[2. O-142-24 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 COLORADO AVENUE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.133 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 23ZONE0156). Action Required By: August 30, 2024 **Council Member Shameka Parrish-Wright can vote on this zoning change** Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24) ]

CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.248 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24. STREET CLOSURE 0008. MOTION TO APPROVE. PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 24, STREET CLOSURE EIGHT FOR THE ALBERTA OH, JONES PARK, PHASE ONE, THE, ALLEYS IN QUESTION. THEY ARE UNNAMED ALLEYS, AND YOU WILL SEE THE RIGHT OF WAY IN JUST A MOMENT. THEY'RE LOCATED METRO COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, THIS IS THE, THE BLOCK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO BETWEEN 23RD AND 20, SOUTH 23RD AND SOUTH 24TH STREET, BETWEEN ANDERSON STREET TO THE NORTH AND THE MAPLE STREET TO THE SOUTH, A LOT OF THE HOMES IN THIS AREA WERE PURCHASED THROUGH MSD, THROUGH A FEDERAL PROGRAM BECAUSE OF LOCAL, STORMWATER FLOODING, AND SO, THE AREA HAS GONE FROM BEING A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND IS NOW, BEEN CONVERTED TO ALBERTA JONES PARK. THE ALLEYS IN QUESTION YOU CAN SEE HERE, ON THE ON THE AERIAL PHOTO, THAT RIGHT OF WAY STILL EXISTS CURRENTLY, SO THE REQUEST IS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, THEY ARE UNNAMED ALLEYS WITHIN THE PARK, AND THEN, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE RESIDENCES RESIDENCES IN THE AREA WERE PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED AS PART OF AN MSD PROGRAM, THIS IS THE, THE PLAN, WHICH WAS ROTATED, BUT, YEAH, 23RD TO THE SOUTH, ON THE BOTTOM OF THE OF THE PHOTO, 24TH. OVER TO THE TOP. NOW, YOU CAN SEE THE AREAS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY RIGHT OF WAY THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CLOSE, THIS IS JUST A PHOTO LOOKING AT THE GRAND OPENING OF THE PARK. SO IF YOU GO OVER THERE TODAY, THIS IS WHAT THE PART OF WHAT YOU SEE. THERE'S A

[00:30:01]

PLAYGROUND, THERE'S SOME OPEN SPACE, A WALKING PATH AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THE, LAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WAS ON MAY 23RD, 2000, 24, AND THEN AT THE MAY 30TH, 2000, 24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, THEIR MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RIGHT OF WAY CLOSURE. AND THAT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 0. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN. OWEN. THANK YOU. CHAIR, I HAVEN'T BEEN TO THIS PARK OUT THERE FAIRLY RECENTLY. MIKE SO I WANTED TO I WAS THERE ANYBODY THAT HASN'T BEEN TO THIS PARK NEEDS TO PUT THAT ON THEIR LIST OF THINGS TO DO. I WAS THERE WITH MY KIDS RECENTLY, AND IT'S AN EXCELLENT I MEAN I THINK THE, THE WAY IT HAPPENED WITH THE MSD AND ALL OF THE THINGS IS IT'S AN INTERESTING WAY THAT IT HAPPENED. BUT YOU SHOULD PUT IT ON A LIST AND GO TO THIS PARK.

IT'S REALLY A NICE PLACE TO BE. IT HAS A NICE FEEL TO IT, AND IT FEELS GOOD THAT THE PARKS FOR ALL THAT WE'VE BEEN PUSHING FOR IN THIS CITY, THIS FEELS LIKE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT. SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS CLOSING TO FURTHER, PUSH THIS PARK FORWARD. I THINK THERE'S A SECOND PHASE AS WELL. AND THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PART OF THAT SECOND PHASE, BUT THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN BAKER. JUST WANTED TO ECHO THE SENTIMENT. IT IS A PHENOMENAL PARK, ONE OF MY GREATEST TIME ON COUNCIL WAS SEEING THAT BEING UNVEILED. AND SO, COUNCILMAN OWEN TOUCHED ON A FEW THINGS ABOUT IT BEING, THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER PHASE ON IT. AND SO MORE OF THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE COMING, BUT JUST WANTED TO ECHO A SENTIMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THINGS WEST OF NINTH STREET. AND ALSO ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THINGS IN THE CITY. SO IF YOU GET TIME, MAKE SURE THAT YOU STOP BY, AND IT'S, I BELIEVE IT HAS, WI-FI ACCESSIBILITY AND SOME ADA ACCESSIBILITY AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT EVERYONE CAN ENJOY. SO THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NO ONES IN THE QUEUE SEEING? NONE. WE'RE READY TO VOTE. WITHOUT OBJECTION, VOTING IS CLOSING. THERE ARE SIX YES VOTES AND THIS WILL GO TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOVING BACK UP TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR. THIS ITEM WAS PREVIOUSLY TABLED. SO THE MOTION WILL BE TO UNTABLED AN

[4. O-130-24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1.2.2 AND CREATING SECTIONS 4.2.67, 4.3.30 AND 4.3.31 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (“LDC”) REGARDING MEDICAL CANNABIS (MARIJUANA) USE (CASE NO. 24-LDC-0007). 6/11/24 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By: December 2024 Sponsors: Madonna Flood (D-24), Jecorey Arthur (I-4)]

ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1.2.2 AND CREATING SECTIONS 4.2.67, 4.3.30 AND 4.3.31 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LDC REGARDING MEDICAL CANNABIS. MARIJUANA USE CASE NUMBER 24 LDC 0007. MOTION PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND FOR TABLING AND WE'RE READY FOR DISCUSSION. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PRESENT TODAY, BUT WE'RE JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS THAT HAS. LET ME SEE.

SORRY, ANDREW. ALL MY THINGS JAMMED. WAIT A MINUTE. YOU JUST NOW POPPED UP. COUNCILMAN OWEN, COULD. IT'S BEEN A MINUTE, AND WE'VE BEEN ON RECESS, SO CAN CAN YOU JUST KIND OF GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF A REFRESHER ON TIMING? I KNOW THAT THAT WE WERE COMING UP AGAINST THE STATE STARTING TO LOOK AT APPLICATIONS AND, AND THAT SORT OF THING. CAN YOU GIVE ME A THUMBNAIL AGAIN ON WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS AND HOW THIS FITS INTO THAT PROCESS? THANKS SURE. SO, THE STATE HAS OPENED UP THE, LOTTERY APPLICATIONS, FOR THE, MEDICAL CANNABIS RELATED BUSINESSES, THOSE APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST. SOMETIME AFTER THAT, THEY WILL BE DRAWING THE WINNERS OF THE LOTTERY, AND THEN THE STATE WILL BE DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THOSE THOSE PLACES CAN BE LICENSED BASED ON ANY, RULES THAT MAY BE IN PLACE BY LOCAL ENTITIES, NOW, WE HAVE HEARD I'VE BEEN TALKING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM ALL ACROSS THE STATE ABOUT THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE KENTUCKY LEAGUE OF CITIES WAS THAT IF YOU WANT TO HAVE RULES IN PLACE TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE ON APPLICANTS TO KNOW WHERE THESE USES MAY BE PERMITTED, THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO TRY AND HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE BEFORE JULY FIRST. OBVIOUSLY, THE STATE'S NOT GOING TO BE ISSUING ANY LICENSES. SO WE'RE KIND OF IN A IN A PERIOD WHERE PEOPLE MAY BE SUBMITTING THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR THE

[00:35:03]

LOTTERY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A DRAFT, THE DRAFT AVAILABLE THAT WE'VE BEEN FIELDING QUESTIONS, FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON IN TERMS OF ZONING IN LOUISVILLE, AND SO WE'RE KIND OF IN THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS IN-BETWEEN SPACE RIGHT NOW WHERE, YOU KNOW, IDEALLY WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE REGULATIONS IN PLACE BEFORE THEY DO ANY KIND OF, DRAWINGS, IF POSSIBLE. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, IT WILL BE YOU COMMUNITIES WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE BY JANUARY 1ST, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN EVERYTHING WILL OFFICIALLY BEGIN, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THE APPLICATION. DOES THE APPLICATION REQUIRE AN ADDRESS FOR WHERE THE LOCATION WOULD BE? I'LL ANSWER WHAT I CAN. JOE HABERMAN, OFFICE OF PLANNING. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY DO REQUIRE YOU TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATION AND THE TYPE OF, CANNABIS BUSINESS THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, WHETHER THAT BE A DISPENSARY, CULTIVATOR, PROCESSOR OR SAFETY FACILITY. AND THEN THERE'S AN APPLICATION FEE. SO THEY'RE MAKING YOU SUBMIT THAT. BUT WHAT WE'VE HEARD BACK FROM THE STATE, AND I THINK I TOUCHED ON THIS AT THE LAST MEETING, IS WHAT, WHAT THEY'VE INDICATED IS THAT IF YOU GET THE ALLOCATION AWARD THROUGH THE LOTTERY, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THAT ADDRESS IS NOT ELIGIBLE DUE TO A LOCAL REGULATION, THEY'RE GOING TO REVIEW IT FOR THE STATE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE THE SEPARATION FROM SCHOOLS AND DAYCARES, BUT IF IT TURNS OUT THAT A LOCAL REGULATION, WHICH THEY'RE NOT REVIEWING AGAINST EVEN IF WE HAD THEM IN PLACE, MADE THAT SITE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE, THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOW THAT AWARD. TO BE TRANSFERRED TO A SITE THAT IS. SO YOU STILL KEEP THE ALLOCATION THAT YOU WON THROUGH THE LOTTERY, BUT YOU HAVE TO THEN GO FIND A SITE THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. AND THEN ONE FOLLOW FINAL FOLLOW UP QUESTION, I THINK, THE DRAFT THAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE, I FEEL LIKE I REMEMBER YOU ALL SAYING WAS KIND OF TAKEN. MAYBE. MAYBE NOT VERBATIM, FROM THE VAPING AND SMOKING REGULATIONS. AM I REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY? YES SO IT WAS MODELED AFTER THAT. IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT THE CHANGES. THE FIRST CHANGE IS WE DIDN'T. YOU CAN USE SEE ONE FOR THE SMOKING RETAIL. WE EXCLUDED SEE ONE ON THIS BY RECOMMENDATION OF A COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BECAUSE THERE'S INITIALLY ONLY GOING TO BE TWO OF THESE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY. AND THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT THEY MIGHT BE TOO INTENSE FOR. SEE ONE. IF THERE'S ONLY TWO, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF THERE'S MORE IN THE FUTURE THAT WE COULD RECONSIDER IN A RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN WITH THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS, IN COMMERCIAL FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS, THEY'RE WAIVABLE BESIDES THE ONES REQUIRED BY THE STATE FOR SMOKING RETAIL, THEY'RE NOT WAIVABLE. SO THINGS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED THAT SEPARATION FROM PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS UNDER SMOKING, RETAIL, THOSE ARE SET, YOU CAN'T GET RELIEF TO THAT. BUT FOR WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU CAN ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS BUSINESSES CAN GET A WAIVER FROM THAT REQUIREMENT FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS. YES. AND NOT FOR A SMOKE SHOP. YES OKAY. THAT'S INTERESTING, I JUST WANT US TO KEEP IN MIND, AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS, THAT BUT NOT THAT THE TWO BUSINESSES ARE NECESSARILY EXACTLY RELATED. BUT I THINK IT'S INTERESTING. IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO KEEP IN MIND WHAT WE REQUIRE AND DON'T REQUIRE FOR A SMOKE SHOP, AS IT RELATES TO, YOU KNOW, A CANNABIS FACILITY. AGAIN, I'M NOT WEIGHING IN ON WHETHER I THINK IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING THING TO KEEP FRONT OF MIND. THANKS COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. WE'VE ALSO BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILMAN BEN WEBER. WELCOME, COUNCILMAN, I'LL START HERE. HOW LONG DID WE KNOW THAT THIS LEGISLATION WAS GOING? WAS RECOMMENDED TO BE APPROVED BY JULY FIRST. DID IT COME OUT OF THE SPRING SESSION? AND WE HAD A COUPLE OF MONTHS TO PIVOT. RIGHT. SO THERE WERE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT KIND OF COMPETING BILLS AT THE STATE LEVEL, AND THE RECOMMENDATION FROM KLC AND KEIKO WAS LIKE, WAIT UNTIL THE STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IS OVER. BEFORE YOU TAKE ACTION, BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN A NEW BILL IS GOING TO POP UP. AND WHAT MAY CHANGE BECAUSE EVERYONE WAS KIND OF WAITING TO SEE WHAT REGULATIONS MAY, WERE GOING TO BE ATTACHED TO, TO THIS AT THE STATE LEVEL, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS WAS A LONG SESSION. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A LONG YEAR. SO WE HAD

[00:40:01]

TO WAIT UNTIL APRIL. AND SO ONCE THAT HAPPENED, THEN THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED. OKAY FROM FROM THAT STANDPOINT, EVERYTHING'S FINISHED, WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE REGULATORY LEVEL? AND IT WAS AT THAT TIME WHEN THEY WERE LIKE, OKAY, BE THINKING ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO DO THIS. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE RULES FOR THE LOTTERY WERE ROLLED OUT, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE WERE KIND OF THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, WELL, IF SALES BEGIN JANUARY 1ST, THERE WON'T BE ANY PRODUCT. AND SO THERE THERE WERE SOME RUMBLINGS ABOUT POSSIBLY MOVING THAT BACK A FEW MONTHS.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE JULY 1ST REALLY KIND OF GOT INTO A LOT OF PEOPLE'S HEADS IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GET SOMETHING, IN PLACE SO THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU'RE KIND OF FIGHTING THIS CLOCK AND FIGHTING THE RUMOR MILL, AT THE SAME TIME. AND SO, JULY ONE WAS KIND OF THE DATE THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE LOTTERY SYSTEM AND THE PEOPLE WHO WERE APPLYING BECAUSE IT DOES COST MONEY TO APPLY. THAT'S NONREFUNDABLE. SO WE WERE JUST TRYING TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION OUT THERE AS POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE WHO WAS INTERESTED IN APPLYING FOR THAT HERE IN LOUISVILLE METRO. SURE. I THINK THAT BOTH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND METRO COUNCIL ARE IS NOT APPRECIATIVE OF THAT TIGHT TIMELINE, BECAUSE THIS WAS INTRODUCED RIGHT BEFORE WE WENT ON BREAK. WE WENT ON BREAK, AND NOW IT'S LIKE TRYING TO GET A REFRESHER, BUT ALSO IN THAT TIME TRYING TO FAMILIARIZE OURSELVES NOT ONLY WITH WHAT'S IN THIS MARIJUANA LEGISLATION, BUT ALSO WHAT'S IN THE EXISTING LEGISLATION AS IT PERTAINS TO TOBACCO, AND SO I KNOW THAT THERE IS A I'M GOING TO INVITE MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMAN SIM TO CHIME IN HERE BECAUSE AS I SEE IT, THERE'S TWO PATHWAYS FORWARD. OR AT LEAST ONES THAT I WOULD, SUPPORT, AND THAT WOULD BE EITHER TABLING THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S STILL SOME MORE INFORMATION THAT, COUNCILMAN SIM IS GATHERING THAT WILL HELP US MAKE A MORE INFORMED DECISION. OR THERE'S ANOTHER VERSION THAT HE HAS CREATED, WITH OPINION TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THAT COULD POSSIBLY, GET IT AS IT STANDS TODAY INTO A MORE COMFORTABLE PLACE THAT I WOULD VOTE ON IT OR AT LEAST VOTE ON IT. SO IT WOULD GO TO COUNCIL, TO HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON IT, IN MY EYES, IF SOMEBODY AND I'VE HEARD THAT IT COSTS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION AND, MAYBE THAT'S A BAD BUSINESS MOVE TO SUBMIT, AN APPLICATION BEFORE YOU REALLY KNOW THE LEGISLATION BEHIND IT. SO, WHILE I UNDERSTAND A RUSH TO GET THAT IN, I ALSO DON'T WANT IT TO BE THAT BUSINESS OWNERS ARE THROWING AWAY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON APPLICATIONS THAT COULD BE INVALID, SO AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR US REALLY PUSHING THIS THROUGH REALLY QUICKLY. AND SO, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE TIME TO UNDERSTAND IT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCILMAN SIM CAN CONVINCE ME THAT WHAT HE'S PUT TOGETHER TODAY TO IN FRONT OF, IN FRONT THAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME, IS THE PATHWAY FORWARD? OR IF WE NEED TO TABLE IT, FOR, UNFORTUNATELY, ANOTHER TWO WEEKS. BUT I THINK THAT THAT STILL WOULD MEAN THAT WE CAN GET THIS PASSED AND OUT THERE BY AUGUST 1ST. AND THAT'S STILL A MONTH OF APPLICATION PERIOD. OPEN. WERE YOU. I'M SORRY, BRIAN, WERE YOU ALL GETTING READY TO COMMENT OR. JOE, WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, ONCE SOMETHING IS PASSED BY METRO COUNCIL, THEN WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, FACTOR IN THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE AS WELL AND WHATEVER TIME FRAME IS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. HE'S JUST ACROSS THE STREET, RIGHT? YEAH SO HE KNOWS WHERE HE IS. RIGHT COUNCIL MEMBER SAM, THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN, I WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, WE CAN'T CONFLATE MEDICAL CANNABIS WITH RECREATIONAL CANNABIS. THIS FACILITY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS GOING TO BE, SUPPLYING PRODUCT AND MEDICINE FOR CANCER PATIENTS.

PEOPLE WITH EPILEPSY. AND WE'RE ONE OF WANTING TO PUT THIS IS NOT A SMOKE SHOP. THE BILL.

YOU'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO SMOKE THE CANNABIS IN THE BILL, AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GROW THE CANNABIS, THE STATE REGULATIONS HAS A 1000 FOOT BARRIER WITH SCHOOLS AND DAYCARES. WE THINK THAT'S ENOUGH WHEN YOU START PUTTING IN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS AND PUBLIC COMMUNITY CENTERS AND ATHLETIC FACILITIES, PUBLIC LIBRARIES, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT THIS DISPENSARY WHERE THESE PEOPLE CAN GET THEIR MEDICINE.

AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS MEDICINE. THIS IS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET CANNABIS AND GO OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION WITH BONG PIPES DOING WHIRLING DERVISHES, LISTENING TO GRATEFUL DEAD. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. THIS IS ABOUT A DISPENSARY WHERE CANCER PATIENTS GO AND GET THEIR MEDICINE. SO LET'S PLEASE NOT CONFLATE THAT THE STATE DOES

[00:45:01]

HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT WE DO AGREE WITH AND WE DON'T REALLY AGREE WITH SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS ON THE ON ON THE PROXIMITY OF THE, THE PLACE. AND SO I'VE COME UP WITH A BILL, A SUBSTITUTE THAT I THINK IS A LITTLE CLEANER VERSION. IT DOES STICK WITH THE STATE REGULATION, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO HELP THOSE THAT ARE WANTING TO GET INTO THE BUSINESS BUT DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY CAN AND WHEN THEY CAN, AND UNDERSTAND THIS TOO. IT'S A $5,000 APPLICATION FEE.

THAT'S NONREFUNDABLE. SO IF YOU CAN'T GET IN, IF AND LET'S SAY YOU HAVE YOUR BUSINESS AND WE HAVE BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALREADY IN THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE HEMP INDUSTRY, HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME. THEY'RE PIONEERS. THEY HAVE THEIR STRUCTURE, THEY HAVE THEIR LEASE, THEY HAVE THEIR BUILDING. AND THEN THE LAW IS AMBIGUOUS. THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY CAN DO IT. HOW DO THEY PLAN FOR THIS APPLICATION. SO I WANT YOU TO THINK OF THOSE THINGS. AND I DO HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER, THE SUBSTITUTION THAT WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO HOPEFULLY GET INTRODUCED. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER OWEN, THANK YOU. CHAIR, SO I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID ENTIRELY, I DO EXPECT AND THIS MAY SOUND RIDICULOUS, BUT I DO EXPECT THAT THE STATE OF KENTUCKY AT SOME POINT ON DOWN THE LINE WILL PASS A RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BILL. SO IN THAT SENSE, I DO THINK FOR THE TWO REASONS WHY I THINK HAVING EQUATING IT A LITTLE BIT TO A SMOKE SHOP ARE ONE, BECAUSE I DO THINK AT SOME POINT WE WILL WE WILL PASS A RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BILL, AND THEN THE TWO BECOME MORE ALIKE THAN THEY ARE CURRENTLY. THAT'S THE FIRST THING. AND THE SECOND PIECE OF IT IS, I THINK FROM A FAIRNESS STANDPOINT, DO I THINK WE'VE OVERREGULATED SMOKE SHOPS? PROBABLY SO. RIGHT. SO I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS WITHIN 17 MILES OF A CHURCH? I THINK IT'S RIDINESTLY. AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLY RIDICULOUS ON THE SMOKE SHOP SIDE OF THE EQUATION AS WELL, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, AND THEN THE FINAL THING IS, I THINK THEY DID SAY VERY CLEARLY THAT IF YOU APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE A LICENSE AND YOU'RE AND THE LOCATION THAT YOU'VE SELECTED IS NOT IS PRECLUDED FROM BECAUSE OF A LOCAL, SOME LOCAL LEGISLATION THAT THAT YOU CAN TAKE THE APPROVED APPLICATION WITH YOU TO A NEW LOCATION. SO WHILE IT'S A IT'S A IT'S A NONREFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEE. THE FACT THAT YOU MAY HAVE A LOCATION THAT'S PRECLUDED BY, BY LOCAL LEGISLATION WOULD NOT KILL YOUR BUSINESS. YOU WOULD JUST HAVE TO FIND A LOCATION THAT YOU COULD FIT INTO. SO THAT'S ALL I NOT AGAIN, I'M NOT I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. IS IT WOULD BE A SOMEWHAT HELPFUL. AND THAT'S SOMEWHAT FOR ME BECAUSE I GOT BACK INTO TOWN LATE LAST NIGHT IN HEAVEN, HAD A TON OF TIME TO SPEND ON IT. YOU SENT IT TO ME A FEW DAYS AGO, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. BUT BECAUSE I JUST GOT BACK INTO TOWN, I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT YOUR NEW PROPOSAL AT ALL, FRANKLY, SO AGAIN, WE SHOULDN'T TABLE IT FOR ME. BUT IF OTHER PEOPLE ARE IN IN A SIMILAR BOAT, THEN I DON'T THINK TABLING IS NECESSARILY THE WORST THING, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE TIME FRAME THAT WE'RE WORKING WITHIN.

THANKS I SEE YOUR POINT, COUNCILMAN OWEN, BECAUSE I GOT THIS AT 530 LAST NIGHT. AND, WHEN I GOT IN HERE TODAY, HAD COMPUTER PROBLEMS, AS IF SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS NAVIGATING THROUGH THE SERVER AS MY UNDERSTANDING TODAY. SO I'M KIND OF WITH YOU BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE NORMAL WHERE WE HAVE A DOUBLE BRAND OR RED LINE TO CHANGES FROM ONE DOCKET TO ANOTHER. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH DOCUMENTS AT THE SAME TIME, TO SEE WHAT'S DIFFERENT.

COUNCILMAN BAKER. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I MY QUESTION IS. AND COUNCILMAN SAM, DON'T DON'T DON'T PULL UP YET. I GOT QUESTION FOR YOU GUYS IS I GUESS THE CONFUSION FOR ME IS SORTING AND, THIS IS KIND OF OPEN TO THE COMMITTEE TO ON WHAT IS, I GUESS, THE LOCAL, LIKE, CONTROL THAT WE CAN HAVE VERSUS THE STATE, ON WHAT'S FEASIBLE. LIKE WHAT? WHERE ARE THE AREAS THAT ARE REALLY TARGETED OR THAT THE STATE IS LEANING ON LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO BE ABLE TO, KIND OF REGULATE, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR ME, I'M FOR RECREATIONAL AND I'M FOR MEDICINAL. LIKE, I SEE WHAT IT'S DONE WITH OTHER CITIES AND I CAN GO ALL DAY ON, ON, ON WHY SOMEONE SHOULD BE FOR THAT, BUT I WANT IT DONE RIGHT. I WANT IT DONE EQUITABLY. AND I WANTED TO. BUT I ALSO REALIZE THERE'S

[00:50:03]

LIMITATIONS IN THE POWER THAT WE HAVE HERE IN OUR SEATS. AND SO COULD YOU COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THAT? AND IF, COUNCILMAN, IF YOU IF YOU'D LIKE TO CHIME IN BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU'VE BEEN A PIONEER ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME. AND SO I WANT TO HONOR YOUR VOICE ON THIS COMMITTEE, TOO, AS WELL. DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER FIRST? SO JUST IN REVIEWING THE STATE LAW AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS RELATED TO IT, THE STATE LAW, OTHER THAN THE DAYCARE AND SCHOOL SEPARATION, DON'T REALLY GET INTO WHICH PROPERTIES, SHOULD HAVE THE USE. THEY GET MORE INTO THE BUILDINGS AND THE SECURITY AND THE OPERATIONAL ELEMENTS OF THE BUSINESSES. SO THEY THEY FOCUS MORE ON THAT. AND I THINK THEY WANTED TO LEAVE IT TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO DECIDE WHERE THEY SHOULD BE AND WHAT APPROVAL PROCESS YOU SHOULD HAVE. SO THAT'S LARGELY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS WHICH ZONING DISTRICTS DOES THIS MAKE SENSE IN? DO WE WANT ANY ADDITIONAL STANDARDS AND WHAT APPROVAL PROCESS IS WE WANT. SO WHAT WE KIND OF LAID THAT OUT IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING IS OKAY. AND THEN COMMERCIAL. THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TO HAVE THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SO THAT WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE. AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS ARE THOSE ADDITIONAL, SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE THREE THINGS THAT I THINK THE STATE IS LOOKING FOR. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DECIDE ON THEIR OWN. AND THIS ONE'S KIND OF INTERESTING BECAUSE UNLIKE A LOT OF STATE ACTIONS, LIKE WHERE THEY THEY'LL SAY, OKAY, THIS IS PERMITTED IF THE LOCAL ENTITIES SAY IT'S OKAY, IT'S KIND OF WORKS THE OPPOSITE, WHERE IF A LOCAL ENTITY DOES NOT TAKE ACTION, THEN ONLY THE STATE RULES APPLY AND EVERYTHING IS GOOD. EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOOD TO GO. SO IN THEORY, IF A COMMUNITY DIDN'T TAKE ANY KIND OF ACTION AT ALL, THEN COME JANUARY 1ST. IF YOU'RE WITH, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST 1000FT AWAY FROM A SCHOOL OR A DAYCARE, YOU COULD HAVE ONE OF THESE USES ON THE PROPERTY. AND SO, LIKE ACROSS THE STATE, YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE THAT ARE CONTEMPLATING DIFFERENT TYPES OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS. THEY'RE CONTEMPLATING WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW IT AT ALL. I MEAN, SOME COMMUNITIES ARE HAVING, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE HAVING REFERENDUMS TO VOTE ON THE MATTER. AND SO IT'S IT REALLY IS A LOCAL OPTION, BUT IT'S A LOCAL OPTION. IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE STATE'S SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT UNLESS YOU TAKE THE OPTION NOT TO DO IT. AND SO IT'S KIND OF, INTERESTING. AND THAT'S FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SORRY. COUNCILMAN SAM WOULD YOU LIKE TO. CHAIRMAN, I ALWAYS VALUE YOUR OPINION ON THIS MATTER. IF I MAY, COUNCILWOMAN, I'M NOT. IS THAT. I'M SORRY. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU AND IT'S YOUR MEETING, BUT. YES, BECAUSE I HAVE I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR, COUNCILMAN SAM. WELL, I'LL DEFER. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, LET HIM ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS NOW AND THEN. I HAVE A QUESTION I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. GO AHEAD. AND THE QUESTION COULD YOU REFRAME THE QUESTION OR SAY IT AGAIN, PLEASE ASK IT. YEAH. I GUESS FOR ME, YOU KNOW, AS BEING A PROPONENT FOR MEDICINAL RECREATION, REGARDLESS IF IT'S TEN YEARS FROM NOW, THIS IS COMING RIGHT? AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST OUR FIRST CRACK AT AT IT. AND SO I'M TRYING TO DECIPHER AND YOU KIND OF LAID IT OUT PRETTY WELL. WHAT AUTHORITY FROM A LOCAL STANDPOINT THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S THIS LANGUAGE. LIKE IF YOU DON'T DO IT LOCALLY, THEN IT GOES TO STATE TO STATE, YOU KNOW. SO ONE WANTED TO GET YOUR, YOU KNOW, ASPECT ON WHAT AREAS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO TARGET AT BECAUSE IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THE PERFECT ANSWER RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE TABLE IT OR NOT. AND I JUST TRYING TO GET MORE CONTEXT TO THIS, THIS GENERAL CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. WELL, WE, WE DECIDE WHERE WHERE THEY GO. WE'RE DOING THAT NOW, SO WE DO HAVE A DECIDING FACTOR IN THIS PROGRAM, BUT I, I'M WORRIED THAT, SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS MAY CONFLATE WHAT MAY HAPPEN TEN YEARS FROM NOW, THAT WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT THEN. BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE DEALING WITH PATIENTS. WE'RE DEALING WITH A, LIKE A WALGREENS FOR CANNABIS. WE HAVE WALGREENS ACROSS FROM ALL THE STORES. WE HAVE SUBOXONE CLINICS ACROSS FROM FROM FROM SCHOOLS AND STUFF. SO, WE CAN'T CONFLATE THIS ISSUE WHEN WE GET TO RECREATIONAL. AND I DON'T LIKE TO CALL IT RECREATIONAL BECAUSE WE DON'T CALL IT RECREATIONAL BOURBON. IT'S A SPIN WORD. IT'S RESPONSIBLE USE THAT WE'RE TRYING THAT OUR LEGISLATION CALLS FOR, FOR 21 AND OVER. SO I WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT. AND LIKE I SAID AGAIN, THESE PATIENTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE IN THE STREETS WITH BONG PIPES. AND I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT AT ALL. AND ANOTHER THING TOO IS YOU YOU CAN'T SMOKE IT AND YOU CAN'T GROW IT. SO IT'S ALL THE STATE LAW IS ALREADY GOOD ENOUGH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY SAID IS THAT ONE OPTION WE HAVE IS JUST TO LEAVE THE STATE REGS ALONE, BUT WE WANTED TO GO WITH SOME ZONING

[00:55:02]

AND I AGREE WITH IT. AND WE GO WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IN HERE IS IF YOU'RE A FACILITY, A CULTIVATOR, THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FILTRATION AND SYSTEM IN THERE THAT ELIMINATES THE ODOR. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. AND WE AND WE'VE ALREADY GOT, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL TO HANDLE THAT. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NEED TO PUT MORE REGULATIONS ON THESE PATIENTS THAN IS NECESSARY THAN IS NECESSARY. WE JUST DON'T NEED TO DO IT. AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE AT A LOT OF THIS WAS WRITTEN IN ANTICIPATION FOR RECREATIONAL, BUT THAT'S NOT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND I JUST LIKE WE CAN'T CONFLATE THE ISSUE. THANK YOU.

THAT'S THE CONTEXT I NEEDED. THANK YOU. SORRY. MY CHAIR. NO, FIRST QUESTION, I THINK COUNTY ATTORNEY IS THE BEST ONE FOR THIS, SINCE THIS IS TITLED MEDICAL CANNABIS. AND EXCUSE ME FOR USING THE TERM RECREATIONAL USE, IF THAT DOES COME. IN FACT, THERE WILL HAVE TO BE OTHER REGULATIONS. THIS THIS WILL NOT APPLY TO ANYTHING BUT MEDICINAL. SO I DON'T WANT TO THINK PEOPLE THINK THAT THIS YOU KNOW, ONCE IF, IF IN IF AND WHEN I KNOW IT WILL SOONER OR LATER, RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IS APPROVED. THIS THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY. SO DON'T DON'T NEED TO CONFUSE THE TWO. THE DEFINITIONAL TERMS. YES IT'S REALLY GEARED TOWARDS MEDICINAL CANNABIS. AND SO IF AT A LATER DATE ANOTHER TYPE IS ALLOWED, IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ITS OWN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT. IT WOULD BE ITS OWN PROCESS. IT'S THIS IS NOT SET UP IN A WAY TO IF AND WHEN RECREATIONAL CANNABIS JUST TO USE THE TERM SINCE IT'S BEEN MENTIONED, MOST OF THE MEETING BECAME LEGAL IN KENTUCKY. IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY FALL UNDER THIS PROVISION. IT WOULD NEED ITS OWN PROVISION ENACTED. AND I JUST HAVE A REAL QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, COUNCILMAN SAM, JUST BECAUSE I JUST HAPPENED TO LOOK AT BOTH DOCUMENTS AT THE SAME TIME, JUST CURIOUS WHY THE NEED TO REMOVE MEDICINAL CANNABIS CONSUMPTION IS NOT PERMITTED ON THE PREMISES. WHY WAS THAT ELIMINATED IN THE NEW VERSION? BECAUSE IT'S UNNECESSARY, THIS IS MEDICINE, AND, IT NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS MEDICINE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO INTO WALGREENS OR YOU'RE GOING INTO. IT'S THE SAME THING. THIS IS THIS IS NOT RECREATIONAL OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. IT'S JUST MEDICINE. OKAY COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. PARDON ME, YEAH. I THINK THAT ALL OF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE A WHOLE LOT EASIER IF THE STATE WOULD HAVE JUST WENT AHEAD AND MADE, RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA A THING INSTEAD OF CONVOLUTING.

ALL OF THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE'RE ALL PROPOSING A LOT OF SITUATIONS WITHOUT FULLY GRASPING IT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT, AGAIN, THAT SHORT TIMELINE AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING ACCOMPLISHED, CAN YOU EAT IT? CAN YOU SMOKE IT? CAN I HAVE IT? CAN I BUY IT HERE? WHAT WHAT KIND OF A CARD? WHAT KIND OF DOCTOR CAN I GO SEE? AND WITHOUT ALL OF THE YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS VERY MYSTERIOUS LAW THAT'S COME OUT OF THIS STATE, AND MAKE ZONING AROUND IT. SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS PROBABLY A LOT OF PEARL CLUTCHING GOING ON IN THE CONVERSATION AS WELL. YOU KNOW, NOT IN MY BACKYARD WITH A DISPENSARY, BUT ALL THE DISPENSARIES THAT I'VE EVER BEEN TO ARE VERY NICE FACILITIES.

THEY'RE VERY SECURE. THEY'RE VERY CLEAN. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE ONE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR MULTIPLE REASONS. EXCUSE ME, JEFFREY, CAN I. COUNCILMAN, COULD YOU PLEASE TAKE OVER THE COMMITTEE FOR ME TILL I RETURN? ABSOLUTELY AND SO I THINK THAT WITH THAT SAID, I WILL MAKE A REQUEST THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT WE WERE GIVEN WITH THE CHANGES THAT YOU'VE PROPOSED. COUNCILMAN SAM, I THINK THAT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER IS TO HAVE THE STRIKETHROUGHS IN THERE JUST SO WE CAN SEE WHAT'S BEEN REMOVED. AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE THAT MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS AROUND THOSE, PARTICULARLY, FOR EXAMPLE, TAKING OUT ITEM C, THAT IS NOT THAT IS IN WHAT IS PROPOSED IN FRONT OF US TODAY, BUT IT IS REMOVED FROM YOURS AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO SMOKE IT ON PREMISE, NOT A QUESTION THAT I HAD, BUT ONE THAT I HEARD A COLLEAGUE HAD. SO MAYBE THAT WOULD BE BETTER ADDRESSED. BUT I THINK FOR US TO UNDERSTAND, WHAT'S BEING ALTERED IS TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT BETTER OF A DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF US. BUT, I THINK THAT IT HAS GOOD TEETH. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPPORTING IT. AND WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE IT TODAY, AND THEN LET'S BE REALLY AGGRESSIVE AND UNDERSTANDING THIS AND COMING BACK IN TWO WEEKS AND PASSING IT, PASSING SOMETHING THROUGH.

[01:00:02]

WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE. IS THERE A SECOND. SECOND, SECOND. AM I ALLOWED TO SAY MOTION HAS BEEN I'M SORRY COUNCILMAN REID. COUNCILMAN SAM WOULD WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOMENT TO SAY SOMETHING IF I'M SORRY. OH, HE'S NOT ABLE TO. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY AND DID WE GET A SECOND? DID WE GET A SECOND ON THE. OKAY. GOT IT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I, OPPOSED. NO, NO, NO. I DO NOT HAVE THE. BECAUSE I CAN'T HEAR. MADAM CLERK, I'M ASSUMING. YES YES. LET'S DO A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. TABLE TO TABLE. YES. SO ROLL CALL ON THE MOTION TO TABLE.

I'M ASSUMING THAT THE VOTING IS CONCLUDED, AND I CANNOT SEE ON MY LAPTOP, HOW THE VOTE WENT. SO MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL US. ARE YOU BOTH. YOU HAVE FIVE? YES VOTES AND ONE NO, THE MOTION TO TABLE PASSES, AND WE'RE GOING TO TABLE IT UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

SO WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. IS THAT CORRECT? MADAM CLERK? NO, WE'RE WE'RE DONE.

WE'RE FINISHED. GOT IT. CAN I CLEAR SOMETHING UP REAL QUICK? SORRY. SURE. YES, YES, THANKS, COUNCILMAN. REED, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ON WHAT WE JUST MOTIONED TO TABLE, AND I'M GOING TO ASK I'M GOING TO DEFER TO COUNCILMAN SAM FOR A SECOND TO ASK HIM THE QUESTION. SO AND MAYBE SOME CLARITY FROM SONIA AND CHERYL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO REDLINE AND STRIKE COUNCILMAN SAM'S AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION INTO THE INTO THE THING SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. CLEAR IT UP, ADDRESS IT AND GO OVER IT AND THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT IN TWO WEEKS. IS THAT CORRECT? WE HAVE WE HAVE A CLEAN VERSION THAT WE WANT TO INTRODUCE, TO THE AMENDMENT, AND WE WORK WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PRODUCE THAT. BUT WE'VE NOT SEEN THAT YET. HAVE WE, COUNCILMAN? NO, SIR. OKAY. UNDERSTAND? AND WE WILL SEE THAT BEFORE THE, THE NEXT MEETING, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST AS A AS A FOLLOW UP, COUNCILMAN REED CAN I JUMP IN QUICKLY? ABSOLUTELY THAT'S MINOAN, SO. BUT I THINK WHAT WHAT? COUNCILMAN BASHAM WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD SOMETHING THAT WAS COMPARABLE THAT WAS REDLINED, THAT WE COULD LOOK AT TO SEE THE DIFFERENCES, SO WE COULD MAKE SENSE OF IT.

KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, I JUST WANTED TO SAY FOR MYSELF, THIS HAS BEEN A PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION HERE TODAY FOR ME. AND I'M LIKELY I'VE TAKEN A QUICK LOOK AT WHAT COUNCILMAN SEIM HAS PUT BEFORE US ALREADY. AND BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD TODAY, I'M MORE LIKELY TO GO LESS REGULATION ON THIS AS OPPOSED TO MORE, SO I THINK THIS CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD TODAY WAS WAS VERY VALUABLE, AT LEAST FOR ME. SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEE WHAT'S IN IN THE, IN THE DOCUMENT AND BE ABLE TO COMPARE IT, MORE EASILY. AND LOOKING FORWARD TO TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. THANK YOU. YES, THANK THANK YOU. AND COUNCILMAN SIGN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY ONE THING BEFORE WE END. AND I THINK IT WAS 18 THIS THIS BODY PASSED A RESOLUTION FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS. AND AS IT IS RIGHT NOW IN LOUISVILLE, WE WORKED ON IT FOR OVER A YEAR. YOU CAN HAVE ONE OUNCE AND UNDER OF CANNABIS, PERIOD. SMOKE IT.

WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT. AND YOU WILL NOT GET A TICKET ANYMORE. SO I JUST I HAD TO PUT THAT IN THERE. THIS IS NOT THE DEVIL'S WEED THAT EVERYBODY'S BEEN. WE'VE BEEN LIVING WITH FOR YEARS AND YEARS. SO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, NEW SUBSTITUTION, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO ENTER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND, COUNCILMEMBER, IF I MAY, JUST AN APPEAL TO YOU, COUNCILMAN SAM, YOU KNOW, I COMPLETELY AGREE. YOU KNOW, I THINK, AS, MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMAN OWEN, TALKED ABOUT LESS REGULATIONS. YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE

[01:05:04]

THAT IT'S, IT'S EQUITABLE FOR COMMUNITIES ACROSS, OUR, OUR COUNTY AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. A LOT OF THE HISTORICAL, IT FLAT OUT A LOT OF IT CAME FROM RACISM. OUR VIEWPOINT ON ON, MARIJUANA AND ITS OUTCOMES. BUT, WE HAVE A CHANCE TO CHANGE THAT. SO IF EVERYBODY YOU. I WANT TO JUST APPEAL TO YOU. WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU AND GET THIS MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S COMING AND MAKING IT BETTER FOR EVERYONE. THANK YOU. GENTLEMEN. IT'S BEEN TABLED SO WE CANNOT DISCUSS IT ANY FURTHER. I'VE JUST BEEN I WAS SORRY, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. I HAD TO LEAVE THE ROOM FOR A SECOND. WITHOUT OBJECTION. THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE. WE'LL REMAIN

[Adjournment Note: Agendas are followed at the discretion of the Chair. While an item may be listed, it does not mean all items will be heard and/or acted upon by the Committee.]

ADJOURNED UNTIL OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Pending Legislation

Jul 16, 2024 Planning and Zoning Committee

Pending Legislation

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item