Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond planning commission recommends City Council consider cannabis zoning changes with 500-foot buffer
Summary
At a Jan. 8 special meeting, the City of Richmond Planning Commission voted to recommend draft amendments to City Code Chapters 10 and 107 that would regulate cannabis events, retail registration and land use, including a requested 500-foot buffer from schools, day cares and parks.
The City of Richmond Planning Commission voted Jan. 8 to forward draft amendments to City Code Chapter 10 (Cannabis Events, Retail Business Registration and Compliance) and Chapter 107 (Land Use and Zoning) to the City Council for consideration.
At a special meeting at City Hall, Ashley Bukowski of the law firm Rinke Noonan presented a draft ordinance outlining how retail and personal cannabis production could be regulated locally. Bukowski said the state licensing timeline, previously expected to begin in January, has been delayed into the middle of the year — "possibly June or July," according to the minutes — which affects local implementation timing.
Commissioner Jim Hemmesch asked whether a business referenced in the record as "Brinky's" could sell cannabis under the draft rules. Bukowski said retail operations would need separate licensed space and that residential growers could cultivate cannabis for personal use under state statute but could not grow for others or sell without the appropriate license.
Hemmesch asked the commission to require a 500-foot buffer between retail cannabis businesses and schools, day cares and parks. Commissioners discussed that such a buffer would tend to keep retail outlets off the city’s main corridor and push them toward Highway 23 or into the business district. Bukowski said the draft ordinance is expected to be revised again as stakeholders and staff refine boundaries and zoning language.
After the presentation and questions, Commissioner Hemmesch moved that the commission recommend the draft ordinance to City Council; Commissioner Jon Person seconded the motion, which the commission approved.
The commission's recommendation does not adopt the ordinance; it forwards the draft to City Council for review and any further amendments. The minutes state that final licensing will follow state processes and a license from the OCM will be required where applicable. The commission did not record public comments opposing or supporting the draft during the hearing.
The City Council will receive the commission’s recommendation for consideration at a future meeting. The commission indicated further amendments are likely as the city aligns local code with state statute and licensing schedules.
