LAS CRUCES — A small cannabis production business will be able to operate in a residential area in Chaparral after the Doña Ana County Board of Commissioners rejected an appeal from residents who oppose the business in their neighborhood.
The board of commissioners issued its decision on Tuesday following a closed session and lots of back-and-forth discussion from both sides of the issue. The commission voted 4-1 to approve the permit. District 3 Commissioner Shannon Reynolds — whose district includes Chaparral — voted no, siding with the residents of the unincorporated community.
The business requires a special use permit to operate in its proposed location on 3.5 acres at 205 Paloma Blanca Drive since the property is not assessed for agriculture.
A large group of neighbors and residents opposed the business originally spoke before the county planning and zoning commission March 24 as the board deliberated whether to approve the special use permit. At that time, Manuel Cervantes, the applicant, had proposed to open an integrated cannabis microbusiness that would both grow and sell cannabis on site.
Neighbors voiced concerns about traffic, insufficient infrastructure, pedestrian safety, crime and a negative effect on kids. They argued the business didn’t belong as close as it would be to residential homes. After the zoning board unanimously denied Cervantes’ application, he appealed to the board of county commissioners.
second proposal
On April 26, Cervantes asked the commissioners to reverse the planning and zoning board’s decision, saying he and his partners were now planning to use the property only to grow cannabis as a microbusiness producer, and retail sales would take place at a different location.
Since this constituted a different proposal than what the planning and zoning commission originally considered, the BOCC sent the decision back to P&Z so it could vote on the revised proposal for the business.
On May 26, the county planning and zoning commission took action on the revised permit request and approved it with conditions. The conditions included: limiting the plant count to 200 mature cannabis plants — already a requirement for a microbusiness producer; requiring employees in non-commercial vehicles to transport the product between 8 am and 8 pm Monday through Friday only; requiring the cannabis to be grown indoors in two shipping containers on the property and requiring new structures to be code-compliant.
However, Edgar Aguilar appealed the P&Z decision on behalf of residents, sending the decision once again to the BOCC. On Aug 23, Aguilar argued neighbors were still not okay with the planned business.
“Never did we say that we just wanted commercial grow over retail,” Aguilar said. “We don’t want any of it in our neighborhood.”
Cervantes argued that his growing, drying and storage would be entirely indoor and his operation would include an odor filtration system — keeping the cannabis out of sight and out of people’s noses.
Responding to concerns about having a security guard posted outside, Cervantes said he had initially proposed that in response to community concerns about potential crime. He said he could omit that if the neighbors preferred.
Aguilar argued that he wasn’t trying to oppose legal marijuana, though he said some of the cohort he spoke for may hold that view. But Aguilar stressed the opposition mainly stemmed from the business’ location in a residential area. The residents would not oppose the business in a commercial area, he said.
“I am not against the marijuana industry. I think Mr. Cervantes should have an opportunity to be an entrepreneur,” Aguilar said. “Our fight is, please, keep this out of our neighborhood.”
Residents speak up
Residents who spoke in opposition to the proposed business blended technical concerns about the business with moral condemnation about cannabis.
While neighbors questioned the effectiveness of the odor filtration system described, the appropriateness of the business’ location in a residential area and whether the business is legally allowed to use the water it intends to, others expressed concern about cannabis cultivation taking place near their “children and grandchildren” or warned approval would set a precedent which could bring cannabis businesses to “your neighborhood” next.
“I have a 13- and 6-year-old, (and) they’re actually assigned to this (nearby) bus stop,” said Brenda Velazquez. “I fear for their safety, mostly for their health… This is a very peaceful neighborhood and we want to keep it that way. Like Mr. Aguilar, I am not against marijuana at all, I just don’t want it in my neighborhood across my street.”
“(Cervantes) says that there’s no smell. Here’s the problem. How do we know? Do we have to wait?” said Nanette Reyes.
Some business owners and representatives from the cannabis industry spoke about cannabis’ medical benefits and its normalization as another type of commercial business in an attempt to allay concerns.
“I have not done anything illegal yet, and I can voucher by showing my state license and my conditional approval from the county for the planning and zoning,” Cervantes said. “I think that’s one of the best things that I can show to anybody that is thinking that I am going to have a negative impact. If we look at the track record, it doesn’t look that it’ll be that way.”
More county news:
Michael McDevitt is a city and county government reporter for the Sun News. He can be reached at 575-202-3205, [email protected] or @MikeMcDTweets on Twitter.
Comments are closed.