Council discusses narrowing cannabis rules; debate centers on manufacturing definitions, 300‑foot separation and zoning

Town staff brought forward initial ideas for revisions to the town’s cannabis ordinance on April 21 and councilors debated several topics the town could revise: how local business registration should align with state cannabis permits, where light manufacturing and class‑4 operations may be located, and the utility of a 300‑foot separation rule.

Staff summary: Deputy Manager and licensing staff explained the ordinance largely mirrors state definitions for class 1–4 cannabis licenses and noted the town’s existing administrative practice: the town issues a business registration and then a local cannabis establishment permit while the state issues its license. Staff suggested clarifying the town’s business‑registration documentation requirements (zoning verification, fire inspection reports and proof of state cannabis establishment permit) so local review is consistent and to reduce applicants’ confusion.

Zoning and manufacturing classifications: Council discussion centered on definitions for “manufacturing” and where various license classes should be allowed. Staff pointed out the land‑use code currently has zones (M‑1, C‑2, etc.) with inconsistent allowances; in particular, some zones permit light manufacturing while others do not. Staff recommended harmonizing the land use code and the cannabis ordinance — a revision that is already planned as part of a broader LUDC update.

300‑foot separation and Taos Plaza exclusions: Councilors debated whether the ordinance’s 300‑foot separation from residences (and a separate 1,000‑foot rule for some class 4 operations) and the rule excluding cannabis stores from the Taos Plaza remain necessary. Councilor Oswald argued the 300‑foot rule is “arbitrary” and noted that alcohol-serving establishments are not subject to the same separation, while other councilors said the rule reflected earlier policy choices about downtown character.

Regulatory limits: Town Attorney and staff explained that local governments may enact “time, place and manner” restrictions that are reasonable, but the only clearly tested restriction under New Mexico’s Cannabis Regulation Act is distance from schools or day‑care facilities. The attorney cautioned that other restrictions are untested and could be subject to legal challenge; she recommended careful drafting and suggested the town use the upcoming LUDC update to align zoning and cannabis rules.

Next steps: Staff will prepare a revised ordinance draft for first reading, incorporating clarifications on business registration, cannabis establishment permitting and mapping to zoning; the council directed staff to include visual maps or overlays that show where cannabis establishments would be permitted. A first reading is expected at the council’s next meeting and a final adoption date will follow public-notice requirements.

Ending: Council members asked staff to prepare a draft consistent with state law, clearer on the local permitting workflow, and coordinated with the pending land use development code rewrite.