Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Dispensary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Akron planning committee hears proposal to convert vacant drive‑through to dual‑use cannabis dispensary at 235 East Waterloo Road
Summary
The Akron City Council Planning Committee on a mid‑day session heard a proposal from Battle Green Real Estate LLC to establish a dual‑use cannabis dispensary at 235 East Waterloo Road.
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Dispensary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Akron City Council Planning Committee on a mid‑day session heard a proposal from Battle Green Real Estate LLC to establish a dual‑use cannabis dispensary at 235 East Waterloo Road.
Battle Green representative Craig Mauer, identified himself as speaking on behalf of the ownership group and said the petitioner intends to remodel the currently vacant drive‑through restaurant building, making modest cosmetic upgrades for company branding while leaving the structure largely unchanged. Planning staff reported the site has parking for 38 vehicles, access drives to the east and west, shrubbery screening the north side of the lot and that deliveries would occur within a secure area. Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to conditions.
The recommendation matters because the proposed use would reactivate a vacant retail structure in a heavily travelled retail district and, according to staff, would meet the land‑use goals for renovating older neighborhood business districts while minimizing impacts on adjacent properties.
During the public hearing, two people signed up to speak online and three people appeared in person. Craig Mauer represented the ownership group in person; Kelly Impala, the company’s head of compliance, joined remotely and said she was attending “as support” and would be responsible for ensuring compliance with state and city rules. Rob Sweet, a planning and zoning consultant working with Battle Green, also attended and offered to answer technical questions.
Committee members asked for clarification on operating hours and setback rules. Planning staff (Mister Antonucci) said the petitioner’s submission showed operating hours of 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., but the ordinance text included a different time (9 a.m. to 9 p.m.), a discrepancy staff said they would resolve. Councilman Kamer, whose ward includes the site, asked colleagues to take time on the item and to drive by the location before the committee’s evening session. Kamer noted an approximate distance of 900 feet to a nearby elementary school; planning staff corrected that the applicable state requirement is 500 feet.
Kamer also raised concern about having multiple dispensaries on the same street in his ward; Rob Sweet said the petitioner typically operates 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. but was willing to adjust hours to match council preferences. No formal vote was taken during the afternoon hearing; the committee closed the hearing and invited participants to return for the 5:00 p.m. session when the committee will make a recommendation to full council.
The hearing record shows planning staff recommended approval subject to conditions; the committee did not adopt or reject the ordinance in the afternoon session and deferred final action to the evening meeting.

