marijuana farms to 30-acre parcels or greater with a resource or agricultural land use designation in the county's general plan. More than 1,200 parcels of land in the county meet that criteria. Operations would also be subject to a 500-foot setback from any parcel boundary, or 500 feet from any neighboring residence if the grow is on a larger parcel. Garden size would be limited to a maximum of 99 plants in an area not to exceed 2,500 square feet whether it is indoors or outside. The recommendations go on to include 31 conditions for registered operators to adhere to in exchange for immunity from public nuisance declarations and code enforcement actions. They involve multiple aspects such as screening, security, water and power sources, record keeping and compliance with the public health and safety requirements of other regulating agencies. The planners agreed that registration should be required annually with operators subject to inspection each year. They also settled on recommendations for pre-existing, non-conforming use conditions that would allow existing operators on other land use designations such as rural residential or village to request a two-year transitional period to bring sites into compliance with the county's standards or relocate. To be eligible for consideration, the grower would have to demonstrate a good-faith effort to comply with the county's temporary limits previously enacted; maintain a 500-foot setback from parcel boundaries; hold a seller's permit or other approvals issued by the State Board of Equalization and be established as a nonprofit entity. Last week's planning meeting was sparsely attended and the only grower in the audience, Mike Boutin of Mad River, said "I am fighting for my life here. I just ask for the right to come have a meeting and ask for a variance. I've been there seven years and we've never had a complaint. There were no rules when we started up and we ended up where we ended up. Show me what I've done that deserves to be destroyed." Under the planners' recommendations, he would be eligible to request the two-year pre-existing use exemption. Senior Planner Frank Lynch said he does not foresee a flood of applicants either for pre-existing use status or for the registration program. "Any variance requests would be subject to public notice and if the neighbors aren't beating down the doors with complaints, I might be able to find some comfort level with variances. I think we're talking about a very small number of folks that will be coming in," he said. The planning recommendations will next go to the Board of Supervisors for consideration at a date to be determined. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom