Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taos council hears ordinance overhaul to align local cannabis rules with recent state changes
Summary
Legal consultant Robbie Sachs Madrid presented proposed revisions to Taos’ recreational cannabis ordinance to align with the Cannabis Regulation Act and recent rule changes; council asked for more public input and directed staff to schedule a public hearing before any approval.
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taos City Council discussed proposed edits to the town’s recreational cannabis ordinance on a presentation and public-comment agenda item; no ordinance was approved at the meeting. Robbie Sachs Madrid of Sachs Madrid Legal Advisory presented the draft changes and said they were intended to bring Taos’ local rules into alignment with amendments to the Cannabis Regulation Act in 2024 and 2025. "I was the first employee of the cannabis control division at the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department," Sachs Madrid told the council, describing his work drafting state regulations.
The proposal would change several definitions, alter separation-zone language and update zoning categories for licensed cannabis activities. Sachs Madrid recommended moving class 1 manufacturing (largely packaging/retail activity) into retail zoning, retain a 1,000-foot buffer for class 4 manufacturers (chemical extraction), and leave class 2 and 3 manufacturing (assembly and non-chemical extraction) for the council to decide. He told councilors the draft also replaces a fixed phrasing about industry "standards" for odor control with a requirement that licensees use "all reasonable and technologically feasible measures for odor control." Sachs Madrid said he added an automatic local-permit revocation if a state license is revoked.
Councilors and staff asked for clarification on several points: how integrated micro and vertically integrated licenses would follow zoning for each licensed activity; the difference between courier and mobile operations; and whether outdoor consumption areas could be permitted. Sachs Madrid told councilors that courier operations differ from mobile operations because courier deliveries are made from a single, licensed point of sale, while mobile operations would involve multiple moving retail locations. He said he had not personally observed outdoor consumption areas while at the Cannabis Control Division and could not describe operational examples from state practice.
During public comment, Steve Wiener, owner of Bighorn Weed, urged the council to change a separation clause that says "No cannabis producer or cannabis manufacturer located outside of the M-1 light manufacturing zone shall be located within 300 feet of a residence or the historic Taos Plaza," saying the 300-foot language would effectively preclude much of Taos’ commercial zoning because residences are mixed throughout. "We are the only outdoor consumption license in the state right here in Taos," Wiener told the council, urging flexibility for outdoor and courier operations and clearer odor-mitigation guidance.
Planning staff and councilors raised two recurring implementation issues: (1) whether the town’s zoning code should be amended to allow certain cannabis manufacturing activities outside M-1 and (2) how the town will operationalize odor-control standards for outdoor consumption or facilities near residences. Planning staff noted that current manufacturing is allowed only in the M-1 light manufacturing zone and that permitting new activities in other zones would require zoning-code amendments.
Nut graf: The presentation was a technical cleanup and policy prompt, not a final vote. Councilors directed staff to set a future public hearing and to return redline language after additional council and community input. No ordinance amendment was adopted at this meeting.
Council direction and next steps: The council did not vote on the ordinance. Mayor Maestas and staff said a public hearing will be scheduled before any ordinance action. Planning staff will return with updated language reflecting council input on class 1–4 distinctions, courier vs. mobile operations, and potential zoning adjustments.
Ending: The council concluded the item by thanking Sachs Madrid for drafting the changes and by inviting more public feedback at the public hearing once a date is set. The presentation and discussion will be re-noticed for that hearing before any ordinance action is taken.
