Posted On: 10/30/2014 4:55:07 PM
Post# of 56323
I don't know if that would apply to CEN as the site is agricultural value added and the neighboring properties from what I understand are not zoned residential but agricultural with a residence on the land. If any of those were within the setback as set by the town they would have already have informed the company the site was not suitable based on the setback being violated. None of those houses would have moved closed to the facility, at least not what urbran planners would call residential creep 
Completely different from Lakeshore. Although Lakeshore will adopt new amendments they also have the reg in there each site will be site specific meaning they are going to insure there is a difference between a grower and a grower supplier. What that latter statement means is a grower supplier will be shipping to registered patients but a grower only supplying other patient providers, so the value added designation may not restrain activities on the site.
If it illustrates anything is that HC is obviously not oblivious to local concerns and the oft mentioned federal reg trumps provincial is now clearly illustrated not to be so.
Some may disagree and that is fine but can we keep the conversation civil.
Completely different from Lakeshore. Although Lakeshore will adopt new amendments they also have the reg in there each site will be site specific meaning they are going to insure there is a difference between a grower and a grower supplier. What that latter statement means is a grower supplier will be shipping to registered patients but a grower only supplying other patient providers, so the value added designation may not restrain activities on the site.
If it illustrates anything is that HC is obviously not oblivious to local concerns and the oft mentioned federal reg trumps provincial is now clearly illustrated not to be so.
Some may disagree and that is fine but can we keep the conversation civil.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
