Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Retail Cannabis topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Standish council defeats motion to allow retail cannabis sales after public hearing

Standish City Council · March 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After an informational presentation and more than a half-hour of public comment, the Standish City Council voted 4–3 to defeat a motion that would have allowed one or more retail cannabis sales within city limits.

The Standish City Council voted 4–3 on March 10 to defeat a motion to allow one or more retail cannabis businesses within the city after a public hearing and public comment.

Tom Reif provided an educational presentation to the council and residents, explaining that cannabis permits are renewed yearly, must follow strict state guidelines, that permit-derived revenue to the state varies with product sales and establishment type, and that permit application funds carry restrictions on use. Reif also said the Planning Commission would play a role in drafting ordinance language should the council move forward with regulation.

During the public-comment period, residents expressed both opposition and interest in opening retail locations. Dufort (500 E. Cedar) told the council they do not support retail cannabis. Several others, including Sullivan (6434 Sterling Rd), Chase Mitrzyk and Mrs. Mitrzyk (708 E. Cedar), and an individual identified as Smith (2761 M-61 Bentley, an employee of Green Mitten Pharms), said they were interested in establishing retail locations. Other residents (Foco and Holbrook of 319 S. Cass St., and Peak of 1762 Wyatt Rd) voiced support. Council member Lincoln stated on the record that he does not support retail cannabis in Standish.

After closing the public hearing at 7:13 p.m., the council voted on a motion moved by Council member Fleszar and supported by Myers to allow one or more retail cannabis sales within the city limits. The roll-call vote was: Yeas—Fleszar, Niernberg, King; Nays—Lincoln, Myers, Link, Spencer. The motion was defeated by majority (3–4).

The council did not adopt any ordinance language or set regulations during the meeting; the hearing served to collect information and public comment. Council members and staff noted that Planning Commission involvement would be required to prepare ordinance language if council chooses to revisit the issue.