Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council denies new downtown medical cannabis license after contested hearing
Loading...
Summary
After a contested public hearing and deliberation, the City Council voted 4–3 to deny a new medical cannabis dispensary license at 71 Main Street, citing zoning and nonconforming‑use transferability concerns; the applicant and supporters disputed the legal basis and raised testing and enforcement complaints.
The Ellsworth City Council voted 4–3 on April 24 to deny a new medical cannabis dispensary license for a proposed operation at 71 Main Street, a downtown location staff says is not zoned for the use.
Staff and legal findings: City staff concluded the proposed use is not permitted in the Downtown Selling District and that the prior operation’s grandfathered (nonconforming) status does not transfer to the new owner. City Attorney Tim Pease told council "I don't think this is the appropriate place" for the business and said he was confident a transfer argument would not succeed under current law.
Applicant response and claims: The applicant (identified in the record as the owner represented by counsel) disputed staff conclusions and described prior regulatory interactions with the Office of Cannabis Policy (OCP). He said his firms have been proactive about product testing and that early complaints involved product from distributors rather than his store. "We pulled it," the applicant said of allegedly problematic product, describing voluntary testing and removals and asserting widespread problems in the supply chain. He also argued staff communications earlier in the transfer process led him to reasonably expect continued operation.
Counsel for the applicant raised an equitable‑estoppel argument, saying staff email guidance previously led the purchaser to believe the location could continue to operate under the former nonconforming arrangement; city counsel and staff countered that earlier staff communications reflected a temporary accommodation under the expiring prior license and did not authorize a new perpetual right to operate at the location.
Public input and tone: The hearing drew multiple public comments both supporting and opposing the application. The applicant and his attorney took extended time to answer questions and press their view that regulatory testing and enforcement gaps—especially in oil products—are industrywide problems. Several residents expressed concerns about downtown character and safety; others urged that the council be fair to a would‑be small business owner.
The vote: After deliberation, the council moved to deny the license on grounds discussed at the meeting; the motion passed 4–3 and the license application was denied.
Next steps and consequences: Staff said the applicant can seek other remedies or locations that conform to the city’s overlay zoning once it becomes effective and that the city will record the council’s determination in the meeting minutes. The city manager and legal staff advised that if the applicant pursues litigation the record of deliberation and the staff memo will be the basis of the city's defense.
Quoted from the record: "I think the answer is no to that" (Tim Pease, city attorney, on whether grandfathering transferred); the applicant stated, "70% failed" when describing results from product testing his firm conducted in other stores—an industry claim that the council did not verify during the hearing.
Ending: The council's denial ends the application for 71 Main Street; the applicant left open the possibility of pursuing other administrative or legal options.
