By Benjamin Rothstein

DOVER — The discussions during Monday’s special meeting of the Dover City Council Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee regarding marijuana covered a variety of topics, including navigating state guidelines for the implementation of marijuana firms and the conversion process for compassion centers to become retail businesses.

The discussion on state law began when Councilwoman Julia Pillsbury inquired about taxing marijuana businesses differently based on their type — be it cultivation, testing, manufacturing or retail. She was quickly rebuffed by senior project manager Ann Marie Townshend of the Rossi Group, the consultant firm handling the city’s plan for marijuana businesses.

“We can’t license it in a different way, with a different type of fee, than we would anything else. That would not be in compliance with the state law,” said Ms. Townshend.

“The basic rules were set by the state,” added city manager Dave Hugg. “For example, we can’t declare marijuana illegal because the state made it legal under certain circumstances. Municipalities can determine where these activities will take place. The counties cannot.”

Councilman Roy Sudler Jr. voiced his concerns with a perceived lack of control the city has with marijuana rules.

“I don’t think that’s quite fair that the state is able to benefit from the sales, but the municipalities who are dealing with the concerns of the odor and the restrictions and doing all of the work ... I feel like I’m being pimped. You know, I hate to say it like that,” he said. “We’re doing all the work and they’re getting all the profit and we’re all getting all the complaints.”

Mr. Hugg echoed the feeling, citing other unfunded mandates such as backflow prevention requirements. He did note, however, that municipalities have control over items such as zoning, distance requirements and hours of operation. This could include marijuana businesses not being allowed within city limits at all.

However, those rules, once they are decided, have no effect on businesses outside the city. In the event of annexation of land containing a business in violation of these rules, the city does not have much recourse. Mr. Hugg gave the example that a business operating legally that becomes illegal after annexation would cause a grandfathering issue.

Mr. Hugg also spoke on how those distancing rules apply specifically at the time of opening. Councilman Andre Boggerty gave the hypothetical of opening a day care center by a preexisting marijuana business, to which Mr. Hugg replied that, despite that day care being within the minimum distance, one business cannot force another business to close by simply deciding to open where they did.

The city’s survey, whose early results show that most respondents support marijuana businesses within the city, is open through Aug. 31. As such, no decisions were made at the meeting as the council waits to see the results.

To take part in the survey, visit lp.constantcontactpages.com/sv/jawRZzz