PORT ANGELES — Clallam County commissioners voted 2-1 Tuesday to delay action on a temporary ordinance that would regulate the siting of legalized recreational marijuana business.
A majority of the speakers in a 3½-hour public hearing said the proposal doesn’t go far enough to address neighborhood concerns.
Commissioners Mike Chapman and Jim McEntire voted to postpone a formal vote on interim zoning controls for cannabis production, processing and sale to adults 21 and older under the 2012-approved state Initiative 502.
“I came in thinking I would support the ordinance, but a majority of the community does not support the ordinance,” Chapman said during a heated debate with Commissioner Mike Doherty.
“So why would we pass it today?”
Doherty, who has long supported a moratorium on marijuana businesses with certain exceptions, voted against McEntire’s motion to postpone.
“We’ve kicked the can down the road for almost two years,” Doherty said.
“Clearly, there’s a community issue here, and by deferring it, you’re not going to solve this community issue,” Doherty said.
McEntire said he “substantially” agreed with the ordinance but called for a subsequent work session to improve upon it.
“As a member of the legislative body, I believe it’s incumbent on me to give the most thoughtful and thorough review to anything that deals with fundamental rights such as property rights and zoning ordinances,” McEntire said.
Doherty joined his fellow commissioners in directing the Department of Community Development to vet the proposal with the county Planning Commission.
The commission last Wednesday voted 8-0, with one abstention, to recommend banning marijuana businesses from rural neighborhoods.
Since I-502 became law, Clallam County has required marijuana growers and processors to obtain conditional-use permits from Hearing Examiner Mark Nichols before opening in rural areas.
The proposed ordinance, in effect for up to six months, would further regulate such businesses, requiring setbacks and minimum parcel sizes based on the size and scope of the growing operation or processing facility.
“You can call it a moratorium or you can call it something else, but [we voted] to not allow grow operations in residential areas for now but continue to allow them as permitted uses without a CUP [conditional-use permit] process in the industrial and commercial areas,” Planning Commission Chairwoman Nancy Esteb said during Tuesday’s hearing.
“By not allowing residential grows for a period of time, that would allow the Department [of Community Development] and the Planning Commission time to learn a lot more about it,” she said.
Doherty said it was a “pity” the Planning Commission was “kept from considering this a year ago, formally.”
Chapman said staff was never directed by a majority of the board to bring the marijuana issue to the Planning Commission.
Twelve of the 30 speakers who testified at the hearing said they supported the draft ordinance.
The majority, however, said they were opposed to the ordinance or supported an outright moratorium.
Several wandered outside the scope of the ordinance to make philosophical points about legalized pot. Some said marijuana businesses would diminish property values, cause odors or pose security risks.
Tom Montgomery, another Planning Commission member, said the panel is “eagerly looking forward to the next six months to thoroughly study the whole issue.”
“In the meantime, however, we have huge concerns,” Montgomery said. “The interim ordinance before you, with some minor tweaks, pretty much repeats and continues the existing policies.”
Doherty said most local governments in the state have favored moratoriums as the “most responsible action.”
He then took his seat mates to task for delaying action on a water supply study for the Sequim-Dungeness Valley and a 2013 investigative report into employee complaints against DCD Director Sheila Roark Miller.
“This board has not stepped up and addressed serious issues,” Doherty said.
“I take great umbrage at that comment,” Chapman replied.
“In fact, that’s unbelievable that you would bring other issues to this hearing. For the record, the board has supported the Department of Ecology’s water rule ad nauseam, much to the chagrin of thousands of people in the east end of the county. For the record, the board has dealt with the report on DCD, and the board released it to the public.”
Chapman added: “So to say that, commissioner, is so out of bounds and so out of line and so irresponsible and so damn political it makes me sick to my stomach.”
McEntire twice called for a vote on his motion to postpone action on the marijuana ordinance as his fellow commissioners debated.
Chapman said he would vote in favor of the motion based on “testimony of the people today that don’t want us to pass this.”
“I’m all for letting the Planning Commission look at it,” he told Doherty.
“But apparently, to you, that will be kicking the can down the road and not doing my job.”
Said Doherty: “No, Mike, you’re incorrect again. You do this all the time.”
“The motion was to postpone indefinitely,” Doherty said.
“That’s the motion. My commentary was I’ve seen this done before. We don’t address something. We postpone it. We rarely take it up. But we take it up after one preferred option is brought to the board.”
Doherty offered to make an alternative motion to refer the marijuana ordinance to the Planning Commission.
“It’s clear that the board wants the Planning Commission to take a look at it,” Chapman said.
“We don’t have to make motions to pass it on to the Planning Commission.
“I will predict that down the road, we will be criticized for this decision.”
________
Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 5072, or at rollikainen@peninsuladailynews.com.
