Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison County holds first reading on zoning changes to accommodate state medical cannabis businesses; debate centers on dispensaries
Summary
The fiscal court held first reading of Ordinance 2024‑15 to amend land‑use rules to define and permit various state‑licensed medical cannabis business types; magistrates debated how dispensaries should be handled in unincorporated county areas and the ordinance will return for a second reading.
Madison County Fiscal Court held first reading Tuesday of Ordinance 2024‑15, a proposed amendment to the county’s Land Development and Subdivision Regulations to add definitions and allowed/conditional uses for state‑licensed medical cannabis businesses.
County staff said the planning commission recommended designating cannabis cultivators, processors and producers as conditional uses in certain unincorporated zones and permitting them in other subdistricts, while dispensaries and safety compliance facilities would be allowed in specified districts consistent with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services’ Office of Medical Cannabis and Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS 218B) cited in the ordinance text.
Magistrates and members of the court raised procedural and policy questions during the first reading. Some members said they were not opposed to medical uses prescribed by physicians but expressed concern that dispensaries raise policy questions — one magistrate argued dispensaries should operate more like pharmacies; another suggested a local referendum so voters could weigh in. It was also noted that the cities of Richmond and Berea have already acted to regulate such uses inside their municipal limits.
Judge Taylor told the court the first reading permits the county to advertise the ordinance and schedule a second reading with public comment; substantial changes after advertising would require restarting the ordinance process. Several members asked staff to prepare zoning maps and clarifications ahead of the second reading so they could vet location‑specific impacts on agriculture and residential districts.
No final adoption occurred; the court voted to proceed with a second reading after discussion and directed staff to provide additional materials for members and the public before the next meeting.
