Committee recommends forwarding ordinance that would add adult‑use cannabis definition and local opt‑out authority to council

The committee of the whole voted May 27 to recommend advancing Ordinance 33‑2025 — which would add a definition of “adult use cannabis” to the city’s Planning and Zoning Code and enact a new section titled “Prohibition of Adult Use Cannabis Operators” — to the full Richmond Heights City Council for final consideration.

The measure, introduced by Council President Jordan and Mayor Thomas and presented at third reading, would also incorporate language referencing the Ohio Revised Code provision cited in the draft (transcribed as “Ohio Revised Code 37 80.25 a”) that, the planning commission said, gives the city authority to accept or prohibit adult‑use cannabis operations.

Planning commission chair Fred Cash told the committee the commission examined each ward under current zoning and state constraints, including Senate Bill 56 and state setback rules for schools and early‑childhood centers. “We worked with the existing zoning that we currently have and existing ordinances we currently have,” Cash said, and concluded that, under current rules and the state bill, most locations in Richmond Heights would not meet setback or proximity requirements to existing facilities in adjacent communities.

Norm Davis of the planning commission explained the ordinance’s drafting choice: “The second piece was to amend 11 25 to add the Ohio revised code 37 80.25 a that gives the city the authority to either accept or prohibit adult use cannabis in the city,” he said, adding that adopting that language in the codified ordinances would not itself ban future facilities but would give the city a clear local mechanism to regulate them.

During a public hearing that followed the presentations, several residents asked whether a local prohibition could be changed later and worried about state action. Resident Orville Gaynor asked, “If we vote not or to prohibit it now, is it possible to pick it up somewhere down the road?” A staff response to the hearing confirmed that it is possible to revisit the decision later.

Speakers at the hearing also raised statewide budget and licensing questions. A member of the public and the mayor noted that a state budget provision could grandfather municipalities that enact local prohibitions before the budget bill passes; members of the administration and mayors’ partners told the committee that state distribution of excise or revenue shares has been delayed and that municipal licensing may not be available for years.

After the public hearing the committee voted to end the hearing and to recommend the ordinance for consideration by the full council. The motion to send Ordinance 33‑2025 to council carried on a roll call vote recorded as: Jordan, yes; Justice, yes; Nelson, yes; Robinson, yes; Silver, yes; Ursula, yes.

Committee members and planning staff emphasized that the commission’s work assessed current zoning and state law constraints rather than establishing a permanent ban. As Norm Davis said at the meeting, the draft ordinance “does not say that cannabis is prohibited; it doesn't say that.”

Full council will take up the ordinance at a subsequent meeting; the committee forwarded the measure so the council can make the final decision.