Hagerstown staff outlines proposed cannabis zoning changes, highlights state constraints

Planning staff presented a package of proposed text amendments March 25 that would change how several cannabis‑related uses are treated under Hagerstown’s Land Management Code. The amendments were presented at a public hearing and will return for further discussion at a workshop on April 8; the public record remains open for 10 days.

Kathy Marr, the city’s planning director, summarized the proposed package. Major elements include defining cannabis “incubators” (state‑licensed facilities that can house micro growers, microprocessors and micro dispensaries), creating a separate CBD/hemp retail category, and revising where indoor plant‑cultivation and processing facilities may locate. The draft would remove indoor cultivation and processing from downtown zoning districts such as CCMU and POM because of odor concerns; those uses would remain permitted in more industrial or mixed‑use zones (IMU, IR, IG) or be allowed in a PUDR with specific design buffering.

Marr said the package aligns zoning rules with recent state law changes that both expand new licensed enterprise types (microenterprises and incubators) and constrain local authority in certain ways. Under state direction, local governments may not “unreasonably restrict” locations of licensed growers, processors and dispensaries. Marr told the council the draft uses a 500‑foot separation requirement between cannabis dispensaries (and similar retail categories including alcohol and tobacco stores) and a set of “protected community uses” such as schools, licensed day‑care providers, playgrounds, libraries, parks and religious sanctuaries. The 500‑foot distance matches the separation the Maryland Alcoholic Beverage Commission typically applies to alcohol license reviews; Marr noted state law caps any local separation at 2,640 feet and the city is using 500 feet.

Marr provided counts of existing enterprises in city zoning districts: three indoor cultivators/processing facilities (in IR/IG), two cannabis dispensaries (in CR), 18 alcohol beverage retail stores (15 on CG/CR), seven tobacco sales stores and two CBD/hemp stores. She said existing, nonconforming enterprises would remain legal unless they remain vacant for two years, consistent with city code.

A commenter asked whether local adoption conflicts with federal law. A resident identified as a commenter argued that because cannabis remains illegal under federal law, it presents a legal conflict with the oath public officials take to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Planning staff replied that state law and the city’s zoning authority control local land‑use regulation; the city’s proposed amendments are intended to align local rules with state statutory direction.

Staff entered the Planning Commission’s report and the certificate of advertisement into the record. The council did not vote on the amendments March 25; staff will accept written comments for 10 days and return with a workshop discussion April 8.