City officials and staff described next steps for local rules to implement a recreational cannabis vote that local voters approved by about 55–45, and councilors debated how to limit and site potential retail businesses.

The referendum result — reported in the meeting as 55–45 in favor — was raised by staff in the context of drafting local zoning and licensing rules. Staff and planning board members reported they are aiming for a September schedule for planning-board review and a council vote.

Why it matters: councilors said they want to allow legal retail operations while guarding against clustering, oversized retail outlets and negative impacts on downtown character. One resident, Jared Wilbur, urged the council to consider measuring the required 500‑foot buffer from door to door rather than from property line; he said property-line measurements could prohibit retail on large mixed‑use parcels.

Key policy options discussed: participants described several possible tools now under discussion by council staff and the planning board:
- Cap the number of retail licenses (multiple councilors discussed a cap of three in the primary commercial corridor and allowing two existing medical providers to convert).
- Use a lottery if more qualified applicants seek limited slots, rather than a merit test that could invite legal challenges.
- Define the 500‑foot buffer measurement (door‑to‑door vs. property line) to avoid unintentionally blocking operators on large parcels.
- Apply limits on co‑location or clustering so retailers are not immediately next door to each other and consider maximum retail square footage to avoid “mega” stores.
- Align some local rules with state regulations; staff said a side‑by‑side of state requirements and proposed local rules will be provided at the next meeting.

A number of councilors and staff emphasized treating cannabis like other regulated legal products while retaining local control over appearance and nuisance concerns. One councilor said communities should “treat it like liquor stores” when considering zoning and performance standards. Staff also flagged state rules such as 1,000‑foot drug‑free zones for parks and schools and said many of the performance standards the council was considering are already required by state law.

What was directed vs. discussed: staff and the planning board recommended continued work and a September timeline for planning board and council review. No final ordinance, license allocation or formal vote was recorded at the meeting; the discussion focused on ordinance options and drafting approaches.

Community concerns and aesthetics: councilors raised concerns about signage, window tinting and storefront design so retail locations do not present a “Bob’s pot shop” appearance. Staff said they will prepare a comparison of state and proposed local standards and return with draft ordinance language for planning-board and council consideration. Ownership diversity and preventing a single owner from dominating multiple local licenses were also discussed but no final approach was adopted.

Next steps: staff said they plan a September planning‑board review and possible council workshop; they will prepare a side‑by‑side of state rules and proposed ordinance text, and staff said they intend to present a timeline for final council action in September.