Richmond Heights holds public hearing on ordinance to ban cannabis businesses as residents urge restriction

Richmond Heights City Council held a public hearing July 8 on Ordinance 80-2025, a proposed change to the city’s planning and zoning code that would prohibit adult-use cannabis operators and medical marijuana entities within city limits.

The hearing drew public comment from residents, faith leaders and a development representative who urged council to bar dispensaries. Pastor Murrow Weems, who identified himself as a local pastor and former federal employee, described past community harms he associated with illegal drugs and urged council to adopt the prohibition. "I believe you should already know the serious, physical, psychological problems for marijuana users as well as the hazardous, criminal consequences," Pastor Murrow Weems said during public comment.

A representative for the Bell Oaks development told council the project’s “core vision” is a “family friendly, healthy lifestyle type environment” and said cannabis facilities would be contrary to that goal. "We believe cannabis facilities in and around this area don't support our core values of this project," the Bell Oaks representative said.

Council President Jordan used the public-comment period to clarify a frequently raised confusion: smoke shops and cannabis dispensaries are regulated differently. "There is a distinct difference between what we call a smoke shop and a medical or a recreational marijuana dispensary," Council President Jordan said, adding that smoke shops may sell pipes or other paraphernalia but not the marijuana product itself, while dispensaries sell THC products regulated by the state.

Mayor Thomas, in her administrative report later in the meeting, told council that although the state increased the municipal share back to 36% from 20% on paper, the state did not include recreational-marijuana municipal appropriations in the 2026 budget. "It's not even appropriated in that budget," Mayor Thomas said. She added that any future funds would flow through a state public-safety fund rather than directly into municipal general funds.

At the meeting council considered a motion to suspend the rules so Ordinance 80 could be advanced immediately. The motion to suspend the rules failed, with Councilmembers Justice and Lewis recorded as voting yes and Councilmembers Nelson, Robinson, Silver and Pursue recorded as voting no. Because the rules were not suspended, Ordinance 80 remains at second reading and will return for future committee or council consideration.

The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed after hearing from several residents and stakeholders. Several commenters urged the council to learn to “disagree agreeably,” and others reiterated concerns about youth and community impacts. The council did not take final action on Ordinance 80 at the July 8 meeting; further debate and formal council action are expected in committee or at a future regular meeting.

Votes at a glance - Resolution 79-2025 (adopt Cuyahoga County Solid Waste Management Plan): Passed (unanimous recorded yes vote). - Ordinance 80-2025 (amend zoning and prohibit adult-use and medical cannabis operators): Motion to suspend rules failed (Justice: yes; Lewis: yes; Nelson: no; Robinson: no; Silver: no; Pursue: no). Ordinance remains at second reading. - Resolution 92-2025 (dispose of property no longer needed): Passed (recorded yes votes). - Resolution 93-2025 (authorize CDBG application to Cuyahoga County Department of Development): Passed (recorded yes votes). - Resolution 95-2025 (purchase battery-powered smoke ejector for fire division): Passed (recorded yes votes). (Each passed resolution was introduced and recorded on July 8; vote tallies are those shown in the meeting minutes/transcript.)

Next steps: Ordinance 80 will return for further committee discussion and/or another council reading; council members signaled they expect more debate in Committee of the Whole and at future regular meetings.