Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County strikes ordinance that would have explicitly added cannabis production to local zoning
Summary
Utah County commissioners voted to strike a proposed ordinance that would have designated medical cannabis production establishments as permitted uses, citing federal‑state legal tension and implementation questions. The commission instead left current state rules controlling where production may occur.
The Utah County Commission voted to strike a proposed amendment that would have explicitly designated cannabis production establishments as permitted uses in certain local zones.
Staff and commissioners described legal uncertainty because medical cannabis remains illegal under federal law even though the state permits certain uses. Commissioner S3 said he favored proactively placing the use into local zoning (for example in greenhouse zones) so the county could regulate locations and monitor activity; he argued this would provide local oversight rather than leaving the matter unregulated. Others, including the chair and additional commissioners, cautioned that creating a local permitting framework could conflict with federal law and create enforcement and liability questions.
Bryce Armstrong, planning staff, told the commission the state’s medical‑cannabis statute contemplates either allowing production facilities in specified zones or, absent local action, allowing them under state law in particular areas. Staff noted potential complexity around greenhouse exemptions and business‑license treatment: greenhouse permits are typically handled as agricultural/crop production and are exempt from business‑license requirements, whereas codifying cannabis specifically could complicate that exemption.
After discussion and legal caution about the federal/state tension, Commissioner S5 moved and Commissioner S3 seconded to strike regular agenda item number 3. The motion to strike carried on a voice vote; the chair recorded the result as two commissioners voting to strike and one in opposition.
Because the commission struck the local ordinance change, the county did not add a local permit structure at this time. Staff told commissioners that, depending on the approach taken later, cannabis production would remain subject to state law and any applicable county zoning that already allows greenhouse or agricultural crop production. The commission did not adopt further zoning restrictions at the meeting.
