Dexter Amends Marijuana Ordinance

By Doug Marrin

The Dexter Planning Commission held a public hearing at its February 1, 2021, meeting in consideration of a text amendment to the zoning ordinance that would allow the medical use of marijuana as a home occupation.

The amendment would allow licensed medical marijuana caregivers to grow marijuana at their homes to be used solely to treat their patients. The caregiver must then deliver the marijuana to the patient. No commercial or recreational cannabis transactions would be permitted.

In presenting the amendments to the Commission, Dexter Community Development Manager Michelle Aniol explained, “The proposed amendment would define marijuana and establish medical use of marijuana as a home occupation. It also would include an amendment to the current definition of home occupation, new definitions for marijuana, marijuana collective, cooperative or dispensary, and medical use of marijuana.”.

The amendments, found in the Planning Commission’s meeting packet posted on the City’s website, entail the following:

1. An amendment to the current definition of Home Occupation.
2. New definitions for Marijuana, Marijuana Collective, Cooperative or Dispensary, and Medical Use of Marijuana.
3. Removal of the current definition of Medical Marijuana Home Use.
4. New Section 3.29, Medical Use of Marijuana. This new section would include the following:
   1. A locational restriction that allows for the cultivation of medical marijuana by primary caregivers, but only as a “home occupation.”
5. A mandate that “medical use” of marijuana by a primary caregiver be conducted entirely within a dwelling or an attached garage, except that a registered primary caregiver may keep and cultivate [medical marijuana], in an enclosed, located facility.
6. A requirement that the medical use of marijuana shall comply at all times with the MMMA and the MMMA General Rules, as amended.
7. A requirement for a primary caregiver to obtain a permit to grow medical marijuana.
8. An enforcement provision if a primary caregiver who holds a permit departs from the requirements of the Ordinance or the MMMA, including revocation of the permit.
9. The clarification that a permit is not required for a qualifying patient’s cultivation of marijuana for personal use and that a permit is not required for a qualifying patient’s possession or use of marijuana in their dwelling.
10. The prohibition of the distribution or use of items in the administration of marijuana on the premises of the primary caregiver.
11. A prohibition of qualifying patients from visiting, coming to, or being present at the residence of the primary caregiver where the home occupation is occupying, to purchase, smoke, consume, obtain or receive marijuana.

“There's a prohibition of the distribution or the use of items in the administration of marijuana on the premises of the primary caregiver, and a prohibition of qualifying patients from visiting, coming to, or being present at the residence of the primary caregiver where the home occupation is occurring to purchase, smoke, consume, obtain, or receive the medical marijuana,” Aniol explained to the Commission.

Upon its city attorney's advice, Dexter has modeled the amendments after Byron Township after a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court this past spring in the Druiter v Township of Byron case. The case determined the extent to which a municipality may regulate medical marijuana. Primarily, the Court determined that a municipality may regulate the land use of Michigan Medical Marijuana Act activity as long as,

1. The municipality does not prohibit or penalize the cultivation of medical marijuana, and
2. The municipality does not impose regulations that are unreasonable and inconsistent with regulations established by state law.

“The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act and the changes that were that you're being asked to consider today are based on the Byron Township ordinance,” said Aniol. “That is because it's withstood a challenge.”

Nobody commented during the public hearing. The Commission held a brief discussion after the hearing to clarify a few points in the amendment. A vote was then taken, and the changes were approved.

The amendments and Aniol’s summary can be found in the Planning Commission meeting packet posted on the City’s website.