Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marijuana Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perrysburg council rejects ordinances to add adult-use and medical dispensaries after extended debate
Summary
After extended debate and public comment, Perrysburg City Council voted down three ordinances that would have added a new zoning category and definitions for medical and adult-use cannabis. Council split along local-values and economic-development lines.
Perrysburg City Council debated three related ordinances that would have amended the city zoning code and definitions for marijuana businesses, then voted them down.
The council considered Ordinance 9-2025 (a change to the city—s medical-marijuana definition), Ordinance 10-2025 (changes to the use table in the zoning code), and Ordinance 11-2025 (adding a new zoning section, codified as 12.35.04 AAA, for medical marijuana and/or adult-use cannabis). After extended discussion and public comment, councilmembers rejected the motions to pass all three measures.
The outcome matters because the ordinances would have established how and whether marijuana dispensaries, cultivation and related uses can operate inside Perrysburg city limits. Supporters argued the changes would let the city accept lawful, regulated businesses and could help economic development. Opponents said the community—s values and concerns about youth and high-THC products counseled caution and argued medical access could be handled elsewhere until council develops a narrower, standalone medical-marijuana ordinance.
Council discussion was substantive and divided. Several councilmembers said they would not support wide-open adult-use dispensaries but expressed sympathy for medical users; others said decisions about allowing legal businesses should be left to consumers and the marketplace. City staff explained the technical effect of the drafting: Ordinance 9 would move and expand the code definition so Ordinances 10 and 11 could apply consistently. Staff warned that passing only the definition without the corresponding zoning language would leave the code inconsistent.
On the votes, the roll-call tallies in the record were: Ordinance 9-2025 (motion to pass): Yes — Councilmembers Kevin Fuller, Corey Coleman, Rick Reddick; No — Councilmembers Van Heusen, Mark Weber, Miss Wellstein, Rick McCarthy (result: motion failed, 3–4). Ordinances 10-2025 and 11-2025 (motion to pass): Yes — Fuller, Coleman, Reddick; No — Weber, Wellstein, McCarthy, Van Heusen (motion failed, 3–4). The meeting record does not show the ordinances subsequently being scheduled for another vote that night.
Councilmembers who spoke during the debate emphasized different priorities: some framed the vote as a matter of community norms and public safety; others emphasized property-rights and business attraction. Staff indicated that if council wants only medical dispensaries, the drafting would need to be reworked and separate ordinance language introduced.
Because the council voted down the three ordinances, the city—s zoning and code remain unchanged as of this meeting. Several councilmembers said the issue could return to committee for a narrower, medical-only framework or after a moratorium if the council chooses that path.
Ending: The record shows council members and staff agreed to continue deliberations if the proposals are reintroduced in amended form; no new medical-only ordinance was adopted at this meeting.
