Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Marijuana topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declines to approve special-use permit for marijuana retailer at 492 Capitol Ave SW
Summary
After staff recommended approval but the Planning Commission recommended denial, the City Commission voted not to approve a special-use permit for an adult-use marijuana retail facility at 492 Capitol Avenue SW, citing unanswered criteria and neighborhood concerns.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Marijuana topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Battle Creek City Commission on Jan. 21 declined to approve a special-use permit for an adult-use marijuana retail facility proposed at 492 Capitol Avenue SW, a T-3 Neighborhood Commercial District property.
City staff told the commission the application met the ordinance’s criteria and recommended approval, but the Planning Commission had held a public hearing on Dec. 18, 2024, and recommended denial, citing failures to meet multiple special-use standards in section 1281.05. The applicant is identified in the resolution as MCIJB Investments LLC on behalf of 492 Battle Creek LLC.
During the discussion, the city attorney explained the commission has discretion to accept the Planning Commission recommendation or to adopt staff’s recommendation; he advised that stating reasons on the record helps if a decision is later subject to judicial review. Commissioners referenced the planning commission’s notes and asked staff to clarify which criteria were met and which were not.
Several commissioners said they agreed with the planning commission's concerns. Commissioner Chris Simmons said he would "be voting no," and Vice Mayor Sherry Sosapia and Commissioner Lacoste also said they would vote against approval, citing outstanding questions about whether the application met the required standards. One commissioner said the proposed retail operation’s projected customer numbers and the neighborhood’s socioeconomic context made the location inappropriate.
The commission voted; the resolution was not approved. The transcript does not include a roll-call tally in the excerpt provided.
The record shows staff recommended approval while the Planning Commission found the application did not meet specific standards; city officials said a denial could be the subject of judicial review and that documented reasons on the record would assist the city if the decision were appealed.

