What's New
What's New
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Sponsors
Sponsors
Sponsor Discounts
Sponsor Intros
420 Sponsor Guidelines
LED Sponsor Guidelines
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
420 News
International Cannabis News
Medical Marijuana News
Industrial Hemp News
Website News & Updates
420 Events
420 Forums
Forum Guidelines
Introduce Yourself
New Posts
Your Threads
Threads with your posts
Unanswered Threads
Watched Threads
Watched Forums
Search Forums
Mark Forums Read
420 Guidelines FAQ's
Science
Cannabis Facts
Medical Marijuana Facts
Industrial Hemp Facts
MMJ Scientific Data
Concentrated Cannabis Oil
Cultivation Scientific Data
Medical
Healing Properties of Medical Cannabis
Medical Marijuana Facts
Medical Marijuana Treatment
MMJ Methods of Use
Concentrated Cannabis Oil
MMJ Cannabis Edibles
420 Store
Activism
Mission Statement
Cannabis Warriors
Celebrity Tokers
420 Girls
420 Bands
420 Activist Corner
Fallen Warriors
420 Legal Action
Drug Testing
Petitions & Initiatives
Grow
How To Grow Marijuana
Grow Journals
Seeds, Clones & Strains
Frequently Asked Questions
Growers Forums
Grow Lighting
Grower's Lounge
Cannabis Concentrates
Problems, Pests & Disease Control
Plant & Bud Photos
420 Reviews
420 Strain Reviews
420 Product Reviews
Grow Supply Product Reviews
Entertainment
420 Contests - Win Free Stuff
Gallery - Cannabis Pictures
420 Calendar
Plant & Bud Photos
Random 420 Photos
420 TV - Marijuana Videos
Gallery
Photo Gallery/Media Guide
Add media
New media
New comments
Search media
420 News
International Cannabis News
Medical Marijuana News
Industrial Hemp News
Website News & Updates
420 Events
420 Forums
Forum Guidelines
Introduce Yourself
New posts
Unanswered threads
Search forums
Forum Guidelines FAQ's
Science
Cannabis Facts
Medical Marijuana Facts
Industrial Hemp Facts
MMJ Scientific Data
Concentrated Cannabis Oil
Cultivation Scientific Data
Medical
Healing Properties of Medical Cannabis
Medical Marijuana Facts
Medical Marijuana Treatment
MMJ Methods Of Use
Concentrated Cannabis Oil
MMJ Cannabis Edibles
420 Store
Activism
Mission Statement
Cannabis Warriors
Celebrity Tokers
420 Girls
420 Bands
420 Activist Corner
Fallen Warriors
420 Legal Action
Drug Testing
Petitions & Initiatives
Grow
How To Grow Marijuana
Grow Journals
Seeds, Clones & Strains
Frequently Asked Questions
Growers Forums
Grow Lighting
Grower's Lounge
Cannabis Concentrates
Problems, Pests & Disease Control
Plant & Bud Photos
420 Reviews
420 Strain Reviews
420 Product Reviews
Grow Supply Product Reviews
Entertainment
420 Contests - Win Free Stuff
Gallery - Cannabis Pictures
420 Calendar
Plant & Bud Photos
Random 420 Photos
420 TV - Marijuana Videos
Gallery
Photo Gallery/Media Guide
Add media
New media
New comments
Search media
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum Guidelines
Introduce Yourself
New posts
Unanswered threads
Search forums
Forum Guidelines FAQ's
Menu
420 Sponsors
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Checkout 420 Magazine Sponsor Discounts, Discussions, Contests & Giveaways!
420 Forums
420 NEWS
International Cannabis News
CA: Yolo County To Consider Marijuana Growing Ordinance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Katelyn Baker" data-source="post: 3059778" data-attributes="member: 258081"><p>Yolo County supervisors will be reviewing a revised ordinance regulating the cultivation of medical marijuana this week.</p><p></p><p>The proposal is already drawing a complaint of being excessively prohibitive. Supervisors will review the plan at their Tuesday meeting in the Erwin Meier Center.</p><p></p><p>The county has been operating under an interim ordinance since last March, which called for a ban on all outdoor marijuana cultivation unless the plants are intended for medicinal use or an individual is a Regional Water Control Program permit holder. Medical marijuana growers are limited to 100 square feet of land that is 75 feet from any neighboring houses, churches, or schools.</p><p></p><p>After considering requests made during the ordinance's public comment period in March, the Board added a provision to this exception stating that a patient may expand their plot if they can demonstrate evidence that it would be a hardship for them to be restricted to the yields of only 100 square feet of land. A fine of $500 was also set for anyone violating the rules.</p><p></p><p>On Tuesday a more formalized ordinance will be brought up that has been worked out based on the lessons learned since March.</p><p></p><p>The recommendations come after the county's Department of Agriculture formed an enforcement task force of representatives from the District Attorney's Office, the Sheriff's Office, the Health and Human Services Agency and both the Environmental Health Division and the Building Division of the Community Services Department.</p><p></p><p>That task force identified provisions of the ordinance that require strengthening.</p><p></p><p>Specifically, the amendment includes definitions for abatement costs, administrative costs, cultivation site, enforcing officer and youth oriented facility.</p><p></p><p>There are also revisions for patient cultivation exemptions to bring it in compliance with state law, clarifying the number of patients who may grow per property; a requirement that commercial cultivators participate in a track and trace program when instituted by the county, provide written consent for compliance inspections and sign an indemnification agreement protecting the County.</p><p></p><p>Finally, there will also be a prohibition on commercial cultivation by those with enumerated criminal convictions as well as residency requirements, required registration and the addition of a nuisance abatement process and associated fines.</p><p></p><p>However, Matt Kelly, who identified himself as a Yolo County farmer, wrote to The Democrat taking issue with the proposal stating "To many Yolo County residents, and potential outside investors, the newly proposed changes to the county's cannabis cultivation ordinance are unconstitutional, illegally applied and contrary to the best interest of property owners, business owners and the residents of Yolo County.</p><p></p><p>Kelly did not immediately respond to an email for information on his background. He did not provide a telephone number.</p><p></p><p>"Beyond the obvious benefits of increasing the county tax base, and employment opportunities, by allowing additional cannabis cultivation permits to be issued, the ancillary benefits to the community would be immense," Kelly wrote.</p><p></p><p>Kelly also stated that limiting cannabis cultivation permits to "50 (the current count), or 100 or even 200 would not make a noticeable reduction in the rogue cultivation sites that are already occurring in the county and it would not be enough to support a balanced infrastructure of cannabis transportation, testing and dispensing businesses that are also intended to be permitted in Yolo County by 2018."</p><p></p><p>Kelly is urging supervisors to reject the staff recommendation as well as reject the "residency requirements."</p><p></p><p>Kelly said the ordinance would "lead to a monopoly of only a few politically connected people controlling the local industry, and politicians, which will prevent the many residents in the county who are currently growing illegally, to acquire a permit and become legal and registered tax-paying business."</p><p></p><p>He stated that supervisors and their staff "proclaim to want to clean up the cannabis cultivation sites proliferating all across the county," a moratorium on issuing new permits would lead to more rogue, un-permitted and un-taxed cultivation sites.</p><p></p><p> <img src="https://www.420magazine.com/gallery/data/1412/DeoFerrer.PNG" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p>News Moderator: Katelyn Baker <a href="https://www.420magazine.com" target="_blank">420 MAGAZINE ®</a></p><p>Full Article: <a href="http://www.dailydemocrat.com/article/NI/20161008/NEWS/161009855" target="_blank">Yolo County To Consider Marijuana Growing Ordinance</a></p><p>Author: Jim Smith</p><p>Contact: (530) 662-5421 </p><p>Photo Credit: Deo Ferrer</p><p>Website: <a href="http://www.dailydemocrat.com/" target="_blank">Daily Democrat</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Katelyn Baker, post: 3059778, member: 258081"] Yolo County supervisors will be reviewing a revised ordinance regulating the cultivation of medical marijuana this week. The proposal is already drawing a complaint of being excessively prohibitive. Supervisors will review the plan at their Tuesday meeting in the Erwin Meier Center. The county has been operating under an interim ordinance since last March, which called for a ban on all outdoor marijuana cultivation unless the plants are intended for medicinal use or an individual is a Regional Water Control Program permit holder. Medical marijuana growers are limited to 100 square feet of land that is 75 feet from any neighboring houses, churches, or schools. After considering requests made during the ordinance's public comment period in March, the Board added a provision to this exception stating that a patient may expand their plot if they can demonstrate evidence that it would be a hardship for them to be restricted to the yields of only 100 square feet of land. A fine of $500 was also set for anyone violating the rules. On Tuesday a more formalized ordinance will be brought up that has been worked out based on the lessons learned since March. The recommendations come after the county's Department of Agriculture formed an enforcement task force of representatives from the District Attorney's Office, the Sheriff's Office, the Health and Human Services Agency and both the Environmental Health Division and the Building Division of the Community Services Department. That task force identified provisions of the ordinance that require strengthening. Specifically, the amendment includes definitions for abatement costs, administrative costs, cultivation site, enforcing officer and youth oriented facility. There are also revisions for patient cultivation exemptions to bring it in compliance with state law, clarifying the number of patients who may grow per property; a requirement that commercial cultivators participate in a track and trace program when instituted by the county, provide written consent for compliance inspections and sign an indemnification agreement protecting the County. Finally, there will also be a prohibition on commercial cultivation by those with enumerated criminal convictions as well as residency requirements, required registration and the addition of a nuisance abatement process and associated fines. However, Matt Kelly, who identified himself as a Yolo County farmer, wrote to The Democrat taking issue with the proposal stating "To many Yolo County residents, and potential outside investors, the newly proposed changes to the county's cannabis cultivation ordinance are unconstitutional, illegally applied and contrary to the best interest of property owners, business owners and the residents of Yolo County. Kelly did not immediately respond to an email for information on his background. He did not provide a telephone number. "Beyond the obvious benefits of increasing the county tax base, and employment opportunities, by allowing additional cannabis cultivation permits to be issued, the ancillary benefits to the community would be immense," Kelly wrote. Kelly also stated that limiting cannabis cultivation permits to "50 (the current count), or 100 or even 200 would not make a noticeable reduction in the rogue cultivation sites that are already occurring in the county and it would not be enough to support a balanced infrastructure of cannabis transportation, testing and dispensing businesses that are also intended to be permitted in Yolo County by 2018." Kelly is urging supervisors to reject the staff recommendation as well as reject the "residency requirements." Kelly said the ordinance would "lead to a monopoly of only a few politically connected people controlling the local industry, and politicians, which will prevent the many residents in the county who are currently growing illegally, to acquire a permit and become legal and registered tax-paying business." He stated that supervisors and their staff "proclaim to want to clean up the cannabis cultivation sites proliferating all across the county," a moratorium on issuing new permits would lead to more rogue, un-permitted and un-taxed cultivation sites. [img]https://www.420magazine.com/gallery/data/1412/DeoFerrer.PNG[/img] News Moderator: Katelyn Baker [URL="https://www.420magazine.com"]420 MAGAZINE ®[/URL] Full Article: [URL="http://www.dailydemocrat.com/article/NI/20161008/NEWS/161009855"]Yolo County To Consider Marijuana Growing Ordinance[/URL] Author: Jim Smith Contact: (530) 662-5421 Photo Credit: Deo Ferrer Website: [URL="http://www.dailydemocrat.com/"]Daily Democrat[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
420 Forums
420 NEWS
International Cannabis News
CA: Yolo County To Consider Marijuana Growing Ordinance
Top
Bottom