Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates rewrite of cannabis buffer‑reduction rules; staff to return with revised ordinance language
Summary
The Trinity County Board of Supervisors held a first reading April 1 of a proposed ordinance to amend county code governing administrative buffer reductions for commercial cannabis cultivation and directed staff to return with revised, clarified language for a later second reading.
At its April 1 meeting the Trinity County Board of Supervisors held the first reading of an ordinance to amend county code related to commercial cannabis cultivation (Trinity County Code sections 17.43 and 17.32). The proposed changes would alter how the county handles administrative buffer‑reduction (ABR) requests when neighboring property owners file opposition.
Drew Pobani, director of the county’s cannabis division, told the board that the draft changes were prompted by a Planning Commission appeal in which staff found the current code’s process left little room for a fact‑based planning commission review. Under the proposal presented to the board, a qualified opposition letter from an affected neighbor would prompt a hearing before the Planning Commission rather than an automatic administrative denial by staff. Pobani said the change was intended to allow the Planning Commission to weigh facts and make an objective determination.
Board members debated how to define legacy cultivation sites eligible for an administrative buffer reduction, whether new cultivation applicants should be eligible for buffer exceptions, and how to confirm whether an opposing property is a legal residence. During the discussion the board and staff agreed to amend language that references “legacy” sites to focus definitionally on sites that were licensed within the six months prior to the ordinance’s adoption and to use the term “dwelling” where the code now refers to “residential structure” so the definition aligns with county definitions of permitted or grandfathered dwellings.
Public commenters and business owners urged both predictability for existing cultivators and care in protecting new neighbors. Ben Kellogg (Weaverville) urged the county to end what he described as stigma against cannabis and to move forward in support of economic development. Other commenters, including Veronica Kelly Albee and Adrian Keyes, urged clarity in the process and care that neighbors, whether residents or longstanding businesses, have an opportunity to be heard.
After an extended session in which supervisors, county staff and public speakers identified additional language changes and questions about how in‑progress applications should be treated, the board directed staff to redraw the ordinance language to reflect the clarifications discussed and to bring the item back for final action at a subsequent meeting. CAO Jeremiah Tuthill recommended returning the item with fully written language for the board’s second reading and the board agreed to receive the revised ordinance at a future meeting.
Why it matters: the county’s ABR rules affect whether existing or new cultivation areas can be sited within 350 feet of a legal dwelling, a question that affects neighborhood relations, public complaints about odor/sound/security, and the path to licensure for existing growers.
Quotes: “What we’re trying to do is update this subsection to simply say that if a qualified opposition was received, that it would be scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission,” Pobani said. Public commenter Ben Kellogg said, “Let’s get the stigma off of cannabis. Let’s move forward in the spirit of economic development.”
Ending: Staff will return with revised ordinance text that reflects the board’s directed changes and clarifications; the item will come back for a future second reading and final action once the language is posted and available for public review.
