Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Marijuana topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Plains council upholds denial of proposed marijuana dispensary, cites unclear park‑buffer rules
Summary
On Aug. 26, 2024, the North Plains City Council unanimously denied an appeal to allow a proposed marijuana dispensary, saying the city code does not clearly specify how to measure the required park buffer. The decision upholds the Planning Commission denial and leaves code clarification for a future update.
The North Plains City Council on Aug. 26 unanimously upheld the Planning Commission's denial of a proposed marijuana dispensary, concluding the city code is unclear about how to measure the required distance from parks.
Mayor Teri Lenahan opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. and solicited ex parte statements before hearing presentations from Planning Manager Steve Miller and legal counsel. City Attorney Chris Crean told the council that "this type of notice was not required in this instance" under state Measure 56, but the central legal question became how the municipal park‑buffer distance is calculated.
Applicant Brian Bergman, owner of Dispenserve LLC, and legal counsel Alex Berger said they began exploring North Plains for the business in 2015 and noted they operate three similar dispensaries in Seaside, Newberg and Monmouth. Bergman’s team asserted the other sites "have never had any Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) violations" over roughly 10 years, and argued the city code is ambiguous about the buffer measurement.
Four residents — Don Weber, Mike Shurts, Bethany Nelson — and Stewart King, chair of the Planning Commission, testified in opposition. King and other opponents focused on the park buffer and compatibility with nearby uses.
City staff and legal counsel clarified that other jurisdictions use either straight‑line ("as the crow flies") or walking/driving distances for similar buffers, and that North Plains' code did not expressly prescribe one method. After council discussion — during which several members said they were not opposed in principle to a dispensary but could not act without clearer code language — Councilor James Fage moved to uphold the Planning Commission denial. Councilor Cameron Martinez seconded. The motion carried unanimously; Councilor Rickey Smith was recorded as excused.
The council's decision sustains the Planning Commission’s denial of the conditional-use/site application and leaves open future legislative action to amend the code to specify how buffer distances should be measured.
Next steps: the council did not adopt wording for a code amendment at the hearing; any revision to the municipal code to clarify buffer measurement will require separate legislative action and notice to affected property owners as applicable.
