Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Retail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hangar 420 owner urges Snohomish County to fix 'regulatory outlier' blocking Clearview reopening
Summary
At the Feb. 11 Snohomish County Council meeting, Hangar 420 owner Patrick Ann said his Clearview retail store has been closed 13 months and pressed the council to address a regulatory barrier he says is preventing reopening, citing millions in past tax revenue and local jobs at stake.
Patrick Ann, owner of cannabis retailer Hangar 420, told the Snohomish County Council on Feb. 11 that his Clearview store has been closed for 13 months and asked the council to "act to correct [a] regulatory outlier" preventing its reopening.
Ann said Hangar 420 has operated in Snohomish County for nearly nine years and has "generated over $20,000,000 in cannabis tax revenue" to date. He told the council the closure of the Clearview location represents an estimated loss of roughly $2,000,000 per year in tax revenue and cited a projection that, over the remaining five-year lease term and assuming 10% annual growth, the county could lose more than $12,800,000 in tax revenue. Ann also said the closure has affected an estimated 14 full-time local jobs, representing about $728,000 in annual wages.
Supporters who spoke during the public-comment period urged the council to consider Ann’s community contributions. Tom Sweeney said the council should "look beyond the paperwork" and allow the Clearview store to operate, emphasizing the owner’s record of local charitable work and stewardship of employees.
Other speakers raised procedural and community-impact concerns. Jeff Lind, a longtime Clearview landowner, said he was worried about changing buffer distances for cannabis retailers and the potential for a single operator to gain disproportionate influence in a small community. Remote commenter Josh Estes of Marysville warned that altering rules to accommodate a single site would set a precedent that could reward investment first rather than adherence to existing code. "Reducing buffers to accommodate a specific operator would grant access to a location that no other applicant ... could legally compete for," Estes said, urging the council not to accommodate the requests of Hangar 420.
The council did not take formal action on the matter during the meeting; public comment closed and the agenda moved to a legislative update. No staff recommendation or vote on a code amendment was recorded in the meeting transcript.
The next procedural step for any code change would be a formal proposal or agenda item; the council did not schedule or vote on such a change at this session.
