Stow planning commission denies variance for proposed cannabis dispensary at 4149 Steels Pointe Drive

The Stow City Planning Commission voted against granting variances requested for a proposed adult-use cannabis dispensary at 4149 Steels Pointe Drive.

Staff presented application PC25-31 as a conditional-use/site-plan application for a roughly one‑acre parcel in C‑5 highway service zoning. Staff said the proposed development would include a 2,400‑square‑foot building with 27 parking spaces and landscaping approved by the city arborist, but that the site requires variances because it abuts an R‑1 residential district and lies about 955 feet from a daycare at 4117 Bridgewater Parkway.

Justin Carey, head of real estate for applicant Jushi (retail brand Beyond Hello), said the company has the parcel under contract and argued the project meets state licensing and setback expectations. “The state regulator measures from the exterior of the premises, not the property line,” Carey said, and on that basis the company contended the planned building footprint would comply with state minimums. Staff noted a pending local code update is scheduled for a third reading at council on Dec. 4 that would change local residential and school buffers, but that the commission must apply the law in effect at the time of its decision.

Residents and consultants urged the commission to deny the variances. Phil Herman, who said he lives at 6770 East Steels Corners Road and owns nearby land, asked the commission to “deny the variances requested for the adult use cannabis dispensary.” Herman warned that reducing the residential buffer from the city’s current 1,000 feet to zero where the property abuts R‑1 would “effectively place the dispensary inside of our established neighborhood” and would set a precedent that weakens the ordinance’s protections. Architect Ian Jones of Avid Architects said his mapping found “there’s really not, a compliant spot in the city” under the existing 1,000‑foot residential buffer, underscoring the constraint the buffer creates for siting dispensaries.

Commissioners discussed whether measurements were taken from parcel lines or building exteriors and reviewed the timing of the pending code change. A motion to approve the application as presented was moved and seconded, but the motion failed on roll call. The recorded discussion and votes indicate at least two commissioners opposed the motion and at least one voted in favor; the motion did not pass.

Because the commission ruled against the requested variances, the applicant will need to reassess options — including locating to a different, code‑compliant parcel, waiting for a possible change in the local code, or filing a revised application. Staff told the commission the proposed ordinance changes have a third reading at council on Dec. 4 and, if approved, would be effective Feb. 9; however, the commission applied the existing code for this decision. The commission moved on to the next agenda item after the vote.