Akron council refers proposed West Portage Trail dispensary after neighborhood outcry

Akron City Council on Jan. 26 paused consideration of a proposed dual‑use marijuana dispensary at 1140 West Portage Trail and referred the conditional‑use application for more review after extensive neighborhood testimony.

The council opened a public hearing on the project after the planning staff and planning commission recommended approval subject to conditions. Applicant representatives said the plan would repurpose a vacant single‑story building (roughly 10,700 square feet) and dedicate about 3,000 square feet to the dispensary, with the remainder slated for future neighborhood‑oriented retail. Petitioner materials cited 59 parking spaces and projected roughly 225 customers per day. The applicant said the facility would use continuous video surveillance, access control, and a security director with previous law enforcement experience.

Opponents — dozens of local residents and business owners who spoke in person or online — told council the location is too close to dense housing and childcare, will worsen an already hazardous traffic pinch point in the Merriman Valley, and could undermine long‑range redevelopment goals. “This is too close to our neighborhood,” said Penny Miller, a Waters Edge resident who said many neighbors are elderly or have small children and expressed concern about increased traffic and potential loitering. Attorney Alex Quay, speaking on behalf of neighborhood interests, argued the proposal violates Akron Code 153.476’s spacing rules and warned an approval would likely trigger litigation.

Planning staff (Kyle Julian) told council the site is a retail parcel and that, in the city’s review, the application met the written 500‑foot spacing requirement in the code and the state licensing process will further review compliance. Julian also acknowledged the intersection’s safety problems and said the city is pursuing traffic studies and funding to address the corridor’s pedestrian and vehicle safety.

Council members cited two separate concerns in their deliberations: legal/technical compliance with the city and state spacing rules and the community‑safety/traffic impacts that residents described. Several members, including Councilwoman Fran Wilson and Councilwoman Amobian, urged more time for in‑person testimony because the virtual meeting format and the weather had limited participation.

By late evening the body voted to pull the item to committee and refer it for additional review and public input. Council announced a special, in‑person meeting on Thursday at 3 p.m. in council chambers to allow residents who could not participate virtually an opportunity to speak before a final vote.

The next procedural step is the planning committee’s further review and the in‑person hearing; council did not make a final decision on the conditional‑use permit at the Jan. 26 meeting.