Shut Out? Restrictive Local Ordinances

[+Malamute]

North Branch

 

 

North Branch Ordinance Restricting Caregivers and forbidding Commercial Operations

 

I figured i would just point out this phrase that is being used consistantly throughout a large number of the Local Ordinances. These are being passed with intent and purpose. Localities want control to do as they wish.

 

 

c) Despite the provisions of the medical marijuana legislation, marijuana is still a controlled substance under Michigan law and the limited legalization of medical marijuana has a potential for abuse that should be closely monitored and to the extent permissible regulated by local authorities.

[+Malamute]

Dryden

 

 

Dryden Ordinance Regulating Dispensaries

[+Malamute]

Albert Township

 

 

Albert Township Ordinance Restricting Caregivers Requiring Permits

[GregS]

Another point to consider is that many communities use moratoria to shut us out. By continually extending them, typically every six months, they prove themselves smart by half. Some of these have been continually extended for years already. That is the game they play, with no intention to bring them to a close.

Edited March 19, 2013 by GregS

[+Malamute]

Well, i have been listing the Ordinance results from the push by Michigan Municipal League(MML) and Hubbard Law Firm and Gerald Fisher.

 

 You can see the damage being caused by pushing for allowing local ordinances to govern the MMJ program.

 

 

Well, here goes NPRA trying to get MML to support them with local ordinances being the law.  Anyone see any danger or the patterns on the wall?

 

 

 

 

 

"NPRA Lobbyist Kevin Mckinney has informed us that on March 28th the Michigan Municipal League will be taking up HB 4271 and determining their position. It is important that they hear from their members to help form a positive outcome. If the MML chooses to take a position of support that will help us greatly, particularly in the Senate. Please consider contacting your local officials including, Mayors, City Council Members, City Attorneys, ect. The MML includes Cities and Villages but NOT Townships. We need these local officials to contact the MML and voice their support for HB 4271 Medical Marijuana Provisioning Center Regulation Act. Be sure to let them know that HB 4271 give control back to local municipalities to allow, disallow, zone and regulate medical marijuana provisioning centers. If you know any municipal leaders and are willing to help please feel free to contact me off list to assist in any way I can as well as to provide the correct contact info. Thanks in advance for you help!"

Edited March 21, 2013 by Malamute

[cristinew]

DON'T OPEN UP OUR LAW  PLEASE,.. JUST SAY NO TO 4271

[GregS]

Inasmuch as the appeal in Ter Beek has not been accepted by the SC, and that it is uncertain if or when they will agree to hear it, it is absolutely necessary to move quickly. If the Court takes up the appeal that will put a stop to the opportunity to use the standing decision to compel compliance. I do not expect it to come to that, and hope and expect that the Court will refuse it.

Edited March 22, 2013 by GregS

[+Malamute]

Jackson City medical marijuana work group to put ordinance before City Council in June, members say

 

 

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2013/03/jackson_city_medical_marijuana_1.html

 

JACKSON, MI – Officials from the Jackson medical marijuana work group say they expect to bring a medical marijuana ordinance before City Council in June.

 

Group chairwoman and City Council member Laura Dwyer Schlecte, 4th Ward, said group members are leaning toward providing an ordinance that prohibits Jackson caregivers from growing medicinal marijuana in their homes but allows them to grow in industrial zoned properties.

 

Work group members include Schlecte; council member Derek Dobies, 6th Ward; Andrew Dotterweich; and Gerald Montgomery.

 

"We began to write an ordinance that allows and includes dispensaries in the city," Schlecte said. "After the prosecutor took dispensaries out of the mix, we had to start from square one."

 

In February, Jackson County Prosecutor Jerry Jarzynka ordered all 18 medical marijuana dispensaries in the county to close their doors. He cited the Supreme Court's ruling that banned patient-to-patient sales.

 

Schlecte said she expects the group to meet one or two more times before finalizing the draft ordinance that will be put before City Council.

 

"Our concern is the ease of access if caregivers were allowed to grow in their homes," she said. "Having marijuana in a neighborhood also decreases property values."

 

Schlecte said the group would take recommendations from the city's zoning board before restricting cultivation to industrial areas and putting the draft ordinance before council members.

 

The ordinance currently under review by work group members includes a medical marijuana cultivation location license fee as well.

 

"Caregivers and medical marijuana advocates put forward the license fee idea," Schlecte said. "They used it as a way of saying 'we're willing to work with you if you can work with us.'" <------Yea right "Cg's",- they mean dispensaries.

 

The fee would be set by City Council, according to the draft ordinance.

 

A Jackson caregiver and cultivator who wished to remain anonymous said city lawmakers and county prosecutors are missing the point.

 

"The 2008 medical marijuana law that passed was put forward so medical marijuana patients would have safe access to the drug," he said. "The laws and ordinances that are being passed after the fact are restricting access and causing problems for medical marijuana patients."

[shishka]

"Our concern is the ease of access if caregivers were allowed to grow in their homes," she said.

 

You do not want easy access for patients?

[+Malamute]

"Our concern is the ease of access if caregivers were allowed to grow in their homes," she said.

 

You do not want easy access for patients?

 

Nope,... only "Safe Access".

 

 Caregivers in neighbourhoods arent "safe" according to "safe access" people.

[Restorium2]

Ahhh, I get it now, 'Safe Access' means that every bit of cannabis in the state is accounted for on paper. The 'Safe' part means 'They' want to be safe from our drugs getting on the streets. That's what the dispensaries are serving up for the canna phobes. They are saying that they will give them that if they can have a store monopoly with total accounting of everyone and everything that comes and goes. Too bad that's not what our state laws says. Even our attorney general is willing to have our state law rule now with the new changes. But that doesn't make the dispensary owners any money so they want to ruin what we have.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Restorium2

[SFC]

 

 

Edited April 1, 2013 by SFC

[SFC]

 Obviously somebody is listening to the talking points.  This business that caregivers are somehow too incompetent to handle their patients is not getting traction.

 

 

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/A5/20130322/NEWS01/303220038/Marijuana-collective-alters-its-business-model-stay-legal?odyssey=obinsite&nclick_check=1

Edited April 1, 2013 by SFC

[GregS]

Damm we're good.

 

Next up, we bone 4271.

[TheHarvester]

For whatever reason, I always thought that Jackson could be where the great/last battle will be fought.

Here's hoping that I'm wrong about the way this will turn out.

[Hayduke]

I do not recall anything in the law that says a caregiver must not make a profit.

 

It seems this rap about "having to receive your marijuana in a back alley" is the common rally theme.

 

What BS

[GregS]

I do not recall anything in the law that says a caregiver must not make a profit.

 

It seems this rap about "having to receive your marijuana in a back alley" is the common rally theme.

 

What BS

Right. That statement is wrong.

 

We are working to become a respectable organization again, and will be addressing these things more directly.

 

Thanks HD and CPU

[+Malamute]

Sec 6(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

 

 

 

Definiton of "costs" as listed and defined in Blacks Law Dictionary 8th edition:

 

"Cost" n 1. The amount paid or charged for something; price or expenditure. Cf. EXPENSE

 

 Types of costs:

 

 aboriginal cost

 after cost

 applied cost

 average cost

 avoidable cost

 carrying cost

 common cost

 cost of completion

 direct cost

 distribution cost

 fixed cost

 flotation cost

 historical cost

 implicit cost

 indirect cost

 manufacturing cost

 marginal cost

 mitigation cost

 mixed cost

 net book cost

 opportunity cost

 original cost

 prime cost

 prophylactic cost

 replacement cost

 social cost

 sunk cost

 tangible cost

 transaction cost

 unit cost

 variable cost

 

It goes on for 2 more pages with full definitions... ;-)

 

 

 

Definition of "Compensate" as listed and defined in Blacks Law Dictionary 8th edition:

 

"Compensate" vb. 1. To pay (another) for services rendered <the lawyer was fairly compensated for their time and effort> 2. To make an amendatory payment to; to recompensate.

 

 

Definition of "Compensation" as listed and defined in Blacks Law Dictionary 8th edition:

 

"Compensation" n. Remuneration and other benefits recieved in return for services rendered; esp. salary or wages.

   "Compensation consists of wages and benefits in return for services. It is payment for work, If the work contracted for is not done, there is no obligation to pay. [Compensation] includes wages, stock options plans, profit-sharing, commissions, bonuses, golden parachutes, vacation, sick pay, medical benefits, disability, leaves of absence, and expense reimbursement." Kurt H. Decker & H. Thomas Felix II, Drafting and Revising Employment Contracts S 3.17, at 68(1991).

 

 

 Definition of "Expense" as listed and defined in Blacks Law Dictionary 8th edition:

 

 "Expense" n.  An expenditure of money, time, labor, or resources to accomplish a result;

[GregS]

Notwithstanding that the SC has agreed to hear Ter Beek, these restrictive local laws are still in play. Is it best to play the waiting game with the court, or to continue our work toward this in one form or another? Patients are still at risk and being prosecuted. The appeal will not stop that.

[GregS]

FWIW, this is the content of the correspondence that would have been mailed to the City of Flushing, had it not been for the SC decision to hear Ter Beek. I want to thank the several people who offered help and support, and you know who you are.

 

 

(Header redacted)

 

April 3^rd, 2013

 

Att’n: (redacted)

City of Flushing

725 E Main St.

Flushing, MI  48433

 

Dear (redacted),

You may remember me when I worked for (redacted). I have been tasked to contact Flushing City in regard to its current prohibitive medical marijuana ordinances, to wit, Sections 153, which speaks to the sale/and or possession of paraphernalia, and 135, which speaks to zoning, of the Flushing Municipal Code. I know you to be familiar with zoning. Community ordinances that conflict with the state Medical Marihuana Act have been ruled void and unenforceable at the State Court of Appeals in the case of Ter Beek v City of Wyoming (copy attached). These ordinances, by their nature, conflict with the MMMA of 2008. Though leave to appeal has been filed by the City of Wyoming, it is widely regarded that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it. Regardless, it is settled law until and unless the appeal is accepted. We are asking that the City remove these ordinances.

 

A resident of the City is presently being prosecuted under one of the ordinances. He is faced with fines and jail time. Other residents remain at risk. The reasons to eliminate this hardship on the people are sufficient to expect the Council to review the legal standing of these ordinances.

I am coming to you first. I know you to be an uubersmart and talented guy. Please look into the facts. If you agree, and can give guidance how to proceed to rescind these ordinances, we will be grateful.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Greg (redacted)

 

cc: Michael Kormon, Attorney at Law

      (redacted), Attorney at Law

      (redacted)

 

 encl.

 

Edited April 7, 2013 by GregS

[ozzrokk]

FWIW, this is the content of the correspondence that would have been mailed to the City of Flushing, had it not been for the SC decision to hear Ter Beek. I want to thank the several people who offered help and support, and you know who you are.

 

 

(Header redacted)

 

April 3^rd, 2013

 

Att’n: (redacted)

City of Flushing

725 E Main St.

Flushing, MI  48433

 

Dear (redacted),

 

You may remember me when I worked for (redacted). I have been tasked to contact Flushing City in regard to its current prohibitive medical marijuana ordinances, to wit, Sections 153, which speaks to the sale/and or possession of paraphernalia, and 135, which speaks to zoning, of the Flushing Municipal Code. I know you to be familiar with zoning. Community ordinances that conflict with the state Medical Marihuana Act have been ruled void and unenforceable at the State Court of Appeals in the case of Ter Beek v City of Wyoming (copy attached). These ordinances, by their nature, conflict with the MMMA of 2008. Though leave to appeal has been filed by the City of Wyoming, it is widely regarded that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it. Regardless, it is settled law until and unless the appeal is accepted. We are asking that the City remove these ordinances.

 

A resident of the City is presently being prosecuted under one of the ordinances. He is faced with fines and jail time. Other residents remain at risk. The reasons to eliminate this hardship on the people are sufficient to expect the Council to review the legal standing of these ordinances.

 

I am coming to you first. I know you to be an uubersmart and talented guy. Please look into the facts. If you agree, and can give guidance how to proceed to rescind these ordinances, we will be grateful.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Greg (redacted)

 

cc: Michael Kormon, Attorney at Law

      (redacted), Attorney at Law

      (redacted)

 

 encl.

 

 

 

You are doing good work my friend and ever prepared..... Bravo.....

[MiMedical]

*THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED AT A MEETING OF THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HELD ON NOVEMBER 28, 2011.

 

Draft Date

10/14/11

 

FRUITPORT CHARTER TOWNSHIP

 

ORDINANCE NO. 774

 

 

ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE

 

THIS IS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING CHAPTER OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR FRUITPORT CHARTER TOWNSHIP, MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN, BY ADDING SECTION 42-607 CONCERNING MEDICAL MARIHUANA.

 

THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF FRUITPORT, COUNTY OF MUSKEGON, STATE OF MICHIGAN, ORDAINS:

 

Section 1. Medical Marihuana. Section 42-607 of the Code of Ordinances, concerning medical marihuana, is added in its entirety as follows.

 

Sec. 42-607. Medical marihuana.

 

(a) For purposes of this section, the following words and terms shall have the following definitions.

 

(1) General rules: the general rules of the Michigan Department of Community Health, issued in connection with the MMMA.

 

(2) Marihuana: also known as marijuana, also known as cannabis; shall have the meaning given to it in section 7601 of the Michigan Public Health Code, Public Act 368 of 1978, MCL 333.7106, as referred to in section 3(d) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26423(d). Any other term pertaining to marihuana used in this chapter and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given to it in the MMMA or in the general rules.

 

(3) Medical use of marihuana: the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, as defined under the MMMA.

 

(4) MMMA: the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act; Public Act 2008, Initiated Law, as amended.

 

(b) Medical marihuana. A registered primary caregiver, in compliance with the general rules, the MMMA, the requirements of this section, the requirements of section 42-179, and the requirements of chapter 24 shall be allowed as a home occupation in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-6 districts as a matter of right, without obtaining a special use permit, because of the regulation established by and the confidentiality guaranteed by the MMMA. If there is a conflict between the provisions of section 42-179 and this section, this section shall control.

 

Nothing in this section or in this chapter is intended to grant, nor shall this section or this chapter be construed as granting, immunity from criminal prosecution for growing, selling, consuming, using, distributing, or possessing marihuana not in strict compliance with the MMMA and the general rules.

 

Since federal law is not affected by the MMMA or the general rules, nothing in this section or in this chapter is intended to grant, nor shall this section or this chapter be construed as granting, immunity from criminal prosecution under federal law. The MMMA does not protect users, caregivers or the owners of properties on which the medical use of marihuana is occurring from federal prosecution, or from having their property seized by federal authorities under federal law.

 

The following requirements for a registered primary caregiver shall apply.

 

(1) The medical use of marihuana shall comply at all times and in all circumstances with the MMMA and the general rules, as they may be amended from time to time.

 

(2) A registered primary caregiver must be located outside of a 1,000 foot radius from any school, including any day care facility, to ensure community compliance with federal "Drug-Free School Zone" requirements.

 

(3) Not more than one registered primary caregiver from a dwelling unit shall be permitted to service qualifying patients.

 

(4) All necessary building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits shall be obtained for any portion of the dwelling unit in which electrical wiring, lighting or watering devices that support the cultivation, growing or harvesting of marihuana are located.

 

(5) If a room with windows is utilized as a growing location for marihuana, any lighting between the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shall employ shielding methods, without alteration to the exterior of the dwelling unit, to prevent ambient light spillage that may create a distraction for adjacent properties.

 

(6) That portion of the dwelling unit where energy usage and heat exceeds typical residential use, such as a grow room, and the storage of any chemicals such as herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers shall be subject to inspection and approval by the fire department to insure compliance with applicable standards.

 

(7) The lot shall be open for inspection upon request by the building inspector, zoning administrator, fire department and law enforcement officials for compliance with all applicable laws and rules during the stated hours of operation/use and at such other times as anyone is present on the lot.

 

(8) No sign shall be permitted for the medical use of marihuana.

 

Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance was approved and adopted by the Township Board of Fruitport Charter Township, Muskegon County, on November 28, 2011, after a public hearing as required pursuant to Michigan Act 110 of 2006, as amended, and after introduction and a first reading on Octoberber 24__, 2011, and publication after such first reading as required by Michigan Act 359 of 1947, as amended. This Ordinance shall be effective on December 11, 2011, which is the eighth day after publication as is required by Section 401 of Act 110, as amended, provided that the effective date shall be extended as necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 402 of Act 110, as amended.

 

 

 

___________________________________ ___________________________________

 

Brian Werschem, Supervisor Carol Hulka, Clerk

 

Fruitport Charter Township Fruitport Charter Township

 

 

 

FCT 257 Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance 10142011

 

CERTIFICATE

 

I, Carol Hulka, the Clerk for the Charter Township of Fruitport, Muskegon County, Michigan, certify that the foregoing Fruitport Charter Township Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the Township Board held on November 28, 2011. The following members of the Township Board were present at that meeting: Brian Werschem, Carol Hulka, Rose Dillon, Ron Becklin, Dave Markgraf, Marjorie Nash, and Chuck Whitlow. The following members of the Township Board were absent: none. The Ordinance was adopted by the Township Board with members of the Board Whitlow, Markgraf, Hulka, Dillon, Nash, Becklin, and Werschem voting in favor, and members of the Board- none voting in opposition. Notice of Adoption and Posting of the Ordinance was published in The Muskegon Chronicle on December 3, 2011.

 

 

 

___________________________________

 

Carol Hulka, Clerk

 

Fruitport Charter Township

 

FCT 257 Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance 10142011

 

 

 

First Reading: October 24, 2011

 

Second Reading: November 28, 2011

 

Posting: December 1, 2011

 

Publication: December 3, 2011

 

Effective Date: December 11, 2011___________

 

http://www.fruitporttownship-mi.gov/visitors/25-the-township/351-proposed-zoning-text-amendment-ordinance-concerning-medical-marihuana.html

[+Malamute]

Bump

[+Malamute]

VILLAGE OF BINGHAM FARMS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON POSSIBLE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on Monday, May 11, 2015, at 7:30 p.m. at the Village of Bingham Farms offices located at 24255 Thirteen Mile Road, Suite 190, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025, the Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on a possible text amendment to the Village Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 157), to provide for the use and cultivation of medical marijuana in residential areas only in a way that is designed to comport with the intent of Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act MCLA 333.26425.

 

http://archive.hometownlife.com/article/20150429/LEGALS02/150428006/PUBLIC-HEARING-MEDICAL-MARIJUANA-MAY-11-2015
 

[t-pain]

some of these maybe old or drafts or entire zoning codes. just going to post a bunch...

 

http://archive.hometownlife.com/article/20150406/LEGALS20/150406008/ORDINANCE-NO-1638

southfield

 

http://www.ci.northville.mi.us/Services/Building/MedicalMarihuanaFinalOrdinance.pdf

 

http://www.garfield-twp.com/downloads/article_7_supplemental_and_special_use_standards_ph_draft_31715.pdf

 

http://www.nilestwpmi.gov/Portals/20/Complete%20Assembled%20final%20draft%203.19.15.pdf

 

http://www.elkrapids.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ELK-RAPIDS-ZONING-CODE.pdf

 

http://www.muskegon-mi.gov/departments/city-clerk/medical-marihuana/

http://www.muskegon-mi.gov/cresources/home-application.pdf

"MEDICAL MARIHUANA LICENSE APPLICATION for GROWING by PATIENTS"

anyone see this before?

 

I hereby allow the City of Muskegon Police Department to contact the Department of Licensing

and Regulatory Affairs to verify that I hold a valid Registry Identification Card as a Primary

Caregiver (and as a Patient, if applicable) and to verify the number of registered Patients who

have designated me as their Primary Caregiver with permission to grow medical marihuana on

their behalf. I authorize the City to perform this verification both at the time of my application

and at any other time during the continued existence of this license to verify that my status has

not changed with the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

there are groups that write these ordinances, like mml or nemcog.

google for marijuana site:www.nemcog.org to see more.

Edited May 1, 2015 by t-pain