[[{“value”:”
Warren City Council Attorney Jeff Schroder breaks down proposed changes to the city’s marijuana ordinance at the council’s March 11 meeting.
Screenshot taken from Warren City Council meeting broadcast
WARREN — Proposed revisions to Warren’s marijuana ordinance are aiming to rectify issues the city has been grappling with for years.
The Warren City Council unanimously approved a first reading of the updated sections of the ordinance at its March 11 meeting. City Council Secretary Mindy Moore was excused from the meeting.
Jeff Schroder, the City Council’s attorney, explained the proposed changes. The city council would no longer vote on extensions of marijuana renewal applications. Schroder pointed out that the council had to approve three of these kinds of extensions earlier in the March 11 meeting. He said by taking it out of the council’s hands it would become a decision for the city’s Building Department to make. Another change would put construction code violations in front of the city’s Construction Board of Appeals.
Schroder said the most controversial change alters how adult-use licenses are distributed. The new ordinance would eliminate the Marijuana Review Committee, which was established in 2019. He explained that the committee held closed door meetings to determine which businesses received a license. He said the legality of the committee bounced around the state’s court system.
“Ultimately, the (Michigan) Supreme Court said these closed-door meetings violated the Open Meetings Act,” Schroder said. “They weren’t held in public, and they were making these decisions and interviewing people and deciding who gets a license and who didn’t. At that time, now we hear the industry is suffering a little bit, but at that time these were considered to be very valuable licenses and everybody who applied really wanted one.”
Schroder estimated that the court fees to defend the city probably cost taxpayers over $1 million. He said the prior council set the adult-use retail limit at zero during the pending litigation. The changing ordinance removes this, making the amount unlimited. However, Schroder qualified what unlimited means in this context.
“It’s not unlimited because it’s dependent on the zoning ordinance,” he said. “A zoning ordinance was passed in 2019 that severely restricts where marijuana facilities can be located in the city.”
In an email following the meeting, Councilman Jonathan Lafferty said there was less urgency to open shops than there was in 2018. He said the zoning that would be used keeps marijuana shops from showing up “on every block.” He said zoning requirements are “strict,” and competition will drive where shops open.
Lafferty clarified in the email what a first reading of the ordinance means. He pushed back on the idea of the change being sudden, which was alleged during public comment.
“The act of placing the item on the agenda is the notice,” Lafferty stated. “The first reading begins the process of notifying the public that we are taking up an ordinance with the intent to modify it. This is in addition to two public hearings held in 2019 by the planning commission and city council regarding the zoning locations and restrictions — which is fully preserved in this process.”
Lafferty supported the ordinance change.
“I don’t like marijuana. I don’t smoke it, and I can’t stand the smell,” Lafferty said at the meeting. “What I dislike even more is missing out on the taxable revenue as I watch people who live here leave Warren and spend their money in other cities.”
Councilman Henry Newnan also spoke in support of the change. He said he used to smoke marijuana but no longer does. He advocated for better policing for those driving under the influence.
“We’ve inherited this situation, basically this mess, and we’re doing the best we can to sort it out,” he said. “I support this move that we’re making tonight. I haven’t heard any good arguments to not (make the change). I am curious about fine-tuning it.”
The updates to the ordinance drew criticism and praise during the public comment portion of the meeting. Concern about the odor of marijuana was a common thread between the public commenters and members of council.
Lori Harris, acknowledging the legality of marijuana and the business climate, was concerned about the smell.
“How about if you have one by your house for seven years right next door where they don’t want to change the filter where you smell it all the time,” Harris said. “I mean, this is ridiculous.”
Boyd Morson was concerned about residents smoking marijuana in rental properties and the smell that could reach other tenants. He echoed Lafferty and Newnan’s comments. He suggested having smoking designated for particular areas on the premises or having a way to offset the odor.
“Some of these places have seniors, our most seasoned people in our community, and have our little babies that’s growing up in our community,” Morrison said. “Yet, the smell that you both spoke about, is something that you smell when you walk into these particular buildings, which I think is a disrespect to those who don’t smoke.”
Lafferty, acknowledging Morson’s concerns, said it is up to the landlords to put those types of restrictions in a tenant’s rental agreement.
Greg Donahoe said the ordinance change was “uncalled for.”
“There’s been no public discussions, no public hearings, no sense of where an unlimited amount may be located,” Donahoe said. “I can tell you, they will be disproportionately located in economically distressed and diverse areas as opposed to more well-to-do areas.”
He also disagreed with how the change was happening.
“If the explanation comes out that this has something to do with a lawsuit, all of you should push back hard on that,” he said. “It usurps your role as legislators and our role as voters. Whether or not we’re even going to have retail establishments is a question that should be put to the voters. The state law enabling this allows that.”
Attorney Aaron Geyer wanted a wider range of hours for marijuana businesses but, in general, supported the change.
“Yes, this is the logical way to do this,” he said.
Mark Abraham, who owns marijuana business Vendco Michigan, spoke in support of the change.
“I’m here to say thank you. Thank you for getting it to this point,” Abraham said. “I don’t know how you’re going to vote. I certainly hope that we get this past the finish line. It’s way overdue.”
Police and fire millage renewal slated for August ballot
Council also unanimously approved, in two votes, to add a renewal of the levy of 4.6083 mills for the police and fire safety millage to the Aug. 5 ballot.
Schroder confirmed, following questioning by Lafferty, that the Michigan Attorney General’s office would have to OK the proposal’s language before it appears on the ballot. If this happens, it bounces back to the council to approve the updated language.
The language, allowing voters to choose yes or no, is set to be on the ballot as follows:
Shall section 9.1 of the Warren City Charter be amended to continue the annual levy of up to 4.6083 mills on taxable value of property located in the city for five (5) years, to sustain police and fire safety protection? If renewed this millage would renew the police and fire safety protection millage levy expiring after the 2025 levy, beginning with the July 2026 levy and continuing through the 2030 levy. This millage will raise in the first year of such levy estimated revenues of $21,289,998. Shall the additional local police and fire safety protection millage be approved?
“}]] WARREN — Proposed revisions to Warren’s marijuana ordinance are aiming to rectify issues the city has been grappling with for years. Read More
