OXFORD VILLAGE – When it comes to deciding how to handle marijuana businesses, planning commissioners agreed they need to sit down with the village council and have a joint . . . a joint meeting, that is.

Last week, commissioners voted 7-0 to invite council to discuss the issue face-to-face with them. The purpose is to determine exactly what direction council wants the planning commission to take.

Potential options include enacting an ordinance that prohibits all marijuana establishments, placing a moratorium on them, allowing certain types but not all of them, and limiting the number of marijuana businesses as well as where in the village they could operate.

“It’s not something that you’re facing alone,” said village Planner Mario Ortega, of the Northville-based McKenna Associates. “Every municipality is having to deal with this. And they’ve all dealt with it in different ways.”

“This is probably one of the most contentious and perhaps . . . most important issues that we’ve had to deal with as a body,” said Planning Commission Chairman Gary Douglas. “Most of the stuff we deal with is pretty trivial.”

Commissioner Maureen Helmuth, who also serves on council, said having a joint meeting is “a great idea” because then everyone from both boards will be in one room, speaking for themselves and not trying to speak for others.

Council, at its March 12 meeting, voted 5-0 to send the issue of marijuana businesses to the planning commission for review and a recommendation.

Village Manager Joseph Madore told commissioners that council “hasn’t definitively said ‘yes’ or ‘no’” to marijuana businesses. The purpose of the motion was to “throw it” to the planning commission and find out “what they would like to see (happen) with it,” he said.

Michigan voters approved marijuana’s legalization for recreational use in the November 2018 election. The new law, which took effect Dec. 6, defines six types of commercial marijuana establishments, all of which require a state license. They are grower, safety compliance facility, processor, microbusiness, retailer and secure transporter. The law allows municipalities to ban or restrict these businesses.

“(Council is) leaning towards, perhaps, finding a way to allow certain (marijuana establishments) . . . to be somewhere in the village,” Madore said.

But, many on the commission weren’t comfortable tackling this issue without knowing exactly what council wants or expects them to do.

“I would be a lot more comfortable about this if we had a very clear direction,” Douglas said.

“I would like some very specific (direction stating), ‘yes, we do want to’ or ‘no, we don’t want to’ . . . Either we’re going to do it or we’re not going to do it,” added Commissioner Justin Ballard.

Commissioner Jack Curtis, who also serves as a trustee on the Oxford Township Board, expressed his concern about potentially wasting time and money developing ordinance language that could ultimately be rejected by council, which has the final say.

“I guess I don’t want to write a book and no one’s going to read it,” he said.

Responding to Curtis, Douglas said, “That’s always a risk (with) the work that we do. Just because we go to the (trouble) of making these ordinances, doesn’t mean council’s obligated to adopt them.”

“I avoid risk,” Curtis replied.

Curtis believes it’s up to council to “tell (the commission) what to do.”

“I do not want to go in the wrong direction,” he said.

Councilman Dave Bailey stepped up to the podium and said he didn’t recall council outlining “what would be an acceptable response (or) what would be an unacceptable response” from the planning commission.

He noted that whatever commissioners choose to do, he “can’t imagine” himself “complaining” that they either “did too much” or “didn’t do enough.”

“I believe that I, and probably other members of council, would be thankful for anything that might come out of this meeting. I have no expectations,” Bailey said. “But, I will be thankful for whatever comes out of this meeting or does not come out of this meeting.”

Curtis noted he voted against adopting the township’s ordinance prohibiting all marijuana establishments, which took effect on March 22. He favors allowing them and regulating them for two reasons:

One, “the voters wanted it.”

In the township and village together, legalization passed 5,625 to 4,651. In the village alone, it passed 904 to 686.

Two, Curtis doesn’t “want everybody in the world growing it.” He said “whether you like it or not,” state law allows individuals age 21 and older to cultivate on their premises up to 12 marijuana plants, at any one time, for personal use.

Curtis is concerned this could lead to people breaking into homes to steal it, fires sparked by growing equipment and people selling their excess marijuana. He’d rather have establishments where people can purchase it so as to discourage them from growing it in their homes.

“If Susie Q. and Johnny want to have a little hot tub party and burn one, let them go to the store and buy one,” Curtis said.

There was support among commissioners for seeking public comment on this topic.

“I think it would behoove us to get as much input (as possible),” Douglas said. “Frankly, I’d be thrilled by the opportunity to have people come in here and debate lively. I’d look forward to that.”

Douglas noted he doesn’t want to take “unilateral action” on this issue.

“The last thing I want to do is be vilified in this village for doing something that everybody hates,” he said.

Helmuth reiterated a point she made at the March 12 council meeting about the need for a larger venue in which to hold a public forum or town hall on this topic.

“We are never going to hold a public hearing in (the council chambers) on this. Somebody needs to find a bigger room,” she said.