During a special board meeting held earlier this week, the only thing that was clear is that there isn’t a clear consensus among village residents on the issue. The meeting was scheduled in response to dispensaries that have expressed interest in opening a location within village lines.

Town Attorney John Vanstrom noted that the village had previously adopted a law prohibiting both dispensaries and on-site consumption in 2021. The purpose of this week’s meeting was to hear the residential opinions on rescinding the laws to opt-out of adult use dispensaries and on-site consumption, according to Vanstrom. Vanstrom noted that the 2021 votes may be revoked separately, being that dispensaries may be allowed while on-site consumption may still be banned. Vanstrom made note that if these changes are made it will be permanent, the village cannot opt back out once the law is overturned. While dispensaries would only be allowed in commercial and industrial districts in the village, many members of the community still expressed concerns regarding potential foreseeable problems.

Mayor Scott Schrecengost noted that state law prevents dispensaries from operating within 500 feet of a grounds or structure that is exclusively a public youth facility. However, Vandstrom noted that the Celoron Village Park would not qualify as a public youth facility under state law. This led to many residential concerns being expressed over the potential of a negative influence on the village’s youth. Residents expressed concerns over the children in the area, especially the children that play at the park. Concerns seem to be that there will be easier access to marijuanna products for these minors and that there will be a greater amount of public consumption that occurs in front of the children.

“I don’t know what the hours of it would be, but I think it would just bring in a lot more riff raff. And I think there’s gonna be a lot more break-ins and a lot more kids walking the streets and causing trouble,” said resident Alicia Shields.

Pictured is a line of people out the door waiting to sign in for the Village Board meeting.

A resident also presented the board with a petition containing 63 signatures in opposition to allowing a dispensary. The resident noted that she will not be continuing to allow her children to play at the park if a dispensary is placed anywhere within the vicinity as well. Schrecengost said the resident’s petition brings the total signatures he has received opposing cannabis sales in the village to 99.

There was support and favorable arguments from cultivators, dispensary workers and residents at the meeting as well. Timothy Scoma, Lifted Dispensary COO, along with cannabis attorney Thomas G. Spanos were present at the meeting arguing in support of opting in. Scoma attempted to ease some of the concerns of village residents with knowledge from his experience running a dispensary in Jamestown. Scoma noted a majority of customers he receives are elderly, and that there are a host of state regulations in place to ensure the protection of children. Scoma also mentioned that legalized cannabis dispensaries prevent people from buying from locations with other drugs being present, shifting taking individuals away from scenarios where there is the risk of social pressure to consume dangerous substances.

Spanos said data suggests usage occurs regardless of legalization and proposes the question of whether it is better to receive community benefit from this use. Spanos also stated that, as backed by studies from Colorado, sale facilities decrease teen usage rates while providing jobs and tax contributions to the community. There was also an extent of residential support at the meeting. Resident Joe Glover expressed his support for allowing a dispensary. Glover noted that a dispensary would bring a tax base into the community and spoke of the smooth operation of dispensaries in Jamestown.

The board will continue discussions at the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is set to take place on Oct. 13. There will likely not be any action that follows the discussion at the October meeting, according to Schrecengost. Schrecengost and Vanstrom noted that more time will likely be needed to come to a conclusion.