Applicant outlines cannabis greenhouse plans; commission signals need for variance and further review

During the public‑comment portion of the Aug. 6 meeting, Bijan Sakamaki, speaking for a prospective operator, described plans to use an existing greenhouse site (the ‘‘Greenhouse’’ property) for licensed cannabis cultivation, processing and refrigerated storage. He said the property is about 1.5 acres and currently contains existing greenhouses and shipping containers with climate‑control equipment.

Sakamaki described operational protections he intends to use: 2–3 employees on typical days with carpooling, a larger crew of about seven people on harvest days, enclosed walk‑in freezers to reduce odor during harvest, key‑fob access for doors, full‑property chain‑link fencing with locked access and battery/generator backup for alarms and door systems. He told commissioners the operator would use smaller vehicles (Sprinter or Transit vans) rather than tractor‑trailers for shipments.

On lighting and odor, Sakamaki said the proposed greenhouse lighting plan would use LED fixtures with blackout curtains to reduce light spill and that he is consulting an odor‑control vendor (Byers Scientific) to install neutralizing sprayers at exhaust vents. He invited commissioners and interested neighbors to tour an operating outdoor facility in Grantsville so they could see how a licensed operation manages security and odor.

Commission discussion focused on zoning and permitability. Commissioners noted that the property is in a rural‑residential (RR‑5) zone and that the town’s maximum building coverage for that zone is 10 percent; Sakamaki and staff identified that existing greenhouses may have resulted from earlier approvals and that the proposed processing/utility building (2,500–5,000 square feet) could push the site over the maximum coverage. Commissioners said exceeding building coverage would require a variance and that site‑specific questions (septic design, water testing and whether the lots were originally combined or grandfathered) must be resolved before the commission could call a public hearing related to conditional use.

Staff told the applicant that the planning commission must first receive a complete application package (conditional use permit and any variance request) and that, after commission review, the commission would schedule and notice a public hearing (the commission’s ordinance requires public notice prior to a hearing). The applicant agreed to submit a variance application and the conditional use materials; commissioners said the planning and zoning commission will review the paperwork and then decide whether to call the public hearing, which would likely push neighbor comment to a later meeting.

The applicant was also reminded to secure county approvals for septic design and any required potable‑water testing, and to include the property owner’s name on submitted forms. Staff said Ensign Engineering will be used for building/permitting reviews and that the commission will forward a completed variance to the town council if a waiver beyond planning authority is required. Sakamaki said his purchase of the property is contingent on receiving the necessary approvals.