Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Regulation Marijuana topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Willowick council debates local rules for marijuana dispensaries, keeps planning commission recommendations largely intact
Summary
Council members discussed proposed local licensing, signage, fee levels and a one‑facility cap for marijuana dispensaries; most council members signaled support for the planning commission’s recommendations and the measure remains scheduled for second reading on June 9.
Willowick City Council spent an extended portion of its meeting reviewing proposed local rules for marijuana dispensaries, including an annual licensing fee, sign restrictions, a one‑dispensary cap and a one‑mile spacing rule.
Council members and planning staff said the draft local ordinance is based in part on planning commission recommendations and similar provisions used by nearby communities. The council president read the ordinance’s timeline — the measure was on first reading in April and is scheduled for second reading June 9 — and invited discussion on several specific sections.
Key points of debate included the proposed $17,500 annual licensing fee, which some council members said is higher than neighboring jurisdictions. One council member suggested reducing the fee to $15,000 to stay competitive; others said they preferred to retain the planning commission’s recommendation. Council discussion also focused on a sign rule that would limit dispensary signage to wall and window signs and prohibit monument or pole signs; some members said the rule was drawn from Lakewood’s code and questioned whether Willowick should adopt that restriction for a single business type.
A separate dispute concerned draft language that would cap the city at one dispensary and ban dispensaries within one mile of each other. Several council members argued the state’s siting restrictions already limit where facilities can locate and that local demand and space likely mean the city would host at most one or two facilities; others said starting with a single permitted facility would allow the city to “see how it shakes out” and reassess after a business opens.
Council members repeatedly said they relied on the planning commission’s review. After discussion, the council president summarized that the majority would leave the planning commission’s recommendations in place for now; several members said they would be open to amending the code later after monitoring operations and enforcement.
No vote was taken on the ordinance at the meeting; the matter remains scheduled for second reading on June 9.
