Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Cannabis Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond Heights council records split votes on ordinance to prohibit adult-use cannabis operators
Summary
Richmond Heights City Council on May 27 took a third reading vote on Ordinance 33-2025, a proposed amendment to the city’s planning and zoning code that would add a definition for adult-use cannabis operators and prohibit adult-use cannabis operators and medical marijuana entities in the city.
Richmond Heights City Council on May 27 took a third reading vote on Ordinance 33-2025, a proposed amendment to the city’s planning and zoning code that would add a definition for adult-use cannabis operators and prohibit adult-use cannabis operators and medical marijuana entities in the city.
The ordinance, introduced by Council President Jordan and Mayor Kim Thomas, was read into the record as amended May 13 and then brought to a motion for passage. The transcript records roll-call voting on the motion: Council President Jordan and Councilmember Justice recorded “yes”; Councilmember Nelson, Councilmember Robinson and Councilmember Silver recorded “no.” The transcript does not include a final announcement of the ordinance’s adoption or failure.
If enacted as written in the third reading transcript, Ordinance 33-2025 would amend multiple sections of the codified ordinances, including Chapter 11.23 (definitions) to add adult-use cannabis operators, enact a new section 11.125.12 prohibiting adult-use cannabis operators and medical marijuana entities, and repeal portions of sections 11.151.03, 11.60.7.02, 11.70.1.02 and 11.71.03, plus Building Code section 13.13.02 related to medical marijuana entity uses. The ordinance text was described in the reading; specific local locations or license processes were not detailed in the meeting transcript.
The transcript shows the item was on its third reading and lists the ordinance number and affected code sections but provides no additional staff report or public comment related to the merits, impacts, or enforcement mechanisms. The meeting record therefore does not specify implementation steps, timelines, or legal challenges, nor does it state whether any amendments were adopted beyond the May 13 revision cited in the reading.
Because the transcript does not record a final outcome announcement for the motion after the roll-call, this report does not assert that the ordinance was adopted or failed; it only records the motion, the reading, and the roll-call votes that appear in the meeting record.
