Calling for a Legal Clarification

Attorney General approves Town Meeting marijuana article, but recommends further review by town counsel to determine whether a ballot vote is necessary

By Mark E. Vogler

State Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell’s Office recently approved a Town Meeting article that would limit the number of marijuana establishments within the Business Highway Sustainable District (BHSD) to two businesses – one on each side of Route 1.

But after months of review to determine whether Article 21 – which was approved 42-0 during the Annual Town Meeting in May – complied with state law, the attorney general has recommended further legal review by Town Counsel. “We approve the amendments adopted under Article 21 but offer comments for the Town’s consideration regarding whether a ballot vote is needed as a result of these amendments,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Nicole B. Caprioli, Deputy Director of the Attorney General’s Municipal Law Unit, in a letter to Town Clerk Ellen Schena.

“The Town should consult with Town Counsel regarding the scope of the amendment to determine whether a ballot vote is required,” Caprioli wrote.

Caprioli mentioned some technical aspects of the warrant article that need to be clarified. “It is not clear whether the limitation in Section 22.4.A limiting marijuana retail establishments in the BHSD to no more than two results in a limit on marijuana retailers in just the BHSD or in the entire Town,” Caprioli noted in her letter to the town.

“It is also not clear whether, if the limitation applies to the entire Town, the limitation results in a limit on the number of marijuana retailers to ‘fewer than 20 per cent of the number of licenses issued within the town for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages not to be drunk on the premises where sold under section 15 of chapter 138,’ such that this amendment requires a ballot vote,” she added.

Caprioli also noted that state law authorizes a town to limit the number of marijuana establishments in the town, “provided however that for certain limitations, a town must submit the by-law for approval to the voters before such limitation may take effect.”

Board of Selectmen Chair Debra Panetta and Selectman Michael Serino cosponsored Article 21 as a measure to protect the town from adverse impact from an industry that has not benefited the town so far. “All we’ve seen is expenditures that we’ve been paying for,” Panetta told Town Meeting members in urging passage of the article in May.

“Lawsuits, expenditures and time and effort. The amount of time that department heads, the town manager have spent on marijuana has been huge,” she said.

“In closing, I think Saugus should focus on the two establishments that were given S-2 permits, and not look to bring a third, a fourth a fifth marijuana establishment into our town. We need to stop the bleeding and stop the lawsuits. There is no public need to have three marijuana establishments in town,” she said.

It’s been more than three years since the Annual Town Meeting voted overwhelmingly in favor of a zoning article that allowed the sale of recreational marijuana in town. But Saugus – like many communities in Massachusetts that welcomed the cannabis industry with hopes of benefiting from a new revenue stream – hasn’t seen the benefits it was expecting.