Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says odor from nearby licensed cannabis grow has made home unlivable; commissioners pledge follow-up
Summary
At the April 9 Clackamas County meeting, Carrie Moore testified that persistent odor from an OLCC‑licensed cannabis cultivation site at 20890 South Leland Road has bothered her household for months, that repeated code‑enforcement complaints produced little action, and that DEQ/EPA visited residents; commissioners said they will investigate and report back.
Carrie Moore told the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners on April 9 that severe odors from an OLCC‑licensed cannabis grow about 366 feet north of her home have forced her family to stop using outdoor spaces and, at times, keep windows closed.
"The odor from that facility has forced us to contact code enforcement nearly eight months ago," Moore said, describing a formal complaint she filed with county code enforcement staff member Andrea Hall and saying that enforcement contact produced, to date, only a $411 fine. She said DEQ and EPA staff had visited residents but that county staff had not visited the property during the same period.
Moore described language barriers in communicating with the property owner, long‑running land‑use and building code violations she was told existed, and repeated assurances from county staff that did not result in on‑site enforcement action. "It's been eight months. So, they've continued to grow and dry and pollute our air," she said.
Commissioner West, attending remotely, said he had not been aware of the complaint and expressed concern. "I hope that we can act swiftly and quickly and make sure that we're being responsive to the community member," he said. Commissioner Savis said he would look into the case and acknowledged that enforcement can be complex and time‑consuming. Commissioner Helm asked that staff provide the board with a timely report on enforcement options.
County staff did not provide a detailed enforcement timeline during the public comment period; the board committed to returning with more information on what enforcement steps have been taken and what options exist to pursue additional action.
The meeting record identifies the facility address Moore cited as 20890 South Leland Road and notes a $411 fine was issued as of the testimony. Moore said she has the complaint on public record with Andrea Hall in code enforcement and that her name and complaint are part of the county record.
What happens next: Commissioners asked staff to follow up and report back to the board about the status of the code‑enforcement file and any feasible next steps. The board did not take a formal vote on the matter during the meeting.
