Sonoma County Cooperative’s Challenge to Local Zoning Ordinance is Struck Down on Statute of Limitations Grounds

by Joshua R. Dale 
A Sonoma County medical marijuana cooperative that had won a zoning victory against Sonoma County saw its victory short-lived as the First District Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that had allowed the cooperative to stay in operation.  The County had ordered the cooperative to cease operations after it opened a dispensary in Guerneville, without having applied for a permit for operation.  A superior court judge had found that the Sonoma County ordinance requiring the cooperative to obtain a special use permit in order to operate in certain portions of the county was facially invalid.

The appellate court found that the cooperative’s lawsuit was untimely, having not been filed within 90 days of the passage of the ordinance.  Because the cooperative had never attempted to apply for a permit, the cooperative’s challenge was limited to the language of the ordinance itself, and it could not challenge to how the law specifically affected the cooperative.  Absent an adverse ruling against the cooperative, the cooperative’s limited challenge was some two-and-a-half years late.

The result of the appellate court’s ruling is that the cooperative will have to apply for a permit and see if the permit is denied before it may again attack the zoning ordinance in court.  In the meantime, the cooperative will have to remain closed until it successfully or unsuccessfully completes the permit application process.  In the grand scheme of medical marijuana dispensary law, this decision will have little impact on other collectives and cooperatives litigating with municipalities over the conditions of their operation, however, it does highlight how municipalities are aware of and fully invested in using the land-use restriction as their most successful tool in opposing the operation of cooperatives and collectives in their jurisdictions. 

County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (Marvin’s Gardens Cooperative, Inc.) (1st Dist., Dec. 15, 2010) Case No. A128734

 

Twitter Follow

Follow us on

Contact Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT:  This communication or portions thereof may be considered "advertising" as defined by Section 6157(c) of the California Business and Professions Code or within the jurisdiction in which you are viewing this.  Nothing in the discussion above is intended to be a representation or guarantee about the outcome of any legal proceeding in which you may be involved.  By providing the information above in this format, Michel & Associates is not soliciting you to hire it to handle a specific legal matter you may currently have or be anticipating commencing in the future.  Notwithstanding the discussion above, you should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content on this site without seeking appropriate legal advice regarding your particular circumstances from an attorney licensed to practice law.  This communication is informational only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Michel & Associates.  Michel & Associates's attorneys are licensed to practice in California, Texas, and the District of Columbia.