Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Business topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press board on cell‑tower oversight and ask staff to study on‑site cannabis consumption
Summary
Public commenters urged stronger local review of cell‑site applications and opposed administrative permitting for small cells; cannabis farm operators and trade groups requested research on on‑site consumption and lounges and asked the board to avoid higher retail tax rates that could harm small businesses.
Nevada County’s board workshop opened with a robust public‑comment period in which residents raised land‑use concerns about wireless infrastructure and business owners urged the county to research expanded cannabis retail options.
Renette Senham, a former Nevada City councilmember, told the board she had previously challenged a Verizon proposal and urged the county to require public review for each new small‑cell antenna. “You cannot put these towering Trojan horses throughout this county without public review,” she said, describing technical concerns about radio‑frequency filings and urging the board to retain conditional‑use permits rather than move small sites to an administrative approval process.
During the same public‑comment period, multiple speakers representing Nevada County’s cannabis industry asked staff to research on‑site consumption (often called lounges) and to consider policies that would treat small cannabis retailers more like craft wineries, with opportunities for on‑site education and safe consumption spaces. A cannabis farm operator said on‑site consumption “is the fastest growing business opportunity” and urged staff to research whether Nevada County could benefit economically without raising retail tax rates.
Several commenters urged the board to direct planning staff to hold a public workshop on wireless siting code updates and to increase setbacks for large monopoles in rural zones to protect egress and safety if a tower failed. Others who spoke in favor of housing and tiny‑home ordinances urged the county to balance preservation, community character and safety.
Board members did not take immediate votes on code changes during the workshop. Staff said they would accept public input and, if directed, bring a planning‑department workshop on cell‑site ordinances and a public outreach plan for cannabis policy research back to the board. Treasurer and staff later briefed the board on cannabis tax authority and said any changes to local rates would be scheduled and published in advance for public comment.
