Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Gilliam County Court denies proposal to allow retail cannabis in RC zone

Gilliam County Court · July 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After deliberations-only review, the county court voted to deny a request to amend the Gilliam County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance to allow cannabis retail in the rural unincorporated community (RC) zone, saying prior process designated industrial zones as the appropriate location for retail uses.

Gilliam County Court voted on July 1 to deny a proposed amendment to the Gilliam County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance that would have authorized retail cannabis sales as a conditional use in the rural unincorporated community (RC) zone. The motion to deny was moved, seconded and carried by voice vote after staff presentations and court deliberations.

Planning staff (Carla McClain, filling in for Planning Director Stephanie Case) and newly hired Planning Director Michelle Colby explained that retail cannabis is currently allowed only in general and limited industrial zones in unincorporated Gilliam County; the county does not maintain a separate "commercial" zone for the unincorporated areas. Staff reminded the court that public testimony had closed at prior hearings and this meeting was limited to deliberations.

Judge Pettenode summarized the court's view of the record and recommended findings supporting denial, saying the court had previously done "due diligence" and determined general and limited industrial zones were the appropriate locations for such businesses. Carla McClain asked the court to articulate findings so staff could prepare an order to implement the denial. The court directed staff to bring back draft findings and an order at the next meeting.

Outcome: Motion to deny the zoning amendment carried by voice vote (motion moved and seconded; court responded "Aye"; judge announced "Motion carries"). The hearing was closed and staff will prepare written findings to support the denial for formal adoption.