Easton Planning and Zoning Board meeting this week was the stage for a lively debate over the approval of a second cannabis dispensary proposed for a site just across the street from another already-approved location on the East side of town. The nearly three-hour hearing drew business owners, lawyers, and a few concerned residents, all eager to weigh in on whether the town should allow two cannabis stores within 150 feet of each other.
These special licenses are the first to be issued as a result of the Maryland Cannabis Administration’s (MCA) licensing design to benefit individuals from areas disproportionately affected by the over-policing of drugs drug qualify as a social equity applicant; individuals must meet specific criteria, including having lived in or attended public school in a disproportionately impacted area. Interestingly enough, the town of Easton met that criteria.
At the center of the discussion was Driller Ventures, a minority – and female-owned business seeking approval to open a retail cannabis dispensary in a former bank building on Elliott Road. The site features a drive-through, 22 parking spaces, and a reciprocal parking agreement with Walmart. Mae Hauschel, an experienced cannabis industry professional, and her husband, Michael Dunaway, lead the project.
Their application came under scrutiny due to its proximity to a similar project approved last month for BG, FY LLC, whose dispensary is planned for a site across the street. The town’s zoning code requires a minimum separation of half a mile between cannabis dispensaries. However, BG, FY LLC’s location has yet to be finalized as it awaits subdivision approval.
“We’re ready to proceed. This site meets all setback requirements, has an existing subdivided lot, and benefits from experienced operators,” said attorney, Tony Kupersmith representing Driller Ventures.
BG, FY LLC’s representative, Zach Smith, argued that the town should not approve another dispensary so close to a site that already has zoning board approval. “Allowing a second dispensary would undermine the intent of the half-mile setback and create a race to see who can open first. That’s not in the public interest,” he said.
Smith also raised concerns about parking, claiming that the reciprocal parking agreement cited by Driller Ventures may not allow for additional use. “If they can’t meet the parking requirement, their application cannot move forward,” he added.
In response, Driller Ventures pointed to clear language in the easement agreement and emphasized their readiness to meet all conditions, including odor mitigation, security, and compliance with state regulations.
Both parties touted the economic benefits of their respective projects. Driller Ventures highlighted its plan to hire 24 employees and the suitability of the existing infrastructure, including a vault and drive-through windows. Michael Dunaway emphasized that their operation would run like an upscale retail environment, offering personalized customer service.
BG, FY LLC’s owner, Noah Matten, underscored the investments his company has already made in their project, including raising significant capital and beginning the subdivision process. “We’ve worked diligently and in good faith. Approving a second dispensary so close by would be unfair and could jeopardize our ability to secure additional funding,” Matten said.
Public comments reflected mixed views. Some residents expressed concerns about clustering cannabis businesses, fearing it could stigmatize the area. Others argued that competition would benefit consumers and provide more economic opportunities.
“I think approving both dispensaries would create a chaotic and unfair race,” said Easton resident Jackie Wissman. “It’s the town’s responsibility to ensure orderly development.”
The board wrestled with the legal implications of approving two dispensaries in such close proximity. The half-mile separation rule emerged as a key point of contention, with differing interpretations on when a “use” is established. BG, FY LLC argued that their prior approval should effectively reserve their rights to the area, while Driller Ventures countered that no dispensary currently exists at the site.
The town’s staff recommended approving Driller Ventures’ application, subject to conditions. However, board members expressed concerns about fairness, regulatory consistency, and the possibility of creating a foot race between the two applicants.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted (2-1) to approve the Special Exception request subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide the Town with an up-to-date local contact person (based in Talbot County) who shall be available and
authorized to respond to complaints concerning any operational issues associated with the dispensary.
2. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide certification by a Professional Engineer, Certified Industrial Hygienist, or other equivalently qualified professional that the proposed odor control measures will effectively eliminate outdoor odors for all odor sources.
3. The cannabis dispensary shall not be open to the public prior to 9:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Operations not involving the public such as the stocking of shelves, completion of
booking, etc., may occur outside of this window.
4. Any subsequent change in ownership, tenancy, or operation shall require a new application and approval for the continuation of the Special Exception use.
5. The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within two (2) years after the date the Special Exception is granted. Failure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy by January 21, 2027 shall void this approval.
6. The Applicant shall satisfy all provisions of the minimum parking requirements asdeemed acceptable by the Town Attorney and Town staff.
The debate raises broader questions about Easton’s approach to cannabis regulation. Should the town encourage competition or prioritize orderly development? How should zoning rules be interpreted when multiple applicants pursue similar projects? The board must navigate these challenges as Easton joins the growing number of communities grappling with the complexities of legalized cannabis.
As one resident noted during the hearing, “This is about more than just two businesses. It’s about setting the tone for how we manage this new industry in our town.”’
This video is approximately three minutes in length.
Hardy c Grier says
Positive community presence
Steve Sparks says
How come every county surrounding Talbot is years ahead when it comes to cannabis. QAC, Dorchester even Caroline have been up and running and Talbot can’t even seem to agree on a location.
Form BS Moratorium to stall things to undecided locations
It’s Ridiculous and one has to ask what is the difference with Talbot? Why can’t they effectively given the people of the county what the voted for and approved !
Brooke Kimbrough says
It really sounds as though BG,FY LLC. has been unfairly treated by the Easton Planning and Zoning Board. It is both perplexing and disheartening to witness the approval of a more powerful competitor, offering the same services under a special exception permit. This discrepancy raises serious questions about the fairness and transparency of the decision-making process.
As a small business owner in Talbot County, I am frustrated to learn that even if you operate within the framework of local regulations and demonstrate a commitment to serve the community with integrity and dedication, that a larger company with bigger pockets can swoop in after the fact and push a smaller business out. I believe that all businesses should be held to the same standards and afforded equal opportunities to thrive. The approval of the competitors special exception permit, not only undermines the principles of fair competition but also puts Mr. Matten’s livelihood at risk.
I urge the Easton Zoning Board to reconsider its approach to zoning regulations and ensure that all businesses are treated equitably. It is essential for fostering a healthy economic environment that encourages innovation and fair competition. Our community needs more people to pay attention to what’s happening in Talbot County and commit to advocating for our rights. It could happen to you one day!
*BRAVO to the Zoning Board member that voted it down. We see you and applaud you.