No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/10/2021 PUBLIC HEARING May 10, 2021 Present: Matt Scherr Chairman Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Chandler-Henry Commissioner Jeff Shroll County Manager Kelley Collier Deputy County Manager Holly Strablizky Assistant County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Planning File - Eagle County Room 1. Planning File: RFSCG-1 Cannabis Cultivation Facility Tez Hawkins, Planning Department DESCRIPTION: The Applicant seeks approval for a Special Use Permit to allow for the expansion of an existing outdoor marijuana cultivation facility by 10.5 acres for a total of 15.5 acres. The expansion also adds eight(8) 30' x 96' hoop houses within the previously approved outdoor cultivation area. Project Name: RFSCG-1 Cannabis Cultivation Facility File No.: ZS-8009-RFSCG-1 Special Use Permit Location: 100 Ten Peaks Mesa Rd(El Jebel Area) Owner: X Bar Ranch LLC Applicant: RFSCG-1, LLC, in care of Rob Holmes (the"Applicant") Representative: Chris Green, Ago Studios& Scot Hunn,Hunn Planning& Policy LLC. Staff Planner: Tez Hawkins, Associate Planner Staff Engineer: Nicole Mosby, PE, CFM County Attorney: Holly Strablizky Recommendation: Approval with Conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Property Location and Description: The Applicant requests to expand an approved retail marijuana cultivation operation at 100 Ten Peaks Mesa Road, Parcel Number 239104401002, located approximately eight miles north of the El Jebel area (the "Property"). The Property consists of 44 acres split between Garfield and Eagle Counties. The Eagle County portion of the Property is 30 acres and zoned Resource. The application materials [Attachment 1] provide additional information on the background of the Property. The surrounding properties are zoned Resource,consistent with the zoning of the Property. Uses on the adjacent properties include a pumice mine to the southeast, a cattle ranch to the south, hay fields to the north, east, and west, and two single family residences to the northeast. There is also an approved and active retail marijuana cultivation operation on the adjacent property to the north(ZS-4799). The Existing Special Use: In 2016,the County approved cultivation operations as detailed in Eagle County Resolution R16-075 and Special Use Permit ZS-6082 (the"R16-075")[Attachment 2]. The approved operation consists of: 1 05/10/2021 • Five acres of outdoor marijuana cultivation area. • Two 4,000 square foot greenhouses. The greenhouses are currently unbuilt. • Up to 6,000 square feet of buildings for uses such as drying, freezing, extraction, and curing(the "Processing"). These buildings are also used for storage and propagation. These buildings are currently unbuilt. • Accessory structures for storage equipment and tools. • Portable restroom facilities. • On-site parking. • A three-million gallon water storage pond that serves the Property's irrigation needs and fire mitigation requirements. Proposed Expansion: • An additional 10.5 acres of outdoor cultivation. • 12 total 30' x 96' (2,880 square foot)hoop houses. o Four currently exist on the Property. If approved,the Applicant would continue its existing approval detailed in R16-075. Comprehensively,the approval would allow for(the"Proposed Special Use"): • A total of 15.5 acres of outdoor marijuana cultivation. • 14,000 square feet of marijuana Processing facilities. o Two 4,000 square foot greenhouses o Up to 6,000 square feet of processing barn structures. o 12 hoop houses (34,560 square feet). • Portable restrooms. • On-site parking. Staff Recommendation Overview: Staff conducted an extensive analysis of the standards of approval for the Proposed Special Use. Based on review of the application materials,the Proposed Special Use, as conditioned, demonstrated compliance with all of the standards of approval and requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (the"ECLUR"). The Proposed Special Use was evaluated through two sufficiency review periods and two referral periods. The application initially included Processing operations from R16-075 and expansion of those Processing operations. However, following the second referral period,the Processing operations which existed on the Property up until early 2021, were removed from Property to mitigate odor and remove building code violations related requirements for F-1 Industrial buildings. Sufficiency review period comments concentrated on: 1. Demonstration of Conformance with R16-075 and the conditions of approval. This is related to the reporting of odor complaints, off-site parking, traffic counts, and employee operations. 2. Consistency of the Site Plan and the Description of the Proposed Special Use. 3. The necessity of a complete drainage plan. 4. Consistency and accuracy of the anticipated traffic volumes,vehicle types, and parking needs. During the two referral periods,multiple staff members of the Planning Division reviewed the application due to new hires or the departure of existing county staff. Comments from the sufficiency review period carried over and new comments and concerns were provided to the Applicant during referral review periods. Comments from external agencies are discussed later in this staff report. Eagle County referral comments concentrated on the following: 2 05/10/2021 1. Outstanding items required by the Roaring Fork Fire Rescue Authority(the"RFFRA"). 2. Consistency of the Site Plan and the Description of the project. 3. Clarification on the Phasing of the Project with regard to the development of proposed greenhouses and barn. 4. Addressing the odor complaints from the adjacent property owners. 5.Updating the Odor Mitigation Plan based on R16-075 conditions of approval and complaints from adjacent property owners. 6. Demonstration of conformance with R16-075 and the conditions of approval. Eagle County issued a Notice of Violation related to R16-075 and the Eagle County Building Resolution(the "NOV"). The Applicant worked with staff to satisfactorily address the issues identified in the NOV. Additionally, staff and the Applicant were able to resolve any concerns identified in the comments through the Proposed Special Use application. The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission(the"RFVRPC")heard the Proposed Special Use on April 1, 2021 during its regularly scheduled meeting. A comprehensive overview of planning commissioner discussion, deliberation, and action is outlined in Section VI of this staff report. The RFVRPC voted unanimously to approve the Proposed Special Use with an additional recommended condition. Therefore the Proposed Special Use, as conditioned, complies with the standards for a Special Use Permit and staff • recommends approval with conditions. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Per ECLUR Section 5-210.D.4.c-Referral Distribution and d-Referral Time Period, the application was processed through two referral periods. The first referral distributed copies of this application to eleven agencies for review on March 14, 2019. The second referral sent copies of the application to 24 agencies September 4, 2020. The following section lists the agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County. Please see Attachment 6 for the full text of each referral agency response: 1. Colorado Geographic Survey(the"CGS") a. The CGS comments were not substantial as they stated that there are no geologic hazards present that impact or are exacerbated by the Proposed Special Use 2. RFFRA a. The RFFRA provided comments related to wildfire defensible space and separation requirements for the proposed buildings, security access to the Property, and adequate water storage. 3. Ten Peaks Mesa Homeowners Association(the"HOA"): a. The Ten Peaks Mesa HOA stated that it is in opposition of the Proposed Special Use. The HOA does not consider the Proposed Special Use to be compatible with the surrounding land use due to odor,traffic, visual impacts, and scale. As of the date of this report, all referral comments are addressed to the satisfaction of the referral agencies and Eagle County. RFVRPC Deliberation: The RFVRPC's deliberation focused on the compatibility of the Proposed Special Use with regard to visual and odor impacts on adjacent property owners. It was debated whether the impacts to the adjacent property owners are reasonably avoided or if the impacts are substantial. 3 05/10/2021 Odors: Discussion focused on whether adjacent property owners were"materially impacted by odor."There was concern that the odor mitigation measures were not concrete,unmeasurable, and that Eagle County did not have a way to ensure its effectiveness. The RFVRPC also considered the fact that the BoCC approved allowing mairjuana cultivation in the Resource zone district knowing that there would be some odor related impacts.Additionally,there was discussion related to the idea that marijuana was an agricultural product and had odors similar to other agricultural products. However, odor was an expected impact to residents in rural areas related to animals such as pigs and cows;the difference with the Proposed Special Use was that it was marijuana which was a newer product of which not all residents were in favor. The commissioners agreed that a site visit would have been more strategic at a time when the plants were growing so the odors could have been better understood. The RFVRPC also discussed the need for Eagle County to measure odor impacts. They stated that they understood the difficulty in measuring odors in a non-subjective way,however, that did not mean that Eagle County should dismiss odor as an impact that can't be studied in more detail. Staff provided that the ECLUR did not have odor mitigation standards, and there were few precedent studies available to implement a confident mechanism to measure odor. Visual Impacts: Some of the commissioners proposed that the Applicant should provide a more robust landscape plan which included additional plantings around the Property to mitigate visual impacts. They stated that the Applicant should ensure that when employees parked, they parked in the designated areas as shown in the site plan of the application materials. The commissioners agreed that a"messy farm"was warranted in the area,but the • Proposed Special Use was visually unique due to the type of fencing that was required per MED regulations and the amount of parking needed for operations. Thus,keeping the site clean and orderly on an ongoing basis was expected. Some of the commissioners stated that the area had been traditionally composed of large rural agricultural properties. However,because agricultural uses had declined,the area was being subdivided to provide for residential uses. The often large and expensive homes could be seen as the intrusive land use in the area and visually did not belong. The messy and often odorous farms were the traditional use. If the goal was to maintain agricultural uses in the area,then Eagle County should allow the Proposed Special Use with the accommodation of residential uses. It was understood that marijuana was a new agricultural use that was not supported by all,but if it preserves agricultural lands from development then it should be allowed. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based upon a thorough analysis of the standards for a special use permit; staff recommended approval with conditions of this application because the proposed use, as conditioned,met all standards for approval of a special use permit. The following conditions should be considered for inclusion: 1. At the time of building permit application for the structures used in operation of the special use(including the barn and greenhouses per R16-075),the Applicant shall provide Eagle County with an updated illumination mitigation plan outlining steps it will take to address light and glare, if any, created by these operations. 2. At the time of building permit application for the structures used in operation of the special use(including the barn and greenhouses per R16-075),the Applicant shall provide Eagle County with an updated odor mitigation plan outlining steps it will take to address odors created by these operations. 3. The Applicant shall provide a detailed grading plan, showing existing and proposed grades, as well as proposed limits of disturbance, drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a Colorado licensed engineer in accordance with the ECLUR for the site prior to or concurrent with any grading and/or building permit application 4 05/10/2021 for any improvements or structures used in operation of the special use,including permits for site preparation or installation of hoop houses or other impervious surfaces. 4. Pursuant to RFVRPC Recommendations: After the first harvest of the expansion for the uses used in operation of this special use, and no later than November 30 of that year,the Applicant shall provide a report that reviews the effectiveness of the Odor Mitigation Plan,to the Community Development Director. Additionally, during this first expanded grow season,Eagle County Code Enforcement will conduct two property site visits to assess odor impacts on adjacent property owners and detail his findings in a report to be provided to the Applicant and the Community Development Director. Based on these two reports,the Community Development Director and Applicant shall work together to address odor mitigation as necessary and feasible, if needed. Mr. Hawkins,Eagle County Staff Planner, opened the file and outlined the agenda. The applicant would present his information related to the past, existing, and future operations. Staff would then present an application with a focus on the standards of approval. The board would then have an opportunity to ask questions and then allow public comment. Scot Hunn, Hunn Planning&Policy, LLC,presented a powerpoint detailing the applicant's proposal. The existing/approved operation included 5 acres of outdoor cultivation, 14,000 sq. ft. of greenhouse and ancillary buildings (not constructed), a 16-space parking area, access road(dual access), fencing, and screening. Rob Holmes,the applicant,was requesting an expansion to add 10.5 acres and additional fencing. Current issues included artificial use of lighting, odor mitigation, storage, and screening. The lighting would be addressed with the use of shade cloth for dark hours. To address the odors, the applicant had moved processing operations off-site and eliminated the need to maintain shipping containers on site. To address the site storage, the applicant had provided new landscaping and screening details for port-a-lets. The applicant believed the expansion was in line with previous approvals and with the intent of the county's cultivation policies,regulations, and comprehensive plan goals. The operation had been and would continue to be in compliance with county and state requirements for outdoor cultivation. The applicant would continue to work with the county and neighboring property owners to ensure ongoing success,to address issues, and to provide a high-quality product grown in Eagle County. The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with conditions. Mr. Hawkins presented the geographic information of the property. The property was zoned resource and was approximately 44 acres with 30 acres of the property existing in Eagle County and the remaining property in Garfield County. The applicant had demonstrated adequate water supply and water rights for the proposed use. Nicole Mosby,Eagle County Staff Engineer,reviewed the property access. Staff believed there to be adequate infrastructure for deliveries,parking,and loading. Mr. Hawkins stated that staff determined that the proposed RFSCG-1 Marijuana Cultivation was in conformance with the standards, and staff recommended an approval with conditions. Mr. Hawkins reviewed the details of the hearing they had with the Roaring Fork Planning Commission. During that hearing,they did receive public comments relating to the proposed uses and mitigation plans. It was recommended that Eagle County adopt methods to measure the impacts of odor. Neighboring property owners expressed concern that this special use and additional marijana cultivation areas may be expanded causing future impacts to adjacent communities. Other comments related to the unproven effectiveness of the odor mitigation plan. There were many folks who did not believe this type of agriculture was a traditional use. One property owner believed the hoop houses should be treated as greenhouses, and should have the same requirements related to building permitting. Some neighbors believed the property was unsightly. Commissioner McQueeney expressed an interest in hearing from the public on this file. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked the applicant where he was in the process of planting for the currently approved five acres and the proposed additional 10.5 acres. Mr. Holmes stated that they were planted and they were preparing for additional planting. Postponing this application would be a massive setback. Chairman Scherr opened public comment. 5 05/10/2021 Lucy O'Laughlin,2103 Ten Peaks Mesa Road resident, spoke. She believed the use was an incompatible land use. There were a number of issues and some unknowns. She opposed the expansion. Christy Drury, 1601 Ten Peaks Mess Road resident, spoke. She expressed frustration and wondered if there was another avenue in which they had more than three minutes to chime in. They had several questions. She wondered with the increase in acreage how many more plants would be grown,what did Eagle County gain from allowing this type of use, and why do neighboring counties not allow this. She wondered if Eagle County would consider a trial period. She wondered if the conditions of approval incorporated any clear standards,measurements, or regulations for odors. The residents were suffering the many negative consequences and were looking to the county to offer some remedies prior to granting any extensions. Wendy McNaulty, 7747 County Road 100 resident and adjacent property owner. The ranch was homesteaded by the McNaulty family in 1884. The land now owned by the applicant was part of their ranch. Water was the biggest concern. It was very apparent that the water allocations and management of the water was not being done correctly. There was a water sharing agreement with their ditch when his water was out of priority. She had questions about the water situation and the land uses. She requested that the commissioners give a continuance to the matter so that everyone had a better understanding about the future. Susan Muenchen, 1586 Ten Peaks Mesa Road resident, spoke. She elaborated on Condition(four)4, proposed by the planning commission, suggesting that the board allow the applicant an approval and requiring a review/site visit afterwards. They would prefer that the applicant show that he can mitigate the current odor problem prior to an approval to expand. She expressed concern for odor and the health issues related to breathing the odors over time. The wind was blowing toxins directly at adjacent property owners. She believed their odor complaints had gone nowhere, and the applicant was allowed to operate with violations. Andy Mishmash, 1586 Ten Peaks Mesa Road resident, spoke. He was the current president for the HOA for the Ten Peaks Mesa development. He spoke about the clean up of the property and that the ditch that fed their augmentation pond was un-usable for a year until they cleared it at their own expense. He questioned the code enforcement officer priorities and whether they would check the site now or only the expansion. He wondered if there was a place where he could find the language that defines a hoop house over a greenhouse. He thanked the commissioners for visiting the site but questioned their timing as there were no plants on the ground that would produce the odor. Meg McNaulty, 420 County Road 122 resident, spoke. She resided closest to the grow operation and was also downstream. She expressed concern with the chemical residues running off the site into her well. She talked about the wildlife migration and impact on the elk. She wondered if the enforcement division had done an inspection. There was an issue with the applicant's employees driving through fences. She questioned the security. Tami Kochen, 1001 Ten Peaks Mesa Road resident, spoke. Her grandfather was a farmer and a cattle rancher and she understood the impacts of each of those uses. The odor from this operation was nowhere close to farming or ranching that existed in the surrounding area. As the commissioners,they had the responsibility to uphold the code and the values. She and her neighbors had gone to great lengths to acquire space and acreage and created conservation easements on the land just to insure that the impacts from other neighbors were not imposed on by each other's lives and environment. Chairman Scherr closed public comment. Chris Green,representative for the applicant stated that they wished to hear from the board and were happy to answer any questions. Holly Strablizky, Assistant Eagle County Attorney, explained that a property owner had the opportunity to determine how they wanted to use their property. When they wanted to use their property beyond a use by right, they were able to ask the county for permission for a special use or a limited use review. There were a number of standards set forth in the code that an applicant must comply with. The public hearing process had a number of notification requirements. Chairman Scherr stated that this was a statutory process. All of the written comments received were helpful. Unfortunately,during the hearing there was a limitation on time. 6 05/10/2021 Commissioner McQueeney believed some of the comments made during public comment were worthy of highlighting. One was water and whether water rights had been established. Lukas Peck, attorney for the applicant, spoke. In terms of the water rights,Mr. Holmes had purchased the water rights with the property. The rights were designed to be used for agricultural operations and found to be sufficient for this use. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that if the water rights were senior rights and being used in priority, then any claim that the ditches were being improperly used would go to the water commission rather than a county body. Mr. Peck stated that if there was a misuse of water rights or over use of water,then there was a remedy for the neighbors' complaints. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked the difference between a hoop house and a greenhouse. Mr. Hawkins stated that a hoop house was a temporary structure and did not require permanent fixtures and could not be climate controlled. A greenhouse had permanent fixtures. Ms. Beryl added that a hoop house could be climate controlled and would then push the hoop house into an Fl designation. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the chemicals,pesticides, and runoff. Mr. Green stated that they were monitored and visited by both the marijuana enforcement division and Colorado Department of Agriculture. This was an organic farm. They were not using anything considered harmful. The list was available to the public. Ms. Mosby stated that the drainage standards required a containment basin that could capture the stormwater. Chairman Scherr asked about the number of plants. Mr. Green stated that the current plant count was 10,800. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the number of plants that were grown last year and how many would be planted this year if an expansion were approved. Mr. Holmes stated that last year they grew 3,600 plants and this year they would grow between 6,100 and 10,800. Chairman Scherr asked the applicant to talk about the standard for wildlife. Mr. Holmes stated that he had not seen a decrease in wildlife. Mr. Hawkins reviewed the recommendations by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. They simply recommended wildlife friendly fencing that wouldn't cause injury if animals jumped it. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about odor,reporting, and how it would be calculated. She asked if the county Public Health Department had a chance to weigh in on the report from the CDC that was mentioned in public comment. Mr. Hawkins stated that neither he nor Public Health was aware of the report. Mr. Holmes stated that they had seen no negative result of exposure by employees. Ms. Beryl stated that there wasn't an effective way to measure odor. One of the ways they wanted to address this was to put the responsibility on the applicant to come up with a measurement system that was appropriate. Chairman Scherr asked if there was a standard in place for the first special use permit. Ms. Beryl stated that there was not. Code enforcement had responded to some complaints in 2019. Mr. Hawkins stated that the Eagle County LURs did not require that all odors be eliminated, only mitigated. Ms. Beryl believed the county was in a tough position. By nature of the county allowing outdoor cultivation in the Resource Zone District,we needed to accept that there would be odor. The Community Development Director and the applicant needed to continue to work together to improve processes and identify where odor was coming from,when, and why. She encouraged the applicant to take a scientific approach and monitor the odors. She encouraged the neighbors to recognize that they lived in an agricultural area where there would be odors. She was comfortable stating that the applicant had made a good faith effort and continued to make a good faith effort at improving processes. She believed that this was an operation that was continually innovating, changing, and improving and thought that more odor mitigation solutions would come to fruition. 7 05/10/2021 Commissioner Candler-Henry asked if there was an expiration date on a special use permit for this operation. Ms. Beryl stated that there was not an expiration date for this operation. Mr. Hawkins stated that the use must be started within a three-year period once approved. Ms. Beryl stated that on the TNT Botanical file there was a condition that limited the approval to one year based on compliance with the many conditions associated with the permit. This included a review of all the requirements, if in compliance with the conditions,the operation would continue without any termination date. Chairman Scherr wondered if there was a way to write it into a condition that if there were new practices or technologies related to odor mitigation,the practice could be incorporated into this permit. Ms.Beryl cautioned against continuous reporting as this provided a false sense of security. She did not find anything wrong or unfeasible about adding a line into a condition that said as new technologies became available that the applicant shall investigate them and implement as required. It was important to keep in mind that this grow operation was surrounded by two other grow operations, and one was not permitted by Eagle County. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if there was a way to protect the neighboring property owners to the enjoyment of their property. She expressed concern about the county's responsibility to the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Strablisky believed this was a good opportunity to draft a more strategic condition to address the board's direction and continue the file until next week in order to have the language more thoughtfully developed. Mr. Hunn stated that the applicant was happy to work with staff on trying to be scientific. Commissioner Chandler-Henry wanted to confirm that notice had been provided to Mrs. Wendy McNaulty in a timely manner. Mr. Hawkins confirmed that that notice was sent earlier than required. Staff did not send out certified receipts. Ms. McNaulty did contact him prior to the Roaring Fork Planning Commission hearing. Chairman Scherr stated that he struggled with the odor impacts but agriculture was agricultural and sometimes it stunk. Commissioner McQueeney believed that as more was learned, improvements could be made. She believed there were issues with Standards 2 and 4. There were complaints and violations against the current special use permit and she was reluctant to proceed in tripling the size of the operation. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that she did not want to disadvantage the property owner who had followed the standards and guidelines. She believed the applicant had presented a good application that met the standards. However,there were concerns by other people living in the area, and she wondered if it was possible to get information from Public Health and come back. Commissioner McQueeney proposed a smaller pilot to see if the odor mitigation plan worked. Commissioner Chandler-Henry also suggested a one-year permit to see how things went or sticking to the 6,000 plants rather than 10,000 plants for the first year. Mr. Holmes stated that they would be investing a lot of money in fencing and more surveillance equipment. It was a sizable investment to go back down to five acres. Steve Miller,the applicant's project advisor, stated that what he was hearing were a bunch of people upset about odor who moved into an agricultural area, some after moving in after the cannabis operation had been approved. They were making accusations that had been unsubstantiated. The applicant had already spent a lot of money to move the processing operations off campus. They had made a huge investment in trying to mitigate the odor. Mr. Holmes stated that they did not believe that the odor anywhere near as strong as what was being reported. There were two sides to the data. He understood what the neighbors were saying and he wanted to work with the county to find solutions. They had gone the extra mile and made a sizable investment into setting themselves up for this expansion. Mr. Miller stated that the applicant had submitted the application close to 1,000 days ago. The complaints had come in, in abundance, duing the last 30 days. They had done everything to comply with the regulations as best as humanly possible. Chairman Scherr believed the application met the standards that staff had listed. The violation issues had been cleared up and were not part of the permit process. 8 05/10/2021 Commissioner McQueeney stated that the odor issue went against the compatibility and adverse impact. Ms. Beryl stated that she was confident that the applicant team would continue to work with staff to improve if necessary. The applicant had worked well with Eagle County and came into compliance with any outstanding issues. The applicant had been responsive to community concern. Ms. Beryl prepared a condition. Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered if the Centers for Disease Control learned more and things that came up that affected public health if that would supersede the land use regulations. Ms. Beryl stated that the state agency that licenses marijauna was constantly updating their policies so the applicant had to continually work with the state to come into compliance. Ms. Beryl presented a possible condition of approval to address the odor concerns. Mr. Peck reviewed the condition. He expressed concern that the discussion had come from the perspective of, if odor was still an issue. It was not entirely clear that the source of the odor was coming from this farm. Ms. Strablisky suggested that if the goal was to fine tune the condition, that time be given to the county and the applicant to develop or refine this condition over a couple of days as opposed to during a public hearing. Mr. Peck disagreed. He did not want to spend a week coming up with a bunch of different restrictions that addressed things that he didn't think were appropriate. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that the board's questions related to compatibility and adverse impacts could be found to be satisfactory. The board was trying to address the existing standards and conditions. Mr. Hunn suggested a conditional approval allowing the board to take action to approve with the direction that staff continues to refine the conditions and come back with a resolution once the conditions were finalized. Commissioner Chandler-Henry requested that there not be an open ended tabling. Commissioner McQueeney moved to table file no. ZS-8009 RSFCG-1, Cannabis Cultivation Facility Special Use Permit,until May 17, 2021 at 9:00 AM in order to finalize the odor mitigation condition(condition 4). Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. EA6lf There being no further business before t,- ': 0.474 4' eeting was adjourned until May 17,2021. Nt < Attest• _ 41TP c, o0 Clerk to the Board Chairman 9 05/10/2021