Official Minutes of MARION COUNTY

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

February 7, 2017

CALL TO ORDER: The Marion County Board of County Commissioners met in a workshop session in Commission Chambers at 2:04 p.m. on Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at the Marion County Governmental Complex located in Ocala, Florida.

INTRODUCTION OF WORKSHOP BY CHAIRMAN CARL ZALAK, III Chairman Zalak advised that the workshop was scheduled this afternoon to discuss medical marijuana, noting many Commissioners attended the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) Marijuana Summit on Saturday, February 4,2017.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of our Country.

ROLL CALL Upon roll call the following members were present: Chairman Carl Zalak, District 4; Vice­Chairman Kathy Bryant, District 2; Commissioner David Moore, District 1; Commissioner Jeff Gold, District 3; and Commissioner Michelle Stone, District 5. Also present were County Attorney Matthew G. Minter and County Administrator Mounir Bouyounes.

STAFF PRESENTATION - SAM MARTSOLF, GROWTH SERVICES DIRECTOR: Growth Services Director Sam Martsolf presented a 46 page document entitled, "Florida Department of Health, Office of Compassionate Use, Low-THC Cannabis & Medical Cannabis" and a 9 page handout containing 17 slides entitled, "Medical Cannabis Workshop" to follow along with the PowerPoint presentation. He introduced Senior Planner Ken Weyrauch, Growth Services, who did most of the background work and drafting of this and noted Tye Chighizola, City of Ocala is also present. Mr. Martsolf advised that the workshop follows up on the one-on-one meetings that were held with each Commissioner about a month ago in regard to helping prepare for whatever the State and Department of Health (DOH) comes out with for Amendment 2. Slide 2 notes the 2014 Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act enabling the dispensing of Low-THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) Cannabis for patients diagnosed with one of these qualifying conditions: Cancer, Epilepsy or Chronic Seizures. House Bill (HB) 307 increased the potency of the TCH and expanded it to include conditions under which a terminally ill patient could receive treatment. The goal of this expansion included providing a natural alternative to the opioid and other pain treatments and their side effects. Slide 3 addresses steps 1 through 5 in regard to how the current registry works (Amendment 2 rules are anticipated to be very similar). Step 1: A physician diagnoses a patient with a qualifying condition; Step 2: The physician treats the patient for 3 months, and obtains written informed consent; Step 3: The physician submits a treatment plan to the University of Florida (UF) College of Pharmacy each quarter and any time the plan changes; Step 4: The physician enters the order into the Compassionate Use Registry. Physician must designate a route of administration, the recommended amount per dose and the number of doses per day (one physician one order in registry); and Step 5: The patient may fill the order with anyone of the six approved dispensing organizations.

Book W, Page 91

February 7, 2017

Slide 4 shows a picture of a medical clinic, which is not a dispensary, but is a medical office in Baylee Plaza on South Highway 441 and will not fall under any of the regulations talked about dealing with dispensaries. Mr. Martsolf noted the doctor is the key to this whole thing, as the doctor will regulate this industry. What was repeatedly heard at the summit was the fact that the pill mill got completely out of hand and was largely blamed on the fact that doctors were providing too many prescriptions. There was no registry attached with that so individuals were able to obtain multiple prescriptions. A lot of what has and is being written regarding Amendment 2 is to help keep control; however, they are still left dealing with the doctor. He stated he does not know how much, if any, control the county will have over that type of thing. Mr. Martsolf stated his experience with Baylee Plaza is that they have a pretty strict siqnaqe requirement that is very tasteful. He noted he assumed this one was approved as they have applied for a permit for the sign, which the county currently has a hold on. The sign includes both a marijuana leaf and the word marijuana in it, which has been discussed in regard to sign provisions for the dispensary. Mr. Martsolf commented on the Summit, noting he conducted a lot of research beforehand so he knew what they were talking about and was really looking for input about what DOH and the Legislature is thinking about doing. He noted he heard from Senator Bradley and Representative Rodrigues, both of whom agreed that the current proposals would likely recommend maintaining the same seed to sell vertical integration function of the operator. In other words, the seven approved dispensary operations, which include cultivation, processing and dispensing and will likely stay with that same format where the same owner owns all 3 parts of the operation. They also did not feel there would be a lot of extra pre-emptions and to the extent possible would leave it up to local and home rule. Mr. Martsolf stated they look to continue to have the ability to regulate the locations and other things included in the draft. It was also indicated that funding for enforcement may be limited; citing medicines are currently not taxed, so there may be limited opportunity to gain any tax dollars. Even though the compassionate care law was approved in 2014, the actual dispensing began in July of 2016. Mr. Martsolf opined that it took that long to get the cards processed and the registry running along with everything else. He stated that is somewhat good news in that there is going to be some function of time, noting they are pretty early in the operation here to be able to make sure they do the right thing with this Ordinance. Mr. Martsolf noted the Office of Compassionate Use (OCU) Director Christian Bax, DOH, said something interesting that kind of plays into how many dispensaries might ultimately be needed. Mr. Bax stated that 50% of the patients that are out there now are going to brick and mortar dispensaries and 50% are by delivery. If there is 1 patient for every 70 people in the community; only half of that number of patients will end up physically going to a brick and mortar facility. Amendment 2 expanded patients that will be allowed and qualify for medical marijuana. The measure passed 67% in Marion County and a little over 70% statewide. The DOH has until June, 2017 to finalize regulations for the seed to sell implementation of the operation. After June of 2017, the DOH has 3 additional months to issue client cards, etc. Many jurisdictions are taking a wait and see attitude; Marion County may get a good bit of this in the process and formed up the way it wants it and do the same thing. Marion

. County's moratorium expires on May 18, 2017 and may likely need to be extended. Staff would look for Board input on extending the moratorium.

Page 92, Book W

February 7,2017

Commissioner Moore asked when the state plans on making their ruling. Commissioner Bryant stated DOH will have their ruling done by the end of July, 2017, noting they have implementation after that date. Slide 5 addresses the 4 elements of medical marijuana business to include: Doctor Recommendation, which is the driving mechanism and is typically done out of a medical office; Cultivation is from an enclosed greenhouse or warehouse; Processing usually occurs on-site of cultivation in process facility; and Dispensing is from a retail space. Mr. Martsolf noted there are 2 approaches to forming up the Ordinance, noting staff has drafts of both. Slide 6 addresses Alternative 1, Zoning and Spacing Based, which is most similar to the City of Ocala draft, noting the city requires a special exception along with their zoning classification. Operational Restrictions include: prohibiting loitering by providing ample seating space at the facilities, ample off-street parking, no on premise consumption; and prohibiting dispensing from premises of Low-THC cannabis, medical cannabis, or a cannabis delivery device between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m., but may perform all other operations and delivery of Low-THC cannabis and medical cannabis to qualified patients 24 hours a day. Slides 7 and 8 address security, which has been tweaked in the draft Ordinance based on things heard at the Summit, as well as a meeting that was held early on with Sheriff Woods to address some of law enforcements concerns. Mr. Martsolf noted Commissioner Gold was helpful with his security experience. To ensure the safety and security of its premises and any off-site storage facilities, and to maintain adequate controls against the diversion, theft and loss of low-THC cannabis, medical cannabis, or cannabis delivery devices, a dispensing organization shall: 1) store low-THC cannabis or medical cannabis in a secured, locked room or a vault; 2) require at least two of its employees with Class D and Class G Security Licenses, or two employees with Class D and Class G security licenses, of a security aqency with whom it contracts, to be on the premises at all times; and 3) maintain a fully operational monitoring security alarm system that secures all entry points and perimeter windows and is equipped with motion detectors, pressure switches, and duress, panic and hold up alarms; or maintain a video surveillance system that records continuously 24 hours each day and meets at least one of the following criteria: cameras are fixed in a place that allows for the clear identification of persons and activities in controlled areas of the premises. Controlled areas include grow rooms, processing rooms, storage rooms, disposal rooms or areas, and point-of-sale rooms; cameras are fixed in entrances and exists to the premises, which shall record from both indoor and outdoor, or ingress and egress, vantage points; recorded images must clearly and accurately display the time and date; or retain video surveillance recordings for a minimum of 45 days or longer upon the request of a law enforcement agency. Ensure that the organizations outdoor premises have sufficient lighting to clearly identify persons and vehicles, from dusk until dawn. Slide 9 addresses security on delivery, which requires at least two persons, one shall have Class D and Class G security licenses, to be in a vehicle transporting low-THC cannabis or medical cannabis and require at least one person to remain in the vehicle while the low-THC cannabis or medical cannabis is being delivered; require body cameras on persons making the delivery; all product to be secured in a trunk vault or secured compartment; require a monitored GPS and turn-by-turn tracking system; and require audio and video recording in all delivery vehicles. All recording needs to capture the entire delivery trip, from the moment the delivery vehicle leaves the dispensary

Book W, Page 93

February 7, 2017

premises until the moment the delivery vehicle returns to a secured location on premises. These recordings will be required to be kept on file for 45 days. Commissioner Bryant noted this is their requirements and asked ifthe county can require them to follow the requirements. Mr. Martsolf stated it has been written into the Ordinance. Commissioner Bryant noted that most of the presenters at the Summit had most of these requirements already in place in their operations. Mr. Martsolf concurred, noting if Amendment 2 restricts the county to just those companies then they are in pretty good shape. Slide 10 addresses the zoning. The doctor recommendation is by right in all zoning classifications permitting medical office. Providing for sign restrictions on content similar to dispensary restrictions. Cultivation will likely remain pre-empted. If not permitted by right in Agricultural then in completely enclosed green house, warehouse, or heavy industrial. Processing is done in conjunction with the cultivation, or if done separately, in an Industrial, Heavy Commercial and Agriculture by Special Use Permit. Mr. Martsolf advised that staff learned that these things need a little extra look from a public safety standpoint to regulate permitting due to the commercial and industrial nature of the processing facility. Permitting to include fire and electrical compliance. The processing employs a lot of combustible, high pressure things and uses a tremendous amount of electricity. The processing includes the use of chemicals such as butane, ethanol, carbon dioxide and other highly pressurized material. Applicants often seek exemption to building, electrical and fire code compliance under the Agriculture classification exemption for farms. He commented on the Knox Nursery located in Orlando, which operates in a nursery, with no building permits that function under the exemption that the statutes provide for non-residential agricultural facilities. Mr. Martsolf noted he does not know what the state is going to do, as this will likely be pre-empted and the county will not have much to say about it. Slide 11 addressed the dispensary, which is allowed by right in B-2 (Community Business), B-4 (Regional Business) and B-5 (Heavy Business) zones. Specific Development Standards include zoning, separation between dispensaries, spacing from a church, school, public park and reduced spacing from residential, signs and security. Mr. Martsolf advised that the City of Ocala uses 2,500 feet, noting they are quite urbanized compared to the county. Same as the city, the county has the spacing from church, school, public park and discussed a reduced spacing from residential. If you have 1,000 feet from church, school, or public park it may have 500 feet to 250 feet for reduced spacing from residential zoning, which is what the county has for billboards. The county has a rigid sign portion in the Code. Slide 12 addresses Alternative 2 Application Process, which employs an application period: an initial application period shall commence on a date approved by the Board of County Commission within 30 days after the effective date of this Ordinance or the effective date of the DOH Rule adoption, whichever occurs last. The application period shall close 30 days after the commencement date. Subsequent application periods would become available upon certification by the Authority that additional Certificates of Approval are available. Slide 13 addresses the scoring and ranking. Applications will be scored by the Development Review Committee (DRC) who, with support from review staff will score and review each application pursuant to the established criteria, and a 100 point scale. Members and applicants may discuss their application at any time during the application process. Each application will be independently scored by Authority members. Scoring of

Page 94, Book W

February 7,2017

the following criteria: 1) previous retail dispensing experience in a regulated market in any state: 20 points; 2) technical ability: 10 points; 3) qualifications of security team: 15 points; 4) qualifications of Medical Director: 25 points; and 5) Awards: 10 points. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf stated the county will have an open ranking application period where presumably 3 to 5 applications will be received, noting there are only 6 licensed dispensaries and if the state stays with the same the county could potentially have 6 different applications. If the county only wants to allow 4 dispensaries they will have to be ranked. He noted this will only be valid if the county wants to limit the number of dispensaries and not go with the straight spacing, separation and zoning requirements. Slide 14 addresses the numerical limit on cannabis dispensing businesses, which is derived from data received from Marijuana Policy Group (MPG); MPG collected data from 22 states. Of the medical only states, there is a gap between the two types of dispensary allowances. Many states have systems that allow 1 dispensary for every 60,000 to 80,000 residents. The MPG compared these states with the program in Florida outlined in Amendment 2; their analysis showed the most similar states are Arizona, New Mexico, Maryland, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Hawaii. Those states have an average of 67,222 residents per dispensary. Slide 15 addresses the Census Data for Arizona and Florida. Mr. Martsolf advised that he wanted to make sure they felt comfortable with that number and whether it might be high or low. Looking at the range of states nothing looked familiar except for Arizona. Pulling Arizona out of the census showed the breakdown of population under the age of 18 and over the age of 65, which is very similar, from a population basis. Slides 16 and 17 address the minimum effective scale. The MPG developed a "Minimum Effective Scale" that is required to sustain a medical cannabis operation and provide the state with a well-organized and functional dispensary system, one that minimizes the risk of failing operators. MPG's patient per dispensary ration for similar medical-only states (one dispensary per 67,222 citizens) results in a limit of five (5) sustainable dispensaries for Marion County's 350,000 total population. Marion County's unincorporated population of 250,000:t would limit the sustainable number of dispensaries to four (4). Using Arizona's ratio (one dispensary per 30,910 citizens) the number of sustainable dispensaries countywide could be limited to 11 and unincorporated Marion County's number is 8; MPG's similar state (except Maryland and Pennsylvania) average has one patient per 101 people; Arizona has one patient for every 70 people; unincorporated Marion County should have between 2,500 and 3,500 patients (250,000170 and 25,000/100); and assuming one patient per 83 people (3,000 patients), 4 dispensaries equal 750 patients/dispensary). Mr. Martsolf commented on the doctors, noting the doctors are going to be in charge again and staff is aware of what happened with the Bills and there is not much the county can do on that end. Staff will be looking to tighten up and provide a viable, safe and attractive type of activity with the dispensaries, so as not to be a nuisance. He noted there are 2 alternatives, one is basically a straight zoning, that would be somewhat market based. Mr. Martsolf referred to the map (with the circles) as addressed in the one-on-one meetings, noting there are considerable limitations to how many dispensaries the county would get based on spacing. Mr. Martsolf advised that these are 10 mile circles and there are about 12 circles on the map. He stated staff will look to the Board to advise whether they want these brought in by Special Use Permit or for staff to do them through the limited number process or straight zoning process.

Book W, Page 95

February 7,2017

Mr. Martsolf noted these could be blended somewhat if done by Special Use Permits. Staff can also add the ranking system for Board consideration, especially if there are two or more during an application cycle. He stated the application cycle will occur every month and is not exactly sure how that will work. Another thing staff can do is incorporate all of the locational requirements, spacing, separation, security and other elements into the ranking process if the Board wants to limit the number of dispensaries. For instance, if the Board wants spacing of 1 mile or 2 miles, staff can make sure it is part of the application process.

BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner Stone advised that she had some thoughts about including additional guidelines to ensure that dispensaries are not put next to a rehabilitation facility or a daycare. Chairman Zalak asked if daycare was taken care of with the schools. Mr. Martsolf stated staff will make sure that is clear. Commissioner Stone commented on not dispensing from a cultivating process facility, but rather from a retail location that is off-site from the cultivating facility. Chairman Zalak inquired as to a reason someone cannot grow the product, process it and sell it from the same location. Commissioner Stone opined that a retail facility is needed for distribution, as it is more controllable in a smaller location versus a greenhouse location. She noted it is for medical purposes and opined that the county should put as much criteria around it to ensure that it is a highly regulated industry, as it is a drug. Commissioner Stone stated people do not go to a processing location, except for a pharmacy where they do their own compounding, but they have a retail site. She advised that she wants to make sure there is a retail component to ensure it is not being dispensed from a greenhouse typel laboratory facility. ­Chairman Zalak suggested each piece be addressed that Mr. Martsolf is looking for guidance on; first of which is generalization. He stated if the right criteria is in place, is the Board agreeable to a straight zoning so that the dispensary will be permitted by right based on a zoning classification, or if everything should have a zoning classification, plus the requirement of a Special Use Permit. Commissioner Gold noted his preference is for the zoning with a Special Use Permit. Chairman Zalak opined that it would be better if dispensaries are done by right in a B-2, B-3, B-4 or whatever zoning is agreed upon about and then get the right distance between one another. For instance, if the Board says they can be in B-2 or B-3 zones with the right signage and agree that another cannot be within 5 miles, or so many miles from the city; as the county needs to have some regulation so that a dispensary cannot be put in the county and another on the city line right next to one another. He commented on the need to figure something out across jurisdictions for the entire county. Chairman Zalak stated he does not know if going through a Special Use Permit hearing every time a dispensary wants to come in is necessary. Commissioner Gold noted there may only be 4 or 5 dispensaries. Commissioner Stone noted she would like to limit the number of dispensaries for the county. Chairman Zalak stated he does not mind limiting and asked if the Board wants to limit dispensaries by a number. In response to Commissioner Stone, Chairman Zalak stated the scoring can be used initially if there are 4 or 5 dispensary applications at a time. After that, once the dispensaries are licensed by the State of Florida then the county no longer needs to score them; they can just come in to apply and as long as the criteria is met then they are fine.

Page 96, Book W

February 7, 2017

County Attorney Matthew G. Minter observed that one of the speakers at the Summit held on Saturday was Bob Morgan, a Former Director of medical marijuana in the State of Illinois, who referenced a local government that based on their upfront input before they adopted their regulations they decided to impose a $35,000 filing fee on these companies based on their assumption that these dispensing places would result in many 9-1-1 calls, which would fund the law enforcement responding to those calls. About 1-1/2 years after adopting the filing fees the facts showed that they had not had a single call. As a result they significantly reduced the filing fee on their own initiative, without being sued. Mr. Minter noted what he is about to say is not related to a fee, but is related to the number of units the Board is thinking about allowing, simply based on a reference to some number in Arizona. He stated the result of that is kind of saying the Board is going to make a determination before there are any actual, on the ground, data about what the market will allow here in Marion County. Perhaps the market in Marion County would allow 5 or 6 rather than 4, just based on a reference to one other state. Statistics can show a lot of things and the county can run into problems by just having one little data point and making a conclusion from that data. Mr. Minter stated he is throwing this out for Board consideration and opined they may be better off to provide some number higher than 4 to give some kind of fudge factor. General discussion ensued. Commissioner Bryant noted the market will drive the number of facilities in the county. She opined that the Board needs to focus on demographics, so far as numbers of people and look at that in regard to placement and ease of access to facilities. Commissioner Bryant agreed with Mr. Minter in that the Board may want to be more lenient on the numbers. Mr. Martsolf asked if the Board is thinking of 2 facilities each in the southwest and southeast and 1 each in the northeast and northwest. Chairman Zalak stated by those numbers, if they are accurate, there would basically be 1 facility in each Commission District, noting they run about 62,000 a piece, and includes the cities of Ocala, Dunnellon and Belleview, which is a problem. Growth Management Director Tye Chighizola, City of Ocala, SE 3rd Street, stated the city had a workshop right before the Amendment was passed where they talked about the number as 1 for every 67,000 was given at that time. He noted he did not want to go in that direction and would rather go with the traditional separation like they have with many other Ordinances, such as adult book stores, etc. Mr. Chighizola stated that is the direction the city is leaning toward; in B-2, B-5 zoning classifications, since they want them to be in publicly dense areas at this time and not isolated. The reason they are doing the special exceptions, which is basically good for 3 years before renewal and will give the city some criteria if it is not working and additional criteria can be placed on it. Also, the special exception cannot be transferred; it has to be for that applicant for that use and cannot be transferred from one organization to another without going back through the special exception process. He noted the city's preference is to locate the facilities near a hospital. The city may end up tweaking the zoning since most of the hospitals zones are not located around the B-4 zoning classification. Mr. Chighizola stated the city will have another workshop in a couple of months. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Chighizola stated their initial spacing is 2,500 feet, between uses, noting they are doing the daycare, school, recreation centers and parks at 1,000 feet at this point, but have talked about going to 1,500 feet. However, by doing so there are very few locations that would support a dispensary and if residential is included at all, it would eliminate just about everything. He noted there may only be 1 or 2 locations,

Book W, Page 97

February 7,2017

noting the city's Ordinance includes the dispensary as a free-standing use with no more than 6,000 square feet (sf) and it could not be in a strip shopping center or shopping center, which may be changed. Mr. Chighizola stated other cities have looked at that and it may not be something the City of Ocala wants to do and the issue may be revisited. The Board thanked Mr. Chighizola for appearing today. Commissioner Bryant commented on dispensary locations; 1 in each city and 1 in each Commission District. Commissioner Stone noted that during the conversation on Saturday, she picked up that this is an industry that wants high regulations and to be viewed as a drug dispensing facility. Commissioner Bryant agreed with Commissioners in regard to going through the Special Use Permit process. Commissioner Moore concurred, as it will give the county more control. Chairman Zalak noted the general consensus of the Board is to go through the Special Use Permit process. He inquired as to what categories, business and/or industrial? County Administrator Mounir Bouyounes referred to an earlier slide (Slide 11). Chairman Zalak noted it is for dispensing. He stated the county does not know if the growing aspect can be regulated at all, but noted the production and/or processing will be included in the Ordinance for now. Mr. Martsolf concurred. Commissioner Gold commented on Commissioner Stone's question in regard to the same location header, noting an earlier slide (Slide 10) said the production was to be done in a commercial area. He stated the county would not want to put a dispensary associated with that in a commercial area. Commissioner Gold opined that if they are put together then it is being taken out of the public's reach and it will not be as accessible. Commissioner Stone stated one of the messages she understood was that the industry wants to be in a high traffic area for dispensing. If the county regulates the growth piece, for processing and growing, to Industrial and Agriculture, then they are giving them the ability to put dispensaries in that location. Commissioner Gold concurred, noting the industry standards presented showed that they want to be located in areas that are available and safe. Chairman Zalak stated the medical offices themselves, from the doctors standpoint, is not being changed, whether or not they are a doctor prescribing medical marijuana. Cultivation will be in Agriculture and will need a Special Use Permit, at least for now. He inquired as to the Industrial categories for processing. Mr. Martsolf stated any of the Industrial categories would work, which would allow for warehousing and some manufacturing allowed. The processing most often takes place at the cultivation site. Chairman Zalak stated the county still needs to have that ability, should someone apply for processing alone. Mr. Bouyounes questioned whether the Board wants processing in Heavy Commercial, noting Slide 10 also lists processing in Heavy Commercial. Chairman Zalak stated the processing should not occur in Heavy Commercial, as it needs to be in Industrial. Mr. Martsolf referred to the draft language of the proposed Ordinance (shown on the overhead screens), which was also discussed at the one-on-one meetings. He noted Section E. Zoning, includes Option 1 and Option 2. If b) is not stricken through it says, "Cultivation and processing of medical cannabis shall be a permissible use in B-5, M-1 and M-2 districts only." (for Option 1), which would be changed to read, "by Special Use Permit". He clarified that both Options 1 and 2 are by Special Use Permit, noting Option 1 is by right for both the dispensing and cultivation process.

Page 98, Book W

February 7,2017

Chairman Zalak advised that in regard to processing, the county needs to make it done in Industrial with a Special Use Permit and remove Agriculture and Heavy Commercial. Mr. Bouyounes pointed out that processing sometimes takes place where it is being cultivated. Chairman Zalak concurred and advised that when an applicant comes in for the cultivating on Agriculture they will have processing as part of the Special Use Permit. He clarified that the only way a processing unit will go into Agriculture is if it has the cultivation element. He stated there will be no processing in Agriculture without cultivation. Commissioner Bryant opined that all cultivation and processing will occur at the same facility. Chairman Zalak agreed. General discussion ensued. Chairman Zalak stated the cultivation and processing has been addressed and will now move on to the dispensary portion. He stated he is okay with locating dispensaries in B­4 and B-5 zones, with spacing from schools, daycare, etc. at least 2,500 feet. Commissioner Moore stated he would like the spacing to be 5,000 feet. Mr. Martsolf stated there is spacing and there is separation. He clarified that the spacing includes churches, schools, public parks and daycares, noting the most they have is 1,500 feet in the adult entertainment sections. Chairman Zalak stated they want to spread these out and opined that 2,500 feet is good. In response to Mr. Bouyounes, Chairman Zalak stated the Board still needs to talk about how far apart the dispensaries need to be from each other. Mr. Martsolf advised that staff has maps for 500 feet and 1,000 feet. Chairman Zalak stated the question is, whether dispensaries have to fit into a ring, especially during the initial process. Potentially, there could be a dispensary on SR 200 near the Walmart, another in the middle, and then the city would have one at Heathbrook. In response to Commissioner Stone, Chairman Zalak stated Dispensaries will also require a Special Use Permit. He stated Dispensaries can only be located in B-4 or B-5 zones, with a Special Use Permit. Chairman Zalak noted the Special Use Permit can be for 3 year increments, which is typically done anyway. He stated the county can hold them by right and can tighten up certain areas if needed, which is a nice part about Special Use Permits. Chairman Zalak questioned whether the Board has a minimum spacing requirement and asked if 5 miles is amenable. Commissioner Stone opined that 5 miles is sufficient. Mr. Martsolf referred to the map with the circles. Chairman Zalak stated the Board can address this at the time of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Martsolf noted 5 miles would be half the size of the rings on the map, which would allow for 3 spots on SR 200. Chairman Zalak stated that may be too many from where they would start off at, but noted there are only so many commercial corridors where the dispensaries are going to want to be located. Commissioner Stone noted many prescriptions will be made by delivery. Mr. Martsolf stated half of the patients are getting delivery and the other half are going to a brick and mortar. Chairman Zalak opined that the same brick and mortar will be making deliveries and questioned how many dispensaries are really needed. Chairman Zalak stated the general consensus of the Board is for spacing of 5 miles. He directed staff to start from there (5 miles). Mr. Martsolf stated from church, school, public park, daycare, the spacing is 2,500 feet. Chairman Zalak concurred and directed staff to draw the circles for the public hearings so that they can be seen for each corridor for further debate. He noted today's workshop is really about getting some ideas for a starting point.

Book W, Page 99

February 7,2017

Chairman Zalak opined that all zoning categories have been defined for cultivation, processing, dispensary. Commissioner Bryant noted that dispensaries will be located in B-4 and B-5 zones and asked if the Board wants to include B-2. Chairman Zalak advised that he does not. Mr. Bouyounes inquired if Medical Office is included in B-4 and B-5. Chairman Zalak directed staff to bring back a map with B-2 zoning and another with B-4 and B-5 zoning classifications. In response to Commissioner Bryant, Chairman Zalak noted his concern with scattered B-2 areas when looking at the overall map. Mr. Martsolf stated it will also eliminate those people seeking B-4 for outside sales of some type. Chairman Zalak concurred. Chairman Zalak noted the Board needs to look at some signage. Mr. Martsolf stated the regulation regarding Section G. Signage, is now on the overhead screens. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf stated there will be a uniform sign provision for both the primary and the wall sign. There will be no flashing lights, the sign will be flat, plain and rectangular in shape, not to exceed somewhere between 25 sf and 50 sf. The example shown of the wall sign of the medical office (on Slide 4) is 30 sf. He stated a caveat may need to be added in regard to following any requirements for any plaza they might be in, as long as it is less than what would be prohibited in the Land Development Code (LDC), as they will likely enter into a contract to lease a place within a plaza where they will have a certain amount of signage on their gang sign. Mr. Martsolf stated it is hard to backward regulate that. Chairman Zalak advised that the Board can consider all of that at the Special Use Permit hearing, but noted the guidelines need to be set up so that they are all fairly uniform because it is very likely that the State is going to come out with a single logo. Mr. Martsolf stated staff is going to look for a sign plan in the Special Use Permit. Mr. Martsolf advised that Section G. Signage, states signs are not to exceed 10 feet in height; there will be no photographs, silhouettes, drawings or pictorial representation of any manner. Signs can have the name of the regulated establishment and any official symbol adopted by the State; and the Low-THC cannabis and medical cannabis dispensary for the wording, which will eliminate the word marijuana. He noted the doctor's sign contains the leaf, stethoscope and the word marijuana in it. Unless the county can regulate the doctor's office signage within this Ordinance or add it to the Sign Ordinance, which will require that no marijuana leaves, or the word marijuana be on signs countywide. Chairman Zalak stated the only problem with that is doctor's offices, specific to that industry, are going to look different. Mr. Martsolf commented on dispensaries stepping up and being very professional. Chairman Zalak questioned whether the Board prefers the word marijuana or cannabis. Commissioner Stone stated she does. Commissioner Gold stated his preference is for neither and commented on areas in Colorado where people know which doctor to go to when "doctor shopping" when looking at a sign. Mr. Martsolf advised that the City of Ocala does not allow the word cannabis to be in their sign. Mr. Minter stated the Board may need to think about this some, but the Constitutional Amendment approved medical marijuana. The Senator and House Majority Leader both emphasized that the voters of Florida have said they want to provide access to the people in the community who truly need medical marijuana. He stated he is not sure the county can take either word (cannabis or medical marijuana) off signs, noting he is unsure what the basis is for removal. Chairman Zalak stated it does not matter to him which word is or is not used. Mr. Minter clarified that he is not saying he has absolutely reached that conclusion, but does have that concern.

Page 100, Book W

February 7, 2017

Commissioner Moore out at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Martsolf stated that at this stage there is not a need for them to advertise, noting there will be a limited number. Chairman Zalak advised that at the end of the day, dispensaries will put something on the sign, whether it is the green cross or some other symbol as people will know whether or not the word marijuana or cannabis is used. He noted the problem is not knowing what DOH is going to adopt, but if they do not, then the county should adopt some sort of symbol, as that will be easier. Commissioner Bryant referred to Mr. Minter's statement and the Summit from Saturday, noting the professionalism from the people in the industry. In response to Chairman Zalak, Commissioner Bryant stated 5 of the 6 companies were present. She stated she is not sure the county can stop dispensaries from putting medical marijuana on their signs, noting that could pose problems and set the county up for litigation. Commissioner Bryant questioned whether the marijuana leaf symbol can be removed from signs, since they are not getting the marijuana leaf and allow them to say medical marijuana dispensary. Chairman Zalak advised that the county can regulate symbols. Commissioner Bryant suggested the Board focus on that (no leaf) and allow the green cross symbol since it goes with the industry. Chairman Zalak opined that the county should ask the State of Florida to put forth a symbol that is acceptable for consistency throughout the state, which the Board can adopt. He stated they can put whatever language they want next to the symbol, as regulated by the size of the sign. Chairman Zalak opined that the signage can be for either a medical marijuana doctor or dispensary. Mr. Minter concurred. Commissioner Moore returned at 3:03 p.m. Commissioner Bryant questioned whether the county can regulate the Baylee Plaza sign. Chairman Zalak advised that the sign has not yet been approved and has not been installed. Mr.Martsolf noted there is no moratorium on that as it is not a dispensary. He advised that he will have a talk with the doctor about changing the sign. Mr. Minter advised that the 1st Amendment not only protects words, but also symbolic speech. General discussion ensued. Chairman Zalak directed staff to provide 4 or 5 examples of different signs, so that the Board has a good look at what it wants to do, when they come back with signage. Mr. Martsolf noted the security section is next, which starts in Section D. Operational, under 2). Storage to be in a secured, locked room or vault. At least 2 employees must have Class D and Class G security licenses to be on premises at all times. Commissioner Gold advised that a Class D is regular, unarmed security and a Class G is an armed security. He opined that the industry is asking for 2 Class G employees. Commissioner Bryant directed staff to check on the security employees. Commissioner Stone stated it is the same for transport. Mr. Martsolf stated the draft Ordinance includes security requirements for the premises, as well as transport, noting the industry is big on security. In response to Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Bryant stated there are no security requirements for opioids as they are federally regulated. Mr. Martsolf noted a lot of the security requirements have to do with the cash situation. Mr. Martsolf addressed security alarms for all entry points and windows; motion detectors; pressure switches; duress, panic and hold-up alarms; or, maintaining a video surveillance system that continuously records. Chairman Zalak questioned whether the surveillance

Book W, Page 101

February 7, 2017

should be kept for 45 days, from a law enforcement perspective. Mr. Martsolf noted the 45 days is included in the draft Ordinance. In response to Commissioner Stone, Mr. Martsolf stated the language in 2) c) says, "or". Commissioner Gold stated it should say and, not or. Commissioner Stone agreed. Mr. Martsolf stated that a lot of this language comes from the Compassionate Statute. Chairman Zalak advised that the county can put and in the language, since they can be more aggressive as long as the statute is covered. He noted it can be done by Special Use Permit to allow for some flexibility. Mr. Martsolf addressed the transportation security requirements, which include outdoor premises with sufficient lighting; at least 2 persons, with 1 having Class D and Class G security licenses to be in the vehicle while the cannabis is being delivered; and require body cameras on persons making the delivery. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf noted there is a camera in the vehicle that is required to be on during the entire trip. He continued addressing the transportation security requirements for all products to be secured in a trunk vault or secured compartment within the vehicle; requiring monitored GPS (Global Positioning System) and turn-by-turn tracking on all delivery vehicles. Chairman Zalak asked if staff also changed the language to Class G for transport. Mr. Martsolf stated that it was changed. Mr. Martsolf advised that the final requirement is for all audio and video recordings be in all delivery vehicles. All recordings need to capture the entire delivery trip, from the moment the delivery vehicle leaves the dispensary premises until the moment that the delivery vehicle returns to a secured location on premises. These recordings will be required to be kept on file for 45 days. Mr. Martsolf advised that the hours of operation still need to be addressed. Chairman Zalak stated the Board will address the hours of operation through the Special Use Permit process. He commented on the possible need for different dispensaries to have diverse operating hours, noting the standard operating hours will be from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., but the applicant will have the ability to request different hours of operation if needed. Mr. Bouyounes inquired as to the application. Mr. Martsolf referred to the Option for applications and ranking. Chairman Zalak opined that the Board only needs an application for the first batch, noting from there they can do them by Special Use Permit. Commissioner Stone advised that she wants to know who owns the dispensary, who the principals are and their financial backing. Chairman Zalak stated that can be made a part of the Special Use Permit requirements. Commissioner Bryant noted the county can set a threshold just as the state did for the people they approved for growers. In response to Chairman Zalak, Commissioner Bryant advised that they have already been approved by the state at this point in time. Chairman Zalak noted language can be added requiring they be state approved, and if not, certain information will need to be provided, most of which will have been submitted to the state. Commissioner Stone stated she is not opposed to 1 company having more than one facility. Chairman Zalak opined that the county is not regulating that, noting 1 company can come in and make application for 5 sites if they want. He stated the application process is only needed to sort out where the first 5 or 6 dispensaries will go and once the county has that then it can be controlled by the spacing and mileage elements. That information can be submitted to staff for use during the Special Use Permit information gathering process. Chairman Zalak stated he does not know that DRC needs to review the data.

Page 102, Book W

February 7,2017

Mr. Bouyounes commented on regulations for specific information that concerns the Board and the need to be part of the Special Use Permit application. Chairman Zalak clarified that the application is being taken care of inside that Special Use Permit application. Mr. Bouyounes noted the criterion just addressed will also be a part of the process. Chairman Zalak asked if there is anything they would do differently with the application versus a Special Use Permit. Mr. Martsolf stated they will be limiting the dispensaries based on population, noting if the application process is set up for the first 6 then anything beyond that will be by Special Use Permit. Based on spacing, staff would be taking reference to the population connection out and inserting all of the things the county wants to see in the applications (Le., spacing, signage, etc.); things staff will ask for in a Special Use Permit down the road. Chairman Zalak stated from a shear process standpoint from staffs perspective, does it make it easier for staff to set it up through an application process and rate them? Mr. Martsolf stated he does not see how it could; noting the trade out is that he brings all of them to the Board. Chairman Zalak stated he understood that as soon as they went toward the Special Use Permit process. He opined that the only way that makes sense is if they did something, almost like what is done with the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) process, noting staff does not bring forward any petitions that do not hit the 50­plus percent (%). If staff said it has an application that does not even rank a specific score then they do not need to bring it forward. Mr. Bouyounes opined that the application, ranking and scoring is very important. The application and scoring will playa big role if the county is going to limit the overall numbers as to how many dispensaries will be approved throughout the county, which will be done all at one time. Chairman Zalak concurred and clarified this is for the initial piece. Commissioner Stone stated she wants the best people in Marion County, which is why she likes the ranking system. She opined that there could be some difference in their qualifications even though they have state approval. Chairman Zalak stated he will concede and agree to the application process, which will remain in place until the county finds out whether or not it has a good use. Commissioner Stone noted since this is all new, the stronger the county starts then the easier it will be to loosen. Commissioner Bryant stated, frankly at this point the most the county will have is 6 applicants. Mr. Martsolf agreed, but noted they could have multiple sites. Chairman Zalak noted there could be 10 Special Use Permits. Commissioner Bryant agreed and stated that this point there will only be up to 6 applicants, in regard to dispensaries. General discussion ensued. Chairman Zalak stated this is a good start and directed the County Administrator to bring back the next workshop date, noting the moratorium lasts through May, 2017 and the workshop will need to occur before that expires. He opined that another workshop should be scheduled within the next month or so. Chairman Zalak thanked those for appearing today.

**REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-

Book W, P~ge 103

February 7,2017

CLOSING COMMENTS: There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting thereupon adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

Carl Zalak, III, Chairman

Attest:

David R.aoa.,'c-j·e":iI!!!k!!ll!!'t~=-_

Page 104, Book W