Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marijuana Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springfield council splits marijuana zoning update after heated debate over school buffer and a dispensary’s parking plan
Summary
City staff proposed three zoning changes to marijuana rules: expand where medical dispensaries can locate, change the 500-foot school setback measurement from property-line to entrance-to-entrance, and allow medical co-location at existing adult-use sites. Proponents said the change would enable a busy Boston Road dispensary to add parking; opponents warned the measurement change could let operations move closer to schools. The council separated the three amendments for individual votes but closed the hearing and continued final action to Dec. 15.
Springfield’s City Council on Dec. 8 heard more than two hours of debate over three proposed zoning amendments that would change where marijuana businesses may operate and how the city measures the 500-foot buffer from schools.
The proposals — presented by Phil Drome, deputy director of planning and economic development — would (1) update the zoning use table to allow medical marijuana establishments in the same business and industrial districts already open to adult-use retailers, (2) change the 500-foot measurement from property-line-to-property-line to a straight-line, entrance-to-entrance measurement in accordance with 935 CMR 500.11, and (3) permit medical dispensaries to co-locate within existing, approved adult-use special-permit sites without a new special-permit process but with a Tier 1 administrative site-plan review.
Why it matters: Proponents said the combination of the three changes would let an existing adult-use site on Boston Road add parking and a curb cut, easing a traffic bottleneck neighbors describe as dangerous near a school bus stop. Opponents argued the school-setback change would narrow the buffer in some places and create a precedent allowing operators to acquire adjacent lots for parking while the storefront remains the same distance from the school building.
’Doing well shouldn’t be penalized,’ said Ryan McCollum, a remote attorney representing Amber, the Boston Road dispensary, arguing the zoning change would allow the business to add parking and relieve neighborhood congestion. ‘We’re working with the neighborhood, DPW and police on curb cuts, signs and enforcement,’ he said.
’The state regulation cited does not force the city to change its measurement,’ warned attorney Anthony Wilson, representing other cannabis operators in Springfield, citing Chapter 94G §5 and the state Cannabis Control Commission’s regulatory framework. He urged the council to preserve the current, more protective property-line measurement and to review traffic/management fixes before changing the ordinance.
Council reaction split along practical and policy lines. Councilor Whitfield and councilors who joined neighborhood meetings said residents asked specifically for parking and curb-cut relief and that Amber was cooperating. Councilor Curran, Councilor Edwards and others said protecting school buffers should be the city’s priority and cautioned against any change that could make dispensaries effectively closer to schools.
Procedural outcome: After public testimony from proponents and opponents and extended council discussion, the council voted to treat the three amendments as separate votes. The public hearing was then closed, but because at 10:00 p.m. at least one member objected to extending the meeting, the council agreed the matter will be continued to the next regular hearings meeting on Dec. 15 for final action. Until then, the three proposed amendments remain under consideration.
What’s next: The council will reconvene the zoning hearing on Dec. 15. Any councilor may vote for or against each of the three separate amendments; public testimony will again be available at that hearing if the matter is continued as a hearing (the council advised residents how to track and participate).
