Earlier this week, this publication talked about how the City’s Planning Commission was undertaking a discussion about prohibiting most cannabis operations in the community and was going to make a recommendation to city council. For background, the previous article is below.
As expected, the Planning Commission made a unanimous recommendation to prohibit cannabis cultivators and dispensaries in the community. The Planning Commission also recommended amending the city’s zoning code to allow cannabis testing laboratories in the M-3, General Industrial District, because the state law did not allow for communities to completely “zone out” such facilities. The full report from the Planning Commission is below.
On Monday, October 14th at 6:00 p.m., City Council’s Community and Economic Development Committee will meet after the Finance Committee to talk about this recommendation from the Planning Commission and possibly make their own recommendation to City Council to prohibit most cannabis operators from the community.
One of the interesting aspects of this measure is that the Community and Economic Development Committee is moving ahead on making a recommendation on this amendment to the zoning code, without the benefit of hearing input through a public hearing. Under traditional procedures, the City Council would hold a first reading of the ordinance, then a second reading of the ordinance the same night of a public hearing. After the second reading and the public hearing, a city council committee would discuss the measure and then make a recommendation to City Council for the third reading of the ordinance and the final vote. This procedure is in line with the zoning code as outlined below:
It is clear that the City Council has received a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission on the proposed amendments to the zoning code and both Section 1139.08 and Section 1139.09 are clear — there should be a public hearing.
Last year, City Council adopted an ordinance that changed the zoning code that allowed for beekeeping in certain residential areas. That ordinance changed the text of the zoning code and went through the complete three reading process and also had a public hearing that well attended.
Why No Public Hearing?
The rush to get this legislation passed, which could end up being an emergency ordinance, in its final form, is to ensure that something is adopted before the current moratorium expires on November 28th.
Considering that the First Reading of this Ordinance is expected to be on October 21st. Council could take the extraordinary measure of adopting the zoning code amendment after the First Reading by suspending the three reading rule and adopting the measure that night. Once signed by the Mayor, the ordinance comes effective thirty days later, which would be November 20th, just under the November 28th deadline.
But, if council were to take the ordinance to three full readings (as it does with zoning amendments), the second reading and traditional public hearing would not occur until November 4th and if it was pushed to a third reading the earliest an ordinance could be adopted would be November 18th. If the measure needed to go to a second or third reading, the measure would have to be adopted as an emergency measure, since it would become effective upon the signature of the Mayor, without the thirty-day waiting period.
Keeping Residents Out of the Process
It’s worth remembering that in last year’s election on Issue 2, which allowed for recreational cannabis in the State of Ohio, voters within the City of Troy, approved the measure in the general election by a 52% to 48% margin.
But regardless how one feels about recreational cannabis, this expedited process of adopting a zoning amendment without going through the procedures outlined in the zoning code, including not holding a public hearing, is not healthy for our local civic discourse.
This appears to be a classic case of local government running down the clock and cramming a piece of legislation down the throats of city council at the absolute last minute. These kinds of actions aren’t fair to City Council or our residents. Our community deserves to be treated better than this.
What Do You Think?
Should the city follow its own procedures for adopting this ordinance? Our paid subscribers are welcome to leave their insights and ideas in the comment thread!
You Can Help Support This Work!
Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.
Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.
Thank you to our reader Marla E. for also purchasing today’s ice-cold iced tea. Thank you!
Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.
Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!
Here's what we do know. Not one adult user of medical or recreational cannabis in the City of Troy is going to be deterred by having to drive to a neighboring city to legally buy their products. The local stakeholders who are getting short-changed, literally, are building owners who could benefit from the property improvements and higher rents that would be delivered by the (highly regulated) cannabis-related business tenants. In fact, I can think of a number of locations right along the railroad tracks that are not desirable for other types of businesses but could be improved by housing a dispensary (though those get harder to identify with the 500-ft. park/church/school restriction). Give it twenty years, and like with everything else, the parochial fixation will fade with the curmudgeons.
Nice piece, Bill.