By James Hanlon
Leader Staff Writer
After over two years of development and deliberation, the Oxford Village Council approved the first reading of its Adult Use Recreational Marijuana ordinance in a narrow 3-2 vote at its regular meeting, held virtually May 11.
The vote followed an hour-long public hearing in which the majority of residents’ comments opposed the ordinance. Councilmembers Allison Kemp, Ashley Ross and Maureen Helmuth voted yes, while Village President Kelsey Cook and Councilmember Lori Bourgeau voted no.
The ordinance is unrelated to medical marijuana or to the zoning ordinance text amendment Oxford Township is considering to regulate medical marijuana within the township. The village ordinance allows, but regulates, recreational marijuana businesses in the I-1 Industrial zoning district. The permitted facilities are microbusiness, processor, retailer, safety compliance facility and secure transporter. The latest draft prohibits large-scale grower facilities.

“I’m not opposed to adult use marijuana,” said President Cooke, explaining her vote. “However, I am opposed to it being in the Village of Oxford. I live on the west side of M-24, so it’s not going to be next to my home, but I do hear our residents and what they’re saying, and personally, I would not have moved to Oxford if it was known for being a marijuana business town. And I’m afraid that’s what it’s going to be known for.
“We have a really small town. We have a lot of residents that live very close to the industrial area, and really, listening to them and hearing their concerns – I hear the concerns about family. Personally, I’m not concerned about kids obtaining marijuana. I agree with some of the other people on the call as well that these businesses are well-done, they’re secure, they’re going to comply with the regulations. These are high money making businesses. They put a lot of money into the business, so I trust that. I just don’t think that it’s right for our small town. It’s in Lapeer, it’s in Lake Orion, there’s not an access problem for our residents, so I just don’t see the benefit to the residents of the village.”
Councilmember Helmuth said, “I’m going to start with what I said three years ago when we started this: this is now a legal business. This is like any other business in Oxford. We’ve zoned it. We’ve regulated it. It’s legal. There is no reason not to let them come in, build, renovate an old building, do it legally, meet the requirements. They’re not going to be selling to our kids. The kids can’t afford to go to the dispensaries. It’s taxed. It’s all regulated. They’re going to get it from your neighbors. If you think it’s not already here, you’re wrong. Walk through town, it’s everywhere, just inhale deeply.”
Councilmember Kemp said, “We have heard and listened and read all of your emails. We’ve heard plenty of comments both ways, and I understand that there’s a difference of opinions, and that’s okay. The council itself, the planning commission, has put a lot of thought into the ordinance. The ordinance has addressed odor, security, lighting, whatnot. We took some of your feedback, and we took growing off the table because there were some concerns there. . . We’ve come at this from every angle and this is not a decision that anyone here has made lightly.
“In terms of children, a lot of it comes to responsibility of parents and personal responsibility. I grew up in Oxford . . . and that was long before there was legal marijuana, medical or otherwise. . . I was a good kid, but I certainly knew where to get marijuana if I was one to partake. And again that comes down to personal responsibility and making good choices and making the choice that’s right for you, and if adults chose to partake, that’s their prerogative.”
Councilmember Ross cited national statistics to answer what the potential benefits are. “In 2020, job creation in the U.S. from the cannabis industry was almost 78,000 jobs. This is a new tax base. Approximately, for each microbusiness or provisioning center, there is a $30,000 revenue, not including all of the permit fees, etcetera, so in terms of tax base, if you’re wanting a solid number, from my understanding it varies every year, but that sounds about right.
“We listened to all the attorney’s warnings, we listened to the residents and your concerns. I agree with (Councilmember Helmuth) that if something is legal, and we are doing our best to regulate it and keep it safe, that’s what we’re going to be doing. It’s not necessarily a cash cow, but it does generate income.”
From her research from other states where it has been legal longer, “There has been no increase in crime. I heard a lot of concerns about property values, and from the research I have conducted, there’s no evidence that it negatively affects property value and some studies even show that it increases property value.”
Ross disagreed with Cooke in terms of access, “just because it’s to the north and south of us does not mean that there isn’t a need here in the village. I know we’re talking recreational, but that’s still someone traversing to potentially get medicine, and I’ve said that all along.”
Oxford Village Police Chief Mike Solwold publicly opposes the ordinance. Recognizing the chief’s position, Ross said “that’s something that we’re going to probably just disagree on, however much I respect his opinion. I think as a council we have shown that we support our police and we do our best to always keep them top of mind to make sure that they have the budget that they need and the staff that they need to keep the village safe and protected.”
Solwold had one brief comment during the public hearing. “Everybody, I think, has heard my comments and my feelings towards this,” he said. “I’ve only got one comment to make, and that is: listen to your residents. Thank you.”
During the hearing, some folks pointed out that marijuana is still federally illegal. Ross countered that there are only 13 states remaining where both medical and recreational marijuana are still illegal. “I think in our lifetimes, we’re going to see as a whole that this will be decriminalized, and from my end, I would like to be ahead of the pack.”
Ross agreed with Helmuth and Kemp, “There isn’t an issue with access to youth. If youth want to get it, they’re going to get it. They’re not going to get it from these facilities. If by chance that they do get it from these facilities, it’s a lot safer than getting it from anywhere else, which is not an argument for, just how it’s working.”
In conclusion she said, “I strongly believe the fact that it was ever made criminal is deeply rooted in racist ideology. No death from marijuana was or has ever been recorded. And studies consistently show alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, and we have plenty of places where we can obtain alcohol within the village limits. So I really, greatly, appreciate everyone’s input, but my decision today is going to be based on data and science.”
Councilmember Bourgeau said that Oxford Township would be a better place for these businesses than “our tiny little village.” The fact that the ordinance does not limit the number of businesses that could move in concerns her. “I’ve been told that there won’t be many businesses expected, but on our call we’ve had five people representing businesses.” Those representatives included several attorneys, a real estate developer and a lobbyist.
Bourgeau also worries that it’s too close to residential areas. Except for safety compliance facilities and secure transporters, other marijuana facilities must maintain a 500-foot buffer from schools and childcare facilities. Buffers between other marijuana facilities and public parks were removed from the latest version of the ordinance. There is no residential buffer, either.
Several residents who live near the industrial district spoke out at the hearing. Brian Teegardin, who lives in the Oxford Lakes subdivision said that 400 Glaspie St., an undeveloped parcel in the district “is almost literally my backyard. And I’m very much against having a marijuana processing facility that close to my property.” He expressed concerns about smells, impact on his property value and activity in the woods behind his house.
Bourgeau kept a tally of those speaking for and against during the call, and determined, “The majority are saying no. We’re hearing plenty of yeses, but not from village residents. It’s slanted toward no on village residents. If we had a vote based on this question, not the legalization, that would be different. If it went to yes, then that’s what the people say. But at this point in time, from what I’m hearing from the people that actually live in the village, pay our taxes and are invested in this village, they’re saying no. And that is the way I am going to go is what I am hearing my residents say.”
Kemp pushed back on this point. “Yes, tonight we’re hearing more noes, but in the grand sum between the two town halls, multiple public hearings, our yeses have not just been limited to outside business interests. We’ve heard plenty of residents come forward, in the two years I’ve been here, plenty have come forward in support as well, so it is not just the characterization that certain council members are just saying yes to outsiders.”
The second reading should be at the next regular council meeting, June 8. The council also extended its state of emergency declaration by one month, which will allow the June meeting to be held virtually as well, since another large turnout is anticipated.