Committee raises spot‑zoning concerns over cannabis licensing changes proposed by applicant

Committee members discussed proposed edits to the township's retail cannabis licensing rules after an applicant submitted suggested revisions.

A committee member raised legal concerns, saying the revisions "look like spot zoning" and argued the suggested language would limit licenses so that "the only person that could actually have a class 5 retail license for cannabis is him." The member also said the applicant proposed removing the word "conditional" and eliminating a requirement to seek variances, which the member said would improperly narrow competition.

The Chair said he had circulated the applicant's proposed language to the committee and asked members to review it ahead of a February workshop: "When somebody who's opening a business tells us how to write an ordinance. I kind of agree with that," the Chair said, expressing discomfort with applicants drafting changes that appear to benefit them exclusively.

A committee member described the suggested language as modeled from a sample ordinance but urged caution about locally adopting provisions that could be vulnerable to legal challenge as spot zoning. No vote or formal action on ordinance language was recorded in the transcript; the Chair asked members to submit comments privately (to avoid a quorum) and scheduled a follow‑up workshop in February to consider edits.

Next steps: committee members will review the proposed cannabis ordinance revisions and discuss them at a February workshop; public notice and any further action will follow required ordinance procedures.