Richmond Heights holds third reading on ordinance to bar adult-use cannabis stores; developer and faith leaders oppose

Richmond Heights City Council held a third reading March 11 on Ordinance 33-2025, a proposed amendment to the city zoning code that would prohibit adult-use cannabis operators within the city.

The measure is being treated as a zoning amendment and, under the city charter, must go to the Planning Commission for review before returning to council. The Planning Commission will consider the ordinance at 7 p.m. March 12 in council chambers; if the commission issues a recommendation, council must set a public hearing with at least 10 days' notice before taking a final vote.

The ordinance was introduced by Council President Jordan and Mayor Kim Thomas. Mayor Kim Thomas read testimony she delivered earlier in Columbus opposing state legislation that would limit municipal control over short-term rentals; in her remarks and in the ordinance discussion she and other officials framed adult-use cannabis regulation as a local land-use issue. "This proposal not only just it's not a matter of policy. It's a clear violation of home rule," Mayor Kim Thomas said during her remarks, arguing the city should retain local control over zoning and land-use decisions.

The meeting record also includes a formal letter and on-camera comment from David Frank, chief executive officer of DealPoint Merrill, the master developer of the Bell Oaks Marketplace project at the former Richmond Town Square site. In that written statement Frank said the $285,000,000 mixed-use development is designed to attract families, young professionals and retirees, and "we are writing to formally and strongly oppose having cannabis in the city of Richmond Heights" because, he wrote, a cannabis retail store would "pose a direct threat to the core vision and values of our development and the greater Richmond Heights community." Frank listed concerns including public-safety impacts, negative perception and stigma that could affect leasing, youth exposure near parks and trails, and broader economic effects on the development.

Council members and city staff clarified process steps during the meeting. City legal staff and planning staff explained that the ordinance can be read again at council but cannot be acted upon until the Planning Commission returns a recommendation and the required public-hearing notice period has elapsed. Council did not take a final vote on the ordinance at the March 11 meeting; the item was held at third reading and formally sent to the Planning Commission for review.

If the Planning Commission issues a recommendation tomorrow evening, council will set the required public hearing (minimum 10 days' notice) and may consider final passage after that hearing. Community members and developers are expected to appear at the Planning Commission hearing and at the later council public hearing.

The action leaves in place the city's procedural safeguards for zoning changes while making the dispute about whether to allow adult-use cannabis retail a local land-use decision to be decided through the Planning Commission and the public hearing process.