Council's Economic and Community Development Committee Suggests One Adult-Use Cannabis Dispensary

A split committee agrees on a compromise position

On Monday, the Troy City Council’s Community and Economic Development Committee continued to discuss the adult use of cannabis and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed amendments to the zoning code concerning adult cannabis operators in the community.

The meeting, chaired by Council member Jeff Schilling, focused on the Troy Planning Commission's standing recommendation to prohibit adult cannabis operators within the city limits and to allow adult use testing laboratories as a permitted use in the M3 General Industrial District. The committee engaged in a nuanced discussion, considering various perspectives on the issue; which was something that the City’s Planning Commission could not find it within themselves to do. The committee’s fourty-eight minute meeting was a helpful discussion that showed that the City Council was earnest in making attempts to understand all sides of this complex issue.

Committee member Lynne Snee expressed support for allowing one adult cannabis operator within the B4 zoning district (Highway Business District) but opposed multiple operators or locations in other zoning districts. She emphasized the importance of clearly defining adult cannabis operators in the zoning code and specifying where such businesses may or may not be allowed.

Council member Phillips voiced support for this recommendation, citing medical benefits as a primary reason. He acknowledged the potential negative impacts of drug use but argued that the medical benefits for citizens with certain health issues outweighed these concerns. Phillips also suggested allocating any tax revenue from cannabis operations to the city's annual payment to the Miami County Health District and potentially to recreational programs.

Council member Susan Westfall, drawing from her 42 years of nursing experience, noted that she had observed more problems with alcohol than marijuana. She emphasized the medical benefits of cannabis for cancer patients and pain relief, supporting the idea of zoning cannabis operations in appropriate areas away from downtown.

The committee also addressed several legal questions during the meeting. City Law Director Grant Kerber was consulted on whether the city could limit cannabis operations to include only adult use dispensaries, as defined in Ohio Revised Code, rather than using the broader term "cannabis operator" which includes cultivators and processors. Kerber indicated that the city likely has the flexibility to treat different types of cannabis operations differently in its zoning regulations.

Another legal question concerned the possibility of a cannabis testing laboratory also functioning as a dispensary. Kerber clarified that there is currently no mechanism for this, and that testing laboratories affiliated with higher education institutions are subject to different regulations.

The committee also inquired about the city's ability to shut down a cannabis operator if issues arise in the future. Kerber was asked to verify whether Ohio Revised Code Section 3780.25 allows the City Council to pass an ordinance requiring an adult cannabis operation to cease operations, subject to potential override by a public vote.

Throughout the meeting, committee members emphasized the importance of balancing various concerns, including public health, medical benefits, and appropriate zoning. They expressed a desire to limit the number and location of cannabis operations, particularly keeping them away from the downtown area.

The discussion reflected the complex nature of cannabis regulation, taking into account state laws, local zoning regulations, and community preferences. The committee's deliberations highlighted the need for careful consideration of legal implications, public health concerns, and potential economic impacts.

As the meeting proceeded, it became clear that the committee was leaning towards a more nuanced approach than the Planning Commission's original recommendation for a total ban. The emerging consensus seemed to favor allowing a limited number of cannabis operations in specific zoning districts, with a focus on dispensaries rather than cultivators or processors.

Kerber noted that due to the complexity of the issue and the need to address various legal questions, the preparation of legislation for adult cannabis will more than likely be delayed until the December 16th meeting of the City Council and there may be a number of ordinances as part of this package. This underscores the committee's commitment to thoroughly examining all aspects of the issue before making a final recommendation to the City Council.

The meeting demonstrated the committee's efforts to navigate the complexities of cannabis regulation in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner. By considering medical benefits, potential negative impacts, zoning implications, and legal constraints, the committee aimed to develop a balanced approach that would serve the diverse needs and concerns of Troy's residents.

In the end, the Committee recommended that council adopt an ordinance allowing for adult-use cannabis testing laboratories to be permitted in the city’s heavy industrial zoning district, which is consistent with the recommendation of the City Planning Commission. However, the Committee was split on allowing one adult-use cannabis dispensary in the B4, Highway Business District. Committee members Schilling and Snee supported the amended proposal, and Committee member Pierce was not; he stated he wanted more time to study the issue.

The City’s Law Director does have a general direction on what ordinances to prepare for the December 16th meeting, and it will be interesting to see where the votes will line up for this issue. It should be noted, that since the committee recommendation for one dispensary is different from what the Planning Commission recommended, seven of the nine council members will need to vote to approve the measure in order for it to become law.

What Do You Think?

How do you feel about the amended recommendation that is recommended by the committee? Be a part of our discussion! Our paid subscribers are more than welcome to leave their ideas and insights in the comment thread!

Tell Us How You Feel About Your Community!

Our reader survey for November is looking for responses! Feel free to share your thoughts and ideas on your hometown! You can access the survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PF6SPPN

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.

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.