The meeting’s central topic was the ordinance designed to regulate cannabis and hemp businesses in East Bethel, led by a presentation from the city attorney. This ordinance is crucial as it aims to provide a framework for managing various aspects of cannabis operations, including the application process, compliance checks, renewal procedures, and penalties for non-compliance. The city attorney outlined five main areas of local control under state law, including the adoption of a registration ordinance, restrictions on the number of cannabis retailers, and distance requirements from youth-oriented facilities. However, the attorney clarified that local authorities could only suspend registrations, not revoke them, highlighting the limitations of municipal power in this domain.

A significant part of the discussion revolved around the potential number of licenses available for cannabis businesses. While the state caps the number of cannabis retailers at 150, the number of meso and micro businesses remains unrestricted. Participants debated whether to limit the number of licenses within East Bethel, considering a trial period with a maximum of two retailers to monitor community impact. This cautious approach aimed to address potential concerns from residents, especially regarding the proximity of cannabis businesses to schools and youth facilities. Some participants expressed apprehension about overly restricting business opportunities.

Odor control emerged as a concern, with discussions on performance standards for cannabis facilities. The ordinance stipulates that businesses must maintain ventilation systems to prevent detectable odors beyond their premises. This requirement mirrors regulations from other cities, such as Cottage Grove, which mandates specific tools for odor monitoring. Participants debated the efficacy of such measures, acknowledging the challenges in regulating odor compared to more straightforward metrics like noise. The commission sought a balance between maintaining community comfort and allowing businesses to operate without undue burden.

The commission also examined zoning regulations, considering whether cannabis businesses should be allowed as conditional uses across various districts. The discussion included potential distance requirements, proposing 1,000 feet from schools and 500 feet from other sensitive locations. This flexibility aims to prevent clustering and preserve community character while allowing for responsible business development. Members expressed a willingness to adapt zoning restrictions based on feedback and evolving market conditions.

Signage and operational standards were also topics of interest, with the proposed ordinance restricting cannabis business signage to wall signs devoid of cannabis imagery, thereby reducing appeal to minors. The commission emphasized the importance of maintaining a professional appearance for cannabis businesses, akin to the liquor industry, to distance them from recreational stereotypes. Hours of operation would align with state statutes.