Richmond Heights holds vote on adult-use cannabis ban as state budget could strip local control

Richmond Heights City Council on Tuesday agreed to hold Ordinance 33‑20‑25 at third reading while the Planning Commission's report and a pending state budget bill are reviewed.

The ordinance, introduced by Council President Jordan and Mayor Thomas, would amend the city’s planning and zoning code (chapter 11.23) to add a definition of “adult‑use cannabis operators” and enact a new section (11.25.12) to prohibit adult‑use cannabis operators within city limits. Council President Jordan said the Planning Commission set up a special committee that issued a report supportive of prohibiting adult‑use operators.

The matter gained urgency after a city staff member identified a provision in a pending state budget bill that, if enacted, could remove local authority to prohibit or limit cannabis businesses and to levy certain excise taxes. Staff member Todd told council the budget bill is likely to pass in June and, once effective, would generally take effect 90 days thereafter. Todd advised council to act now if it wanted to preserve local control.

Norm Davis of the Planning Commission summarized the commission's work: "Our task was to do 2 things initially. 1 was to address the definition... Our only recommendation was to add a description of the level 1, 2, and level 1, 2, and 3 cultivators" and to recommend adding adult‑use cannabis as a prohibited use by council vote. He also described how proximity rules could limit placement of facilities, noting buffer effects: facilities cannot be within 500 feet of schools or churches and the commission examined a one‑mile spacing consideration around an existing facility in Willoughby Hills.

Several councilmembers expressed concern about losing local control over where facilities could locate and how any future state revenue would be distributed. One councilmember said, in part, "I don't want to lose the opportunity to be able to control what happens when it get[s] here," and urged the council to consider whether to add recreational marijuana to a new B‑3 commercial/general business district discussion.

Procedural steps were set: the Planning Commission's final draft report will be provided to council (staff said it would be circulated on Thursday), and council scheduled a public hearing on related zoning on May 27. Council ultimately decided to hold Ordinance 33‑20‑25 at third reading to give members time to review the Planning Commission's report and the revised legal language.

The discussion mixed zoning detail (definitions and buffer distances), procedural requirements (public‑hearing notice and timing), and a legal concern about a pending state budget bill that speakers said could preempt local authority.