Work on a proposed ordinance to regulate recreational marijuana businesses in Oxford Village began at last week’s planning commission meeting.

Village Planner Mario Ortega, of the Northville-based McKenna Associates, presented commissioners with a “preliminary first draft” of some language to review and discuss.

The draft ordinance included definitions for the various types of recreational, or “adult use,” marijuana facilities defined under state law, including grower, microbusiness, processor, retailer and safety compliance facility.

To these, Ortega added the “all-encompassing” term “marijuana facility,” which the draft language broadly defined as “any type of marijuana-related business” licensed by the state under the new law that legalized recreational marijuana as of Dec. 6, 2018.

He told commissioners he created this definition to “cover” all existing facilities as well as any future facilities that could potentially be added and licensed by the state going forward.

However, Ortega noted, “I am not an attorney, so I definitely want the (village) attorney to look at this” and provide guidance.

In Ortega’s draft, grower, microbusiness, processor, retailer and safety compliance facility were all listed as permitted uses in the village.

Commissioner Kelsey Cooke noticed that secure transporter wasn’t included in the draft’s list of definitions or permitted uses. She inquired as to why it was left out.

A secure transporter is defined under state law as a person licensed to transport marijuana to and from licensed establishments.

Ortega explained he didn’t include it because the law precludes municipalities from prohibiting the transportation of marijuana through their boundaries.

But commissioners noted a secure transporter could set up its base of operations in the village.

If that’s the case, Commission Chairman Gary Douglas said, “It seems to me they have to have some governance as to what they can and can’t do there.”

Ortega initially didn’t see a transporter facility as something to include in this ordinance because it could simply consist of office space and equipment along with vehicles and a yard in which to park them. To him, at that point, it’s “just an office” use and the company gets “to transport whatever they so choose,” be it marijuana or “widgets.”

For some commissioners, the issue isn’t the transporting, it’s the potential on-site storage of marijuana by these businesses.

“You know that’s going to happen,” Douglas said.

But, Ortega viewed the storage issue as something to be dealt with by the state.

“I would hope that the state would regulate it and say that (transporters) just can’t leave 5 tons of marijuana in (their) truck overnight in front of (their) house,” he told commissioners.

“I guess I’m hanging my hat on the idea that a person or an entity cannot store marijuana without the proper license beyond what the state statute allows,” Ortega noted.

That being said, Ortega acknowledged that if the state allows transporters to store marijuana he “could see that being an issue” that would require further research and guidance from the village attorney.

Cooke indicated she supports including secure transporter in the ordinance because its allowed by the state and there’s the potential to have such a business based in Oxford.

“If we don’t regulate it, then there are no regulations,” she said.

Cooke expressed her opinion that the draft ordinance should include all six types of state-defined marijuana facilities as permitted uses, then let the village council decide which ones it wants to keep or eliminate during the adoption process.

Douglas asked Helmuth, who serves on council, if she and her fellow members want the planning commission to deliver a draft ordinance that’s complete, meaning it has “as little censoring on our part as possible.”

“I think the council wants you to write a good ordinance,” Helmuth replied. “If this planning commission doesn’t feel that we should have growers, tell the council that.”

But, she added, if the planning commission is going to eliminate facilities from the list of permitted uses, it should give a reason.

“If we’re not going to allow something, we better be able to explain why we’re not allowing it . . . I feel we have to justify everything we’re going to do,” Helmuth said.

In the draft ordinance, Ortega included buffers, which are areas where marijuana facilities could not be located.

Under the proposed language, such establishments “must be located at least 500 feet from the nearest lot line of” child care centers; licensed day care facilities; preschool program centers; primary, intermediate and secondary schools; public parks; and other marijuana facilities.

Ortega told commissioners it’s “common” to have a buffer between adult uses and residential areas, but he didn’t include one in the draft “because the village is so tiny.”

“If we did utilize that 500-foot residential buffer or any distance, (there) probably would be no place in which a (marijuana commercial) use could be located,” he said.

Commissioner Justin Ballard suggested the village could limit the numbers of the various types of marijuana facilities. “We could say we only want one of each and that’s it . . .That’s what I would propose,” he said.

“I don’t like one of anything,” retorted Helmuth, who said the idea of creating a “monopoly” gets “the hair on the back of my neck standing up.”

Ballard told Helmuth he understands her concern, but “this is one of those unique things” and in this situation, “you’re not going to please both” people who are for allowing marijuana businesses and people who are against having them, so there has to be some sort of compromise.

Commissioner Leslie Pielak expressed her concern that “public park is not well enough defined” in the draft ordinance and she’s worried about it leading to potential lawsuits.

Cooke indicated she would like the buffer between marijuana facilities and schools to remain at the distance contained in the law.

According to state law, a marijuana business cannot be located within 1,000 feet of a preexisting public or private school, unless a municipality adopts an ordinance reducing this distance requirement.

Douglas favors lowering the school buffer to 500 feet because at the maximum 1,000 feet, “we’re narrowing the space available (for marijuana facilities) down to a pittance.”

The chairman also indicated he supported “striking” the parks buffer from the draft.