AI
Thursday, September 25, 2014 6:56:58 AM
Also, within the article above/below, it was stated that owners of existing facilities would be able to expand their business by simply amending their original application:
http://www.themountainmail.com/free_content/article_1cdb117c-2880-11e4-b297-001a4bcf6878.html
I mentioned this part for two reasons...
First: Because it was noted that Mehos has a potential 251 acres that could be applicable to the marijuana cultivation operations here in INCC. The actual amount for INCC is unknown although 251 acres reflects a huge ”potential” for growth.
Second: I am fully aware that the 251 acres could be used for marijuana cultivation or it could be land separate from the 251 acres to be used for marijuana cultivation as it was confirmed that Mehos has another plot of land that is properly zoned under contract that is actually not 251 aces, but is less than 100 acres. This is what have gotten their foot into the door because now as what was stated within the article above… owners of existing facilities would be able to expand their business by simply amending their original application. This actually creates a potential of 300 acres to ”potentially” be used for marijuana cultivation for INCC.
v/r
Sterling
My question is In the Chaffee County Resolution 2014-35, section 7 refers the the amendments that you speak of that are excepted in the moratorium to the original license which includes: expansion and also mentions Transfers to new owners. See below...
Would it be safe to say, taking into consideration John G Mehos's age(80+ years old), that GroPro plans on buying Prosperous Valley once the license is issued and transferring that license to GroPro since it is allow within the moratorium along with the expansion of the operation. What are your thoughts on this? Would this be of value to INCC and GroPro or are they better off with prosperous valley as a client as far as revenue is concerned. Just noodling here....
Thanks in advance,
SRV
