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