Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 16 est—either a vested right in the zoning use or a legitimate claim of entitlement to a permit or approval —in a medical cannabis dispensary interest. The case also addressed the issue of whether a county ordinance requiring conditional use approval and establishing set -back requirements for cannabis growing operations was preempted by state legislation —specifically the regulatory framework established by the Maryland Medical Cannabis program. The Background/Facts: In anticipation of receiving a license to dispense medical cannabis, Hippocratic Growth, LLC ("HG") entered into agreements with 101 Drummer Drive, LLC ("Drummer") and 111 Scherr Lane, LLC to open a dispensary at an address (the "Property") in Queen Anne's County (the "County"). In December 2016, HG was awarded preliminary licensing approval. In February 2017, Drummer submitted a building permit application for the Property. Meanwhile, in January 2017, the County Commissioners enacted Resolution 17-06, which put a temporary moratorium on the approval of medical cannabis zoning applications. In March 2017, Resolution 17-06 was rescinded. In April 2017, Ordinance 17-06 was adopted. Among other things, Ordinance 17-06 created regulations that required conditional use approval and established set -back requirements for cannabis growing operations. In May 2017, the County Planning Department notified Drummer that its building permit had been denied pursuant to Ordinance 17-06. HG and Drummer (collectively, the "Applicants") brought a legal action for: (1) mandamus; (2) declaratory judgment; (3) preliminary injunctive relief; (4) permanent injunctive relief; and (5) violations of the Maryland Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights. More specifically, the Applicants argued that they had a protected constitu- tional interest in completing "Stage 2" of Maryland's Cannabis Com- mission's licensing approval process. According to the Applicants, upon the Commission's announcement of HG's preliminary approval in December, 2016, the Applicants "possessed a vested property inter- est in a medical cannabis dispensary license that is cognizable under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights." They maintained that right was violated when the County Commissioners passed Reso- lution 17-06, which had the effect of prohibiting them from completing Stage 2 of the licensing process, and Ordinance 17-06, which imposed zoning regulations "so restrictive that identifying a qualifying property in the unincorporated portion of Queen Anne's County became virtu- ally impossible." The Applicants further argued that Ordinance 17-06 was preempted by the Maryland Medical Cannabis Program's regula- tory framework. The County, on the other hand, maintained that the Applicants did not have a vested property interest because they did not obtain a build- © 2018 Thomson Reuters 7