Trinity County Planning Commission pauses cannabis cultivation appeal pending water dispute

The Trinity County Planning Commission on April 24 voted to continue consideration of an appeal of a director's decision on a small commercial cannabis cultivation license (P-24-12) until a date uncertain.

The commission's majority approved a motion to delay action 3-2, accepting staff's recommendation that the matter be held pending the outcome of a civil dispute over the location or ownership of a permitted well tied to the application or until the applicant submits documentation of an additional appropriate water supply. Chair Barrett, Commissioner McIntosh and Commissioner Harper voted to continue; Commissioners Flights and Foll voted no.

Staff planner Seth Pulubani told the commission the county had received a letter from SBI and that a new well application for the subject parcel remained incomplete and not finaled. Pulubani said that, given the potential for a civil dispute over the permitted well that appears connected to the subject APN, "it's most prudent for the county to not take action and allow for the civil dispute to be remedied through the courts." The county's updated recommendation was to continue the item to a date uncertain.

Representatives for both sides addressed the commission. Tom Balanco, representing the applicant, said he concurred with staff and supported a continuance while the water issue is resolved. Appellant Bob Morris of the Browns Creek Road Improvement Association said he had limited comment because the parties were still gathering information but confirmed that earlier well-test results had shown a low yield and that water availability remained a central question.

Several other participants urged clearer procedural rules for appeals. Balanco recommended a firm schedule for submitting records on appeals so that staff and the commission have complete records in advance of hearings.

Commissioners debated whether to deny the application and force the applicant to reapply or to leave the case open. Several commissioners argued that continuing to a date uncertain allows the applicant to resolve the dispute without requiring them to pay another initial application fee if they later reapply. County counsel Margaret Long confirmed an applicant may reapply and that fee-waiver requests would need Board of Supervisors consideration.

Clarifying details discussed during the hearing included that the county has informally applied a 3-gallons-per-minute water standard for licensed cannabis cultivation (staff said the figure has been used as the standard in practice) and that the applicant's alternative well report had not been provided or finalized. Staff also noted the well application tied to the APN remained in an incomplete status.

The commission's motion, as adopted, continues the appeal and application until the civil dispute is resolved or until the applicant documents an additional appropriate water supply sufficient for the proposed cultivation operation. No date certain was set. The record shows supporters and opponents on both sides asked for time and clarity on evidentiary requirements.

The commission closed public comment and staff confirmed the item will return when the specified conditions are met or at the applicant's request.