Good point. I would argue however the notice by H

Good point. I would argue however the notice by HC was to the townships to get their zoning ordinances together asap because if we, HC, grant the license and you decide to change the rules later, you can't. In the absence of a license would lawful nonconforming apply? It would if the license was granted for site 1 for example (lets remove the value added restrictions on site one for this discussion because they still would apply under lawful nonconforming) but if the amendments are made and become enacted, in force if you will, prior to the granting of the license,it may not apply because there is an absence of continuous activity giving rise to acquired rights. Remember, the town cannot grant a permit for growing medical mj, only HC can. The town can say you can grow anything there you wish within certain restrictions for value added. The only grounds which might be arguable would be the stated intent of the company and a judge would have to decide if that intent carrried enough weight legally to carry the day to allow for lawful nonconforming.

What you are stating is accurate to a point. Company A is on ag land, get the license, then the rules are changed after the granting of the license. In this case (assuming no license has been granted) Company A is on ag land, the town changes the regulations, Company A get the license after, would lawful nonconforming apply? That is the question. HC does not set legal precedent on this, the activity/intent does. Again, HC was saying get your act together because once we grant the license, you might find yourselves in a bind. You may not be able to change the regulations after we grant the license. In this case, the regs are changed before the license, again, assuming it was not yet issued.