Planning commission revokes Pillsbury Family Farms permit after staff cites unlicensed cultivation and background‑check disqualification

The Lake County Planning Commission voted on March 27 to revoke Major Use Permit UP20‑50 for Pillsbury Family Farms at a Lake Pillsbury address after county staff concluded the permit conditions had been violated.

Community Development Director Marya Turner told the commission the revocation recommendation rests on two grounds: active cultivation in 2022 without a state license and the absence of a required county background‑check qualification for a listed permittee, Justin Quayle. Director Turner summarized the county’s review: the permit was approved in January 2022, the state acknowledged a complete application in August 2022 and later issued a state license, but county records contained no background‑check qualification report for Quayle when staff audited the file.

Turner said the county’s process requires live‑scan background checks routed through the sheriff’s office; the sheriff’s office then advises Community Development whether an applicant is qualified under county criteria (the sheriff provides the department a one‑page qualification/disqualification notice but does not release the underlying DOJ records to county staff). When Community Development asked the sheriff’s office to search their records, staff said no background‑check submission or qualification notice for Quayle was found in the period reviewed. The department issued a Notice of Intent recommending revocation and gave the permittees time to pursue resolution with the sheriff’s office; staff said it later received a sheriff’s report disqualifying Quayle.

At the hearing, Pillsbury representatives disputed the revocation grounds and said they had taken steps to comply. Skyla Lewa, who serves as Pillsbury Family Farms’ secretary and county liaison, said the business has an active state license (CCL22‑000141641) and that the farm has “maintained compliance.” She told the commission that Quayle had submitted a live scan after the county inquiry and that he was working with counsel to address the sheriff’s disqualification; Quayle said he is pursuing expungement proceedings and a court review and asked the county to allow time for the process. Quayle and the farm’s representatives said they are willing to pursue administrative or structural changes, including temporarily stepping back from operations, if that would resolve the county’s statutory concerns.

Public commenters’ views split. Supporters including a commercial breeder and a local contractor described Pillsbury as a law‑abiding local operation and warned that revocation invites litigation and harms a legal license holder. Other residents cited posts and past conduct they found troubling and told the commission the county should enforce its permit requirements.

After hearing staff, the permittees and public testimony, a commissioner moved to revoke UP20‑50 citing cultivation without a state license in 2022 and a background‑check disqualification for the permittee. The motion carried on a voice vote; the chair announced the motion passed and staff noted the standard seven‑day appeal period to the Board of Supervisors.

What the county says next: The director’s memo attached to the staff report says staff had delayed the revocation recommendation to give the permittee time to pursue relief with the sheriff’s office and to allow counsel to respond. The revocation now advances to the county record and the permittee may file an appeal to the Board of Supervisors within seven calendar days.