Montgomery County committee delays vote on 100‑foot residential buffer for cannabis dispensaries

The Planning, Housing and Parks Committee of the Montgomery County Council on Sept. 15 postponed consideration of a proposed zoning text amendment that would add a 100‑foot residential setback for cannabis sales and service dispensaries.

Council member Abhinaz, the bill’s sponsor (identified in the transcript as “Council member Abhinaz”; spellings vary in the record), said the measure is intended to protect single‑family neighbors near strip‑mall dispensaries and to balance resident concerns with a regulated industry that typically operates daily into the evening. “These facilities are slated to stay open seven days a week until 9 p.m.,” Abhinaz said.

Planning staff summarized public testimony from a June 17 hearing that raised safety, construction‑noise and late‑hours concerns from residents whose homes abut proposed dispensary sites; other testimony argued that alcoholic beverage retailers are allowed nearer to residences and raised potential harms to existing local businesses. The county’s RESJ (racial equity and social justice) impact statement described minimal net impact but noted both potential burdens on new dispensary owners and possible benefits to nearby households.

Ben Burbert of the Montgomery County Planning Board described a countywide mapping exercise showing current zoning and how a 100‑foot residential buffer would affect locations. He said 18 dispensaries were surveyed: 16 are regulated under county zoning (two are in Rockville), five would become nonconforming if the ZTA were adopted, eight sit on parcels partially overlapped by the buffer, six are in zones that could accommodate future residential growth but currently have no overlap, and one is on industrial land likely to remain unaffected. Burbert warned that as mixed‑use development continues, more parcels could become constrained: “There may be 30% of the areas where you can do cannabis dispensaries now [that] would become not allowed because of the buffers.”

Councilman Vergara pressed staff for racial‑equity data on license awardees, noting he had seen figures indicating about 54% of awardees are African American; planning staff said OLO did not have that breakdown in its statement and pledged to make any available data public. Multiple members urged the sponsor and staff to consider zoning‑type exemptions (for example, differentiating CRN/CRT zones) rather than a single distance standard that could ban downtown mixed‑use retail.

The committee agreed not to vote on the measure at the work session. The sponsor committed to work with staff to produce a revised draft and to share a map showing how different zone exemptions would operate; the Chair also asked staff to seek input from the county’s state delegation to clarify legislative intent and avoid conflicts with state law.

Next steps: the sponsor will circulate a revised draft and maps for committee review; the committee expects to revisit ZTA 25‑07 at a later meeting. No formal roll‑call vote on the ZTA occurred at the Sept. 15 session.