Stow council adopts ordinance to allow adult-use cannabis, rejects amendment to tighten siting rules

Stow City Council voted Wednesday to adopt an ordinance that amends multiple chapters of the municipal zoning code to permit adult-use cannabis facilities in the city, following a public hearing and extended staff briefings.

The ordinance, introduced as 24-243, revises zoning chapters to allow adult-use cannabis businesses including dispensaries, cultivators, processors and laboratories, and repeals the city chapter governing medical marijuana. Planning staff and law department staff told the council the package aligns local rules with state licensing requirements while preserving local controls such as limits on drive-throughs and a one-mile spacing requirement between licensed facilities.

The ordinance carries significance because Ohio law sets baseline requirements — for example a state minimum 500-foot buffer from schools and parks — but gives municipalities latitude to adopt more restrictive rules. Planning staff presented six mapping options showing how different buffer distances and prohibitions on properties abutting residential zones would affect where facilities could locate in Stow. Planning recommended a 1,000-foot buffer from schools, parks, playgrounds and from residentially zoned properties; that configuration left only industrial parcels available and would allow effectively one site under the map shown.

Residents filled the public-comment period. Lawrence Lebo, a resident who said he had moved to Stow from California, read a letter and said he is not opposed to legalization but warned of security and public-safety issues tied to cash-only operations and different patron behavior at recreational dispensaries. “This also puts a great strain on the local police departments,” Lebo said. Arlene Seeben, a longtime nurse and school nurse, urged the council to restrict dispensaries, saying she worries about youth exposure and health impacts. Several other residents spoke in favor of permitting facilities with restrictions; Susie Tomsey and Angie Charles both described personal or observational experience that led them to support regulated retail access and strong operational standards.

Council debate centered on two points: the appropriate buffer distances and whether council should adopt the planning commission’s recommended configuration or pass an amended version. Councilmember Herman moved an amendment that would have adopted a version of the ordinance (referred to in staff maps as “map 6”) that used 500-foot buffers from schools, parks and churches while excluding properties that physically touch residential zones (rather than a 1,000-foot buffer from residential zones). Herman also proposed adding a cap in the ordinance limiting the number of permitted facilities in the city to two. Assistant law department staff told council that because planning commission had issued a recommendation, a council amendment that departs from the planning commission recommendation would require five affirmative votes under City Charter section 10.06 to be adopted.

The amendment to change the buffer rules and limit the number of permitted facilities failed on the council roll call. The council then voted on the ordinance as presented (the planning commission’s version). The ordinance passed on the final roll call: Council President Feldman — yes; Councilmember Herman — yes; Councilmember Coffey — no; Councilmember Baranek — yes; Councilmember McIntyre — yes; Councilmember Riehl — yes; Councilmember Fioka — yes. (Vote tally: 6–1.)

The ordinance’s provisions do the following, as described by staff: permit adult-use cannabis land uses (dispensaries, cultivators, processors, laboratories) subject to zoning review; prohibit drive-through service and outdoor sales; require any licensed facility to be at least one mile from another licensed facility; and apply buffer distances from sensitive uses such as schools, parks, playgrounds and churches. Staff presented alternative maps showing how different buffer distances and the prohibition of properties abutting residential zones would change the set of commercially available parcels.

Planning staff emphasized the maps were illustrative: actual permitted locations will depend on parcel ownership, zoning district, and how applications are prepared if/when applicants seek city approvals. Assistant law department staff reminded the public that state licensure and state rules still govern many operational aspects and that local zoning controls where such businesses can locate in the city.

What happens next: The ordinance takes effect according to its terms. Separately, councilmembers and staff noted the city is undergoing a zoning-code rewrite that will address multiple land-use topics; they said that process offers another opportunity to revisit and refine cannabis siting policy if needed.

Quotes in this story were taken from the public record of the Jan. 23, 2025 city council public hearing and the planning staff presentation.