My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:27:39 AM
Creation date
3/1/2017 2:11:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/02/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
153
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 3 <br />while dispensary applicant argued failure to take <br />actions violated the Arizona Medical Marijuana <br />Act <br />Citation: White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County, <br />2016 WL 7368623 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016) <br />ARIZONA (12/20/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />the actions that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ("AMMA") <br />required the State of Arizona (the "State") and municipalities to take <br />with regard to processing process medical marijuana dispensaries <br />("MMDs")—specifically approving zoning for specific areas for <br />MMDs, processing zoning documents, and taking action pursuant to <br />zoning laws to ensure MMDs meet other zoning ordinances, and <br />processing MMD applications to operate —created "significant and <br />unsolvable obstacles" to the federal Controlled Substances Act <br />("CSA") (under which marijuana use is illegal) such that the AMMA <br />was preempted by the CSA. The case also addressed the issue of <br />whether the CSA preempted the AMMA under a theory of impossibil- <br />ity preemption in that it was impossible for the municipal employees <br />to comply with both the CSA and AMMA when the AMMA required <br />issuance of necessary zoning documents for MMD operation <br />applications. The case also addressed the issue of whether a county <br />zoning ordinance that limited MMDs to zones in which uses could <br />only be "for industrial use not in conflict with any federal law," <br />violated the AMMA by effectively prohibiting MMDs in the county. <br />The Background/Facts: In 2010, Arizona voters passed Proposi- <br />tion 203, now codified as the AMMA. Among other things, the <br />AMMA decriminalizes and provides protections against discrimina- <br />tion under state law for the medical use and possession, cultivation, <br />and sale of marijuana under the circumstances described in the <br />AMMA. (See, e.g., A.R.S. §§ 36-2802, -2811, -2813, -2814.) Under <br />the AMMA, the Arizona Department of Health Services ("ADHS") is <br />authorized to promulgate regulations in order to implement and <br />administer the AMMA. The AMMA also authorizes cities, towns, and <br />counties to "enact reasonable zoning regulations that limit the use of <br />land for [MMDs] to specified areas in the manner provided in [the <br />AMMA]." (A.R.S. § 36-2806.01.) <br />Both the AMMA and ADHS regulations require an entity seeking <br />to become a MMD to first register with ADHS by filing an application <br />for a "registration certificate." (A.R.S. § 36-2804; A.A.C. R9-17-304.) <br />The application must include, among other things, "a sworn statement <br />certifying" that the MMD is in compliance with zoning restrictions <br />"[i]f the city, town or county . . . has enacted zoning restrictions." <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.