Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Special Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Campo council rejects special-use permit for THC retail unit
Summary
The El Campo City Council voted down SUP2025-05, an application by Jessica Cantu to operate a THC-selling retail unit in Business Park North, after debate over hours, signage and whether local authorities can enforce product standards governed by state regulators.
The El Campo City Council on Oct. 13 voted against SUP2025-05, a special‑use permit application from tenant Jessica Cantu and property owner Anahue LLC to operate a unit offering THC products in Business Park North.
Planning staff described the proposal as a two‑unit tenant location and said the business is being treated locally as a smoke‑shop‑type use because state permitting for THC sellers does not align with current local land‑use categories. "These types of stores are regulated by the state of Texas, and they do have to have a license to sell the item that they're selling," staff told the council during the presentation.
Staff detailed recommended conditions from the Planning & Zoning Commission, including requiring execution of a lease before final approval, annual submission of a valid state license from the Texas Department of State Health Services and restrictions on window displays and product imagery. Staff said the applicant had asked the council to allow Sunday hours beyond the P&Z recommendation.
Council and members of the public pressed how local authorities would handle enforcement if banned paraphernalia or higher‑strength products appeared in the store. The police chief said intoxication enforcement is driven by observed behavior and testing and noted limits to local enforcement of product composition: "That's why, I'll say publicly, law enforcement, I wish the governor wouldn't have vetoed the bill because it's it's difficult for us because we cannot physically look at something and say, is that 2%, 5%?" The chief added that lab testing is required to determine THC concentrations and that state regulators handle licensing enforcement.
Council moved to approve the permit as presented, but the motion failed on the vote, denying the special‑use permit. Council did not adopt the P&Z conditions or alternate hours; the council discussion identified signage, hours and enforceability under state law as central concerns.
The council did not indicate when or whether the applicant will return with a revised request.
