The Grove City Planning Commission voted 3–1 not to recommend approval of a special‑use permit for a proposed recreational cannabis dispensary at 3989 Jackpot Road after residents and commissioners raised concerns about traffic, adjacent treatment facilities and impacts on nearby hotels and parks.

City staff told the commission the applicant submitted materials showing the site complies with local distance rules and other local and state requirements and recommended the commission forward the application to city council with three stipulations. The applicant, Chris Welsh of ACT Investments, told commissioners the state and local regulatory frameworks impose strict operating and security requirements.

The proposed operation would occupy an existing 4,284‑square‑foot building and operate 10 a.m.–8 p.m. daily. Application materials state the business anticipates up to 740 customers and 673 vehicle trips per day at extreme maximums, with no more than 20 customers inside at once and an average dwell time of 12–17 minutes. The filing included a survey showing a 508‑foot separation between the proposed dispensary structure and a nearby treatment facility; code requires at least 500 feet from certain sensitive uses.

Staff noted several outstanding site issues that must be addressed if the use opens, including landscaping violations (overgrown shrubs, dead branches, exposed weed fabric), a property‑maintenance violation dated Aug. 22 for accumulated rubbish and broken curbs, and a nonconforming pole sign that does not meet the 10‑foot setback requirement.

Applicant Chris Welsh described state oversight and security rules, saying, "The State of Ohio Department of Commerce is in charge of the medical and adult use program here in Ohio. They have created and enforce very strict rules and regulations." He added: "Security cameras must see everything happening inside of the dispensary ... Everything else must be seen live and recorded for 30 days by the program rules."

Several residents urged denial or further study during the public‑comment period. Jim Haninger of 2755 Woods Crest said turnout and correspondence to city council showed substantial opposition: "We have over 500 signed petitions here ... The overwhelming majority of Grove City residents have expressed opposition to a dispensary." John Matera of 6469 Portage Path Court urged a traffic study, noting peak hours coincide with heavy local congestion and saying, "They're talking about adding up to 67 cars per hour, a car a minute, to that already congested area." Matera also questioned queuing and how many customers would queue outside the building.

Chris Welsh told the commission the business would install exterior cameras and would work with law enforcement if people used cannabis on site or in the parking lot: "We will gladly work with the local and state law enforcement agencies in order to make sure that the laws are followed. Outside of that, we are not a law enforcement agency." He also said the applicant provided very conservative, high‑end traffic estimates for planning purposes and did not realistically expect a one‑customer‑per‑minute turnover.

Commissioners voted on a motion to recommend approval to city council. The roll call was Chair Oster: No; Commissioner Farnsworth: No; Commissioner Roach: Yes; Commissioner Wemlinger: No. The motion therefore failed on a 3–1 vote.

City staff told the meeting the application will proceed to city council in two weeks for that body’s consideration regardless of the commission recommendation.

What happens next: the applicant may refine materials to address the code compliance items and any council conditions; council will consider the commission record and the staff recommendation when it takes up the application.