Planning director previews work sessions on cannabis rules; commissioners signal tighter controls and compliance enforcement

Director Pete Palmer of the Okanogan County planning department told the Board of County Commissioners that staff is preparing maps and options for the county’s cannabis moratorium and compliance work, and that multiple regulatory choices remain on the table.

“...we've got endless options,” Director Palmer said as he described research into other counties’ codes and fee structures. Palmer said staff is preparing GIS maps of existing operations and zoning overlays so the board can see where licensed cannabis facilities are sited and which zoning districts they occupy. He said the county borrowed some provisions from Chelan County, and that staff reviewed codes from Chelan, Klickitat, Benton, Lewis and Walla Walla counties.

Palmer identified several possible regulatory moves: limiting the number of state licenses on a single parcel, removing cannabis operations from residential zoning (R-1 and R-2), prohibiting outdoor production in certain residential or commercial zones, and tightening annual registration and nonconforming‑use language. He highlighted fee comparisons: Okanogan County’s current annual registration is $500 per producer/processor, but Chelan County’s annual registration ranges by tier — Palmer said Chelan’s fees are approximately $1,550 for tier 1, $3,100 for tier 2, $5,160 for tier 3 and $2,065 for processors.

Palmer also described enforcement tools already in the county code. Under the planning director’s description, making conditional uses subject to SEPA allows the county to require reclamation or other mitigation when permits lapse. He noted the code’s three‑year delinquency or abandonment clause for nonconforming operations and said the county is using legal review to clarify code interpretation.

Commissioners expressed frustration with compliance gaps and state processes that, they said, can allow new licenses to be issued without county-level checks on addresses or proximity to sensitive uses. One commissioner said the state’s licensing structure can be circumvented by operators using multiple LLCs to accumulate licenses on a single parcel. Another commissioner said, “I would rather cut it off right now. Keep the guys in business... than having more licenses in here,” reflecting a desire to freeze net new licenses while the county tightens rules for location, structure and permitting.

Other recurring issues in the discussion included: storage containers and whether larger containers or hoop houses must be engineered and permitted; how building‑department rules trigger engineering for some larger structures; the distinction between agricultural structures that predate county rules and commercial structures that change use and therefore require permitting; and the administrative burden on county staff to track compliance and inspect structures that were erected without permits.

Palmer told the board he will return at the end of the month with the GIS maps and more detail for the next work session and asked property owners and operators with specific questions to meet with planning staff to walk through documentation. No ordinance or regulatory change was adopted at the meeting; the item remains in the work‑session phase.