Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

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 again. You watch me do it though. Yes.

Oh, just do that again. I can find Oh, I can find them online. I'll just pop them right here and then I can just follow along.

All right, we'll call this meeting to order. Um, I see we have a quorum. Um, if everyone please take your uh take a moment to silence your cell phones so we don't get interrupted during the meeting and then uh 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 indivisibley 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 count 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 further agenda for consideration. Items are that are scheduled on the agenda will not be heard or discussed during the call to the public and speakers are limited to three minutes. I don't think we have any one for the call to the public. So, uh, we'll work on the consent agenda. C1 is, uh, consider, uh, approval of the planning and zoning commission regular minutes held March 12th, 2026. As 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. Has everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes? Okay, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion again to accept the uh work session minutes from April 9th, 2026. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second.

Okay. Having a first and second uh please raise your right hand if you agree. All right, that carries unanimously. Thank you. Uh 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 once for five minutes on each agenda item before or after the commission discussion. Questions from commission members? which however may be directed to staff or a member of the public uh through the chairman at any time. And we do have a a couple I will say one thing. Um items D1 and D2 are uh fairly similar. Um so if we have uh someone who wishes to speak on both um they can speak on both during uh the first agenda item. I think D2 and

did I did I miss okay D2 and D3 is

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 to D2 unless it's specifically only to D3 okay 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 500t 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 parks 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 highsecurity adult only excuse me

destination. It is a cash intensive operation that requires armed guards, statemandated ID checkpoints, and high security vaults. If the industry itself requires prison-grade security, the town must provide a 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 is approximately 1,200 ft between our park and Lion's Camp Tatier, 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 highintensity 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 Tatier 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 fail to protect our children. Thank you. You have any questions for Rachel?

Yes. You actually skipped item D1, which is the uh selection of a planning and chair and vice chair. I did, didn't I? Okay. Went right to the other one. Um Okay. Um why don't we can we continue with uh the call to the public and then revert back to um since we're on a roll here. Yeah. Okay. Uh do we have any questions for um for Rachel? anyone. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Um and with the continuity, are we okay to do that? I'm sorry. Say that. Are we okay to move uh just continue on with the call to the public on on D1 on D2?

This is not called to the public. I'm sorry. Um the public hearing on 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. Um, next up we have uh Robert Engles. I'd like to speak after I hear discussion. That's fine. Um, but you we'd need to revert back to D1. Uh, my error was I needed to to bring up D1. Actually, it won't be on um D1. 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 um 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. Um so we'll move back to D1. My apologies everyone. Um so D1 uh discuss uh 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 so confused. Okay. Yeah, I thought we were going to go ahead and finish that item. Let's Let's do that. Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. Come back. If Please don't let me forget.

Yeah. Appreciate it. Um, okay. So, would you like to present D2? D2. And this is a medical marijuana public public hearing discussion considering regarding amending the town code 17 uh 102 the medical marijuana. I'll get D2 here. It's this one. It's that one. I was one ahead of it. Okay.

So, we're like you guys to discuss the u amending of the code uh for medical marijuana that currently reads uh for a dispensary square footage of 2,000 square ft. 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 and a 2,000 square foot building is not sufficient for the type of business. Um and that's the only reason for the increase on that. 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?

Go to four. Uh there they wanted they were requesting like 3,200. Okay. Roughly. Okay. Very good. So you guys go ahead and discuss that and then we'll make a recommendation here.

All right. Shall we open up the commission for discussion? Yep. And then we'll uh Okay. Uh my opinion is if the developer was seeking the 3,200 ft, I think the 4,000 is reasonable. I've stated before I think that this is a extremely viable business uh for the uh for the town and therefore we should accommodate and raise the square footage u to the 4,000 square ft. Uh we need to send a signal that uh we are interested in the u in the business in the town of Pinetop Lakeside. Anyone else?

Can I ask a question? It is it sold that it has to be in this location or is it just anywhere within Pinetop Lakeside State limit? Um they're still looking for property. Okay. Um the the the property near the family fun park has been the the seller doesn't want to proceed with that. So that's pretty much out of the picture. But the minimum building space that they are requesting is the 4,000 square feet there. Yeah. Well, they're they're requesting that roughly 3,200. That would be the max. The max would be 4,000.

Question, Mr. Chair. Um, so D2 and D3, one is for recreational, one is for mar, and we're just discussing the two. Um, and they by state law, they have to be the same. The 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 dual 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 limit. So, it's going to be a dual license dispute. That's why it's on both of them. And there are no other areas. If say we go to a thousand because it's dangerous. Um is there any other areas within the town that could be that thousand ft as far as a setback? Yes, we're only discussing the square footage. Yeah. Well, well that's correct. Yeah. Well, right now this one we're just looking at the square footage, but that would apply to both. Yes.

Yeah. Then 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 yeah. Okay. I think I personally feel that 4,000 is is u justifiable knowing that we'll get there'll be a reputable company that comes in. Um, it's coming in. Um, so I think 4,000 is sufficient. Commissioner Katie, you were right. So there that is also an amendment on there as well. Okay. D2 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 recreational, one's for medical. Yeah. So the question is, is there are there areas in the town of Pinetop Lakeside that can match the thousand feet if that's what we so suggest to the town council? As far as the setbacks go, yes, 1,000 ft from a school. Uhhuh. It is 500 from any familyoriented type of business and a church. Yes. and 250 from a residential neighborhood.

That's what it is now or what we wanted 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 a thousand would suggest 1,000 ft. All right. That company does not want to come in into that area. They as I understand. Yeah.

Are there other areas in town that could meet that thousand ft if we recommended what the family fun park wanted? 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. Gotcha. So we need to change it from a,000 to But right now all we're discussing is the square footage of the building. No, no, no. But the 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, one's for

Yeah. But we're not there yet. We're only discussing each footage of both. It is on both. Commissioner, I'm sorry. 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 the a lotment allowed for the building size, but also the setbacks. Also, the setbacks. Okay. Sorry. Oh, yeah. No worries. We're coming to understanding. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Frank, how many feet from the family fun park to Camp TDI? Is that what extends the original proposal? I don't know the distance between that. It's roughly a thousand or so.

That site is dead, though. So, 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. And the 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 we're we're way above the state's requirements. Okay. And that's a town choosing. That is a town choosing. That's okay. Mhm.

I think if we set the f 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 ft 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,000 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 u 500 is fine. And just so you guys know, for reference, the Arizona state law is um 500 feet from schools, churches, and daycarees. Ours currently is at a thousand though, correct? For schools or something. Yeah. And this one says 1,000 ft of residentially zoned property.

Are you looking at the town code? Yeah, I'm looking in the town. Oh, maybe this is 17.102. 102.030.

That's the cultivation medical marijuana cultivation locations. That's cultivation. That's that's for cultivation. That's not dispensaries. Not the dispensaries. Okay. Other comments so far. Questions? Are we talking like a 1 acre minimum lot to be able to put in a 4,000 square ft building with 500 ft setbacks? You know, that's that's what they're looking for. I think they could probably build it on a smaller lot. Okay. But 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're not here to approve or deny any particular project or react 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 uh 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 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 fairness is 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. Engles wanted to come in.

You also need to declare a public hearing. Ah okay. So with that back to that page. Uh so public this is uh I need to read the the new business and public hearing or just declare it's a public hearing. just declare this is a 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 form afterwards.

Okay. So, we'll just go ahead and call uh make this a public hearing um and anyone who u 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 Engles at this point. Thank you, commissioners and staff. Robert Engles, Henrod 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 ex 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 200t distance. It seems that the wording in my opinion would be from the lot line in that if you have commercial property abuing 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

C1 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 uh 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 uh 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 conservation but that's part of this ordinance And it's a little different on the dispensary to residential, but I I had hoped that would be discussed tonight because I think that the way this is worded is encroaching on residential properties requiring that 250 ft. So whether 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 PAC's ordinance again this was Google I didn't have a hard copy of 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 square ft dispensary statement with a 3,000 square foot maximum if they have both the 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 of the 4,000 ft without a minimum lot size. Also, we allow a lot as small as 6,000 square ft in our C1 zoning. And to have a 4,000 ft dispensary on a 6,000 square 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.

I I know I uh go ahead um before you were you finished. Yes, definitely. 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 residential um after the dispensary is in place. I was I was looking at the reference that my reading implied that Yeah, you're it it does I thought it said exterior wall of the dispensary to the lot line to

their 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 to clarify whether or not someone who comes in um and has a vacant lot, a dispensary comes in, there's no building to to measure against um so that the next door neighbor behind that, but that would not prevent the the residents from building.

What what could be used in that case is the property setback for the building. So typically your front property, rear property are 20 ft depending on. So if the if the measurement from the dispensary wall to the setback line of the property or the building was in excess of 250 ft, it'd be fine because wouldn't meet. Right. So that would need to be an amendment to town code as I read it. Yeah. I think we could. 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 the setback setbacks of the rents. Yeah. 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 for Frank. I'm sorry. Yeah, Rob. Um, you know, given given this discussion, I mean, I' I'd love to see um to to the just just taking it kind of in order here, um that we we go either to that this the proposed amendment to the town code would include um to at very least the the setbacks um or to the property line. M

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 a thousand ft from um from a family-owned uh oriented business. And I think I I like the language I think that you have in the proposed um iPad keeps on closing here. um the recommendations to um to include um so I would I would replace the 500 with 1,000 ft from from a facility devoted to family recreation entertainment including etc. you know, so I like that language, but I'd love to see that be a thousand feet. 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 ft um, in that proposal uh, to um, amend. Um, and then

so let 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 thousand ft of a preschool, kindergarten, elementary, high school. Right. So his 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 can we fit on a parcel? Well, if they're trying to cram even a 2,000 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 Xolo 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 into neighboring lots or or what have you. Um I mean, I I don't know. Well, the the adequate parking is designed is defined in the code or the square footage of the building.

So, that is is specific that would be specific specific to the square foot of the building based on the commercial uh code. Okay. Do you happen to know right off the top? I didn't know that. But what do you happen to know that right off the top of my head? I 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? Because I mean, there's I would say I mean, just on a on a driving by, I can say 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, um, is is that something that we also need to define, um, or is that just going to be taken care of in the in the code related to I I think our code that defines parking spaces would take care of it. Okay.

Maybe it will make you feel better. Um, vice chair, um, the set of plans that they turned in originally for when they wanted to go into the family fund over next to the family fund 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 anywhere. 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 which is what I'm trying to you know consider here is is that if there's ample parking um so then you know given given that we already have that in in the town code related to commercial businesses or commercial property um you know my suggestion um to the commission is to consider um a motion that that includes um that delineation from the property line the the adjoining property line right the neighboring property line as opposed to a fictitious building or even a setback. Um and then um 1,000 ft from a a family oriented business, you know, just given the character of pine chop. 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 ft allotted. Um you know, if they need to store offsite or what have you. But I mean, the the town code has been in place already um for a 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 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 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, right?" I'd

like to add something to that. So the 2,000 ft was the size that the state put on there when they started this whole thing with the medical marijuana dispensary. 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 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 ft's not viable for a really a dual licensed 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 and making a recommendations that that's intentional um 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? I don't know if it was just on the medical or just on the recreational, but 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 duel in a 2,000 square foot with as much storage as they need and keeping them separate.

Okay. Well, thank you for that clarification. I think, you know, if it wasn't intentionally adopted uh in Pinetop. Um so then I'd just say then, you know, to go with with uh state aotted um or rather industry standards in 2,000 ft. 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 obviously the property line uh would I disagree. I think the thousand is too restrictive. I prefer the 500.

I have a question. Um this this line says um shall not be 500 ft from a facility devoted to 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 Pokemon 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,000 ft or 500 ft should be defined because that's open to interpretation. I I

that's a good point. There there's ambiguity. I agree. I mean, here's here's a you know what what what classifies a a family oriented business, right? So, do we need to go through and list out every single I mean, 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,000 or 500, we need to know what we're making that 500 to a,000 to be from. I think that's a valid point. Um, has, um, 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 g 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 something it may this is this is verbatim from PAC from Pacin. Okay. So well and and and you know I love I love looking at other towns. I mean it's great you know to say hey what are what are there other people doing? It doesn't mean that we can we need to be limited on our creativity. The commission can modify it 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 would make sure that each kind of potential uh family oriented business or could be mis or construed as a as a family oriented business. And you know what? How long does that list to be? You could probably put in there the 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 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 it'll be hardressed for me to recommend 1,000 ft with this ambiguity that we have. Anybody have any other thoughts on this? I don't want I don't want I want other people's opinions. Yeah, please.

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 uh uh business and um you know it's it's it's quite expansive uh in in the definition here. So I think if we adopt this language uh as identified in here that we maintain it at 500 ft uh so that it doesn't become overly restrictive. I think I'm my concern is at 1,000 ft. Who knows what uh somebody could um identify as a family uh recreation or entertainment. So, um, with this language, 500 ft and to, uh, go to the 4,000 square ft maximum, uh, I'm fine with.

You guys could always amend that motion to remove devoted to family recreation, 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 Pokemon card. Yeah. just side example. I you know

I think it's a great suggestion. Thank you. Um so uh you know I I like the idea then of of maybe removing the family recreation or entertainment. I mean 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 the two but removed uh devoted to family recreation entertainment and left in including but not limited to uh bowling alleys, miniature golf facilities, batt cages and arcades. Um is there more in that category that we should consider? I think you put in athletic activity. I don't know. Athletic parks. Yes. Athletic activities. Um cuz I'd be hardressed to think that a batting cages will would ever come to Pinetown 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 500 ft for that facilities.

So that's that's covered under the 500 ft of of athletic uh is that right? Did you have that pulled up right there? What item? It doesn't say athletic facilities. It says batting cage. It doesn't say athletic. No, I mean in the in the in the town code um you're in 171026. 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 foot um worship public park or community center. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. And so I almost almost would say in um in the town code that's 17102. Is that 059? No, that's 050C on the 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 is 500 ft from a facility devoted to family and recreation or entertainment um including but not limited to etc. uh the the the batting cages, movie theaters, bowling, etc. Um, I wonder if we just rem 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 1,00 ft um just there's 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 grammatic sense um is kind of where I'm thinking here. So um that reduces the ambiguity I think Derek that you mentioned. Um but also uh gives us uh a 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 it does more in line with the 500 ft a loted to the place of worship public park uh public community center. So I'm more in line with the 500 ft before. Okay. Those as opposed to the th00and ft has to do more with education and centers. Mhm. I'd like to see it nestled underneath the thousand ft. Uh we're we we have you are we disagree. I love that. Um thank this is democracy. That's what we're here for. Um I'd like to hear from the rest of the commission. I'd say we stick with the uh 500 ft.

500 ft. I do. I think 500 ft is Yeah, I think okay. As far as a recommended motion. All right. And I agree with what? 500 ft. Okay. 500 ft. Um be 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 would like to speak. Yeah. And if there's not, then you can close the public hearing before take a vote, please. Okay. I'm still still looking for comments from everyone. Um I think 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 the thousands and not not Yes. Not considering 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 I thought it was the building C building. That's that's something that we can look at when it goes to council because everything that we're looking up over here says from building lot line to lot line is for churches and schools. Okay. The building to building is residential. Okay. Was structure, right?

Yeah. So you'll you'll need to define that. So the motion that we're making right now is just a is is a recommend 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 understand that correctly? Yeah. Yes. Well, you guys don't all have to agree right now. That's why a motion gets made, then you take your vote, and then you find out whatever.

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 u you know say I propose this with this this amendment then we can say here we we agree or disagree and etc. So um and then um you're saying in advance of um making a decision we should uh open yeah this is a public hearing so anybody after hearing the discussion still would like to talk okay they can and then before you take a motion 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 Dave Hendricks who want to speak.

Hi, thank you commissioners. Um Dave Hendricks I spoke with for 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 Camtasia which does no good. So, you're still putting that business right between these two uh b right between two properties that are meant just for kids and adults. I mean, kids and adults for both of them because the Camtasia is for handicapped adults and kids. So, we were asking for the 750,000'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 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 to 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.

Anybody have any questions for Mr. Hendricks? No. Um, I love the suggestion of 750 ft. Um, wanted to float that. Also, we're still thinking the 500 ft. Are there spots in town that have 750? You know, 7 750 a,000 is pretty much going to limit it.

And I didn't close the public uh comments. Sorry. Yeah. Well, no, my mistake. I'm still still falling into the role here. Um, okay. So, um, would someone like to entertain a motion? Would someone like to make a motion?

There's uh on the DQ 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. Um, we've discussed motion. So, the recommended motion is on. So, if you scroll down to the bottom of on page 21. Okay. Page 21. There we go. Thank you, Chris. Do you want my computer? I have it pulled up.

All right, I'll give it a try. I move to uh make a motion that town council amends section 17.102 medical marijuana section 17.102.050. Medical marijuana dispensaries. No cultivation only in C-1 like 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 amend uh subsection C5 to add the following. shall not be located within 500 ft of a facility devoted to family recreation or entertainment uh including uh recreation or entertainment and any sport facilities. I second that motion. Hey, we have a motion in a second. Um,

can I just clarify what you guys This is what you meant to say because I think what your guys's 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 um including but not limited to movie theaters, bowling alleys, miniature golf facilities, and sporting facilities. Well, I thought we categorize sporting facilities for everything, but you're right. Shall not be within 500 ft of a facility. Our discussion about dropping that language was if we removed it from greater than 500. You could say 500 ft of um a movie theater, bowling alley, min.

Okay. Yeah. Movie theater, bowling alley, or other sport facilities. That's what we want. Um Christie also um I think we had talked about um a property line uh 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 u medical or or recreational. We don't have the lot. Oh, we did the 5 because we're doing 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 to the lot line or to the residence to the setback line of the property. We discussed both. The setback line would include an if there's not a building there, that would include it at some point. It's a setback or Okay. 500 ft to the setback line. Yeah. Okay. It's going to be 250 on residential. Yeah. To the setback line. Okay. Would you like to redo that? That was No. No. Okay. See if I've got it. Yes. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. So, we're going to amend subsection C5 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 arcades. Sorry, arcades is on. Okay. And we're dropping the family uh recreation entertainment. Yeah, correct. All right, then we'll do this over again, right? 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, you know, um I second that. Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second. Uh all in favor, uh please raise your right hand. I didn't see yours. Yeah, you raised it. So, we have uh one, two, three, four, five, four. All abstaining or all um objecting and let the B12.

So, shall we move to uh D1? Okay. My apologies everyone for that error. Oh. Um okay. Yeah, you should you should have found a letter from Mr. Miller's resignation. Yep. From there. Yeah. Has everyone had an opportunity to review the uh letter res? Can you announce that item?

Okay. I apologize. Um so D1 is discussion uh discussion and possible action regarding the selection of a planning and zoning chair and vice chair uh for 20 2026 and 2027. Um, chairman Miller has resigned. Um, and I'm currently sitting in that seat. Um, because as vice chair, u, but town code dictates said we need to choose a chair and vice chair. Um, at this time um, so anybody have any discussions or questions or thoughts? I would volunteer to chair um if nobody else is interested.

Okay. And I would um volunteer to to continue as chair. I'll second that. You'll second. Yes. And then I volunteer you for vice chair. Um for I elect 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 uh chairing. I have uh uh chaired been president for uh two HOAs. I'm used to running uh meetings of this structure uh keeping them succinct uh keeping them in order. Uh I was uh president for one HOA for five years and the other HOA it's been three years and I still reside as president of the uh HOA. The structure of the meeting the format of the meeting is exactly the same. So it's something that's very familiar for me.

Okay. Uh do you not u do you don't have any any relationships or uh jobs or anything like that would proclude you from doing 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. So, anybody have Do you want to talk about why you want to be chair or something? Uh, vice chair. Oh, you want to be vice chair? Just Yeah, just a whole Yeah. So, this is simple. That makes it simple.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'll make a motion. If there's any other discussion, any other discussion? Okay. You make a motion, too. Okay. Where 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 could do it together.

Okay. I move to appoint David Wesley as the vice chairman of the planning and zoning commission. I second the motion. Okay. Um do we have a motion and second? Um all in favor that carries unanimously. Would you like to switch spots for D3 or would you like to just take the gallery? All right. And I think we have all of the

Okay. Very good. Let me get back up here. Okay. Item D3, uh, 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 let me get to here. So essentially the only part of this is that section of like the uh theaters and family. So, I think you could make an make a motion to amend it to save what D2 said

and keep it as simple as that. Make a motion to keep it in line with the verbiage as uh adopted for D2. D2. Okay. We still have to open up the public. Yeah. Yeah. It's still public hearing. Yep. So, let's open it up. 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. McCormack had uh I'm sorry, Mr. Engles um had uh spoken on D2 and D3 during D2. Is that right? Yeah, I already spoke on D3. Um you had D2 and D3. Um

I had some notes here for D3. Being recreational is different than medical up. Thank you. Commission staff. Um I had a note on the recommendations and you folks uh probably see that you have a one item there for the recommended motion. I had made an 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 two weeks ago um being public and not being able to speak some of these issues that maybe came up that night uh to talk about and I think one of the commissioners uh did mention about the lot line concern but to read it and hear 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, Rob. I have a just a quick response to that if you don't mind, Marita. Yeah. Um so um regarding um this is something I learned uh tonight um just regarding um work sessions and uh public comment like um so in order um so no what the uh town code 171160 uh reads regarding what wood section subsection uh C in the uh the second sentence says no call to the public shall be scheduled during work sessions. I'm sorry, Vice Chair. That's not this that's not on this agenda item. We can't talk about that. Oh, I see. I see. Okay. I thought we might We 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 I have to close the public hearing. Okay. Close the public hearing. Thank you. I thought he did saying there's no further comment, but close public hearing. Um, and I will make a motion associated with D3 that we adopt the exact same verbiage as identified in uh D2. Um, noting the um um the same verbiage is identified in in D2 and just keep it simple. I second that. Oh, 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. Just make sure. Yes, it is. Uh if there's no further comments, we will