Warren City Council adopts ordinance limiting adult-use retailers by zoning and sets $5,000 city license fee

Warren City Council on March 25, 2025, approved an amendment to chapter 19.5 of the city code to regulate adult-use (recreational) marijuana retail by zoning and unanimously adopted a $5,000 annual municipal license fee for adult-use retailers.

Legal counsel for the council urged the ordinance as the most likely path to end ongoing litigation tied to licenses awarded in 2019. The recommendation, and the council’s vote, came after a lengthy presentation from the city’s special legal counsel and more than two hours of public comment both for and against allowing retail marijuana in Warren.

The legal context has dominated discussion. Jeff Schroeder, the council’s special legal counsel, summarized the five-year case known in court records as Pine Brook Warren v. City of Warren and said the initial 2019 licensing process violated the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Schroeder described a long history of hearings and appeals and said the city has incurred large legal costs; he told the council the proposed zoning approach is intended to remove elected officials from “picking the winners and the losers.” Schroeder said, “The lawsuit is called Pine Brook Warren versus the city of Warren,” and later told the council, “we are in total agreement that, this is the strongest, way to end the lawsuit. We feel we feel that it will end the lawsuit.”

Why it mattered: Council members and dozens of residents debated public-safety, neighborhood-odor, economic, and fairness issues. Opponents said the changes would invite too many retailers and risk neighborhood impacts; supporters and several attorneys representing the industry said the zoning approach is a practical way to resolve protracted litigation and allow industrial redevelopment already underway.

Key facts and council action - The ordinance (second reading) passed 5–2. Recorded votes: Moore — yes; Lafferty — yes; Dwyer — no; Boiki — yes; McGee — yes; Noonan — no; Roganci — yes. The council’s legal staff will prepare a final draft for publication and the clerk will publish the ordinance as required. - The council separately approved an amendment to the city fee schedule establishing a $5,000 annual municipal license fee for adult-use retailers; that fee passed unanimously. - Schroeder said the city previously collected roughly $5,000 per location and that, statewide, he found 177 active state licenses for non‑retail operations; he also cited a 2018 local ballot measure that passed with about 59% of the vote in favor of adult use legalization.

What councilors and speakers emphasized - Legal exposure and history: Schroeder and city attorneys traced the litigation to closed-door selection processes in 2019 and named Judge Carl Marlinga and former mediator Judge Peter Massaroni as central to earlier rulings and settlement talks. Schroeder warned of continued litigation if the city again attempted a merit-based licensing committee that could be perceived as choosing winners. - Zoning limits: The ordinance restricts retail locations to specific industrial zoning classifications and keeps buffers from sensitive uses (1,000 feet from schools/school parks; 500 feet from residential lot lines, churches, planned unit developments and libraries), which proponents say sharply limits where retail can locate. - Public safety and odors: Several residents and nurses raised concerns about odor, youth exposure, and linking marijuana use to further substance abuse; industry speakers and attorneys said retail stores rarely cause off-site odors and noted state security, tracking and inspection rules. A number of speakers from both sides urged stronger enforcement of odor and nuisance rules for grow operations. - Economic and land-use effects: Schroeder and several industry speakers noted that marijuana-related businesses have already occupied industrial properties and raised taxable value. Schroeder estimated about $100 million in added taxable value to industrial properties since 2018 and said municipal revenue from fees and excise distributions can be meaningful to small-city budgets.

Public comment and community reaction Dozens of residents and business owners spoke during the audience period. Opponents called the proposal “unlimited” (a characterization council attorneys disputed, saying zoning creates a real limit) and urged councilors to prioritize children’s safety and neighborhood quality. Supporters — including attorneys with experience in cannabis-related litigation — said competitive/merit licensing processes also lead to litigation and that zoning is a defensible alternative. Multiple speakers asked whether parties to the ongoing litigation would receive priority; the city clarified that details about settlement proposals and litigation strategy were discussed in closed session and could not be disclosed.

What happens next City attorneys will prepare the ordinance in final form for publication, and the clerk will publish it according to code requirements. Council members also said staff and legal will continue to take procedural steps needed to implement the zoning approach and to coordinate enforcement with the police and building departments.

Sources: Presentation and Q&A by Jeff Schroeder, city special legal counsel; comments from Andrea Pike and Mary Michaels (city attorneys), public comments recorded in the March 25, 2025 council meeting transcript.