MANSFIELD — Mansfield City Council approved a weed ordinance Tuesday night.
But it had nothing to do with a moratorium on potential recreational cannabis dispensaries in the city.
On a night council amended city laws regarding the allowable length of noxious weeds growing in Mansfield, it opted to delay until June a vote on legislation that would place a six-month hold on any businesses that may wish to open a marijuana dispensary in the community.
Moments after the bill was introduced in caucus, 2nd Ward Councilwoman Cheryl Meier questioned the timing.
“My biggest concern is that we’re voting on this tonight. We’re got one read and we’re voting on it. It doesn’t give us an opportunity to hear from any citizens. (Could) somebody give us an answer on why we’re having to do it this evening?” Meier asked.
Mayor Jodie Perry, even as local lawmakers began to question the proposal, said it was not her original intention to have council vote on the moratorium Tuesday night.
An apparent miscommunication with the law director’s office led to the proposal going to council members late last week marked for a Tuesday evening vote.
“It was really not our intention to have this up for a vote tonight. So that’s my bad that I didn’t catch that when this was sent out last week. We really do want to hear from the general public and we have been expecting to engage in that conversation,” Perry said.
“We think it’s really important to hear from the state what kind of local controls will cities have, as far as zoning (and) enforcement. I just think there’s a lot of questions. I think it’s better for us to have all of those before we make the decision as a community,” the mayor said.
Instead of a vote Tuesday, the proposal will follow a schedule of three reads, allowing more time for public input. A first read was scheduled May 7 with a second read on May 21. The issue is now scheduled for a vote on June 4.
The mayor’s words appeared to head off concerns from council members, though most lawmakers who spoke expressed reservations at ever allowing a cannabis dispensary in the city.
Rev. El Akuchie, who represents the 3rd Ward, spoke in favor of perhaps a permanent ban against cannabis dispensaries, a step already taken by Shelby City Council, Lexington Village Council and Madison Township trustees.
He pointed to the fact state lawmakers have not taken any action on marijuana dispensaries since 57 percent of Ohio voters approved State Issue 2 in November, a citizen petition that also gave local governments the right to decide for themselves whether to permit marijuana dispensaries in their communities.
Ohio lawmakers can propose and pass modifications to the new law. Residents can’t legally purchase marijuana yet, but they can grow their own — six plants per person with 12 plants per residence.
Issue 2 created the Division of Cannabis Control within the Ohio Department of Commerce. That division expects to complete the rulemaking process for recreational cannabis licensing applications by June 7 and plans to start giving provisional licenses for such cannabis facilities by Sept. 7, according to state officials.
Akuchie also pointed to a presentation earlier Tuesday evening from Richland County Children Services officials, who said drug use among parents was the No. 1 reason the child welfare agency had to seek custody of children in 2023.
“This is one of those issues that requires more time for the citizens to weigh in, but besides that, we know other cities are not waiting for (state lawmakers), which is not really ready to do anything about it,” he said.
“Other cities around the state are not just (establishing moratoriums), they are completely establishing marijuana (dispensary) bans in their counties, in their cities,” he said.
4th Ward Councilwoman Cynthia Daley shared Akuchie’s concerns.
“It’s conflicting because we have a drug issue here and I see marijuana as a gateway for other drugs. I work with a drug counseling agency and we see people who are being affected. So this is really something that we really have to take into consideration,” Daley said.
5th Ward Councilman Aurelio Diaz said the marijuana topic remains controversial.
“It has been for quite some time. We know that. We all have our own different views on it. But I definitely think we should do the very opposite of what’s been done recently … just not having a conversation and voting on it right away,” Diaz said.
“Despite our views, whether it’s our beliefs or whatever, we have a lot of people in our community who have opinions about this. I know we’ve all been getting some emails and calls.
“It’s just really so heated and I think we need more time to really equally and fairly get all input and all perspectives before we really do anything with it. I am glad that a moratorium is being discussed and we’re (not) the ones who are making all the decisions before we get any input from anyone else,” Diaz said.
At-large Councilwoman Stephanie Zader was the only local lawmaker Tuesday who spoke about the potential economic benefit from a cannabis dispensary.
“We haven’t put in place the processes and procedures to look at adapting this into our city, but I also know that we’re in dire need of economic development in our city, and these businesses are going in all across the state of Ohio as this happens,” Zader said.
“I think limiting our options when it comes to economic development is an unwise choice. I’m a conservative sitting up here, and this is probably not the popular conservative opinion, but that’s never been my agenda up here.
“My agenda is only what’s best for the city. I know it’s a fairly new thing, but I guess my question is what is the reason why we are looking to limit this when other municipalities are looking at adopting this into how they do business and capitalizing on those economic development dollars?” Zader asked.
Two residents did speak on the issue during council’s public participation period. One suggested placing an excise tax on future local marijuana sales that would benefit local arts organizations. Another said the negative impact of marijuana on a community outweighed any benefits and dispensaries should be banned.
Safety Service Director Keith Porch, like the mayor, said the administration was not opposed to three reads on the moratorium proposal.
“That was simply an oversight. It is definitely not my opinion that it should be voted on tonight. If council would like three reads, again, no opposition there.
“The purpose of this legislation was ultimately to allow (time to determine) what the final regulations from the state are going to be.
” Ultimately, if that is revealed, then we want to be able to provide the full scope and the story to counsel where they can then vote on that and make an informed decision,” Porch said.
Ultimately, council did approve changing sections 915.01 and 915.03 of the city’s ordinances involving weeds and trees. It reduced the height at which weeds become illegal, and also make it more expensive for property owners if the city has to have lots mowed.
There are exceptions made for “native plants,” provided there is “purposeful maintenance.”
According to the change, “the city shall allow and encourage the purposeful
maintenance of native plants that can be left unmowed without a height limit on a case by case basis, based on visual inspection that allows for such growth when a reasonable number of the following cues are present:
(1) Clean edges and boundaries such as mown strips along bordering properties, pathways, driveways and sidewalks, except the tree lawn and within 6 feet of a public street
(2) Fences and borders
(3) Obvious regular maintenance is occurring
(4) Flowering plants and trees
(5) Wildlife feeders and houses
(6) Familiar layouts and design elements
The law also does not impact home gardens where residents may be growing crops, such as tomatoes or corn.
\
