Clark County Fiscal Court approved the first reading of an ordinance to amend zoning rules for medical cannabis uses — including cultivation, processing and dispensaries — and to align county rules with a recently adopted city ordinance and anticipated state licensing.

Planning staff member Rob told the court the changes track a template used by other Kentucky municipalities and aim to remove ambiguity from the county zoning code as the state sets up medical-cannabis licensing. "This is gonna track pretty closely" to ordinances adopted elsewhere, Rob said, and the goal is to spell out where different medical-cannabis uses would be permitted or require conditional use review.

Why it matters: Court members and staff said clarity is needed before state permitting and licensing begins; planners said leaving the zoning silent could invite legal challenges or uncertainty for applicants. The state licensing process described by staff includes a forthcoming allocation process for cultivation and other licenses, making local zoning readiness relevant to whether projects can locate in county districts.

Debate on restrictions: Several magistrates questioned whether the ordinance places undue restrictions on business. One magistrate argued the proposal creates an unnecessary roadblock and observed that medical cannabis is regulated by state law: "It just says medical over and over and over again...to me, this is just putting a roadblock up for someone who wants to own another business," the magistrate said. Other members raised concerns about density rules and the proposal to treat cultivation as a conditional use in some A-1 (agricultural) areas inside city limits while allowing it outright in county A-1 zones.

Next steps and outcome: The court approved the ordinance on first reading and indicated the city will consider a companion ordinance; staff and the county attorney will assess whether licensing fees or tax exemptions need separate local language. The ordinance will return for the required second reading and any additional amendments before final adoption.

Ending: Court members said they expect county and city officials to coordinate on the next reading and to ask the county attorney to review licensing fees or tax implications before final action.