OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Board of Adjustment Meeting - September 27, 2017

Board of AdjustmentWednesday, September 27, 2017
BodyTempe, Arizona
SessionBoard of Adjustment
DateWednesday, September 27, 2017
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
1:20

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

1:21

I'd like to welcome you to tonight's Board of Adjustment meeting, September 27, 2017.

1:27

So we'll call a meeting to order and first an opening statement of purpose.

1:31

The Board of Adjustment is authorized by the Arizona revised statutes of the City of Tempe zoning ordinance.

1:37

Its function is to grant relief where a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in an unnecessary property hardship to interpret provisions of the zoning ordinance and to hear appeals from any person or city official grieved by the decision of a person responsible for the enforcement of the zoning ordinance.

2:17

If the rest of you would like to speak, uh we do make provision that you can have a few minutes to speak.

2:22

In order to do so, we ask that you fill out one of the white forms at the back on that table and bring it up to a member of our city staff.

2:31

And when we get to the appropriate time, we'll we'll have you come up and you can share your feelings.

2:54

I'll I'll if we can start at my left.

5:00

After review of the application, staff determined that the subject property did not comply with the separation requirement from another medical marijuana dispensary because the city had accepted a dispensary location within a one-mile radius of the subject site.

5:09

The appellant's letter of appeal, which was dated July 31st, 2017, was included in the staff report attachments, and it sounds like you have had an opportunity to review that.

5:20

If you don't have any questions of me, I'll let the applicant or appellant make his presentation now.

5:29

Do we have any questions?

5:33

Okay.

5:33

We may ask you questions later, I suspect.

5:36

Before we go any further, I'd like to point out an error that I realized I made.

5:40

I I uh I said that our motion to approve the minutes was put forth by Mr.

5:45

Pizakis.

5:46

It was put forth by Mr.

5:47

Causewell.

5:49

Okay.

5:50

So having corrected that error.

5:52

Thank you, Miss Stovall.

5:54

Um, we'll now have an opportunity to have our applicant approach and tell us about his case.

6:03

Good evening, uh, members of the Board of Adjustment.

6:05

I appreciate your time to hear this matter.

6:07

My name is Brian McLaren.

6:09

I'm the CEO of Zoned Properties.

6:11

We are a real estate development firm here in the Valley.

6:13

We own the property at 410 South Madison Drive.

6:16

For the past few years, we've attempted to work as collaboratively as possible in developing a concept that we call the medical marijuana business park at 410 South Madison Drive.

6:27

So we have a primary tenant at the facility that is currently a licensed and permitted medical marijuana cultivation site.

6:35

Um they are our client.

6:36

That's Hannah Meds, who's listed in the description.

6:39

Um they approached us with an interest to also develop as a part of that concept a dispensary site.

6:45

Um we worked with the development department, um, PD, fire department, city attorney's office as a best way to approach this.

6:54

Um we've tried to work as transparently as possible.

6:57

And here today in the capacity as the appellant on unfortunately the denial we received for our submittal for the permitted site.

7:06

Um, completely understand why we received uh the denial and hoping to have a conversation answer any questions that you may have from the appeal we have that's in front of you today.

7:17

So thank you for your time and again appreciate your hearing this matter.

7:22

Um I'm gonna go ahead and start, if I may.

7:26

Um I think it might be appropriate if you would actually uh take a few minutes to go through your arguments.

7:33

There's been some discussion about what exactly the arguments are, and I think it better if you state them yourself.

7:38

Sure.

7:39

Um I guess our interest is in this process finding the most equitable way that we might be able to approach furthering the development of the facility.

7:47

So, you know, we've been a part of all the city council hearings and meetings as this was a pretty contentious topic that was discussed.

7:54

A lot of stakeholders and community citizens weighed in with those opinions.

7:59

Um I guess the approach we took and what we included in the appeal.

8:05

Um, so I was one of the individuals who sat outside for 12, it was probably about 12 and a half hours the night before the Monday morning submittal where this application process took place.

8:16

So it was quite a warm long evening just outside the doors to the development office.

8:22

Um our understanding of that process, the submittal was supposed to be a first come first serve on behalf of the applicant that was submitting for a medical marijuana dispensary permit.

8:35

Um the process by which that first come first serve process took place seemed a little gray.

8:42

There was some instruction that was posted a few weeks prior to that Monday morning submittal.

8:47

And to clarify the background and if that wasn't already understood, this was the Monday morning that was 30 days after the city council passed this new ordinance.

8:57

So the amendment to the previous ordinance had limited the number of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of Tempe.

9:04

The amendment to that code took away the limit and said that they just had to be outside a one-mile proximity of each other.

9:13

Um so our site, which we've developed for the past few years, already had a cultivation on the property, but did not have a dispensary, a retail site for medical marijuana.

9:23

So 30 days following the decision of the city council to amend the ordinance.

9:29

The application process was opened Monday morning at 8 a.m.

9:32

So when I say I was there 12 hours, 12 a little over 12 hours, it was 8 p.m.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Cannabis Regulation█████████████████████████████████████████████58%
Zoning and Land Use███████████████19%
Procedural█████████████17%
Public Safety█████6%
Summary of Proceedings

Board of Adjustment Meeting - September 27, 2017

The Board of Adjustment held a meeting on September 27, 2017, to consider an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a proposed medical marijuana dispensary at 410 South Madison Drive. The appellant, Zoned Properties Inc., represented by Brian McLaren, contested the denial based on the first-come, first-served application process.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No members of the public provided comments or testimony.

Discussion Items

  • Appeal of Medical Marijuana Dispensary Denial: The appellant, Brian McLaren, CEO of Zoned Properties Inc., presented the appeal. He explained that the city's ordinance allowed only a limited number of dispensaries and that he arrived 12 hours early to submit an application, but another applicant's hired security guard held the first spot in line, citing that the guard left the line multiple times during the night. McLaren argued that the process was not properly monitored and that he should have been considered first. He requested the board allow his facility to compete.
  • Board members questioned McLaren about the line order and his decision not to contest the position at 8 a.m. McLaren acknowledged that he indicated the other party was first but felt intimidated by the group. Board member Dare noted the city could have better prepared applicants to determine order. Board member Pizakis commented that McLaren missed his opportunity to assert his place. The discussion focused on whether the process was fair and whether the board could override the Zoning Administrator's decision.

Key Outcomes

  • Motion to Deny Appeal: Board member Noggle moved to deny the appeal, seconded by board member Coswell.
  • Vote: 6 in favor (Noggle, Coswell, Pizakis, Fraze, and others), 1 opposed (board member Dare).
  • Result: The appeal was denied, and the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the medical marijuana dispensary location was upheld.
  • Appeal Rights: The appellant was informed of the right to appeal the board's decision to Maricopa County Superior Court within 30 days.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to tonight's Board of Adjustment meeting, September 27, 2017. So we'll call a meeting to order and first an opening statement of purpose. The Board of Adjustment is authorized by the Arizona revised statutes of the City of Tempe zoning ordinance. Its function is to grant relief where a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in an unnecessary property hardship to interpret provisions of the zoning ordinance and to hear appeals from any person or city official grieved by the decision of a person responsible for the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. If the rest of you would like to speak, uh we do make provision that you can have a few minutes to speak. In order to do so, we ask that you fill out one of the white forms at the back on that table and bring it up to a member of our city staff. And when we get to the appropriate time, we'll we'll have you come up and you can share your feelings. I'll I'll if we can start at my left. After review of the application, staff determined that the subject property did not comply with the separation requirement from another medical marijuana dispensary because the city had accepted a dispensary location within a one-mile radius of the subject site. The appellant's letter of appeal, which was dated July 31st, 2017, was included in the staff report attachments, and it sounds like you have had an opportunity to review that. If you don't have any questions of me, I'll let the applicant or appellant make his presentation now. Do we have any questions? Okay. We may ask you questions later, I suspect. Before we go any further, I'd like to point out an error that I realized I made. I I uh I said that our motion to approve the minutes was put forth by Mr. Pizakis. It was put forth by Mr. Causewell. Okay. So having corrected that error. Thank you, Miss Stovall. Um, we'll now have an opportunity to have our applicant approach and tell us about his case. Good evening, uh, members of the Board of Adjustment. I appreciate your time to hear this matter. My name is Brian McLaren. I'm the CEO of Zoned Properties. We are a real estate development firm here in the Valley. We own the property at 410 South Madison Drive. For the past few years, we've attempted to work as collaboratively as possible in developing a concept that we call the medical marijuana business park at 410 South Madison Drive. So we have a primary tenant at the facility that is currently a licensed and permitted medical marijuana cultivation site. Um they are our client. That's Hannah Meds, who's listed in the description. Um they approached us with an interest to also develop as a part of that concept a dispensary site. Um we worked with the development department, um, PD, fire department, city attorney's office as a best way to approach this. Um we've tried to work as transparently as possible. And here today in the capacity as the appellant on unfortunately the denial we received for our submittal for the permitted site. Um, completely understand why we received uh the denial and hoping to have a conversation answer any questions that you may have from the appeal we have that's in front of you today. So thank you for your time and again appreciate your hearing this matter. Um I'm gonna go ahead and start, if I may. Um I think it might be appropriate if you would actually uh take a few minutes to go through your arguments. There's been some discussion about what exactly the arguments are, and I think it better if you state them yourself. Sure. Um I guess our interest is in this process finding the most equitable way that we might be able to approach furthering the development of the facility. So, you know, we've been a part of all the city council hearings and meetings as this was a pretty contentious topic that was discussed. A lot of stakeholders and community citizens weighed in with those opinions. Um I guess the approach we took and what we included in the appeal. Um, so I was one of the individuals who sat outside for 12, it was probably about 12 and a half hours the night before the Monday morning submittal where this application process took place. So it was quite a warm long evening just outside the doors to the development office.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com