Rockville adopts zoning change to allow retail cannabis sales, including drive‑thru option

The Rockville Mayor and Council on June 9 adopted a zoning text amendment (TXT 2025‑270) to permit establishments that include retail sale of cannabis for personal use as a conditional use in areas where retail is allowed, and to allow cannabis dispensaries with drive‑through service under specified conditions.

The change, introduced by Council Member Larry and adopted after a public hearing and a waived layover period, codifies separation distances in line with state law and makes both standard dispensaries and dispensaries with drive‑through service conditional uses in the city code.

The amendment was explained at length by Jim Wasilek of the city planning staff, who told the council the zoning text amendment would “add cannabis dispensaries as a conditional use in areas where retail use is permitted in the city.” Wasilek said the draft codifies the separation requirements in state law — 500 feet from designated sensitive uses such as parks, schools and places of worship, and 1,000 feet between dispensaries — and noted that Montgomery County is separately considering a 100‑foot separation between dispensaries and residential properties.

Steve Van Grama, a resident and public commenter, urged the council to allow drive‑through service, saying his contacts in the cannabis industry had found drive‑through configurations that had previously been used by banks or pharmacies and that similar accommodations would expand access. "I suggest to you that there's a question here as to whether a drive through is acceptable for a cannabis dispensary... we think a drive through should be acceptable for a cannabis dispensary," Van Grama told the council during the hearing.

John Becker, who identified himself as a member of the board of directors of Safe Roads Maryland, also spoke during public comment in favor of the planning commission recommendation and encouraged Rockville to support statewide stop‑sign monitoring legislation (an item discussed separately on the agenda).

Council discussion touched on separation distances, whether required distances are measured from building or property lines, how the city will enforce state licensing requirements and whether on‑site consumption would be permitted. Wasilek said the draft ZTA does not include a local prohibition on on‑site consumption; he noted that on‑site consumption licensing and enforcement is handled by the Maryland Cannabis Administration and that state rules on driving under the influence remain in effect.

Council Member Vallejo moved to adopt TXT 2025‑270 as introduced, with Councilwoman Jackson seconding. The council voted in favor; the roll call vote and individual member votes were not read into the record, but the clerk announced the result as 6–1 in favor. Councilwoman Jackson stated on the record that she would vote against the on‑site consumption allowance while supporting the remainder of the ordinance.

The ordinance includes (a) standard cannabis dispensaries as a conditional use where retail is allowed, (b) cannabis dispensaries with drive‑through service as a conditional use subject to the same separation distances and additional on‑site traffic circulation requirements similar to pharmacy drive‑throughs, and (c) codification of the state separation distances (500 feet from certain sensitive uses; 1,000 feet between dispensaries). Wasilek noted some additional local flexibility granted by recent state legislation but said the council had directed staff to proceed with the state distances in the adopted draft.

What happens next: the city will implement the zoning amendment into the Rockville City Code and, as with any conditional use, applicants will need to apply for conditional‑use approvals and state licensing. Wasilek and staff said enforcement of zoning separations will be handled by city zoning staff; licensing and on‑site consumption oversight fall to the Maryland Cannabis Administration.

Votes at a glance: TXT 2025‑270 (add cannabis dispensaries, allow drive‑throughs) — Motion to adopt: Council Member Vallejo; Second: Councilwoman Jackson; Outcome: adopted (6–1). The record does not include a full roll‑call by name beyond the single dissent noted above.

Proper names and authorities referenced in the meeting are listed below.