Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defeats zoning text amendment to permit cannabis growing, processing and dispensaries
Summary
A proposed amendment to county zoning to allow certain cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensary uses failed after the council rejected multiple amendments and then defeated the underlying legislation.
The Talbot County Council defeated a zoning text amendment that would have changed county code to permit cannabis growers, processors and dispensaries in specified zoning districts.
The introduced bill sought to allow cannabis cultivation and on‑site processing in agricultural districts and to permit dispensaries by special exception in limited commercial, general commercial and limited industrial districts. Planning staff reported that the county planning commission reviewed public comments and recommended two changes: separate growers and processors in the land‑use table so that processors not growing on‑site would be allowed only by special exception, and raise the minimum lot size for growers and processors from 20 acres to 40 acres.
Council member Stepp and Council member Lesher introduced an amendment reflecting those recommendations (separating processor/grower and increasing minimum lot size to 40 acres); that amendment was voted down (Callahan — no; Stepp — aye; Lesher — aye; Milkey — no; Hayes — abstain). A subsequent amendment from Council member Stepp to set a firm 500‑foot setback from preexisting residential or institutional uses (striking language that allowed a reduction to 200 feet with owner consent) was also introduced and defeated by a similar margin.
Council then voted on the underlying legislation as introduced; the legislation failed on the council floor and was not adopted. During the public‑comment portion that followed, a resident asked for clarification about the status of the setback change; county staff confirmed the amendment had not passed and that the overall ordinance did not pass either.
Planning staff and legal counsel advised the council that state law requires local zoning compliance for state cannabis licenses, meaning applicants would need local zoning authorizations in place before obtaining state permits if the county maintains that cannabis is not permitted under existing agricultural use classifications.
