Nearly a month after deciding to shut down MS Support for odor violations, Ouray County commissioners have decided to grant the controversial Log Hill Mesa cannabis facility an extra two months to close up shop.
In exchange, MS Support can’t appeal permit denial or sue county for damages
Nearly a month after deciding to shut down MS Support for odor violations, Ouray County commissioners have decided to grant the controversial Log Hill Mesa cannabis facility an extra two months to close up shop.
Commissioners on Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution notifying the grower that Ouray County would not renew its cultivation license, backing up their Aug. 16 decision.
According to the resolution settlement, the county will allow the facility to remain open until Nov. 17 — the day before its state license expires — to allow the grower to finish its current grow cycle and remove its equipment. In exchange, MS Support will waive its right to appeal the denial, file lawsuits for monetary damages or seek a court order further delaying or preventing closure.
County staff members, Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division employees and Ouray County Sheriff ’s Office personnel will provide oversight and confirm the grower follows the order.
The agreement requires the business to continue paying a 5% excise tax on all marijuana sales and work closely with county employees during any applicable “wind-down” periods leading up to closure.
Under the original resolution’s terms, MS Support would have shut down its Melody Lane grow facility and removed or destroyed all its marijuana products by Sept. 15. However, county officials said they believed this timeline was too short and likely would have elicited legal challenges.
Although MS Support owners Daniel Castillo and Fernando Taboada have not yet signed the settlement agreement, their lawyer, Stuart Knight, indicated during Tuesday’s commission meeting that his clients would likely agree to its terms.
County Attorney Leo Caselli said Castillo and Knight are required to sign the settlement agreement by Sept. 26 for it to go into effect. If they fail to sign the agreement by then, the facility must shut down immediately.
Caselli said he drafted the agreement as MS Support has invested substantial time and money in its current grow cycle, and further legal proceedings would only stretch the county’s resources.
Despite the seemingly firm agreement draft, commissioners initially expressed some hesitation, uneager to enter a protracted process that could see it fall apart with the alternate Sept. 15 closure date fast approaching.
“Hearing the introduction that this is considered by MS Support’s counsel as the first draft of a settlement agreement and they agreed to the initial terms, all of a sudden I’m like, ‘Oh no,’” Commissioner Lynn Padgett said. “I would just say I’m fully on board if we delegate authority to the county manager and the county attorney to codify something extremely similar to the letter that’s in our packet. But if there’s a lot of back and forth and that starts to drag out into a big negotiation, then I’m not on board with that.”
In an attempt to assuage her concerns, Caselli said his office has had open and productive communication with Knight and that early conversations were positive.
“I don’t really anticipate this being a big knock-down, drag-out fight over settlement agreement terms because I think it really is pretty simple and settled at its heart. The purpose of this is just to obtain some finality for both parties and for the public,” he said.
After reviewing the settlement agreement, the board agreed to support the proposal once Caselli removed duplicate language. With the years-long ordeal seemingly behind them, commissioners said they believed giving MS Support additional time would be the ideal course of action.
“We have some finality that this matter wouldn’t get dragged out in court, and I think it’s the best possible compromise,” Commissioner Jake Niece said.
The move came after a two-day public hearing in August determined MS Support failed to address dozens of odor complaints from neighbors and meet multiple operating requirements in several county ordinances and resolutions.
Despite attempts from Castillo and Taboada to comply, commissioners found they failed to fully meet the spirit and intent of six of the seven requirements.
That failure indicated the grower didn’t show good cause during the leadup to the hearing, which made renewing its cultivation license untenable.
