Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRB upholds notice of violation for outdoor cannabis cultivation at 8 Taft Street
Summary
After a lengthy hearing with multiple neighbors and the zoning administrator, the Development Review Board unanimously upheld a notice of violation finding outdoor cannabis cultivation at 8 Taft Street is prohibited in the R‑1 district; the board cited recent court decisions, code language, and annual licensing requirements
Get email alerts on the Zoning Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Essex Junction Development Review Board on Sept. 18 unanimously upheld a notice of violation (NOV) issued to property owner Jason Struthers for outdoor cannabis cultivation at 8 Taft Street, concluding the activity is prohibited in the city’s R‑1 residential zoning district.
The board heard staff, the property owner and multiple neighbors before voting to uphold the NOV. Chris Yoon, community development director and zoning administrator for the city, who issued the NOV, summarized the basis for enforcement: the Land Development Code prohibits agriculture in the R‑1 district and, in his view, cannabis cultivation falls within that prohibition; furthermore, recent Vermont Supreme Court and Superior Court rulings and annual licensing rules reinforce that cultivators must comply with local regulations.
“I issued the notice of violation because the plain language of the regulations prohibits cannabis cultivation in the zoning district,” Chris Yoon told the board, pointing to LDC provisions on nonconforming uses and to case law the city relies on. Yoon explained that doctrine such as claim preclusion (res judicata) and the annual attestation required by the Vermont Cannabis Control Board (VCCB) undercut a grandfathering defense.
Property owner Jason Struthers argued his cultivation is a preexisting nonconforming use, noting his VCCB license was issued July 2022 and saying he renewed the license annually. Struthers told the board his operation is a tier‑1 outdoor cultivation licensed to grow up to 125 plants and said municipal code changes occurred in September 2022, after his license was issued. “I was growing cannabis in July 2022 before you guys had any rules against it, and therefore I am grandfathered,” he said.
Neighbors and nearby residents told the board they suffer from odors and other impacts they attribute to the operation. Steven Willie Padnos, who lives at 6 Taft Street, described his view that the appeal is meritless and asked the board to uphold the NOV and pursue maximum penalties. Ronald Fry Sr. and other neighbors described strong summer odors, concerns about children’s outdoor activities and potential property‑value impacts. Several neighbors also said the planting increased this season and moved closer to fence lines.
Neighbors described additional problems they associate with the property, including outdoor debris, structures for animals and increased activity. Neighbors urged enforcement to protect quality of life; at least one neighbor asked the board to impose the maximum penalties allowed by law.
Yoon told the board the courts have already addressed many of the legal questions and that a superior court judgment attached to the packet concluded the city’s motion for summary judgment was granted on farming and that the appellant’s cannabis operations were prohibited by the land development code. Yoon said even if a use were grandfathered, nonconforming uses cannot be expanded beyond what existed on the effective date and setbacks remain enforceable.
Several commenters disputed the city’s legal interpretations, citing state statutes and VCCB materials. Struthers and others cited language they say treats cannabis differently from traditional farming and noted the VCCB’s role and prior communications. The zoning administrator and multiple neighbors disagreed on those statutory readings.
After board discussion, a member moved to uphold the administrative officer’s notice of violation for the cannabis cultivation operation at 8 Taft Street in the R‑1 residential district; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
The DRB’s action affirms the city’s enforcement position and leaves open further appeal in court; several participants said they expect continued litigation. The NOV and the board’s finding do not themselves specify criminal penalties or enforcement timelines in the hearing record; the board will rely on city enforcement procedures and, where applicable, any future court rulings to determine subsequent steps.

