At a recent meeting, Sussex County Council discussed recent conversation regarding retail marijuana establishments. State legislature passed SB 75 which would limit restrictions placed by each county on where retail marijuana establishments could be located. Although Governor Matt Meyer vetoed the bill, his staff reached out to the county to see if they would consider amending restrictions at the county level.
“I want to provide a little history,” Planning Director James Whitehouse said. “The state passed legislation that authorized the cultivation, distribution and sale of marijuana in the state. That law authorized municipalities to prohibit the operation of marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana production, manufacturing facilities and testing facilities and retail marijuana stores, as those terms were defined in the legislation.”
Whitehouse explained that many, but not all, municipalities have passed prohibitions against retail marijuana sales. The county, however, was not permitted to ban the sales outright, but allowed to enact ordinances governing places, times and manners as well as the number of facilities permitted in the county. In 2024, the county adopted the strictest regulations in the state for retail marijuana locations.
“We said they could go in C3 with a conditional use and that there had to be a three-mile separation from any municipal boundary, other retail marijuana store, church, school, college or substance abuse treatment facility. That has gotten the most attention is the distance requirements,” Vincent Robertson, County Solicitor, said. “When we were drafting this, we were looking at what measurement to use so we weren’t just creating one arbitrarily.”
Robertson stated that when the ordinance was drafted, the group looked at regulations on liquor stores and that requirement was three miles from liquor store to liquor store. He was not sure why that was changed in 2019 from one mile, but that the marijuana retail code was based on what was in place for liquor stores.
“We also wanted to honor the wishes of municipalities and decided not to allow them close to their boundaries in order to prevent circumvention of their wishes,” Robinson said. “That was also the thought process for the three miles from churches, schools, colleges and substance abuse treatment centers. For those, there is not a distance requirement and is at the discretion of the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission. We wanted to take the discretion out of it and make it uniform.”
When asked if changing retail marijuana restrictions would impact liquor store regulation, Robinson stated that it would not. Council Vice-President John Rieley pointed out that he heard remarks that county council made the ordinance strict as a way to ban retail stores.
“I don’t know that was accurate,” Whitehouse said. “That was certainly not the intent. There are still several places in Sussex County where a retail store could be located. I will say that there is a perception that may not be accurate about liquor stores in Sussex County. Until 2020, only one mile separation was required, but it is now three miles. This would make it harder to locate a new liquor store. I also want to point out that liquor stores are not required to obtain a conditional use.”
One suggestion made was to drop the conditional use requirement and keep the zoning district as C2 and C3. They also suggested adjusting the three-mile limit since it seemed to be an arbitrary number.
“This may not be the correct question for you, but aren’t they now selling alcoholic drinks with THC in it in local liquor stores?” Commissioner Jane Gruenebaum asked. “I know they are because a friend was offered to taste one when they entered a store recently. I just feel that our restrictions punish one type of business over another, allowing one to sell a product with the same effects while preventing another from doing so.”
Robertson stated that he did not know how THC alcohol drinks were regulated, so it would be difficult to answer her question. Councilmen Steve McCarron and Matt Lloyd took a libertarian view of the matter, stating that they didn’t feel they had the right to tell others what to do in their own homes.
“My concern is that if we place them three miles out of town limits, that places them farther than resources for local police and into state police jurisdiction,” McCarron said. “When you force that into more rural areas, and I would say to people who are concerned that these are very orderly places. There are armed personnel inside those stores and I have never, in the couple of years they have been here, seen anything that concerned me.”
County Administrator Todd Lawson pointed out that they were not coming to council with an ordinance but wanted to make them aware that the governor’s staff had asked council to consider amending the ordinance. Gruenebaum expressed gratitude that the governor vetoed the bill.
“I am just glad they sent it back to us to review our decision,” Gruenebaum said. “I just think it’s worth acknowledging and appreciate the governor allowing us to reconsider”
Lawson explained that there were comments from legislators to call a special session and override the veto, but he was not sure that would happen. He stated that staff would get a draft ordinance to council as quickly as possible.
