Findlay holds public hearing on proposed cannabis zoning ordinance after moratorium

Findlay City Council held a public hearing March 4, 2025, on Ordinance No. 2025-16, a proposed cannabis zoning ordinance that would amend Chapters 11‑19 and 11‑41, add a new Chapter 11‑52 to the codified ordinances and repeal Ordinance No. 2024‑81, the 12‑month moratorium on retail cannabis activity.

The ordinance matters because it would establish overlay commercial areas where cannabis retailers could locate; individual locations in those overlays would still require state licensing and conditional‑use approval from the City Planning Commission and council. Residents near the Interstate 75 and West Main Cross area told council they oppose allowing dispensaries close to neighborhood streets and school bus routes.

Bruce Otley, superintendent of Liberty Benton Local Schools, said he opposes dispensaries near his district and raised concerns about students encountering THC products: "I do not want my students driving past a cannabis dispensary to and from school and walking past it on their way home," Otley said. Neighbor Brenda Frankert, a 26‑year school administrator who lives near Western Meadows, said the mapped overlay near I‑75 would be "within walking distance" of several neighborhoods and bus stops and warned it could bring "out of town traffic wandering into our neighborhood." Megan Wooley, who owns property at 15440 U.S. 224 East and represents Becky School of Dance, said she also opposed a nearby dispensary and that hundreds of dance students could pass a retail site frequently.

Several residents linked dispensary proximity to concerns about crime, property values and exposure to children. Aaron Butler, a Western Meadows resident, questioned the assumption that legalization automatically requires a local retail presence: "Just because it’s legalized, there’s not necessarily a dispensary," he said.

Council members and city officials responded that the overlay maps identify commercial areas where retailers would be permitted; placement in an overlay would not automatically authorize a store. The mayor (name not stated in the hearing record) said the overlays are commercially oriented, comply with required buffer distances from schools, daycares and churches under state law, and that any individual store would still need state licensing through the Ohio Department of Commerce plus conditional‑use approval from the City Planning Commission and a separate council review. As the mayor put it: "Just because it is within that area, it still has to meet the state requirements as well as come before council for individual location consideration." The mayor also said the ordinance process has included multiple planning and zoning meetings over the past months.

Councilman DeArmond said he personally opposes cannabis but will defer to voters in the city: he said the measure received majority support inside the city limits. Other council members disputed the broader election figures discussed in the room; a council member identified Vote Board of Elections data noting the county overall recorded 53.29% against the cannabis measure while city precincts showed 52% in favor.

Findlay’s fiscal officer, Michael Stashek, cautioned about the message a passed ordinance could send to prospective retailers and the potential difficulty of reversing course later if the city is sued: "If you pass this tonight you've sent the message to the world that you're welcoming an undefined type of business in this area," he said, urging council to be specific if it intends to limit types of retail operations.

No formal vote on Ordinance No. 2025‑16 is recorded in the hearing transcript. The public hearing concluded and council adjourned the hearing; city staff and council members said that if council moves forward, additional hearings and the conditional‑use and state licensing processes would follow for any proposed retail locations.

Votes at a glance: none recorded at this hearing; the transcript notes the ordinance is at a third reading and that, per the ordinance text, if it were passed on 03/04/2025 it would take effect 30 days later unless subjected to referendum.