Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Cannabis Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose proposed reduction of cannabis facility setbacks and weaker odor controls near Cordova neighborhood
Summary
Multiple residents urged the council to reject amendments that would reduce required setbacks for cannabis growing or processing facilities from 500 to 200 feet and would relax odor-control language, citing property devaluation, odor, water use, and groundwater contamination concerns.
Several Talbot County residents urged the County Council during public comment to oppose proposed amendments they said would reduce zoning protections for neighborhoods near proposed cannabis processing and cultivation facilities.
Donna Albright, a property owner adjacent to Triple Creek Winery, said amendments she described as changes to Bill 16-18 (chapter 190-26.18–26.19 as referenced orally) would reduce setbacks from residential property lines from 500 feet to 200 feet and weaken odor-control requirements. Albright said she and neighbors circulated a petition opposing the amendments and had collected about 150 signatures; she asked the council to consult the county health officer and perform environmental impact studies before approving any changes.
Other resident speakers included William (Bill) Seth of Cordova (stated as living at 11569 Oak Cordova Road), Zach Lister, an Easton High School student representing Boy Scout Troop 190, Bruce Carroll (who said his home is approximately 250 feet from Triple Creek), and Perry Davidson (a nearby property owner). Common concerns raised were offensive or persistent odors from processing facilities, proximity to Chapel District Elementary School, potential property devaluation, intensive water use for cultivation and the risk of groundwater contamination from pesticides or other chemicals.
Lister, who said he attended the July 8 council meeting as part of a merit-badge requirement, asked the council to retain stricter requirements and setbacks, noting the long-term unknowns of chemicals used in cultivation and odor-reduction processes. Multiple speakers asked that the council not allow a reduction of the setback without surrounding residents’ permission and requested environmental and public health review prior to approving amendments.
Council members acknowledged the public comments; the speakers’ concerns were recorded and will be part of the public record for any pending or future zoning amendments discussed by the council.
