The council unanimously postponed consideration of the licensing ordinance revisions until the council’s second meeting in June – June 18.

The council approved the  resolution that gives direction to the planning commission to review the medical marijuana zoning ordinance, on a 9-1 vote.

The council tabled the resolution directing the city attorney to delay enforcement activities until the revisions to the local ordinances have been either adopted or rejected. The tabling was achieved on a 6-4 vote. Voting against the tabling were mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). A tabled resolution will demise if it’s not brought back off the table in six months.

The board-recommended revisions to the medical marijuana licensing ordinance are laid out in detail in The Chronicle’s coverage of the medical marijuana licensing board’s Jan. 31, 2012 meeting. [.pdf of recommended licensing ordinance revisions] Representative of the revisions is a change that strikes the role of city staff in evaluating the completeness of a license application. The following phrase, for example, would be struck: “Following official confirmation by staff that the applicant has submitted a complete application …” The changes also establish a cap of 20 licenses, and grant the city council the ability to waive certain requirements. The power to grant a waiver to provisions in an ordinance through a simple resolution did not meet with a positive reception from several councilmembers, most notably Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

The zoning ordinance revision recommended by the medical marijuana licensing board was not itself considered by the city council on April 2. Instead, the council considered a resolution directing the city planning commission to review the medical marijuana zoning ordinance, including the licensing board’s recommended change. The one board-recommended change is to strike the following sentence: “Medical marijuana dispensaries and medical marijuana cultivation facilities shall be operated in compliance with the MMMA (Michigan Medical Marijuana Act).” [.pdf of the recommended zoning ordinance change] Derezinski was the sole vote against giving the planning commission direction. He’s the council’s representative to the planning commission.

The tabled resolution to direct the city attorney to delay enforcement activity against dispensaries would have directed the city attorney to “… delay all enforcement activities against medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities except for claims that they violate Section 5:50.1(3) of the City Code [zoning regulations], until the Council amends or rejects amendments to the zoning and licensing ordinances for medical marijuana.”

The resolution stemmed from recent action taken by the city attorney’s office, demanding that dispensaries submit additional details of their business operation, contending that such details were required in order to evaluate a dispensary’s  compliance with the MMMA. Dispensaries recommended for licenses by the board had already been required to submit a written explanation of their conformance with the MMMA. So the additional demand for information was not well-received by dispensary owners.

The general background of the current medical marijuana climate includes enactment of  two kinds of regulations for medical marijuana businesses last year, at the city council’s June 20, 2011 meeting. One piece of legislation established the zoning laws that apply to such businesses – establishing where medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities could be located. The other piece of legislation established a process for granting licenses to medical marijuana dispensaries. Cultivation facilities are not required to be licensed.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow. Meeting Report: [link] Analysis of meeting issues: [link]

The resolution reflects an ongoing tension between the city’s medical marijuana licensing board and the city attorney’s office.

The part of the city code called out for continued enforcement in the resolution, Section 5:50.1(3), specifies the zones in the city where medical marijuana businesses may be located. From the code: “Medical marijuana dispensaries shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as D, C, or M, or in PUD districts where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations. Medical marijuana cultivation facilities shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as C, M, RE, or ORL.” [.pdf of Section 5:50.1(3)]

The resolution stems from a meeting of the city’s medical marijuana licensing board on Feb. 28 that was convened in response to concerns by several dispensary owners, who have received letters, dated Feb. 24, from the city attorney’s office. The letters make specific inquiries into several aspects of the business model of dispensaries – in order to assess whether they are in compliance with Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act. Compliance with the MMMA is a requirement for issuance of a medical marijuana license, and recipients of the letters have license applications pending with the city. Although the legal position of the city attorney appears to be that it’s possible for a dispensary to operate in compliance with the MMMA, no explication of what that model would entail has been set forth.

Among the questions being posed to all dispensaries in the letters is the following: “Does any person or entity deliver marijuana to [Dispensary Name]? If so, does [Dispensary Name] ever pay, donate, or in any way give money to the person or entity who delivers the marijuana or to anyone else? If so, to whom is the money paid, donated, or given and how much?” [.pdf of set of letters]

The city council resolution is sponsored on the agenda by Sabra Briere, who is the city council’s representative to the medical marijuana licensing board. After its Jan. 31, 2012 meeting, the board submitted a required report to the council with recommendations on the issuance of the first dispensary licenses and revisions to the city’s medical marijuana ordinance. The report recommends to the council that 10 dispensaries be issued licenses.

The city council enacted zoning and licensing regulations for medical marijuana businesses at its June 20, 2011 meeting.

The resolution on the council’s March 5 agenda requests that the council decide on recommendations for amendments to the city’s medical marijuana ordinance before June 18, 2012.

Added after initial publication:  On Friday, March 2, members of the licensing board sent a statement to members of the city council that crystallizes the tension between the board and the city attorney’s office:

The City Attorneys’ Office decided to look at the MMMA and the McOueen case in Michigan (which is still in the appeal process) as laws forbidding dispensaries and has been aggressively trying to shut them down while we actively try to license them. The McOueen case is unsettled law, and yet it is the basis of action by the City Attorneys’ Office. Since both the Advisory board and the City Attorneys’ Office act at the direction of City Council, we find this confusing.

The Licensing Board came up with several resolutions for changes in the ordinances which would give dispensaries a chance in Ann Arbor by removing some of the wording which seems to give staff discomfort.

An attorney from the City Attorney’s Office was present at every Licensing Board meeting. They were aware of the Board’s resolutions, and knew our resolutions had been attached to an agenda to City Council. Even after that, they sent out new letters to all dispensaries, functionally requesting them to provide a business model to show they were in compliance with the MMMA and the McOueen case.

How can dispensaries be in compliance with the MMMA when they are not mentioned in the MMMA?

What business is it of the City to require a business plan of any business?

[.pdf of entire statement from Ann Arbor's medical marijuana licensing board to the Ann Arbor city council]