ESCANABA — While no formal decisions were made Wednesday during a joint meeting of the Escanaba City Council and Planning Commission on the future of marijuana in the city, major strides were taken as the two boards laid out what they envisioned commercial marijuana could look like in Escanaba.

“Keep in mind folks, this is a work session. We are not passing laws tonight,” said Mayor Mark Ammel.

To give direction to Laura Genovich, an attorney with Foster Swift of Grand Rapids who is assisting the city with the creation of the ordinances necessary to legalize commercial marijuana, the two boards set out to answer a series of questions.

The first question tackled by the boards what what types of marijuana establishments should be allowed in the city, which under state law range from marijuana grow operations and retail shops to processors and transporters. Taking a free-market approach to the question, the two boards felt that all levels of marijuana grow operation were acceptable, including those under an “excess marihuana grower” license, which can have up to 10,000 plants. They also felt marijuana processors, retailers, safety compliance facilities, secure transporters, and consumption establishments — which are essentially marijuana bars — could also have a place in the city. The council also agreed to allow businesses to “stack” licenses for these types of businesses. In practice, this allows a single business to increase the amount of plants they can grow or to offer more than one type of service, such as processing and transporting.

Only one type of establishment was seen as unworthy by the council and commission. Not making the cut were marijuana microbusinesses, which are individuals licensed to cultivate not more than 150 plants, process and package marijuana, and sell or transfer the product to individuals 21 years of age or older or to a marijuana safety compliance facility. They are not permitted to sell or transfer marijuana to retails stores or consumption establishments.

“It’s a much smaller type of operation with a limited number of plants and growing it on site. I don’t have statistics on how many of them there are opposed to (other types) but I would would agree, they’re going to just naturally generate less revenue than a traditional retailer, most likely,” said Genovich, who attended the meeting virtually.

Given the legal ability of residents to grow their own marijuana for personal use, the council and planning commission both came to the conclusion that microbusinesses were unnecessary in the city.

“Personally, I don’t see a need for microbusinesses,” said Council Member Tyler DuBord.

After some discussion as to why the city might want to allow medical marijuana establishments in addition to establishments targeting the adult use market, the city directed Genovich to allow both in her draft ordinances, despite the decline in demand for medical marijuana after adult use was decriminalized. Besides allowing establishments more freedom in deciding how to structure their business, the decision would let businesses hold both types of licenses, allowing them to sell medical marijuana to those with medical marijuana cards.

According to Genovich, medical marijuana is typically a less expensive product.

After deciding which types of establishments would be permissible, the two boards tackled the question of whether or not to cap the maximum number of marijuana businesses in the city. The two board decided against instituting a cap because, while some may have wanted to, doing so would have required the city to put in place a competitive process for deciding which applying businesses received licenses from the city. According to Genovich, the vast majority of litigation against cities who have permitted marijuana establishments has been from businesses who have been denied licenses and claimed they were discriminated against in a process that was not competitive.

“That would be a nightmare if somebody thought that you were picking favorites,” said Planning Commission Chair James Hellermann.

Perhaps the biggest question Wednesday was where to allow commercial marijuana establishments. That question was weighed in on by both the boards and by residents.

“I’m just here in the interest of advocating I guess for an exclusion zone around the churches of this town. I think with the legalization of marijuana it … runs the risk of introducing elements that just are not suitable to what we have going on in the churches,” said Fr. Tim Ferguson, pastor of St. Joseph and St. Patrick Parish, who noted there were a large number of children who attended youth group and other activities at churches.

Not all agreed with Ferguson’s request.

“When you look at the placement of churches in the city of Escanaba, they are very close to Ludington Street, which is one of the main focuses of dispensaries possibly and if you have the buffer zone, it’s going to eliminate a lot of the availability of places to go in on Ludington Street, which would leave a lot of empty buildings still empty,” said resident Kelli Van Ginhoven.

Under the draft ordinance last touched by the city’s planning commission in 2019, marijuana establishments of all types would be prohibited in residential zones; retail establishments would be allowed in business and commercial zones D, E, E-1, E-2 and E-3; Class A growers and safety compliance facilities could be in light manufacturing (F) and industrial parks (F-1); and Class B and C growers, and safety compliance facilities could exist in heavy manufacturing (G). No changes were recommended to these rules, however the suggested buffer districts could significantly reduce the available land for marijuana establishments.

In addition to maintaining the state’s recommended 1,000-foot buffer zone around schools, the council recommended honoring Ferguson’s request to adding 1,000 foot buffer zones around churches. They also added the buffer to areas around commercially zoned daycare facilities, and, at the request of Council Member Karen Moore, libraries.

“To be honest, I’d like to say 1,500 feet. Why not? Why not? I mean, this is, this is all an experiment,” said Moore.

The remainder of the council disagreed with Moore’s restrictive stance on how close establishments could be to the four property types, but agreed to include all four based on the idea these were places where children congregated on a regular basis.

The planning commission was directed to review the buffer zones and develop a new map for the council to review. After that takes place, the two boards will reconvene to evaluate whether or not the rules are too restrictive and to address some of the other questions left unanswered Wednesday.

Among those questions is whether or not the city will allow special events to be permitted for marijuana sales and consumption.

“That’s going to be an extended conversation,” said Ammel. “There were a few questions left unanswered”