A Resolution of the Board of Trustees for the Town of Palisade, Colorado, Affirming the Decision of Hearing Officer Care’ McInnis in Regard to the Town’s Denial of a Retail Marijuana Store License Application and a Retail Marijuana Manufacturing License Application Submitted by La Patronas, LLC D/B/A Herbz. WHEREAS, on or about July 7, 2017, La Patronas, LLC d/b/a Herbz filed an application for a retail marijuana store license and a retail marijuana manufacturing license; and WHEREAS, on or about August 4, 2017, Lindsey Chitwood, the Palisade Town Clerk, on behalf of the Palisade Local Licensing Authority issued a letter to La Patronas, LLC denying the applications submitted based on at least seven (7) substantial errors in the applications; andAdvertisment
WHEREAS, on or about August 24, 2017, Ed Sittner, on behalf of La Patronas, LLC, sent an email to the Palisade Town Clerk indicating that he was appealing the decision to deny the applications “in full”; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 6-18(b) of the Palisade Municipal Code, the Board of Trustees, acting as the Palisade Local Licensing Authority, duly appointed Care’ McInnis as a Hearing Officer to hear the appeal filed by La Patronas, LLC on September 12, 2017; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2017 Hearing Officer Care’ McInnis issued a decision without a hearing recommending the denial of the appeal filed by La Patronas, LLC on the grounds that new and modified required information in an attempt to correct deficiencies was submitted past the deadline and on the grounds that substantial amendments to previously filed applications are not authorized by the Palisade Municipal Code, a copy of said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF PALISADE, COLORADO: Section 1. The recommendation of Hearing Officer Care’ McInnis is hereby affirmed and adopted by the Board of Trustees acting as the Palisade Local Licensing Authority. Section 2. The retail marijuana store license application and the retail marijuana manufacturing license application submitted by La Patronas, LLC d/b/a Herbz is hereby denied for the reasons stated in the Town Clerk’s letter of August 4, 2017 to La Patronas, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and hereby incorporated herein by this reference. APPEAL LETTER: September 28, 2017 Town of Palisade, Board of Trustees Mayor Granat 175 East 3rd Street Palisade, CO 81526-0128 firstname.lastname@example.org Mayor Granat and Members of the Board of Trustees, As a Hearing Officer for the Town of Palisade, I was asked to preside over the appeal process concerning the application for a retail marijuana business license submitted by La Patronas, LLC, on July 7, 2017. I have reviewed all of the local and State regulations governing this process, as well as all related correspondence specific to this case. My review of correspondence is limited to the exhibits listed below and attached hereto. I have not relied upon or reviewed any direct correspondence between interested parties, should any exist. I have enacted Rules of Procedure for the hearings. The Town of Palisade published the “NOTICE OF TOWN OF PALISADE RETAIL MARIJUANA APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE”, (hereinafter referred to as “Notice”), in the Daily Sentinel June 28, 2017. (See Exhibit “A”) Pursuant to the Notice the deadline to submit applications was July 7, 2017. Pursuant to the Notice the Town Clerk was required to notify the applicant in writing of any deficiencies and allow the applicant to correct such deficiencies within (15) days of such notice. On August 4, 2017, the Town Clerk, Ms. Chitwood, notified La Patronas, LLC, in writing that the submittal of the application was denied. Ms. Chitwood notified La Patronas that The Town of Palisade was not able to process the application, based upon a number of material errors in the original application. (See Exhibit “B”) The application was neither approved, nor denied at that time. It was not processed due to material errors, or in other words, the Town of Palisade determined it was incomplete. Although no decision had been made on the merits of the original application, on August 24, 2017, La Patronas notified Ms. Chitwood of an intent to appeal the decision via email. (See Exhibit “C”) On August 24, 2017, La Patronas responded in writing to the stated errors and omissions through Madeline Jacklin of Russell Planning & Engineering. (See Exhibit “D”) Among other responses, La Patronas requested that the Town of Palisade, “Please disregard the original operating plan and refer to the updated Retail Operating Plan and new MIP Operating Plan.” The La Patronas application forms and supplemental documentation were either: 1. Incomplete. New and modified required information was submitted August 24, 2017. The Notice found in Exhibit “A”, clearly allows only (15) days from from August 4, 2017 to correct any deficiencies, or 2. Untimely. In requesting that the Town of Palisade disregard the original operating plan, and refer to the updated Retail Operating Plan and new MIP Operating Plan, La Patronas submitted an entirely new application outside of the application deadline of July 7, 2017. Additionally, the Board of Trustees recently confirmed that amendments are not authorized. Therefore, there is no ripe appeal upon which evidence could be presented, and further findings of fact and law cannot be made by a Hearing Officer. In good faith, it is my conclusion that my services as a Hearing Officer are no longer necessary in this case, and La Patronas has failed to adequately apply for a Retail Marijuana Business License in the Town of Palisade. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Care’ McInnis Hearing Officer Town of Palisade
In an effort to be an unbiased source of information, all text in this summary comes directly from government resources.