Mount Clemens commission advances medical marijuana facilities ordinance after public debate, 6-1

The Mount Clemens City Commission on Dec. 3 voted 6–1 to approve introduction and a first reading of the City of Mount Clemens Medical Marijuana Facilities Ordinance (No. 20.11), setting a second reading and possible adoption for December 2018.

The ordinance, prepared by the city attorney and reviewed by staff, would implement the state-authorized licensing structure for medical marijuana facilities, set the maximum number and permitted locations for facilities in the city, establish permitting procedures and annual fees, and provide penalties for violations. City staff noted the ordinance implements elements of the state Medical Marijuana Facilities Licensing Act (Public Act 281 of 2016).

During public comment, small-business owner Patrick Avogito urged the commission to reject the draft and rewrite it to preserve local economic opportunity, arguing that the ordinance’s current provisions—cited by him as 1,500-foot spacing between facilities, 10-acre minimum lot requirements and specifications for very large indoor grow facilities—would effectively give a monopoly to one operator and limit local applicants. “This ordinance doesn't completely… We should have a local first amendment. Allow this community to flourish keeping Mount Clemens money in Mount Clemens,” Avogito said.

Erin Lammers, a consultant who works on marijuana ordinance language, testified in favor of the draft but recommended that the city adopt an objective, merit-based application selection process—such as a point system—to reduce litigation risk and avoid the pitfalls of first-come/first-served or lottery approaches. “Enforcing a merit-based application review process is the best chance at avoiding that,” Lammers said.

Commission debate reflected those tensions. Commissioner Manser said he supports having an ordinance but objected to multiple provisions as written, including a request for a ‘‘lawful preference’’ clause, concern that the ordinance’s text appears to allow certain product uses for pets, and that enforcement language permits investigators and police to enter without notice—Manser asked that the fire department also be included in inspection language. “I believe that we need a medical marijuana ordinance… I am not in favor of this ordinance as it's written,” Manser said.

Other commissioners described the draft as a compromise after extensive work and urged action. Commissioner Fournier said residents voted to opt in and the city needs guidelines; Commissioner Button acknowledged he personally opposed locating medical marijuana in the city but supported moving the ordinance forward as a compromise after lengthy discussion.

The motion to approve introduction and first reading carried on a roll-call vote, 6 in favor and 1 opposed. The commission set the ordinance’s second reading and potential adoption for a December meeting.

The commission did not finalize selection procedures at the first reading. The draft ordinance references state licensing categories (such as provisioning centers and processors) and notes staff will develop specific application and selection processes for permits. Staff and commissioners said details—including any local preference criteria and exact inspection language—could be further amended before final adoption.

Next steps: the commission scheduled the ordinance’s second reading for December 2018, at which time commissioners may consider amendments raised during public comment and the debate on the floor.