Fairfax council approves medical cannabis storefront and waives 300-foot tutoring center buffer

The Fairfax Town Council voted 3-2 on Sept. 3 to approve a commercial cannabis business permit for a medical-use storefront and adult-use delivery business at 1601 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and to waive the town code's 300-foot buffer around tutoring centers.

The council's action followed a multi-month review, a unanimous planning commission recommendation and a public hearing with more than a dozen in-person and remote speakers both for and against the application. The resolution approving the permit also specifically waives the town code buffer that would otherwise prohibit medical storefront retailers within 300 feet of a tutoring center as defined in Fairfax Municipal Code section 17.110.020.

The planning staff and the applicant, Martin Kaufman, presented evidence and a large supplemental binder of business and security plans, a third-party traffic study, public-benefits commitments and a state permit application. Planning staff reported they had attempted multiple times to verify whether the nearby TLC Tutoring Center met the town-code definition of a tutoring center — which requires at least 10 clients receiving on-site instruction for at least 37 weeks a year — but staff said they had not received records or parent confirmations showing that on-site threshold. Town Attorney Janet Colson told the council that staff had offered ways to redact parents’ names and to corroborate enrollment, but staff said they received no usable documentation prior to the council's decision.

Supporters of the proposed LeFleur boutique-style dispensary argued the application had followed the town’s process, scored highly with the planning commission (92.6 points) and included detailed security and anti-loitering measures; several said the location and design reduced potential neighborhood impacts. Opponents, including parents and neighbors and the owner of TLC (Bonnie Zelensky), urged the council to honor the buffer and argued the tutoring center has long served families in that location. Public commenters also cited concerns about youth access, traffic and criminal activity near dispensaries. The applicant said his operation would be strictly no-loitering, would use cameras, and would not permit on-site consumption.

Council discussion centered on two legal and factual questions: (1) whether TLC met the town-code definition of a tutoring center at the time the cannabis application was filed, and (2) whether the council could or should waive the 300-foot requirement in the ordinance. Counsel and staff said the operative determination about a buffer is measured as of the cannabis application submission date, and they presented two alternative paths for the council: make a formal finding that TLC did not and did not at that time meet the code definition, or find that the record was sufficiently uncertain and waive the buffer for this application. After extended debate about fairness, precedent, and potential liability, Councilmember Mike Kohler moved to adopt a resolution that both approves the permit and waives the 300-foot buffer based on uncertainty about whether TLC met the code definition. Vice Mayor Hellman seconded.

The council vote was: Councilmember Ager — no; Councilmember Garen Gellley — no; Councilmember Kohler — yes; Vice Mayor Hellman — yes; Mayor Blasch — yes. The motion carried.

The approved resolution includes the planning commission score and the applicant's supplemental materials as the factual basis for the permit approval and records the council's finding that the operation of the nearby TLC Tutoring Center has changed since the town's ordinance was adopted and therefore the definition in the town code "may no longer describe" the business at 1613 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. The resolution also documents a range of public benefits the applicant pledged and attaches the applicant's required security plan and state permit documents.

The applicant still must obtain the state license and satisfy any state-imposed conditions before opening. Council members and several speakers emphasized that local oversight remains: local code violations or proven problems with the business could prompt town enforcement actions and affect the annual local permit review.

The council also discussed implementation details — hours of operation were not changed by the council action — and several councilmembers urged continued monitoring and a neighborhood point of contact for complaints. The council did not adopt additional restrictions on hours or operations as a condition of approval.

Votes and final permit paperwork will be posted to the town’s planning web page and the state licensing portal if and when the applicant secures the state-level license.

The public hearing drew well over a dozen speakers in-person and online, including tutors’ family members, longtime residents and representatives of community groups. The issue intertwined technical code questions about a narrowly defined tutoring-center exemption with broader community concerns about youth exposure and public safety.

The decision does not affect other pending or proposed cannabis applications; those will be evaluated under the town's adopted process and the same municipal code sections.

The council moved on to other items after the action and set no new date for review of any monitoring or compliance report on the approved permit.