Pinetop-Lakeside Commission Approves Marijuana Dispensary Code Despite Child-Facility Safety Concerns

So there's counting down right now, DJ. Thank you. It is slow. I wasn't teasing. 5 minutes. I'm going to make sure my cell phone is silenced. You watch me do it though. Yes. I want to see you do that. All right, we'll call this meeting to order. I see we have a quorum. If everyone please take your take a moment to silence your cell phones so we don't get interrupted during the meeting. And then join me in the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This is a business meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The town hereby welcomes and encourages public participation.

Individuals addressing the commission shall direct all remarks to the commission as a whole and shall refrain from addressing individual member commission members, town staff, or members of the audience. Pursuant to open meeting Arizona open meeting law, the commission is limited in its availability to discuss or take action on matters raised during the call to public. The commission may, however, direct staff to review the matter and place it on a future agenda for consideration.

Items are that are scheduled on the agenda on the current agenda will not be heard or discussed during the call to the public and speakers are limited to 3 minutes. I don't think we have anyone for the call to the public, so I will work on the consent agenda. C1 is consider approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission regular minutes held March 12th, 2026. Has everyone had an opportunity to review? I'll make a motion that we accept the regular minutes of March 12th, 2026. We have a motion.

Do we have a second? I have a second. Okay. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. That passes unanimously. Um item C2 is to consider approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission work session minutes held on April 9th, 2026. Did everyone have an opportunity to review the minutes? Okay, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion again to accept the work session minutes from April 9th, 2026. Thank you. Do we have a second? I second. Okay.

Having a first and second, please raise your right hand if you agree. All right, that carries unanimously. Thank you. On to Let's see, uh new new business. Uh public comment will be taken at the beginning of each agenda item after the subject has been announced by the chairman and explained by staff. Any citizen who wishes may speak twice for 5 minutes on each agenda item before or after the commission discussion.

Uh questions from commission members, however, may be directed to staff or a member of the public uh through the chairman at any time. And we do have a couple. I will say one thing, um items D1 and D2 are fairly similar. Um so, if we have someone who wishes to speak on both, Um they can speak on both during uh the the first agenda item. D2 and D3. Did I Did I miss that? Okay, D2 and D3. One is weed. That's right. Okay, thank you.

Um so, correcting that to D2 and D3, um you can take the opportunity to speak during D uh D2, unless it's specifically only to D3. Right? Um having said that, um we have Rachel Hendricks. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Rachel Hendricks. And my family and I own the White Mountain Family Fun Park.

I am standing here tonight because this is now the third time a representative from our park has stated on the public record that we are formally requesting a safety buffer for the youth corridor. We have warned this commission repeatedly, and while we appreciate that a buffer is finally being considered, the proposed 500-ft rule is a dangerous loophole for our specific location.

I want to speak directly to the comparison being made between dispensaries and gas stations like Maverick or Circle K. We've heard the argument that gas stations are just as dangerous as dispensaries. But on Saturday, April 4th, I was the one personally assaulted on my own property. I was struck by a large object thrown with force by an individual under the influence of marijuana.

This person was part of an out-of-town group whose behavior was so aggressive and inappropriate that we had to intervene just to protect the families and children inside our park. This isn't a statistic or a theory for me. It is an active criminal case with the Pinetop-Lakeside Police Department. This incident proves that we are already dealing with the intensity and impairment that follows this industry.

To compare a family park's neighbor to a convenience store ignores the physical safety of my patrons and the reality of the violence I experienced. A gas station has a high volume of transient customers stopping for 3 minutes. A dispensary is a high security adult only, excuse me, destination. It is a cash intensive operation that requires armed guards, state-mandated ID checkpoints, and a high security vaults.

If the industry itself requires prison-grade security, the town must provide corresponding buffer. You do not see armed guards and bulletproof glass at a Circle K or a Maverick. Even if you believe these businesses are comparable, the math doesn't work for our geography. There's approximately 1,200 ft between our park and Lion's Camp Tatiya, which serves the most vulnerable special needs children and adults in our community. A 500-ft rule leaves a 200-ft landing strip right in the middle.

You are effectively zoning a high-intensity dispensary to be sandwiched directly between a fun park and a camp for disabled kids and adults. 500 ft is not a buffer for us. It is a green light for a developer to sit right between two protected populations. Don't vote for a loophole. To actually protect the kids at Camp Tatiya and the families at our park, the buffer circles must overlap. Only a 750 or 1,000-ft buffer ensures that an adult-only business isn't sitting in our backyard.

Please do not let a flawed comparison to a gas station be the reason we failed to protect our children. Thank you. Any questions for Rachel? Yes. You actually skipped item D1, which is the selection of a planning and zoning chair and vice chair. I did, didn't I? Okay, we'll go right to the other one. Um okay. Why don't we can we continue with the call to the public and then revert back to um since we're on a roll here. Yeah, okay. Do we have any questions for Rachel? Anyone?

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. And with the continuity We're okay to do that as we I'm sorry, say that Are we okay to move just continue on with the call to public on on D1 or D2 rather? call to the public. I'm sorry, the public hearing on D D2 Um yeah, I think so because you've already started it and then after that let's go back to We'll go right back to D1. Okay, okay, very good. Apologies. Next up we have Robert Engles. I'd like to speak after I hear the discussion.

That's fine, but you we'd need to revert back to D1. My error was I needed to to bring up D1. Actually, it won't be on D1 and it'll be on D2 and D3. That's right, but we'll have to postpone your comments until if you want to wait until after discussion. Um so I made a procedural error in in starting D2 without addressing D1. All right, I'd like to hear some discussion and then make the comments and I have some notes and some Fair enough. Okay, I'll call you back.

Chairman Wesley, I think what he wants to hear the discussion after um Frank presents and then you guys discuss then he'd like to be called up. Fair enough, fair enough. Okay. Okay, so we'll move back to D1. My apologies everyone. So D1 discuss discussion and possible action regarding um the selection of a planning and zoning chair and vice chair. That's important. Um Are we not finishing the public hearing on D2? Shall we? I'm just a little confused. Okay.

Yeah, I thought we were going to go ahead and finish that item. do Let's let's do that. Okay, fair enough. And then we'll come back. If please don't let me forget. Yeah. Appreciate it. Um okay. So Who'd like to present D2? D2 And this is a Medical marijuana. Public public hearing discussion considering regarding amending the town code 17 102 the medical marijuana. Is this one? That's the other. Mhm. I was one ahead of it. Okay.

So we're I'd like you guys to discuss the uh amending of the code uh for medical marijuana that currently reads uh for a dispensary square footage of 2,000 square feet. What we would like to do on that is increase the square footage from 2,000 to 4,000. The reason for that is for medical marijuana and recreational the building has to be separated into two parts. That 2,000-square-foot building is not sufficient for the type of business.

Um and that's the only reason for the increase on And if I remember correctly, Frank, the request from the uh developer was to go to three, and we're just increasing it to four. Is that correct? four. Uh they're they wanted they were requesting like 3,200. Okay. Roughly. Okay. Very good. Well, you can you guys go ahead and discuss that, and then we'll make a recommendation. All right. So we open up the mission for discussion. Then we'll Okay.

Uh my opinion is if the developer was seeking the 3,200 square feet, I think the 4,000 is reasonable. I've stated before I think that this is a extremely viable business for the for the town. And therefore we should accommodate and raise the square footage to the 4,000 square feet. Uh we need to send a signal that we are interested in the in the business in the town of Pinetop-Lakeside. Can I ask a question? It Is it so that it has to be in this location?

Or is it just anywhere within Pinetop-Lakeside? Um they're still looking for property. Okay. Um the the the property near the family fun park has been the seller doesn't want to proceed with that. So that's pretty much out of the picture. So but the minimum building space that they are requesting is the 4,000 square feet. The Yeah, well they're they're requesting roughly 3,200. What would be the max? The max would be 4,000. What question Mr. Chair?

Um So D2 and D3 one is for recreational, one is for mar- medical and we're just discussing the two. Um and they by state law they have to be the same. The the the ordinances have to be the same. The code has to be the same. Okay. We can't go one for the other. It has to be the same. It has to be the same because it's a the dispensary. So, Yeah. It's basically both of them in one building. And that's the way they'd have to operate.

And the town's only allowing one in the town limits, so it's going to be a dual license dispensary. That's why it's on both of them. And there are no other areas if say we go to 1,000 because it's dangerous. Um Is there any other areas with in the town that could be that 1,000 ft? As far as the setback? Yes. We're only discussing the square footage. Yeah. Well Well Yeah. That was D2, that's right. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, right now this one we're just looking at the square footage, but that would apply to both. Yes. Yeah. Then when we get to the other one, we'll discuss Okay. setback distances. Just because in D2 it's it said be located no closer than 500 ft. So, yes. Okay. I think I personally feel that 4,000 is is um justifiable knowing that we'll get it they'll be a reputable company that comes in. Um it's coming in. Um so, I think 4,000 is sufficient. Yeah. Commissioner KB, you were right.

So, that that is also an amendment on there as well. Indeed. Okay. On D2? Yes, the distance. Yeah. So, D2 is is medical, D3 is recreational. It's the same It's it's the same thing, but um one's for recreation, one's for medical. Yeah. So, the question is is there are there areas in the town of Pinetop-Lakeside that can match the 1,000 ft if that's what we so suggest to the town council? As far as the setbacks go, 1,000 ft from a school. Mhm.

It is from any family-oriented type of business and a church. Yes. And 250 from a residential neighborhood. That's what it is now or what we want it to what the town wants to suggest. The the town is going to add that 500 for recreational businesses. Okay. But the the original setback for schools, churches, and neighborhoods. So my understanding is the Family Fun Park would like 1,000 would suggest 1,000 ft. All right? The company does not want to come in into that area they as I understand.

Yeah. Are there other areas in town that could be that 1,000 ft if we recommended what the Family Fun Park wanted? They're very tight. So Almost unlikely. So 1,000 ft is kind of unreasonable because we're going to have one. So It would pretty much probably just shut the thing down. Okay. Got you. So we need to change it from 1,000 to Well, right now all we're discussing is the square footage of the building. No no no but the a 0.5 is is is the first one is medical the second one is recreational.

It's the same exact thing but one's for recreational and one's for Yeah, but we're not there yet. We're only discussing the square footage of on both commissioner. I'm sorry. Yes. If you look at the uh changes that Frank recommended in the code, it does also talk about the setbacks on this agenda item as well. So we're talking about the square footage allowing of the allotment allowed for the building size but also the setback. Also the setback. Okay. That's what I said. Sorry. All right.

Oh yeah, no worries. We're coming to an understanding. Yes. Yeah, okay. Frank, how many feet from the family fun park to camp Totty? Is that what exists in this the original proposal? I don't know the distance between it's roughly a thousand or so. That site is dead though, so we we're not talking about that site anymore. they're not considering that site, so.

Frank, I think I asked this before and I think I know the answer in this state does not mandate any setbacks associated with dispensaries. Is that correct? They do for schools and churches. They do for schools and churches and that's it. We're we're way above the state's requirements. Okay, and that's a town Mhm. choosing. That is a town choosing. Okay.

I think if we set the foot the the goal or the the mark what we're doing is setting the mark so that anybody can come in and go this land meets this criteria, we can move forward and I think 500 feet is reasonable. I think 4,000 square feet is reasonable. Um I I think a thousand would would be not good, so. Okay. Yeah, I concur. I I I'm good with the 4,000. I think that based upon what you said, Frank, that if we went to a thousand on the setback that it would be extremely limiting.

I don't want to be extremely limiting. I think 500 is sufficient. Um frankly, I don't know that you need any, but um uh 500 is fine. Just so you guys know for reference, the Arizona state law is 500 feet from schools, churches, and daycares. Ours currently is at a thousand though, correct? Which schools? Or First well, Arizona's at 500. Yeah, that's what I meant schools, yeah. And this one says 1,000 ft of residentially zoned property. You look at the town code? Yeah, I'm looking in the town.

Oh, maybe this is 17.102 .030 17.102 Well, that's the cultivation medical marijuana cultivation locations. That's cultivation. That's That's for cultivation. Yeah. Yeah. Not the dispensaries. Okay. Any other comments so far? Questions? like a 1-acre minimum lot to be able to put in a 4,000 sq ft building with 500 ft setbacks? You You know that's that's what they're looking for. I think they could probably build it on a smaller lot. Okay.

But I They're the ones that are doing the developing, so Yeah, I'd like to actually make a comment before we make a motion, so Um thought about this quite a bit. Um So, we are not here to approve or deny any particular project or react to requests made by individual project applicants. Uh we're here to make recommendations to the council to define the rules by which development occurs. Right? Uh so, those rules should reflect the identity of Pinetop.

A family-oriented, community-focused, and intentional intentional in planning its growth. Not reactive. And I feel like we're being very reactive um when we see an applicant come and say, "Ooh, we got to change that to fit." Right? Um once those rules are clear, uh development will either fit within them or it won't. Um and that's how we sure ensure uh fairness, consistency, and frankly, integrity long-term. Um so, that's what I need to say. Um any other comments or questions? I think uh Mr.

Ingles wanted to come in. But you need to also need to declare a public hearing. Uh okay. So, with that I got that page. Uh so, probably this is uh I need to read the the new business and public hearing or just declare it's public hearing. Just declare it the public hearing and then anyone who um asked to speak on it can speak up and then because it's a public hearing, if there's anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on it, they can.

We'll just have them fill out a a form afterwards. Okay. So, we'll just go ahead and uh call uh make this a public hearing um and then anyone who uh has already submitted a card uh can speak now uh and then afterwards, if anyone else in the audience would like to speak, uh please do. And I'll call um Robert Ingles at this point. Thank you, commissioners and staff. Robert Ingles, Penrod Lane, Pinetop, Arizona. Longtime resident.

Um looking over this, I have some concerns and it goes beyond just the recommendation of the 500 ft from the uh family-type businesses in the community that are stated in the recommendation here. Um I wanted to bring up and and maybe it could get clarified to me by somebody here tonight.

The thought that the 250 ft setback from an exterior wall um of the dispensary wall to an exterior wall on an adjoining residence that would be not on the same property um but a 200-ft distance, it seems that the wording, in my opinion, would be from the lot line in that if you have commercial property abutting residential property and the residential property hasn't been built on at this time, if a person is holding on to that and the in the interim period a dispensary were to get built and they're 50 ft off the residential property line, there's no restriction on how close the structure of a dispensary could be to the property line if it abuts a residential property other than a yard setback which I believe is 20 ft in the C-1 zoning.

So, it would seem that the way this is worded right now that in both this agenda item and the next item would create a restriction on that property owner who had intentions within the zoning maybe to build a residential setback building that this, in my opinion, is going to be restricting on the future use of the adjoining residential property and it's said in here multiple times where it states that Shoot, I'm sorry. I made some notes on here.

To be conducted to the nearest exterior wall of the closest residence not located on the property in which Okay, that was a preservation, but that's part of this ordinance and it's a little different on the dispensary to residential, but I I I hope that would be discussed tonight because I think that the way this is worded is encroaching on residential properties requiring that 250 ft. So, their staff or you as a commission could address that issue.

I think the 500 ft would be the minimum acceptable. I looked at uh Taylor Snowflake ordinances and they have uh not to be within 500 ft of residentially zoned property in their ordinance. And I think when I looked at Payson's ordinance, again, this was Google. I didn't have a hard copy of it. It was also the 500 ft from residential. And I think that's an important thing for our town.

We're a small community and a dispensary, whether it's recreational uh or medical, I think um it's going to be new to the community. I also noticed that in Taylor Snowflake, they have a 1,500 sq ft dispensary statement with a 3,000 sq ft maximum if they have both the dispensaries on the same site. So, I I'm trying to feel that we maybe need to be considering what other local communities are uh the 4,000 ft without a minimum lot size. Also, we allow a lot as small as 6,000 sq ft in our C1 zoning.

And to have a 4,000 ft dispensary on a 6,000 sq ft lot would be, in my opinion, a pretty sizable uh footprint with not much setbacks from the surrounding businesses. And that would be a concern. So, as you would move ahead tonight, if that could be addressed, the concern that I'm expressing. Uh go ahead. Um before you before you finish. Yes. Okay, that's fine.

Uh, before you go to um, Frank, I I would like to maybe um, clarify um, whether or not it's is prohibitive for someone to build a residential um, after the dispensary is in place. I was I was looking at the reference that Am I reading it right with the Yeah. Yeah, you're it it does. I thought it said exterior wall of the dispensary to the lot line. To the lot line. It does say the exterior wall of the structure. So, he does have a valid point there.

Okay, but um, just one point is uh, to clarify whether or not if someone who comes in um, and has a a vacant lot, a dispensary comes in, there's no building to to measure against. Um, so that the next door neighbor or behind that, but that would not prevent the residents from building. what could be used in that case is the property setback for the building.

So, typically your front property, rear property, you're 20 ft depending on So, if the if the measurement from the dispensary wall to the setback line of the property with the building was in excess of 250 ft, it'd be fine because From the setback. Right. So, that would need to be an amendment to town code as I read it. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

And that that brings up another question since we have to live within setbacks, um, that changes the ability for the building to be a certain size which he mentioned that our C1 is 6,000 ft. And you you deal with 20 by 20, that takes a big chunk out of it, and the building can only be so big. So, he's bringing up the question of the lot probably should be a certain size to meet that setback Meet setbacks of the Right. So, that's a great question, but I'm glad you brought it up. Okay.

Yeah, you can go ahead and sit down unless anyone else has questions. Frank. I'm sorry. Yeah, Rob. Um You know, given given this discussion, I mean, I'd I'd I'd love to see um to to the this this taking it kind of in order here, um that we we go either to the this the proposed amendment to the town code would include um to at very least the the setbacks um or to the property line. I mean, I kind of like the property line to make it distinctive. Right?

Um so, in in a proposed amendment that would include um the the property line. Right? Um and then um you know, just just given uh the current character of Pinetop, I mean, I I love the idea of of 1,000 ft from um from a family-owned oriented business, and I think I I like the language I think you have in the proposed um iPad keeps on closing here.

Um the recommendations to um to include So, I would I would replace the 500 with 1,000 ft from from from a facility devoted to family recreation and entertainment, including etc. You know, so, I like that that language, but I'd love to see that be 1,000 ft.

Um and then um you know, not again being reactive to a particular applicant, um, I I think we we need to look at at the uh the status quo with this with the 2,000 square feet um in that proposal uh to uh amend um and then me let me clarify this really quick. So, you in this particular area, this particular section, you want to add the family component into the 1,000 feet of a preschool kindergarten elementary high school. Right. So, this language is here in in the recommended motion.

That's already a recommendation and it's number two under the recommended That's right. um and then and then finally, um I mean, I love the discussion we've had about about what what what can we fit on a parcel. Well, if they're trying to cram uh even a 2,000 square foot building on a tiny parcel, um and you know, since having this discussion for the last few weeks, I've driven by um Consume and Showalter multiple times and boy, everyone's right. There's a lot of people parked in there.

So, I think maybe we need to to define what adequate parking is um in in that town code because we don't need people trying to spill over going in neighboring lots or or what have you. Um, I mean, I don't know the adequate parking is designed is defined in the zone for the square footage of the building. So, that is is specific the square footage. specific to the square footage of the building based on the commercial uh code. Okay. Do you happen to know right off the top of your head?

I didn't know that. But, what do you happen to know that right off Off the top of my head, I don't know. Okay. Um, so um without without looking it up, um do we know uh would that be adequate for a business of this kind? um to to to accommodate the parking cuz I mean, there's I would say I mean, just on a driving by I can see there's 30 cars in there. I would I would say a minimum of an acre. of parking land for the size of building. A minimum of an acre.

So, is is that something that we also need to define or is that just going to be taken care of in the in the code related to commercial I I think our code that defines parking spaces would take care of Okay. Maybe we'll make you feel better vice chair. Um the set of plans that they turned in originally for when they wanted to go into the family fun over next to the family fun area which is not happening. They had ample parking in that space and that was that was an acre lot.

For that size of building for the 3160, they're going to ensure that they have enough parking for their building. So, with meeting the setbacks and having the parking, there's no if you look through Pinetop-Lakeside, there's not a lot of properties that there's a lot of places to overflow park at. Right. So, they're going to make sure they find a lot that works for them and they have ample parking or they're just not going to get the business that they want. Right.

And then they're they're going to have issues with neighbors is just what I'm trying to, you know, consider here is is that if if there's ample parking Um so, then, you know, given given that we already have that in in the code on code related to commercial businesses or commercial property, um you know, my suggestion to the commission is to consider um a motion that that includes um that delineation from property line the the adjoining property line or the neighboring property line as opposed to a fictitious building or even a setback.

Um and then um 1,000 ft from a family-oriented business, you know, I could just given the character of Pinetop, I think that's pretty important. Um and then um you know, again, just not being reactive to any particular applicant. Um I don't think we're in danger of being prohibitive by saying, you know, we we we have 2,000 square feet allotted. Um you know, if they need to store offsite or what have you. But, I mean, the the the town code has been in place already um for good cause.

I mean, there's there's people prior to us that have that have written the town code for good purpose. And I know that that the town uh that the the Planning and Zoning Commission has indeed been tasked with planning um and zoning, right? So, I mean, that that's something, you know, at some point. Um we need to look at all those in in chapter 16 and 17. Um but but that's just in due course of review, not in reaction to to to to business.

Um say, "Hey, we might want to come in." I'd like to add something to that. Yeah. So, the 2,000 square feet was the size that the state put on there when they started this whole thing with the medical marijuana dispensaries. The average size of a dual marijuana dispensary in the state of Arizona is 4,000 to 6,000 square feet. That's the reason for the ask of a larger. So, we're asking up to 4,000, so we're not even asking for the 4,000.

It doesn't mean they're going to build 4,000 because what they turned in for just a proposal was 3,100. But, the 2,000 square feet's not viable for a really a dual license dispensary. If you look across the state of Arizona, the size is 4,000 to 6,000. 2,000 was a just an arbitrary number that the state put in and most cities and towns are changing that. Okay.

Okay, so if we're looking at it making a recommendations, that that's intentional um in in in in with regard to to to the character of the town, um that 2,000-ft limit um was adopted from the a state ordinance um related to medical marijuana. Is that right? If I'm I don't know if it was just on the medical or just on the recreational, but it I don't think it was specific to dual license. Right.

So, there wasn't this discussion that said, "Hey, we we want to limit this to 2,000 ft for a particular purpose." When the state wrote them, they were separate. So, a lot of dispensaries are finding they can't come in and do a dual in a 2,000 sq ft with as much storage as they need in keeping them separate. Okay. Well, thank you for that clarification.

I think, you know, if if it wasn't intentionally adopted in Pinetop, so then I'll just say then, you know, to go with with state allotted or whether industry standards than 2,000 ft. I still love the idea of or rather 4,000 ft. So, just speaking to the commission in discussion, um 1,000 ft from a from a family-owned business is something I think we ought to hold to. And then I'll obviously the property line, which is something I disagree. I think the 1,000 is too restrictive. I prefer the 500.

I have a question. Um This This line says, um shall not be 500 ft from the facility devoted family recreation or entertainment, including but not limited to movie theaters, bowling, mini golf, batting cages, and arcades. There is To me, that gives a feeling of Hey, I'm going to open a store that's dedicated to Pokémon cards right? Now, my business is a family-oriented business, and it could fall within that um thing right there.

I think the definition of family devoted um recreation business, if we're going to live to that 1,000 ft or 500 ft, should be defined because that's open to interpretation. I That's a good point. There's ambiguity. I agree. I mean, here's here's a you know, what what what classifies a family-oriented business, right? So, do we need to go through and list out every single I mean, I you know, at what How discreet do we need to be? Um I mean, it does leave it up to some wiggle room.

We're setting the goalpost, and and that's what we if we're going to go with a thousand or five hundred we need to know what we're making that five hundred to a thousand to be from. I think that's a valid point. Um has um it question for staff um has attorney Sims reviewed this and made a recommendation on on the the the expanded language um um in the recommend recommended motion um to Our attorney doesn't make recommendations. He just approves the wording and to that it that it's legal.

Okay, if it's legal um but but I think if given the discussion here I mean I I I would be curious if it would if it would be ambiguous enough to open the door for um disputes um later on if that's It may. This is this is verbatim from Payson. From Payson, okay. Oh. Well, and and and you know, I I I love I love looking at other towns.

I mean it's great you know, to say, "Hey, what are the what are the what are the other people doing?" It doesn't mean that we can we need to be limited in our creativity. the commission can modify it in any way they see fit. Um I don't quite know how to answer that.

So, if we wanted to reduce ambiguity to an extent that it would it would um that it it would make sure that each kind of potential um family-oriented business or could be mis- or construed as a as a family-oriented business then you know, what how long does that list need to be? You you could probably put in there the occupancy of the business. Um how many people it serves. I mean even like restaurants could be considered family-oriented, right?

Um you know, so I mean how And that could be extraordinarily limiting right? I feel as if we went to a thousand we should be very def- definite definitive of what we're going to limit that thousand feet from. I think if we go to 500 feet, I think we keep the language the way it is right there. That's how I feel. Um So It'll be hard-pressed for me to recommend a thousand feet with this ambiguity that we have. Anybody have any other thoughts on this?

I don't want I don't want to I want other people's opinions on this. Yeah, please. Mhm. Yeah, I think that's a good point. I think that if we're going to have this expansive language, and I think that it's a valid point that this is open to interpretation. I just looked up, for example, on Google family-oriented business and um you know, it's it's it's quite expansive uh in uh in the definition here. So, I think if we adopt this language uh as identified in here, that we maintain it at 500 feet.

Uh so that it doesn't become overly restrictive. I think I'm My concern is that a thousand feet who knows what uh somebody could um identify as a uh family, uh recreation, or entertainment. So um with this language, 500 feet, and to uh go to the 4,000 square feet maximum uh I'm fine with. You guys can always amend that motion to remove devoted family recreation and entertainment, and just put um limited to movie theaters, bowling alleys, miniature golf facilities, batting cages, and arcades.

Then that wouldn't eliminate restaurants and a Pokémon card. Yeah, I I just I had an example. I you know I think it's a great suggestion. Thank you. Um so uh you know, I I I I like the idea then of of maybe removing the family recreation or entertainment. I mean, I I love that because that that's, you know, from what I understand that's the character of the town, you know, um is that this is a we want to be family friendly.

Um so, but if we moved um if we doubled the distance suggested here in in a in the two but removed uh devoted to family recreation or entertainment and left in including but not limited to uh bowling alleys, miniature golf facilities, batting cages, and arcade. Um is there more in that category that we should consider? I think you put in athletic activity. I don't know.

Athletic activity Yes, athletic activities um cuz I'd be hard-pressed to think that a batting cages would would ever come to Pinetop-Lakeside. I think you change batting cages to athletic activities that would or that would athletic facilities, parks Yep. I think we already have parks. Um where does that fall into? I would just remove the batting cages to like athletic facilities. So, that's that's covered under the 500 ft of of athletic. Uh is that right?

Did you happen to have it pulled up right there? What item? It doesn't say athletic facility. It says batting cage. It doesn't say athletic facility. No, I mean in the in the in the town code. Um You're in 17-102-060. Mhm. It does say a public park. It does say public park and that's 500 ft. Yes, it is. Okay. So, that's covered in the in the 500 ft. Um Worship, public park, or community center. Yeah. Okay. There it is.

And so I almost I almost would say in um in the town code that 17-102 is at 059. No, that's 050C. On a dispensary, uh 050C number five is where we're at here. Um is that the suggested language to add to the code is um right now it's 500 ft from a facility devoted to family and recreation and entertainment um including but not limited to etc. The the the the batting cages, uh movie theaters, bowling, etc.

Um I wonder if we just remove the period after use in number five um and then remove the suggested language um remove from that suggested language from the 500 ft down to the or entertainment. So we say 1,000 ft um uh just that there's the the whole paragraph but it says proposed to be conducted uh to the lot line of the protected use including but not limited to movie theaters or or fitted into that paragraph how whatever would make grammatical sense. Um is kind of where I'm thinking here.

So um that reduces the ambiguity I think um Derek that you mentioned um but also uh gives us uh good a good distance from from those those those same that same category, right? I mean if we're trying to really look at um the category of preschools, kindergartens, elementary schools um to me fall right in line with movie theaters bowling golf bowling mini golf, batting cages, and arcades. Right? I mean that's that's No, to me it doesn't.

does more in line with the 500 ft allotted to place of worship, public park, uh or the community center. So, I'm more in line with the 500 ft for Okay. those as opposed to the 1,000 ft has to do more with education and centers. Mhm. I'd like to see it nestled underneath 1,000 ft. Um where we we have you are We disagree, which is I love that. Um but this is democracy, and that's what we're here for. Um I'd like to hear from the rest of the commission. Okay, we stick with the 500 ft. 500 ft.

I do I think 500 ft is Yeah. Okay. As far as the recommended motion, all right. And And I agree. With what? 500 ft. Okay, 500 ft. Um before you guys go for a vote, um this is since it's a public hearing, you can please ask the audience again if there's anyone else who'd like to speak. Yeah. And if there's not, then you can close the public hearing and take a vote, please. Okay, I'm still still looking for comments from everyone.

Um I think that we I I think with the with the the lot changing it from building to lot the the line of the lot the the lot line, um but then but then not making not considering 1,000 ft Not not Yes, not considering 1,000 But it says that already. The distance shall be measured from lot line to lot line for the properties in which businesses are conducted or proposed. Oh, I thought we discussed the number I thought it was That is the building three. Okay.

That's something that we can look at when it goes to council because everything that we're looking at over here says from buildings Lot line to lot line is for churches and schools. Okay. The building to building is residential. Okay, What structure, right? Yeah. So, you'll you'll need to define that. So, that the motion that we're making right now is just a is a is a recommended recommendation to the council. Um and then staff will have to review that and make sure it makes sense, right? Okay.

Um so, as I understand it, um the only major change that that that the commission is suggesting at this point um for the motion is uh the property line. Do I still understand that correctly? Yes. Yeah. Yes. Well, you guys don't all have to agree right now. That's why you make a motion and then you take your vote and then you find out whatever you want. Yeah, I just like I would like to have someone be able to read a We've had a bunch of discussion here.

So, if we have a you know, say I propose this with this this amendment, then we can say yay or nay. We we agree or disagree and etc. So, um and then um you're saying in advance of um making decision we should open up the public this is a public hearing. So, if anybody after hearing the discussion still would like to talk, Okay. they can and then be free to take a motion and close the public hearing. Okay.

And I do have um I do have another So, we will um we will open this up to um discussion since this is a public hearing. I do have a Dave Hendricks who wants to speak. Hi. Thank you, commissioners. Um Dave Hendricks, I spoke with you guys with you guys before. Um I want to clarify um the reason for the what my wife asked was 750 ft. If you go ahead and vote this 500 ft in, it still puts a landing strip, like she said, between us and Camp Tatiya, which does no good.

So, you're still putting that business right between these two uh bus- right between two prop- properties that are meant just for kids and adults. I mean, kids and adults for both of them cuz the Camp Tatiya is for handicapped adults and kids. So, we were asking for the 750, thousand's great, but 750 does it. 500 ft does not take care of that. And so, when a kid comes to our park, is he any less important than a kid at a church or a kid at a school? I don't think so.

You know, I've said this before. If it isn't 750 ft, you they can still go in and put it. And I know that this guy has withdrawn, but that doesn't mean that somebody else can't come in and do it. And anybody who wants it by them, then, you know, have at it. But we like my wife said, she was just assaulted by somebody that was on marijuana. We're so tired of it, we're ready to leave. And we've invested a lot of money in this town, and we're just getting very sick of it, okay?

When we start getting assaulted, it's about enough. And it's always marijuana. So, you guys have maybe never had to deal with that. I'm saying you guys cuz I'm not addressing one person, everybody the council. But we're getting tired of dealing with it. We do not want this this business in this community. We came from Colorado, it ruined that state. Okay? I came to Arizona, and now everybody in this town wants to give up their morals just for money.

There's a lot of other ways to make money than doing this. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Any Do any Do anybody have any questions for Mr. Hendrix? No. Um I love the suggestion of uh 750 ft. Um want to float that also. We're still thinking of 500 ft. Are there spots in town that have 750? You know, 7 750 a thousand is pretty much going to limit I And I didn't close the public uh comment section. Yeah. Well, no, my mistake. Still I'm still falling into the role here. Okay.

So, um would someone like to entertain a motion? I mean, someone like to make a motion. There's uh on the D2 at the bottom, there's the uh recommended motion, and we can just make adjustments to that. Are we making the motion on the 500 ft or the 750 ft? Um that's up to you what motion you would like to make. We've discussed Motion? So, the recommended motion is on So, if you scroll down to the bottom of the On page 21. Okay, thank you. Page 21, there we go. Okay. Do you want my computer?

I have it pulled up. All right, I'll give it a try.

I move to make a motion the town council amend section 17.102 medical marijuana section 17.102.050 medical marijuana dispensaries no cultivation only in C-1 light commercial zoning districts section C as follows revise subsection C2 to read shall not exceed a maximum of 4,000 gross square feet and amend subsection C5 to add the following shall not be located within 500 ft of a facility devoted to family recreation or entertainment including uh recreation or entertainment and any sport facilities.

I second that motion. Okay, we have a motion and second. Mike, just clarify what you guys if that this is what you meant to say because I think what you guys' discussion was was to take out devoted to family recreation and entertainment because that would include restaurants. It was you were going to take that part out but including but not limited to movie theaters, bowling alleys, miniature golf facilities, and sporting facilities.

Well, I I would categorize sporting facilities for everything but you're right. Shall not be within 500 ft of a facility The discussion about dropping that language was if we moved it from greater than 500 You could say 500 ft of a a movie theater, bowling alley, miniature Okay, yeah, movie theater, bowling alley, or other sport facilities. Um Christie also um I think we had talked about a property line consideration as opposed to Um that is not Well, That's in one of them.

I don't remember which one if it's um um medical or or recreational. We don't have the lot Oh, we did the 500 cuz because we're doing the the 500 ft you guys could add in there to you could because we're talking about the distance you could add the wording from the building the building in this case a marijuana dispensary to the lot line, right? to the lot line or to the to the setback line of the property.

We discussed both and The setback line would include in a uh if there's not a building there, that would include it at some point. To the setback order. Okay, 500 ft to the setback line. Yeah. Okay. That's going to be 250 on residential. Yeah. To the setback line is okay. Would you like to redo that? That was No. No, okay. Um Let me read the changes and see if I've got it. Yes, yeah. Thank you. Okay, so we're going to amend subsection C.5 to amend the following.

Shall not be located within 500 ft to the setback of a facility devoted to a family recreation or entertainment including but not limited to movie theaters bowling alleys and sporting miniature golf and miniature golf and then sporting facilities. And arcade, sorry, arcades is on my list. Okay. And we're dropping the family recreation entertainment. Yeah. Correct. All right, then we do this over again, right? Yes, that was That was a motion. There's a motion on the table. Yeah.

If you guys agree with that, you'll need a second. With his motion? Yeah, they read it back, so yes. Um I second that. Good. All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your right hand. I can't see yours. Yeah. So we have 1 2 3 4 5 4 all abstaining or all objecting. Um and that'll be one. So, shall we move to D1? Okay. My apologies everyone for that error. Don't worry. Um okay. Yeah, you should you should have found a letter from Mr. Miller's resignation. Yeah. In there.

Yeah. Has everyone had an opportunity to review the letter of resignation? Yes. Can you announce that item? Okay. I apologize. So, D1 is discussion discussion and possible action regarding the selection of a planning and zoning chair and vice chair for 2026 and 2027. Um Chairman Miller has resigned. And I'm currently sitting in that seat um because as vice chair, the town code dictates we need to choose a chair and vice chair at this time.

Um So, anybody have any discussions or questions or thoughts? I would volunteer to chair if nobody else is interested. I and I would volunteer to to continue as chair. I'll second that. You'll second. Yes, and then I volunteer you for vice chair. Um for you vice chair. We were talking about chair at this point. I know. What you guys could do is maybe offer why you think you'd be a good chairman and then let your fellow commissioners make a have a discussion about it. Okay. Yeah.

So, I'd be interested in chairing. I have chaired been president for two HOAs. I'm used to running meetings of this structure, keeping them succinct, keeping them in order. I was president for one HOA for five years and the other HOA, it's been three years and I still reside as president of the HOA. The structure of the meeting, the format of the meeting is exactly the same. So, it's a something that's very familiar for me. Okay.

Uh do you not do you not have any any relationships or jobs or anything that would would you can do that? Correct. Okay. I'm retired. You're Okay, very good. Very good. Okay. And so, you're volunteering to be chair. Okay. Volunteering to be considered for chair to be considered for chair. Love it. Um and um yep, and I'm I currently hold the position of vice chair. So, um I wouldn't challenge that. Anybody have Do you want to talk about why you want to be chair? vice chair.

Oh, you want to be vice Yeah, just a whole Yeah. So, this is simple. That makes it simple. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'll make a motion. Right. If there's any other discussion. Any other discussion? Okay. You make a motion to Okay. Where do we I got to get find this. Sorry. I'm all over the place. You're now on page 18. Page 18. Okay. I move I I make a motion. I move to appoint David Wesley um as No. No, sorry. Jeff Sterns as chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

And I move Do we have to vote on that? Or do we can we do both of them? You can do it together. Okay. I move to appoint David Wesley as the vice chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And I second the emotion. Um do we have a motion and a second? Um all in favor? And that carries unanimously. Would like to for spots for D3. Or would you like to just take the gallery again? All right. And I think we have all of the Hey, very good. Let me get back up here.

Okay, item D3, public hearing discussion consideration regarding amending town code chapter 17.114 recreational marijuana. Frank, do you want to take us through that? We pretty much discussed most of it anyway but Yeah, let me get So essentially the only part of this is is that section of like the uh theaters and family. So, I think you could make an make a motion to amend it to say what D2 said. And keep it as simple as that. Make a motion to keep it in line with the verbiage as adopted for D2.

Okay. We we still have to open it up to the public. Yeah. Yeah, it's still public hearing. Yep. So, let's open it up at public hearing. Any comments from the public? Did you have any cards to talk on this D3? No, we don't have any more cards. Um I think um Mr. McCormick had uh I'm sorry, Mr. Engles um had uh spoken on D2 and D3 during D2. Is that right? Yeah, I I've spoke on D3. You had D2 and D3. I had some notes here for D3. I think recreational is different than medical. Come on up.

Commission staff, I had a note on the recommendations and you folks probably see that you have a one item there for the recommended motion. I had made it item number two and it said remove use the words residential property line, not use exterior wall.

And I think that was covered in the D2, but I can't help but think that's an important issue for the community that we reside in and um briefly talking with the town manager, she said she could make some of these changes for the recommendation that would go to the town council for them to discuss. So, if you're comfortable in in what you've done already tonight and plan to do the same thing, I guess that's okay.

I just I would say that sitting through the work session 2 weeks ago being public and not being able to speak some of these issues that maybe came up that night to talk about. And I think one of the commissioners did mention about the lot line concern, but to read it in here as I did, I just think that that is an important thing for the council to consider. So, thank you for your time tonight. Thank you, Ralph. I have a just a quick response to that if you don't mind.

Yeah so regarding this is something I learned tonight just regarding work sessions and public comment. Like so in order So, no what the town code 17-116-060 reads regarding what what section subsection C and the the second sentence says no call to the public shall be scheduled during work sessions. I'm sorry, Vice Chair. That's not this is this is not on this agenda item. We can't talk about that. I see. I see. Okay, I thought we might You can bring that back at a later date though.

Okay, fair enough. All right, then if there's no further public comment, I'll make a motion that we adopt All right, I have to close hearing. Okay, close the public hearing. Thank you. If I did the same there's no further comment, close public hearing. Um and I will make a motion associated with D3 that we adopt the exact same verbiage as identified in D2. Um noting the um um I the same verbiage as identified in in D2 and just keep it simple. I second that. Go ahead, Larry.

All right, any discussion on the motion? No discussion noted. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Okay. Very good. Any against? One. So, the motion passes. Very good. I believe that is everything on the agenda that we had for this evening. Sure. Yes, it is. Uh if there's no further comments, you will adjourn