Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds denial of Class 2 cannabis manufacturing permit near residences
Summary
After a public hearing, the council voted to uphold staff's denial of a Class 2 cannabis manufacturing business at 536 Paseo De Pueblo Norte because town code prohibits manufacturers within 300 feet of residences; the applicant argued the proposed edible production fits the state's Class 2 definition and is co-located with an existing retail operation.
The Taos Town Council upheld the denial of a business registration/cannabis establishment permit for High Functioning Manufacturing at 536 Paseo De Pueblo Norte after a public hearing and an appeal by the applicant.
Planning staff said the application was denied under Chapter 5.24 (cannabis establishments) and Ordinance language that prohibits cannabis producers or micro-manufacturers outside the M-1 manufacturing zone from locating within 300 feet of a residence or the Taos Historic Plaza. The planning report noted the parcel sits in a C-2 general commercial zone and is within 300 feet of residences.
Attorney Abby Sanger, representing the applicant, argued state Cannabis Control Division (CCD) definitions differ from the town's drafting and said the business sought only Class 2 edible production (which the applicant said does not include extraction) and that the proposed operation would be co-located in the rear of an existing retail facility. Owner Jonathan Stewart said the firm obtained state-level approvals for edible manufacturing processes and that suitable M-1 locations with state environmental approvals are not readily available in Taos.
Neighbors who live within 300 feet urged the council to uphold the ordinance and preserve the separation requirement designed in part to reduce risk from extraction processes. Town attorney Jessica Nixon and planning staff advised the council that the ordinance's plain language bars the proposed manufacturing use at this location.
The council voted on a motion to uphold the code administrator's denial. Roll call recorded three yes votes to uphold and one no vote opposing (Council member Oswald). The denial stands; council members also suggested pursuing an ordinance amendment through the standard public‑hearing process if the body wishes to change the separation rule.
