ORDNC-2025-5 : Zoning Amendment regarding Marijuana Buffer Zone Measurements

Transcript (~8 min @ 1:01:35)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 1:01:31 Mark Garipay: zoning amendment is held. Uh, next up we have ID 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 zoning amendment regarding marijuana buffer zone measurements. Okay? Okay.

▶ 1:01:42 Speaker 9: Thank you. So city solicitor, um, Phillips was before you on Monday night um, describing the new policies, um, around social equity for cannabis businesses, um, and the requirement to make clear our local review processes, pro processes for, um, reviewing applications for, um, cannabis businesses. So in the process of, um, reviewing our city regulations, um, she noted that the, um, the buffer zone that we have, uh, in the zoning regulations that requires that, uh, marijuana establishments are established, um, within a, outside of a certain, um, distance from schools, um, is actually, is outdated. So in 2020, the Cannabis Con Control Commission updated the requirements, um, for what, how you can measure that, that buffer zone, um, and our local regulations can be more lenient, um, but not more restrictive, um, than the state regulations, um, for cannabis. So, uh, we have this small amendment before you, um, and there's an illustration to, to help to, um, see the, visualize the, the changes, um, that are in this amendment. So previously the distance, the 500 foot distance, um, was measured from a school's, and again, this is just an illustration. Um, it's, you know, not to scale, but, um, so looking at a property, the, um, the school, like a school property, the boundary line, um, is kind of the point of measurement. And then there's a, a buffer of 500 feet, um, from that property line. And so no school or daycare is wr is it's written in our zoning ordinance, um, can be located within that distance. Um, and the proposed regulation to mirror the state law is that you have to have a point of measurement from the entrance of the school. Um, and then you can measure 500 feet as a crow flies, except if there's a, um, impassible barrier. And then you have to look at, um, the, the, the distance, um, you know, as if you were walking. So, um, the impassable barrier could be a highway as a street that's, you know, not, um, passable by a pedestrian, a um, body of water. Um, so in the example you can see, instead of, you know, just a, a buffer from a point of an entrance to a building, um, you then have to consider the, um, the walking distance, um, in, in that buffer area. So we have, um, two sections in our zoning ordinance related to marijuana establishments. They're registered in marijuana dispensaries, which is the medical marijuana, and then, um, marijuana establishments, which is recreational, or, you know, there's a list of other kinds of, um, uses that fall within that, um, use. And so this buffer is in both of those sections. Um, so I'm happy to answer any questions,

▶ 1:05:13 Mark Garipay: Any questions from the council regarding the change in this

▶ 1:05:19 Speaker 2: council sha

▶ 1:05:21 Manjula Karamcheti: Um, forgive me, I don't have my glasses on and my laptop died. So I'm gonna ask maybe what is gonna sound like a weird question or a dumb question, but I'm gonna ask it anyway because I just wanna be clear in terms of these buffers, it like, is your interpretation that it actually makes things more strict in terms of the perimeter of which these, um, establishments are? Or do you feel like they're looser?

▶ 1:05:50 Speaker 9: It's looser. It's, it's looking at the actual reality of the situation. So if you're like leaving a school, um, you wouldn't, you know, be leaving from the back of the school. And then if, you know, if you think about if you had, um, a river next to a school, you, um, if you wanted to locate a cannabis establishment across the river, um, if it, you wouldn't be able to, if, you know, if it was, if it was within a 500 foot buffer, um, as the growth lies, but if you did it, you know, as you're walking, um, then you essentially can't get there. So you'd be able to establish that, um, marijuana establishment across a river. Does that help? Okay.

▶ 1:06:38 Speaker 11: That was, that was not the answer I was hoping for. Oh,

▶ 1:06:44 Speaker 5: I'll just add currently where our only allowance for marijuana facilities are, it has, this has no meaningful effect. Okay. We, we can't have schools or it, I don't think it's gonna change anything given the site specific conditions of where we allow this zoning now. Mm-hmm. This could come into play if we were decided to expand the zoning, right, right. To allow more facilities in different areas of the city. But as of as it stands right now, and Lori correct me if I'm wrong, I I don't think this has any potential to have an impact on us.

▶ 1:07:22 Manjula Karamcheti: So through the chair, if I could just say back in our current situation, there is really no impact, but there is potential for the future if we change some other things.

▶ 1:07:31 Speaker 9: Correct. Thank you.

▶ 1:07:34 Mark Garipay: Uh, councilor or Romanul?

▶ 1:07:35 Devin Romanul: Uh, thank you so much for the presentation. And so my very simple quick two questions, just checking for understanding. So this is more from front entrance rather than from the edge of the property. This, these rules are changing. And then is this, uh, this alteration is mandated by the state? Is that Yes. For understanding? Okay. Yes. So, uh, I just want to note the, the fact that pro cannabis crows have taken over the CCC. Um, but other than that, thank you for answering my questions.

▶ 1:08:06 Speaker 2: Council Williams? Yeah, thanks.

▶ 1:08:07 Ryan Williams: Um, boy, tough act to follow. Yeah, always. Okay, I'd like to, a motion to hold, uh, ID, 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 in committee.

▶ 1:08:20 Mark Garipay: Second, We have a motion to hold id. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 zoning amendment regarding marijuana buffer zone measurements made by Council Williams, seconded by Council Ro on discussion,

▶ 1:08:32 Speaker 2: Just out Council re

▶ 1:08:33 Speaker 9: I just have one quick question. What is the, the purple on the map? Like there's, is that that meaningful at all? It's, it's actually easements. I should have taken that layer off. All right. I just wanted, wanted to know because I'm like, I can see that. All right, thank you. That's supporting the map. Um, yes.

▶ 1:08:48 Speaker 11: Not related. It's locked.

▶ 1:08:53 Speaker 8: All set? Yes. Thank you. Sorry.

▶ 1:08:55 Mark Garipay: Um, anyone else on discussion? All in favor?

▶ 1:09:01 Speaker 2: Aye. Aye. Opposed?

▶ 1:09:02 Mark Garipay: This will be held in committee that, um, that takes care of all of our business tonight with the joint, uh, Mr.

▶ 1:09:12 Speaker 2: Chair? Yes. Council Stewart?

▶ 1:09:14 Robb Stewart: Yeah. Point of order. Uh, since they're, this is still held in committee, what is, what is the eventual action of these two orders?

▶ 1:09:21 Mark Garipay: Um, the planning board goes back and they meet, um, and then they'll come back with any recommendations or any changes, and then we will vote to adopt the changes. Okay. And, and I'm not sure which city council meeting, but, uh, it'll be by the 16th of June, I

▶ 1:09:40 Speaker 5: Believe, before July 5th though.

▶ 1:09:41 Speaker 2: Okay. Correct. Absolutely. Yes. Okay,

▶ 1:09:42 Speaker 5: Great. Okay. Thank

▶ 1:09:43 Mark Garipay: You. That's the, that's the plan. I believe they're, when we meet Monday, they meet Monday. So thank You Mr. Chair.