Town of Normal Planning Commission met Aug. 10.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
Members Present:
Ms. Wodika, Mr. McCue, Mr. Matejka, Mr. Ropp, Mr. Broad, Mr. McBride
Members Absent: Ms. Woods
Others Present:
Director of Inspections Greg Troemel, Town Planner Mercy Davison, Office Associate Hilary Houk
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Chairman McBride and he noted a quorum was present.
Approval of Minutes:
Mr. McBride asked that the minutes from the July 6,2023 meeting be amended to add the word “against” in the second paragraph on page 10, in the sentence, “He also cautioned against describing … .” Mr. Matejka moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Ropp seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing:
a. 23-08-17-PC: Zoning Text Amendment, Sec. 15.20 (Adult-Use Cannabis) Ms. Davison reviewed the staff report, summarizing the proposed amendments as follows:
Separation from other land uses
Increase the distance requirement between all types of cannabis facilities and churches, schools, and daycare centers from the current 100 feet to 200 feet.
Separation from other cannabis facilities
Restrict retail cannabis dispensaries from being within 1,500 feet of any type of cannabis facility, with no exceptions for the type of business owner, including social equity owners. This separation requirement would apply to an infuser that co-locates with a dispensary and/or to a craft grower that co-locates with a dispensary. Note that the attached code language should be amended in Section 2 to clarify that the craft grower separation requirement only applies when the craft grower is co-located with a dispensary. The clarified text would read as follows:
Section 2(3). If the craft grower is co-located with a dispenser under sec. 15.20-60, then the collocated facility may not be located within 1,500 feet of the property line of any cannabis business facility.
The proposed separation would not apply to the other types of cannabis production facilities (cultivators, processors, transporters, or stand-alone infusers). Currently, the Town has no production facilities.
Town staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment as proposed.
Mr. Troemel mentioned that we have ongoing communication with the police department regarding issues at the dispensaries. To date there is nothing to report.
Mr. Matejka asked how the proposed code compare to alcohol sales.
Ms. Davison responded that those that hold a liquor license are required to be at least 100 feet from any church, school, daycare, hospital, home for the aged, or any military or naval station. This has been on the books for a long time. All these distances are measured from the edge of the building where the licensed is being utilized.
Gaming is another one with separation requirements, which cannot be within 200 feet from R-1 zoning districts.
Mr. Ropp asked if there was any interest with aligning the distances with what Bloomington allows (500ft).
Mr. Davison responded that staff looks at Bloomington’s code as a reference when adopting new codes that are more on the technical side. With zoning it is not uncommon that we have different regulations.
Mr. Troemel responded that if we did use Bloomington’s requirements, it would make one of our existing dispensaries non-conforming.
Ms. Davison stated that what is being proposed by council would not make any of the existing dispensaries non-conforming.
Mr. Ropp responded that creating a nonconformity would deter him from trying to align with Bloomington.
Mr. Broad stated that he works from a very strong belief that when the council or the planning commission are considering making a change, that we should understand why the change is being considered. There was a very clear discussion to what the proposed change was, but there was no discussion as to why. Mr. Broad asked for reasons as to why the change is being proposed.
Ms. Davison responded that she could only go by what was said at the public meeting when the council initiated the amendment. There are a few council members that share concerns with the residents that testified. When the dispensaries came to get their special use permits, there were several people that did not want them to be issued.
The individuals had concerns regarding addiction issues, not being family friendly or part of our culture, locations in the more populated areas, and bringing property values down. There was not anyone that brought actual research.
Mr. Broad responded that he appreciated the response and can understand those types of concerns. He wanted to know what evidence was presented that the larger separation would make it less family friendly or stop addiction.
Mr. Day stated that when this was originally passed, it was assumed that the state law would require dispensaries to be 1,500 feet apart, which would help prevent clustering of dispensaries. Changing the separation requirements from 100ft to all 200ft makes it far less confusing for administrative purpose. There is also some thought that 100ft is too close to a daycare.
Mr. Broad responded that moving from the 100ft to 200ft separation would bring the town out of alignment for the separation for alcohol sales.
Mr. Day stated there was never 100% alignment to begin with because there has never been a required distance for residential and alcohol sales. The 100ft separation comes from a state liquor code, not from the town.
Mr. Broad stated that Mr. Day offered some good noncontroversial reasons for the changes. He asked if the claims that Ms. Davison gave from the individuals that testified were supported by fears or facts.
Mr. Day responded that the changes that are being presented will not have much of an impact on the fear of marijuana. Going from 100ft to 200ft should not be huge issue. He wasn’t sure if there was any scientific evidence that exists, as you can find a study that agrees with either side.
Mr. Broad appreciated the staff report mentioned that the current dispensaries have not had any reported issues since they opened.
Ms. Davison responded that the police have not had any calls that a typical retail business doesn’t have.
Mr. Broad wanted to briefly explain why this was important to him. First – if he is being asked to look at a change, what are the reasons why and the supporting evidence. The history in our country of laws around cannabis has fallen hard on communities of color. In the view of many analysts the history of suffering and incarceration that followed from the view of weed was misguided, uniformed, and supported by nothing except fear and racism. Without evidence he risks falling into a history in our society that has been unjust.
Mr. McBride stated that it’s not uncommon to have inconsistencies when dealing with something new.
There was a brief discussion regarding the findings and recommendations.
Mr. McBride stated that it is possible for this commission to accept the findings and not the recommendations.
Mr. Querciagrossa stated that was correct.
Mr. Matejka motioned to adopt the findings and recommendations as presented by staff. Mr. McCue seconded the motion.
Mr. Broad wanted to point out that there is no evidence that the changes will promote public health, promote safety & morals, promote comfort & general welfare for the town, and help to conserve the value of a property.
Mr. Broad moved to strike finding 1.4 because all the other elements of the findings are unsupported.
Mr. McBride asked Mr. Broad if he was proposing and amendment.
Mr. Broad responded that was correct.
Motion failed for a lack of a second.
Mr. Matejka stated that he appreciates Mr. Broad’s thoughts. He did not think the change would impact the community. On the other hand, he presumes this is a moving target and that in ten years you will be able to purchase gummies at gas stations. Eventually, there could be a liquor and cannabis board that approves these kinds of things.
Mr. McBride thanked Mr. Broad and told him he appreciated his comments. He also anticipates we will see a lot of change here. He also noted that it is interesting to hear how outdated the verbiage in the liquor code is with regard to land uses.
Ayes: Mr. Matejka, Ms. Wodika, Mr. Ropp, Mr. McCue, Mr. McBride
Nayes: Mr. Broad
The motion carried 5-1
Other Business:
There will be a meeting in September.
Adjournment:
There being no further business, Mr. Matejka moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:37p.m.
https://www.normalil.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4720
Alerts Sign-up