State Procurement - Competitive Sealed Bids and Proposals - In-State Evaluation Preference
HB1235 would create a Queen Anne’s County-specific restriction on where licensed cannabis processors may locate, prohibiting the county governing body from allowing a processor within 1,000 feet of certain sensitive uses. Those protected uses include pre-existing primary and secondary schools, licensed child care centers and registered family child care homes, and pre-existing playgrounds, recreation centers, libraries, public parks, and places of worship. The bill also changes the county-specific setback rules for cannabis dispensaries.
Under current law, political subdivisions may not impose zoning or other requirements that unduly burden cannabis licensees, and dispensaries generally must stay 500 feet from schools, child care facilities, and certain public places, with some local flexibility. HB1235 would replace that general Queen Anne’s County dispensary rule with a stricter 1,000-foot setback from the same categories of locations. It also preserves the broader statewide framework for dispensaries, including existing exceptions, waiver provisions, and limits on local zoning restrictions, while adding a county-specific overlay for both dispensaries and processors. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025.
The bill amends the Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis Article to impose additional location restrictions in Queen Anne’s County for cannabis processors and to increase dispensary setback distances in that county. It narrows local discretion by directing the county governing body not to permit processor locations within 1,000 feet of specified sensitive sites and by making dispensary siting more restrictive than the statewide default. The measure affects cannabis licensees, county zoning and planning authorities, and nearby schools, child care providers, parks, libraries, and houses of worship.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a precautionary, locally restrictive approach to cannabis siting rather than a broad policy change affecting the entire state. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means the public sentiment around the bill cannot be determined from the supplied materials.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between local control and the statewide cannabis regulatory framework. Supporters would likely favor stronger buffers around schools, child care facilities, parks, libraries, and places of worship to limit perceived community impacts, while opponents may argue that the bill imposes unusually strict siting limits on cannabis businesses in Queen Anne’s County and could make it harder to find compliant locations. Another possible issue is whether the county-specific restrictions conflict with the general rule that local governments may not unduly burden cannabis licensees.