Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Snohomish County to restore smaller cannabis buffer after Clearview closure
Summary
Two residents told the Snohomish County Council the county’s 10,000-foot cannabis separation rule has closed a Clearview retail site and cost jobs and tax revenue; they urged staff to bring a code amendment restoring a 2,500-foot buffer or reasonable adjustment.
Two residents urged the Snohomish County Council on Feb. 18 to change how the county enforces separation rules that they say forced a Clearview retail location to close.
"My name is Patrick Gann," Gann told the council during the public-comment period. He said his Clearview retail store has been closed for 13 months under a 10,000-foot buffer rule that he said applies nowhere else in the county and that the closure has cost the county and local workers revenue. "Over the past 13 months, approximately $2,160,000 in state and county cannabis tax revenue has been lost," Gann said, adding that 14 full-time jobs earning about $25 per hour remain blocked. He asked staff to bring a code amendment to restore the standard 2,500-foot buffer or a reasonable adjustment and to schedule a vote.
Another public commenter, Josh Estes of Marysville, told the council he was concerned about consistent application of land-use policy. Estes said county records show staff repeatedly informed an applicant that a proposed location did not comply with the 10,000-foot separation in Snohomish County Code 20.28.012 and said the applicant proceeded based on prior conversations with executive-level county leadership. "I urge you to not move forward on the request of the previous commenter," Estes said, arguing that standards should be predictable and applied evenly.
Neither speaker identified a specific pending ordinance before the council; both framed their remarks as requests for staff action or policy review. The council did not take action on the buffer during the Feb. 18 meeting. The next procedural steps would be for county staff to consider whether to draft a code amendment and return to the council for review or for the matter to be brought forward as a formal agenda item.
