Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission unanimously denies reduced‑setback permit for Chavoia cannabis operation
Summary
The Mendocino County Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt a resolution denying an administrative permit that would have reduced the required setbacks for a proposed 5,000‑square‑foot mixed‑light cannabis cultivation operation on a 200‑foot‑wide parcel.
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Mendocino County Planning Commission on Aug. 7 adopted a resolution denying an administrative permit (APU2024‑0011) requested by Marco Chavoia for reduced setbacks to allow a 5,000‑square‑foot mixed‑light cannabis cultivation operation with six greenhouses.
Staff materials and the resolution before the commission described the applicant’s request to reduce the standard 100‑foot setback from property lines to 92 feet on the northern boundary and 61 feet on the southern boundary. The county code allows setback reductions for commercial cannabis cultivation through an administrative permit; the project planner noted the standard 200‑foot setback from cultivation to occupied residential structures would still be maintained.
Rob Simmons, the project planner, summarized that agricultural cultivation and construction of greenhouses are generally allowed in the zoning district but that the specific setback reduction requires findings under the county’s cannabis regulations. Simmons told the commission that staff had originally recommended approval but that after public comment on July 17 the commission had indicated an intent to deny; staff presented both a conditional‑approval resolution and a draft resolution for denial.
Deputy County Counsel Matthew Gudrowski and staff emphasized that the request is not a variance. “When the cannabis regulations were adopted, the board specifically set up this process to allow for reductions in required setbacks through the administrative permit process,” Gudrowski said.
Public comment at the hearing consisted largely of nearby property owners who said the proposed greenhouses would be close to residences, could cause odor problems and reduce property values, and cited concerns about prior permits and past cultivation on the site. Charles Coleman, who said he is the neighbor directly east of the property, asked staff to review county permit records and noted what he described as previously expired or unfinalized building permits on the property.
Marco Chavoia, the applicant, said he and his family own the property and that he felt targeted by organized neighbors. “If others have had the applications approved, why would mine be treated differently? I’m simply asking to be treated fairly just like any other local farmer,” Chavoia said. He said he had hired a hydrologist and secured clearances from California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the water board, reported paying roughly $8,400 in greenhouse fees to the county and said he had invested “over $20,000” in the project. He also offered to convert from greenhouse to outdoor cultivation as a potential compromise.
Planning Director Julia Krog told the commission that setback reduction approvals are property‑specific and that staff could undertake a more detailed review of prior approvals if the commission directed them to do so. Krog noted that many factors—parcel width, configuration and existing development—affect whether a setback reduction is feasible without creating impacts to neighbors.
After deliberation, a commissioner moved to adopt the staff prepared resolution denying the administrative permit; another commissioner seconded. On roll call Chair Babiney, Commissioner Wiedemann and Commissioner Richards voted to adopt the resolution; Commissioners Paulin and Jones were absent. The motion passed unanimously among the commissioners present and the permit was denied.
The denial resolution rested principally on two findings in the staff‑prepared draft: (1) that the project would constitute a unique nuisance or be detrimental to others in the neighborhood and (2) that the proposed project could not be shown to avoid or sufficiently minimize odor impacts on nearby residences. The record shows the commission considered but did not adopt project modifications or conditions that staff had said could mitigate some concerns.
The public hearing was closed; staff and the applicant were advised of the denial and the standard appeals process.

