6.5 22-545 11:00 A.M. - Consideration of an Ordinance adding Article 73 to Chapter 21 of the Lake Zoning Ordinance to address Commercial Cannabis Permitting Activities and Enforcement
While I have no general opposition to commercial cannabis, I am a resident of the Double Eagle Ranch subdivision who has built my property up from bare land, investing several years of my life and my entire savings, based largely on the protections offered by our CCR's including a very significant one of NO COMMERCIAL use of these properties. This has widespread impacts in terms of people in the area, traffic, depletion of resources, and other things far beyond the scope of one short paragraph. I am also a committee member and so, having heard from others, I can say my position shared by many others. A few growers have aggressively pushed for commercial permits, and fortunately thus far not been approved, but to address the root of the problem and avoid difficulty for all involved (and unneeded expense/complication for growers), please place us in the exclusion zone or AT LEAST make a new type of zoning indicating our status, which we have been discussing with the county for years.
I agree with Bobby's comments and support LCAA in recommending and ad-hoc committee so sort out the issues for all stakeholders and would happily volunteer time toward that effort.
On behalf of the LCCA, we submit the attached letter for comments.
In summary, we recognize that this is the first draft and there is a long road ahead of us. We ask that an ad hoc committee be formed with industry leadership and County stakeholders that includes the Ag Commissioner, Sheriff, Farm Bureau, LCCA, Drought Water Task Force, and the CDD. An ad hoc committee will allow for input and refinement from subject matter experts.
Thank you for your consideration.
I'm in full agreement with Bobby. Section 73.29 is indeed absolutely outrageous! Please point to ANY OTHER approved Use Permit that is not sellable with the land it is afforded to. I'm speechless that this is even suggested. Talk about feeling thrown under the bus!!!!!
I expected this document to be the current ordinance with all of the carefully considered revisions made over the past few years, along with some changes based on recent experience. That did not happen, what is being proposed is a complete rewrite of the ordinance with no input from industry leaders or local stakeholders. Section 73.21 takes us backward a few years, and requirements such as "In no case shall cannabis plants be visible from off site" totally ignores the hours spent on this subject in the past. Prohibiting someone from selling their farm under 73.29 is outrageous, would the County do that to the holder of any other Use Permit? We already have one of the best cannabis ordinances in the State, main reason so many farmers have invested here. I'm sorry, but this document is a train wreck and should be discarded. Let's fine tune the ordinance we have before we chase away any future investment in this County. I'd also be careful about making oak trees a curse to a landowner
While I have no general opposition to commercial cannabis, I am a resident of the Double Eagle Ranch subdivision who has built my property up from bare land, investing several years of my life and my entire savings, based largely on the protections offered by our CCR's including a very significant one of NO COMMERCIAL use of these properties. This has widespread impacts in terms of people in the area, traffic, depletion of resources, and other things far beyond the scope of one short paragraph. I am also a committee member and so, having heard from others, I can say my position shared by many others. A few growers have aggressively pushed for commercial permits, and fortunately thus far not been approved, but to address the root of the problem and avoid difficulty for all involved (and unneeded expense/complication for growers), please place us in the exclusion zone or AT LEAST make a new type of zoning indicating our status, which we have been discussing with the county for years.
Please see attached letter for initial feedback.
I agree with Bobby's comments and support LCAA in recommending and ad-hoc committee so sort out the issues for all stakeholders and would happily volunteer time toward that effort.
Regards,
Rob
LC
On behalf of the LCCA, we submit the attached letter for comments.
In summary, we recognize that this is the first draft and there is a long road ahead of us. We ask that an ad hoc committee be formed with industry leadership and County stakeholders that includes the Ag Commissioner, Sheriff, Farm Bureau, LCCA, Drought Water Task Force, and the CDD. An ad hoc committee will allow for input and refinement from subject matter experts.
Thank you for your consideration.
I'm in full agreement with Bobby. Section 73.29 is indeed absolutely outrageous! Please point to ANY OTHER approved Use Permit that is not sellable with the land it is afforded to. I'm speechless that this is even suggested. Talk about feeling thrown under the bus!!!!!
I expected this document to be the current ordinance with all of the carefully considered revisions made over the past few years, along with some changes based on recent experience. That did not happen, what is being proposed is a complete rewrite of the ordinance with no input from industry leaders or local stakeholders. Section 73.21 takes us backward a few years, and requirements such as "In no case shall cannabis plants be visible from off site" totally ignores the hours spent on this subject in the past. Prohibiting someone from selling their farm under 73.29 is outrageous, would the County do that to the holder of any other Use Permit? We already have one of the best cannabis ordinances in the State, main reason so many farmers have invested here. I'm sorry, but this document is a train wreck and should be discarded. Let's fine tune the ordinance we have before we chase away any future investment in this County. I'd also be careful about making oak trees a curse to a landowner