PORT ANGELES — The Clallam County Planning Commission will “do some homework” before making a recommendation on permanent marijuana zoning, Vice Chairwoman Connie Beauvais said recently.
The land-use advisory panel is tasked with developing zoning standards for the recreational pot industry, which state voters legalized in 2012.
The nine-member Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the three county commissioners, who have the final say on where future marijuana growers, processors and retailers will be allowed in unincorporated areas.
“We are behind the 8-ball right now in terms of our knowledge level,” Planning Commission member Scott Clausen said in a work session last Wednesday.
“It’s just like studying in college again. That’s what we should be doing.”
County commissioners approved temporary zoning for the pot industry by unanimous vote Oct. 7.
The six-month ordinance, which took effect Friday, imposed tighter restrictions for growers and processors in rural zones.
Built on early drafts
The stopgap ordinance was a hybrid of earlier drafts developed by the Department of Community Development and modified by the Planning Commission.
The marijuana-specific ordinance requires at least a 15-acre parcel and a 200-foot setback in rural zones in addition to the previously required conditional-use permit from Hearing Examiner Mark Nichols.
“It’s a huge issue when we talk about residential areas,” Planning Commission member Tom Montgomery said.
Pot businesses are still allowed in industrial and most commercial zones.
The eight marijuana business applications pending with the county are not subject to interim zoning.
Fifty-five percent of Clallam County voters backed the marijuana Initiative 502 two years ago.
Yet scores of citizens have protested the siting of marijuana growing operations in their neighborhood in a series of commissioners’ meetings in recent weeks.
The state Liquor Control Board is in charge of issuing marijuana licenses.
Cities and counties have the authority to regulate the industry within their jurisdictions, the state attorney general upheld in January.
Key points
Montgomery raised six main topics for the Planning Commission to tackle: marijuana odors, lighting, noise, security, traffic and crime.
“I’m sure my colleagues will have many more, too,” Montgomery said.
“I think that we all have to do a huge amount of factual research before we come to any conclusions about anything.”
Montgomery said the Planning Commission owes it to the public and the county commissioners to support its recommendations with hard facts.
“When we come forward with our proposal, whether it’s in three months, four months — I certainly hope it’s long before six — I would like to see our proposal supported very, very closely by facts that we will have developed from research and from the information that’s out there so that we can document why we are recommending policy decisions on every single thing that we’re doing,” Montgomery said.
County Planning Manager Steve Gray told the five commission members in attendance Wednesday that county-specific information is available in staff reports tied to past hearing examiner decisions.
He also pointed members of the Planning Commission to the Municipal Research and Services Center website for examples of what other jurisdictions have done in response to I-502.
Growing appearance
“I think the one thing that the commission needs to look at is what do these things actually look like,” Gray said.
“Scale, particularly the rural area, is something that you need to keep in the back of your mind.”
The Liquor Control Board classifies marijuana growing operations based on the size of their footprint.
A Tier 1 is fewer than 2,000 square feet; a Tier 2 is 2,000 to 10,000 square feet; and a Tier 3 is 10,000 to 30,000 square feet.
Tier 3 grows are prohibited in rural zones under interim zoning controls but allowed with a conditional-use permit in large agriculture retention zones.
“It’s very hard to write for an industry like that where it’s kind of a different scale,” Gray said.
“So a conditional-use permit process with standards is even better because now you have the baseline standards that you want to achieve, and then you can still look at the qualities of that particular side of the neighborhood.”
Seeing firsthand
Several members of the commission have toured pot growing and processing operations east of Port Angeles and in Forks.
Clausen asked for a legal opinion on the requirement that growers and processors in rural zones reside on the property.
“We don’t require that of other businesses,” he said.
Planning Commission member Gary Gleason suggested an inspection permit and bonding requirement for marijuana businesses.
“I could envision someone going out of business leaving quite a mess behind,” he said.
Beauvais suggested an analysis on how outdoor growing operations would be secured.
Robert Miller raised the issue of fire hazards.
“A lot of smoke would be an environmental concern, I would think,” he said.
“Especially that kind of smoke.”
Members of the Planning Commission said they would do their own research and revisit the marijuana issue at their Nov. 19 meeting.
________
Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 5072, or at rollikainen@peninsuladailynews.com.
