Winston council upholds moratorium on new recreational marijuana licenses after contested appeal

Winston — The Winston City Council on July 20 upheld an ordinance placing a permanent moratorium on new recreational marijuana retail licenses after a contested public hearing and council debate.

Thomas McIntosh, speaking for city staff, told the council the ordinance (Ordinance No. 26‑7 23) was adopted under the city’s municipal code and not solely on the state law referenced in the record (referred to in the hearing as House Bill 41 21). McIntosh said the city’s decision considered three main factors: the municipal code authority, a desire to avoid market saturation, and impacts on a sizable senior population in Winston. "For those three reasons, staff recommends affirming the ordinance," McIntosh said.

The single appellant, Zach Collier, who identified himself to the council, argued the ordinance exceeded the city’s authority and effectively granted a permanent monopoly to the existing operator. "I believe this ordinance does far more than regulate marijuana; it permanently prevents any new recreational marijuana retail facilities from being issued in Winston," Collier said, urging that zoning and reasonable operational standards would be lawful alternatives.

Public commenters split on the issue. Felicia Matthews, a local resident, said the town is small and older and "I just don't see the need for it," while Crystal Balser, a Roseburg resident, described the applicant’s business as professional and said it provides education and alternatives for customers.

Council members questioned notice and outreach to potential applicants and compared Winston’s approach with other cities that used buffering or different population‑based limits. Multiple council members referenced a prior community commitment to limit dispensaries in town. After deliberation, a council member moved to affirm the ordinance and the motion carried; one council member (Alderman Finger) registered opposition.

The council’s action leaves the moratorium in place. Staff advised the council about available options moving forward — affirming, reversing, or modifying the ordinance — and noted legal counsel had not located binding case law that requires a full prohibition. The council did not announce any immediate modifications and directed no further immediate action beyond the affirmation.

The public hearing drew several speakers and a mix of local concerns about competition, community character and municipal authority; staff said it had followed local notice procedures and supplemented outreach where possible.