Deltona commission denies draft ordinance on dispensary rules, directs staff to draft ban on new medical‑marijuana dispensaries

The Deltona City Commission debated changes to rules for pharmacies, drugstores and medical‑marijuana dispensaries at length on April 7 before denying the staff‑proposed ordinance and directing staff to draft a separate ordinance to prohibit new medical‑marijuana dispensaries.

City Attorney read the proposed ordinance (No. 07‑2025) to update zoning‑related rules after state law changes. Staff gave three options: ban dispensaries outright; allow them where pharmacies are allowed; or adopt regulations (the staff recommendation). The proposed text would have required a 1,500‑foot separation between pharmacies/dispensaries, and a 500‑foot buffer from parks, religious institutions and schools unless a conditional‑use process were approved.

Commissioners and members of the public debated whether Deltona already had enough dispensaries. Commissioner Sciabra said the city already has two operating dispensaries and a third under way and argued that was sufficient. Commissioners asked legal staff about the effect on existing businesses; the city attorney said existing operations would be nonconforming and would have to meet new rules if they ceased operation and later sought to reestablish.

Vice Mayor Harriott moved to deny the staff‑proposed ordinance and directed staff to prepare a new ordinance that would bar any additional medical‑marijuana dispensaries in Deltona; the motion noted that existing dispensaries would be treated as existing nonconforming uses and could not reestablish if they closed. The motion was seconded, then clarified on the record to make clear the commission was denying the current ordinance and directing staff to return with language that would prohibit new dispensaries. The motion passed unanimously, 7–0.

The nut graf: Rather than adopt the staff’s regulatory approach, commissioners chose to direct staff to craft and publicly advertise—under a new notice—a different ordinance that would preclude additional medical‑marijuana dispensaries; staff and legal counsel warned that changing course would require re‑advertising and a new public hearing.

Ending: Commissioners said they had weighed public safety, youth exposure and city character against state law permissiveness; the commission’s instruction was procedural (deny-and-return) rather than an immediate ban on existing operations. The city attorney confirmed that any new ordinance to ban new dispensaries would be subject to required public‑notice procedures and that existing dispensaries would remain legally nonconforming unless they closed or lost approvals.