Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds planning commission denial of Rosewood cannabis cultivation permit
Summary
The Board of Supervisors denied an appeal by the Rosewood project applicant and upheld the planning commission's denial of a commercial cannabis conditional use permit, citing concerns raised at the planning commission hearing about setbacks, air quality and neighborhood impacts.
The board on April 29 denied an appeal by the operator of Rosewood, upholding the planning commission's February denial of a commercial cannabis use permit for cultivation and nonvolatile manufacturing on Somerset-area parcels.
Planning staff had recommended approval with setback reductions, an odor analysis and conditions including carbon-filtration systems and greenhouse screening. The application proposed 15,000 square feet of mature mixed-light canopy in greenhouses, a processing building and related site improvements. The county’s commercial cannabis ordinance permits setbacks, and it also allows the board to grant reductions where an applicant demonstrates the reduced setback “substantially achieves” the required setback’s purpose and when the parcel was owned or leased prior to the ordinance (Nov. 6, 2018).
The planning commission cited concerns after public comment about land-use conflicts, air quality impacts and groundwater usage; the commission’s majority also noted a school-bus-stop setback calculation and credibility of lay testimony about neighborhood impact. The planning commission denied the permit, finding insufficient evidence to approve reduced setbacks and concluding the project raised risks to neighborhood health, safety and welfare.
Applicant Jason Kipperman argued on appeal that Rosewood is a family farm, complies with zoning and the county's cannabis rules (including previous ownership dating) and that greenhouses with carbon scrubbing produce no material odor beyond regulatory thresholds. He told the board “Rosewood isn't a side business. It's our livelihood.”
Members of the public were split: several neighboring residents and a former air-quality/regulatory official urged denial, raising the Measure Q bus-stop setback, potential impacts to wells and groundwater, and questioning the sufficiency of environmental review. Supporters and some agricultural advocates argued the project should be treated comparably to other agricultural uses and pointed to staff and state agency comments supporting the project.
After legal and evidentiary discussion, the board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission’s denial. The board recorded its findings in a resolution and required that county legal staff prepare the final resolution language.
Ending
The board’s decision leaves the planning commission’s denial in place; the applicant may pursue available legal remedies outside the board process, or revise and resubmit consistent with county code.
