Sussex council amends retail marijuana shop rules

Sussex County amended its rules Nov. 18 for locating retail marijuana shops, scaling back buffers from municipal boundaries but leaving in place distances from institutions such as churches and schools.

The amendments were intended to satisfy concerns of the state General Assembly.

Senate Bill 76, passed by the Senate in April and the House in June, was expected to override rules the county adopted in May 2024.

The state concluded the original county law effectively outlawed retail marijuana shops and thwarted the intent of the 2023 state law making retail sales legal.

Gov. Matt Meyer in August vetoed SB 75, saying counties, not the state, should make land-use decisions.

The original county law set a three-mile minimum distance between a marijuana retail shop and another similar shop, municipal boundaries, churches, schools, colleges and substance abuse treatment facilities. 

The amendments passed Nov. 18, reduce the minimum distance to a half mile between a marijuana retail shop and a municipal boundary. It did not change the other distances in the law.

The original law only allowed retail marijuana shops in C-3, heavy commercial, districts with approval of a conditional use by county council. The amendment makes such businesses a permitted use in C-3 and C-2, medium commercial, districts.

Prior to the Nov. 18 vote, Councilwoman Jane Gruenebaum asked Assistant County Attorney Vince Robertson whether the proposed amendments would create locations where shops would be permissible.

The three-mile distances in the original law and the amendments were modeled after the minimum distance the state requires between liquor stores, Robertson said.

State law did not set minimum distances between such businesses and municipal boundaries, schools, churches and substance abuse treatment facilities.

“Rather than come up with just different arbitrary numbers for each one, we relied on the three miles that was in state code for the separation distances from stores to stores,” Robertson said. 

“Is it still plausible to find a space to have a store?” Gruenebaum asked. “How restrictive is that?’

“I couldn’t say for certain how restrictive that is,” Robertson said. “Currently, we don’t have a lot of C-2 and C-3 yet because that is a relatively new zoning district.” 

Gruenebaum said she asked if the distances are consistent with other counties. Robertson said he was not sure.

Asked if the amended law would stand up to possible scrutiny by the state, Councilman Steve McCarron said after the meeting he believes the amendments are justifiable.

“This mirrors with the state liquor law, so there is consistency there,” McCarron said.

Councilman Matt Lloyd asked if the amended law is more restrictive than what was planned in SB 75.

“It is a bit more restrictive, as I recall,” Robertson said. “I haven’t gone back and had a look at that.”

According to SB 75, in areas zoned for commercial or industrial use, retail marijuana stores may be prohibited from operating only within a half-mile of another retail marijuana store and within 500 feet of a place of worship, school, licensed child care, residential treatment facility, park, or library.

Informed of the amendments, Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall, D-Rehoboth Beach, said Nov. 19 she believes they are still too restrictive.

“I don’t understand why you would have to be three miles away from a church or a school,” she said “They’re not letting children into a dispensary to buy products. They are our neighbors who want to get gummies or recreational cannabis."

Snyder-Hall said she’s not sure if state leadership will move again to override the county’s rules. 

“The General Assembly made the decision to legalize the cannabis industry,” Snyder-Hall said. “It’s problematic if counties are overriding the decisions if they are enacting onerous zoning regulations that make it difficult for businesses.”

At Gov. Matt Meyer’s monthly press conference Nov. 20, he said he sees the amendments as a success for his administration’s policy.

“I think marijuana is and should be legal across our state,” he said. “I think marijuana should be sold safely and legally across our state. I think local jurisdictions should decide where they want those stores to be. I don’t think in Dover we should be saying that in Fenwick Island, in Claymont, you have to allow a marijuana store 500 feet from an elementary school. I think the action Sussex County took to say, ‘Hey, let’s take another look at our law’ – as I asked them to do – and ‘Let’s do things in the interest of public safety and what neighbors want,’ I think it’s a good step forward,” he said.

He added that regulation of marijuana is still in its early stages, and state officials will continue to watch and ensure public safety is being served across the state, the business needs of consumers are being addressed and changes are made as needed.

“I want them to go in the direction that their residents want them to go,” Meyer said.

There were no comments offered during a public hearing that preceded Sussex County Council’s Nov. 18 vote. 

Gruenebaum asked if the proposal could be amended. County Attorney J. Everett Moore Jr. said it could be, but such changes are typically discussed before a proposal moves to a vote. No amendments were offered.

The amendments were adopted by a 4-1 vote, with Council Vice President John Rieley in opposition.

“I can’t vote yes,” Rieley said. “In my opinion, my oath was to uphold and work toward the improvement of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Sussex County, and I don’t understand how this promotes that objective. My vote is no.”

Reporter Melissa Steele contributed to this story.