News (Media Awareness Project) - US MI: Planners Have Spent Much Time Addressing Marijuana |
Title: | US MI: Planners Have Spent Much Time Addressing Marijuana |
Published On: | 2011-09-20 |
Source: | Leelanau Enterprise (Lake Leelanau, MI) |
Fetched On: | 2011-09-22 06:03:21 |
PLANNERS HAVE SPENT MUCH TIME ADDRESSING MARIJUANA ZONING
Following a recent judge's ruling, attempts to regulate medical
marijuana sales through local zoning can be compared to a line in a
William Shakespeare's MacBeth - "full of sound and fury signifying
nothing."
Since the 2008 approval of a statewide referendum legalizing the use
of marijuana for medical purposes, local zoning boards and planning
commissions have been studying how to address the medical marijuana
law. And late last month, just when it appeared some were coming to a
conclusion on how best to apply zoning to the law, the state Court of
Appeals ruled commercial patient-to-patient transfers are illegal.
The decision came after Attorney General Bill Schutte and others
criticized the 3-year-old law, contending it contains gaping holes and
does not legally allow dispensaries to exist.
"We didn't feel it should be a local (zoning) issue," said Steve
Patmore, who with staff planner Kathy Egan has worked on ordinances to
address the issue in Bingham Township, Suttons Bay Township and the
Village of Suttons Bay. The approach initially taken by several local
governments was to adopt moratoriums on land use applications for
medical marijuana dispensaries. Some, like Suttons Bay, Bingham and
Elmwood townships, have adopted or have scheduled public hearings on
zoning amendments to address the law. Leelanau Township approved a
second, six-month moratorium on permits late last month.
Elmwood Township was the first community in the county to address the
issue this spring when it adopted regulations that allowed the
cultivation and sale of medical marijuana as its six-month moratorium
ended. The ordinance allows for activities along the commercial
corridor along M-22 from Carter Road north to just south of Cherry
Bend Road. Cultivation is allowed on specific parcels along Carter
Road.
Supervisor Jack Kelly remains pleased with his community's
effort.
"It was a situation that was evolving over time," he said. "We agreed
that the best course of action was to be proactive."
He estimates the cost of developing and adopting the ordinance at
about $5,000.
Elmwood Township was the only community in the county which had a
commercial "collective" within its boundaries. The M-22 Collective,
which was along South West Bay Shore Drive, has since closed.
A public hearing on proposed language in Suttons Bay Township has been
scheduled as part of planners next meeting Oct. 5. The township took a
different approach than that followed in Elmwood.
The language would allow authorized marijuana "caregivers" to operate
from their private residences -- one caregiver per residence -- and
allow each caregiver to serve up to five medical marijuana patients.
The caregivers must deliver the marijuana to their patients.
The amendment allows for the cultivation and distribution of the
material from private homes, but not from storefront "collectives" or
"dispensaries" -- the types of businesses that have since been banned.
Similar language is also under consideration in Bingham Township.
"We've spent a lot of staff time keeping up on court rulings and
information from the Michigan Townships Association," Patmore said.
"But I don't think it's been that expensive because we've tried to
schedule our public hearings on the nights of regular meetings."
Cost of placing a legal advertisement in the local paper announcing a
public hearing runs anywhere from $40 to $80.
The Village of Suttons Bay already has an ordinance in place that
identifies the "industrial" district as the place for medical
marijunana operations. Leland Township planners have prepared language
that is part of a package of ordinance revisions expected to be set
for public hearing yet this fall.
Elsewhere in the county, Solon, Centerville, Kasson, Glen Arbor and
Empire townships have taken no action to address the new law which
could be impacted by future court rulings and proposed
legislation.
"It became a burden for us as planners to deal with it," Patmore said.
"We've felt it was a (state) enforcement issue. The referendum left a
lot of room for interpretation."
Following a recent judge's ruling, attempts to regulate medical
marijuana sales through local zoning can be compared to a line in a
William Shakespeare's MacBeth - "full of sound and fury signifying
nothing."
Since the 2008 approval of a statewide referendum legalizing the use
of marijuana for medical purposes, local zoning boards and planning
commissions have been studying how to address the medical marijuana
law. And late last month, just when it appeared some were coming to a
conclusion on how best to apply zoning to the law, the state Court of
Appeals ruled commercial patient-to-patient transfers are illegal.
The decision came after Attorney General Bill Schutte and others
criticized the 3-year-old law, contending it contains gaping holes and
does not legally allow dispensaries to exist.
"We didn't feel it should be a local (zoning) issue," said Steve
Patmore, who with staff planner Kathy Egan has worked on ordinances to
address the issue in Bingham Township, Suttons Bay Township and the
Village of Suttons Bay. The approach initially taken by several local
governments was to adopt moratoriums on land use applications for
medical marijuana dispensaries. Some, like Suttons Bay, Bingham and
Elmwood townships, have adopted or have scheduled public hearings on
zoning amendments to address the law. Leelanau Township approved a
second, six-month moratorium on permits late last month.
Elmwood Township was the first community in the county to address the
issue this spring when it adopted regulations that allowed the
cultivation and sale of medical marijuana as its six-month moratorium
ended. The ordinance allows for activities along the commercial
corridor along M-22 from Carter Road north to just south of Cherry
Bend Road. Cultivation is allowed on specific parcels along Carter
Road.
Supervisor Jack Kelly remains pleased with his community's
effort.
"It was a situation that was evolving over time," he said. "We agreed
that the best course of action was to be proactive."
He estimates the cost of developing and adopting the ordinance at
about $5,000.
Elmwood Township was the only community in the county which had a
commercial "collective" within its boundaries. The M-22 Collective,
which was along South West Bay Shore Drive, has since closed.
A public hearing on proposed language in Suttons Bay Township has been
scheduled as part of planners next meeting Oct. 5. The township took a
different approach than that followed in Elmwood.
The language would allow authorized marijuana "caregivers" to operate
from their private residences -- one caregiver per residence -- and
allow each caregiver to serve up to five medical marijuana patients.
The caregivers must deliver the marijuana to their patients.
The amendment allows for the cultivation and distribution of the
material from private homes, but not from storefront "collectives" or
"dispensaries" -- the types of businesses that have since been banned.
Similar language is also under consideration in Bingham Township.
"We've spent a lot of staff time keeping up on court rulings and
information from the Michigan Townships Association," Patmore said.
"But I don't think it's been that expensive because we've tried to
schedule our public hearings on the nights of regular meetings."
Cost of placing a legal advertisement in the local paper announcing a
public hearing runs anywhere from $40 to $80.
The Village of Suttons Bay already has an ordinance in place that
identifies the "industrial" district as the place for medical
marijunana operations. Leland Township planners have prepared language
that is part of a package of ordinance revisions expected to be set
for public hearing yet this fall.
Elsewhere in the county, Solon, Centerville, Kasson, Glen Arbor and
Empire townships have taken no action to address the new law which
could be impacted by future court rulings and proposed
legislation.
"It became a burden for us as planners to deal with it," Patmore said.
"We've felt it was a (state) enforcement issue. The referendum left a
lot of room for interpretation."
Member Comments |
No member comments available...