There was no shortage of opinions, questions and concerns at the April 16 joint meeting between the village council and planning commission.

Some officials seem eager to blaze a trail when it comes to potentially allowing marijuana businesses to set up shop in Oxford Village.

“Why don’t we get a (head)start on tapping into that resource because I think it’s going to be an incredible revenue stream for us,” said Councilwoman Kate Logan.

Others, like Planning Commissioner Jack Curtis, are concerned about possibly getting burned if they devote “thousands of dollars” and hours of meeting time to crafting an ordinance to regulate such facilities only to have it rejected by the village council.

After discussing the issue for about an hour and 20 minutes, council voted 3-2 to place a six-month moratorium, effective immediately, on the six types of commercial marijuana establishments defined under the new state law that legalized recreational use of the drug.

The six business types are grower, safety compliance facility, processor, microbusiness, retailer and secure transporter.

As part of that motion, council directed planning commissioners to develop an ordinance framework regulating the time, place and manner of operation for marijuana facilities.

The motion also authorized holding a town hall meeting to gather public input on the issue within 45 days.

Voting in favor of the motion were council members Maureen Helmuth, Dave Bailey and Allison Kemp. Voting against it were village President Joe Frost and Logan.

Moratorium versus prohibition

There are “so many unanswered questions” concerning the commercial aspect of the recreational marijuana law approved by state voters last November, according to village attorney Bob Davis

Municipalities are waiting for the state to answer those questions.

“The state has said that they will not be issuing their final regulations on this until December of 2019,” Davis said. “The new governor believes that they will be issued in June of 2019. As of a phone call conference this morning, the governor is very committed to having these out earlier (rather) than later.”

The state’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) is supposed to begin accepting applications for recreational marijuana business licenses on Dec. 6, 2019.

“But indications are that Governor (Gretchen) Whitmer would like LARA to start accepting applications as early as the summer of 2019,” stated a seven-page question-and-answer pamphlet put out by the Michigan Municipal League (MML). “If the state isn’t ready by December 2019, then municipalities are on the front line – businesses can come to your community and ask for a license. Your municipality becomes the regulatory agency for a year, not the state.”

In light of this, Davis advised “the safest thing” to do right now is either place a moratorium on such businesses or enact an ordinance prohibiting them.

“You want to have something in place while you do what you’re going to do (with regard to these businesses),” Davis told the boards.

Davis has consistently recommended enacting a prohibition ordinance because it’s “legally safer” than a moratorium, which is “not as foolproof” in his opinion.

“Moratoriums have often been challenged legally as being inappropriate because they give the impression you’re just buying time and you’re not really doing anything,” he explained.

If someone challenges the moratorium, they have the “right to analyze” what the planning commission did during the six months and ask “was it enough,” according to Davis.

“That’s the only weakness of the moratorium process,” he said.

Under a prohibition, “that analysis is out the window,” Davis told council. A prohibition can stay in effect indefinitely and the village is not required to do any work to justify it.

The attorney explained a prohibition ordinance doesn’t have to be a permanent thing. It can always be “repealed,” if council so chooses, at a later date, he said.

That being said, Davis told the boards that a moratorium, while “not as legally safe” as a prohibition, is still “effective” as a “shield” if someone approaches the village about wanting to open a marijuana business.

But, during the moratorium period, Davis cautioned the planning commission must work on the issue in order to avoid getting sued.

“You can’t just do a moratorium to kick the can (down the road),” he said.

“I don’t think that the Village of Oxford is just going to sit on their hands during the moratorium period. I think progress will be made,” Bailey said.

Kemp asked if enacting a moratorium would “legally bind” the village to eventually adopting an ordinance allowing and regulating marijuana facilities.

“You’re not guaranteeing that you’re going to do this,” Davis replied.

Davis explained the only thing the moratorium guarantees is that marijuana-related uses will not be allowed in the village for a six-month period while the planning commission researches and prepares an ordinance for council’s review and consideration.

“Council could still reject it and still (enact an) ordinance to ban it all,” Davis later told this reporter. “(The moratorium just) gives (the village the) authority to reject applications (for businesses) legally.”

With regard to Curtis’ concern about potentially wasting time and money creating something that could be rejected, Bailey said that “could happen on any issue” where the planning commission makes a recommendation.

“It’s nothing to do with marijuana,” he said.

In Davis’ view, the village would be spending money “more wisely” under the prohibition option because the planning commission could wait until the state issues its regulations, then work on creating an ordinance.

That can’t happen under the moratorium.

“(The planning commission) must spend your money ASAP,” Davis said.

Council member views

Logan opposed taking any action that she perceives as going “against the voters’ wishes.”

Michigan voters approved legalizing the recreational use of marijuana 2,356,422 (55.89 percent) to 1,859,675 (44.11 percent). In Oxford Village, the proposal passed 904 (56.86 percent) to 686 (43.14 percent).

“(Marijuana) is legal. That’s the bottom line,” said Logan, who declared she’s “pro-marijuana,” both recreational and medicinal.

“We’re talking about a natural thing that grows in the Earth. It’s a plant,” she said.

“Rather than kicking the can” down the road with this issue, Logan told her fellow officials they need to accept “this is where we are as a culture” and recognize “we have the ability to work this out right now,” which is “our job.”

Logan explained she would rather have licensed businesses providing marijuana than people growing it inside their homes. She fears the latter could hurt property values and lead to burglaries.

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. Home growers cannot sell their marijuana.  It can be gifted, but not sold.

It was pointed out by village Police Chief Mike Solwold that voters approved the drug’s recreational use, not where businesses related to it should be allowed to operate.

“We’re talking about whether we want to sell this in our town,” he said.

The law gives municipalities the power to prohibit marijuana businesses or place restrictions on them. “Reasonable restrictions” on “public signs” for marijuana establishments can be adopted by municipalities as well as regulations concerning “the time, place and manner of operation.”

“You didn’t vote on where it should be sold or how it should be sold,” Davis said.

But, Davis added that once something is legalized, “you’ve got to be able to get it somewhere.”

To Helmuth, now that marijuana is legal, the village “should allow (businesses related to it) somewhere” within its boundaries.

“I was always taught that if it’s legal, you’ve got to find a place to allow it,” she said. “It doesn’t have to be at the intersection of Burdick and (M-)24, but . . . you’ve got to find the best spot to put it.”’

Hypothetically speaking, Helmuth noted that if TKMS, a local company on S. Glaspie St. that specializes in hauling materials like gravel and demolition debris, “decides tomorrow (that) they want to start hauling dope,” she doesn’t “want to tell them they can’t do that.”

Bailey said he’s “thought about (the issue) quite a bit” and he favored voting to “shut down everything” concerning marijuana businesses “at least . . . temporarily.”

“At some future time, we can always reconsider that,” he said.

Because of the new law, Frost said marijuana is “going to be in our community whether we want it here or not.” He believes allowing marijuana businesses “does open up the opportunity for potential revenue,” but it also exposes the village to “potential risk.”

“I’ve always maintained that we do not have enough information,” Frost said.

Pick and choose

The question was raised as to whether the village could allow certain types of marijuana businesses, but not others.

“Nobody knows the answer because the regulations haven’t come out,” Davis said.

“That’s one of the things (the state is) going to clarify,” he added.

According to the MML pamphlet, the law is  “less than clear on whether municipalities can pick and choose which type of establishments they will allow. However, there is an argument for doing so.”

One thing that is for sure is municipalities cannot enact any bans on transporting marijuana through them.

“You can’t keep (them) from driving through the Village of Oxford,” Davis said. “That’s one of the uses that you cannot prohibit.”

Federal law versus state law

Because marijuana is still illegal under federal law, Frost asked how this could impact municipalities that allow commercial enterprises related to the drug.

Davis explained “tension” still exists between federal and state laws on this issue, but “right now,” the Department of Justice “has a policy in effect” that “they’re not enforcing” the federal law.

“They’re not going into states whose voters approved the legalization of marijuana and . . . arresting people for the possession of marijuana. They’re not doing it,” he said.

However, the Justice Department is still “enforcing the banking laws,” according to Davis, which means financial institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) cannot handle money from businesses involved in the marijuana trade.

Davis noted that means marijuana facilities are typically “cash heavy” businesses, which “frightens law enforcement to some degree” because with large amounts of money comes the potential for robberies.