Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney urges Flathead County to allow dispensary co‑location of grow and manufacturing under conditions
Summary
A Helena attorney told commissioners a licensed dispensary operator seeks to move cultivation and manufacturing (MIP) into an existing B2 dispensary facility, arguing co‑location improves safety, inspections and efficiency and should be allowed with odor, security and other conditions.
An attorney representing Herb Incorporated told the Flathead County commissioners on Nov. 13 that his client wants to co‑locate cannabis cultivation and manufacturing (a MIP/extraction operation) inside an existing, duly licensed dispensary in a B2 zone and asked the county to extend the logic used for dispensaries to allow the three uses in one contained facility with strict conditions.
"My client is hoping to accomplish ... he has a dispensary, duly licensed. He has two other licenses: a cultivation license and a manufacturing license, also called a MIP," said Jeffrey Glovan during the public comment period. Glovan said his client has provided planning materials and preliminary sketches showing a separate grow/clone/flower area inside a large building and that the proposed edibles production would resemble a confectionery operation.
Glovan argued the co‑location approach would reduce vehicular traffic, simplify state inspections and lower crime risk by keeping all activity in a single, secure, well‑lit town location rather than separate grow sites in remote agricultural areas. He recommended commercial‑grade odor‑control systems and other conditions if the county were to allow the consolidated operation.
Why it matters: the request points to a policy decision the county could make about where and how indoor cultivation and manufacturing are permitted. Planning staff said the planning board has been discussing marijuana zoning updates and may pursue conditional‑use provisions and performance standards (for odor, security, inspections and revocation procedures) that would allow local control beyond state licensing.
Next steps: commissioners heard the comment during the public‑comment portion of the hearing and did not vote on zoning language that day. Planning staff and the planning board are preparing a formal public‑notice process: the board authorized publishing notice for a future public hearing on indoor grow cultivation and signaled further study of performance standards before any regulatory change is adopted.
