Sean C. Morgan
The Sweet Home Planning Commission sent a mixed message to the Sweet Home City Council Monday evening, Jan. 9, about rules governing retail sale and production of marijuana, reaching consensus on some details but differing on others.
Most of the commission’s discussion revolved around the size of proposed buffer zones.
The City Council had asked the Planning Commission to review the issues and make recommendations on a proposed ordinance to regulate marijuana. The council was scheduled to hold a public hearing on the ordinance Tuesday night, followed by two readings of the ordinance.
Following a third reading on Jan. 24, the council can decide whether to approve the ordinance, which would take effect immediately – prior to the establishment of any recreational marijuana retailers or producers in the community.
City staff have prepared an ordinance proposal that created a 1,000-foot buffer zone around parks, a 300-foot buffer zone from residential zones and a 1,000-foot buffer between retail outlets based on discussions by the City Council about possible restrictions for placing marijuana retail and production facilities.
The ordinance also would designate retail facilities in commercial and production facilities industrial zones as conditional uses, and would allow retail facilities in the recreation commercial zoning that largely is located on county-owned property, former mill and quarry property between 18th Avenue and Clark Mill Road, north of Main Street.
The Planning Commission considered the proposal Monday night during its regular meeting.
The Planning Commission was divided about the buffer zones, with four members tending to support smaller buffer zones or no zones at all, including Edie Wilcox, Eva Jurney, Lance Gatchell and Anay Hausner.
Greg Stephens supported the zones as proposed, and Henry Wolthuis generally supported larger buffer zones.
“If no facilities are allowed (in residential zones), why do we need buffers?” Jurney asked. “Now we’re going to lay over another restriction.”
The buffer zones move marijuana facilities farther away from residential zones, said Carol Lewis, who is serving as city planner. Residential zones abut commercial zones.
“Technically, you could have a retail store abutting a residential zone,” she said.
Jurney noted that the parks buffer pushes any retail outlets to the east part of town.
The small park at the intersection of 12th and Nandina would restrict them from most of the downtown area, Lewis said. It also would prevent Going Green, an existing medical marijuana dispensary, from obtaining a license and opening as a recreational retail operation at its current location, 925 Main St.
Owner Dustin Pomeroy told the commission he plans to do this.
“We plan to stay in the same building as long as we are allowed to,” he said.
Dropping that buffer to 500 feet opens up options, Lewis said, although it doesn’t open up space in the heart of the downtown core because of the state’s 1,000-foot restriction around schools.
The full proposal limits retail sales mainly to a small section a little more than 1,000 feet long east of Bi-Mart, Lewis said. It allows just a couple of properties for production.
Theresa Brown said she owns two properties that could not be used for marijuana sales in the Foster area, based on the restrictions. She is trying to find ways to make money using her property, and these restrictions “are too extreme.” The residential buffer covers nearly every property.
“I understand the concern,” Brown said. “The concern is unfounded.”
The public won’t see people hanging outside the businesses smoking marijuana, she said. “We have bars in town. Where are the buffers on those bars?”
In those cases, the public does see the effects of people who have been drinking and hanging out outside the bars, she said, adding that the proposed restrictions are discriminatory in an industry that is already regulated more than any other industry in Oregon, and Sweet Home does not need to add any more.
“Do we create a buffer on any other business in Sweet Home?” Brown asked.
She noted that the majority of businesses won’t be grow operations or even retailers, which would be on large parcels outside cities.
Instead, they will be testing and processing plants, she said. The state has a shortage of testing facilities right now.
“It is discriminatory,” said Theresa Howard, a Sweet Home resident. “You might as well put up a sign that says, ‘Welcome to Sweet Home. Leave your weed at home.’”
People will avoid coming to Sweet Home, she said, but Sweet Home needs them here shopping and eating at local businesses.
“Those restrictions are way off the chart,” Howard said.
Although not necessarily in favor of marijuana, Vince Lowen spoke on behalf of his parents, who own a property near Clark Mill and Main streets. While they wouldn’t lose much sleep over the restrictions, he said, the rules could limit their ability to sell the property in the future.
“My parents property is completely buffered out,” Lowen said, and he suggested the commission recommend a 60-foot buffer from residential property.
In Planning Commission discussion, Gatchell questioned the need for a buffer zone between retailers.
“It should get the same consideration other retailers do,” Gatchell said. He would rather see similar businesses able to locate near each other and form districts, promoting competition and improving shopping experiences for consumers.
“It’s not protecting a residential area or a park, and it’s restricting development of a retail district.”
Hausner said she has the sense that the Sweet Home community doesn’t want the ordinance to be too restrictive, and she doesn’t think the city needs the buffer zone around parks.
She noted that the council wouldn’t be concerned about too many restaurants opening.
She said she preferred going with the state’s restrictions, the buffer around schools, with the addition of a 100-foot buffer for residential zones, which “would satisfy some people.”
The larger 300-foot buffer “doesn’t allow for growth in our industry,” Hausner said, and it zones facilities only onto Main Street.
The Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which regulates recreational marijuana, is “very, very restrictive,” Hausner said, and “how are we to collect this 3-percent tax if we don’t let them in here?”
“Residential is where people live,” Stephens said. “It’s where they buy. They opt to have clean air. I think it has to be buffered as such.”
They don’t want to smell marijuana, he added.
“If you don’t buffer the parks, then you have people smoking in the parks.”
Jurney said she agreed with Gatchell and Hausner.
“I really don’t like seeing a contradiction between how we commercialize alcohol sales versus marijuana,” Jurney said. She preferred the state’s requirements and noted that the parks buffer is “overkill.”
“We don’t have any testimony saying, ‘let’s maximize restrictions,’” Gatchell said.
Wolthuis pointed to problems Colorado has had with legalized marijuana – traffic, crime and murder, and said Sweet Home needs to be careful going forward.
The commission informally voted on each of the buffers.
All of them agreed to recommend no buffer between marijuana facilities, something Stephens said he could go along with as long as the commission doesn’t concede the other zones.
On the residential buffer, Stephens and Wolthuis preferred a 300-foot buffer, while Hausner, Jurney, Gatchell and Wilcox recommended a 50-foot buffer.
“I think there are some residents in the city that would like some kind of buffer, to feel protected,” Hausner said.
“If you set up a grow within 300 feet of my house, I wouldn’t be very happy about it,” Wolthuis said.
Parks could have a smaller buffer, Wolthuis said. “Why don’t we think in terms of 300. That would open up a lot of property.”
“I can live with 300,” Stephens said.
Wilcox, Gatchell, Hausner and Jurney recommended no buffer around parks.
“I don’t think our opinions are different from the community at large,” Jurney said about the division among the commissioners.
The council may decide whether to approve the ordinance during its regular meeting Jan. 24. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Annex, located behind City Hall, 1140 12th Ave. For more information about the council meeting, call (541) 367-8969.