Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges county favored marijuana applicant as commission folds cannabis changes into Title 20
Summary
A resident told the commission the county appeared to side with a cannabis applicant and described alleged environmental and nuisance impacts from nearby grow operations; staff said cannabis-related code amendments were rolled into the broader Title 20 update for review.
A Thurston County resident used the public‑comment period to sharply criticize county handling of a recent marijuana-related application and warned the commission the county had not heeded survey responses opposing the proposal.
"In the recent docket survey proposing to amend the marijuana ordinance, over 80% responded that they did not support the project," the resident said. "It almost seemed the county had made up their mind in support of the applicant who submitted the proposal." She described neighbor operations that she said removed timber, leveled hillside and installed multiple greenhouses and generators that have affected wells and neighborhood quality of life.
Planning staff said the board directed that applicant-initiated cannabis code amendments be folded into Title 20 (the county's development code) so that they can be considered with other code changes and in coordination with planning staff and the commission. Staff noted the Title 20 review will be scoped with the commission and prioritized based on policy complexity and workload.
The commission did not take formal action on the allegation in the meeting. Staff said docketing and Title 20 scoping will determine whether particular cannabis-related amendments proceed and on what schedule.
