Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grower from Brewster raises concerns about annual cannabis application fees and LCB testing shutdown
Summary
A local cannabis cultivator called into the commissioners to describe years of compliance work and object to recently increased annual application fees; the caller also recounted the 2023 pesticide testing shutdown that cost months of lost sales.
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anders Taylor, a cannabis grower who identified himself as operating north of Brewster, told the Board of Commissioners during public comment that long‑standing growers are shouldering a heavy regulatory and tax burden and that a recently expanded annual application fee structure was unfair to operations that had previously completed permitting and facility approvals.
Taylor described his operation's investments in raw land, water rights and buildings and said he paid about $1,500 when the county first implemented a permitting process but later faced cumulative annual fees as high as $4,500–$5,000 because multiple licenses were associated with the same physical property. He said the fee increases came after his site had completed prior permitting and that a year‑to‑year fee for unchanged facilities felt punitive.
Taylor also recounted the 2023 LCBD/LCB (state agency) pesticide test incident in which several local farms were temporarily shut down after a small number of lab results showed banned legacy pesticides; he said the sampling protocol and limits used by the state agency led to lengthy closures that devastated payroll and operations and that many local growers have been left financially fragile by price and market pressures.
Commissioners acknowledged the county's limited control over state agency rules but said planning staff would engage with growers and suggested forming a work group to review local permitting pain points and fee impacts; staff said planning would reach out to the caller to set up a follow‑up meeting.
Ending: County staff agreed to try to set a working group with growers and planning staff to explore fee impacts and compliance steps; no policy change was made during the meeting.
