Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marijuana Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Clemens reopens marijuana ordinance discussion; city attorney warns selection criteria risk lawsuits
Summary
Mount Clemens commissioners reopened discussion on the marijuana business ordinance, debated whether to add two retail licenses and a revised point system, and voted to table the ordinance for redrafting and specific commissioner suggestions to be submitted to the city attorney by Dec. 27.
The Mount Clemens City Commission reopened discussion of the second reading of its marijuana business ordinance and directed staff to produce a revised draft after commissioners suggested multiple changes, including expanding the number of retail licenses.
City Attorney Murray summarized the ordinance’s four focal areas — decision authority, the number and types of authorized establishments, inclusion of designated consumption and microbusinesses, and a prohibition on outdoor growing — and explained why the ordinance’s selection criteria were changed from a subjective list to a point system. “The scoring system contained the preference for the 2 medical marijuana permittees,” Murray said, noting courts have issued preliminary injunctions where selection criteria went beyond evaluating an applicant’s ability to comply with statute.
Commissioners and members of the public debated whether the commission should add two additional retail dispensary licenses to increase opportunity for local and smaller businesses. One commissioner argued that adding two dispensary slots would “balance the scales” by opening opportunities for participants who lacked the resources of larger companies. Several commissioners said they wanted the ordinance to avoid criteria that could invite litigation and asked for specific, measurable changes to zoning distances and selection metrics.
During public comment, Patrick Abaduta raised concerns about permit and ownership changes related to a local operator he identified through a FOIA, asking whether the city had been informed of application changes and whether an investigation was warranted. The commission did not resolve those allegations at the meeting; Johnson and staff said they would follow up as appropriate.
The commission approved a motion to table the second reading and final approval of the ordinance and requested commissioners submit written, specific changes to City Attorney Murray by Monday, Dec. 27. Murray said he would circulate a revised draft for the January 18 meeting, when the commission expects to consider a second reading. The commission did not provide a detailed public tally for the tabling motion in the transcript; members recorded their votes by roll call.
