Olive Branch aldermen deny request to add medical cannabis dispensary at Trinity Park

The Olive Branch Board of Aldermen voted 6–0 on May 19 to deny a proposed amendment to the Trinity Park planned unit development that would have added a medical cannabis dispensary at 8961 Church Road East, Unit 400.

The board’s decision followed a staff presentation and a lengthy public hearing. Dr. Song, the city planning staffer, described the property as Lot 1, Area 7 of the Trinity Park PUD and said the submitted survey shows the proposed suite meets the state’s 1,000-foot statutory separation from protected uses by about 1.47 feet. Lauren Ward, the applicant’s attorney, told the board the application seeks only a change to the project text (not immediate site or business permits) and emphasized that state and local permitting — including security plans and Department of Revenue review — would follow any local zoning approval. “We’re not here to approve a cannabis facility right now,” Ward said; “we’re asking for the ability to put one there potentially in the future after they’ve satisfied the permitting requirements.”

Many residents and neighborhood representatives urged denial. Dean Stewart, pastor of LaBelle Haven Baptist Church, said the proposed dispensary would be “incompatible with the family-oriented” character of nearby neighborhoods and the soccer complex that draws hundreds of children and families. Other speakers from LaBelle Haven and Trinity Park echoed concerns about visibility to youth, parking and the character of future businesses at the intersection.

Board members debated two technical and legal points. Several members, including Alderman Earhart and Alderman Dixon, said their primary basis for denial was that the requested use would conflict with the Trinity Park project text’s stated goal of preserving and enhancing the surrounding property. City attorney Mister Dye advised that the statutory distance calculation and ultimate licensing are matters for the Mississippi Department of Revenue, not a local zoning determination, but he also noted the board may rely on its familiarity with the neighborhood when determining consistency with the project text.

After discussion Alderman Dixon moved to deny the amendment on the ground that it “does not meet the requirements of the project text approved in 2005,” and Alderman Gammage seconded. The clerk conducted a roll-call vote; the motion carried 6–0. The minutes show the board members voting to deny were Aldridge, Collins, Dickerson, Earhart, Gammage and Wallace.

The board closed the public hearing and moved on with the agenda; staff and the applicant had noted that if the board had approved the project-text amendment the applicant’s next step would have been to seek state licensing and local permits, and that the state could still deny a license if the Department of Revenue found the distance requirement unmet. The record includes the applicant’s stamped survey and incident-report data supplied to the board as exhibits during the hearing.

What’s next: the denial leaves the Trinity Park project text unchanged for Suite 400. The applicant may pursue other permitted locations in conventional commercial zoning or seek to appeal or resubmit, subject to applicable local and state procedures.

Sources: staff presentation by Dr. Song; applicant counsel Lauren Ward; public comments by Dean Stewart and other residents; city attorney Mr. Dye; roll-call vote recorded by the clerk.