WESTFIELD – The Planning Board members continued a discussion on the proposed city ordinance to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries, cultivation and process facilities Tuesday night with City Planner Jay Vinskey.
Vinskey is a member of the working group formed through the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC), which includes the communities of Amherst, Holland, Holyoke, Westfield and Easthampton, to develop a model ordinance.
Vinskey said the goal is to produce a boilerplate of an ordinance which can be amended by local officials to address specific language requirements and concerns.
The work group has submitted a number of questions to the state Attorney General’s office for clarification. Vinskey said that the questions arose following the presentation last week by a consultant involved in the development of the medical marijuana laws in Colorado.
Vinskey said the model ordinance, as amended locally, will regulate the square footage of the dispensaries, between 2,000 and 4,000 square feet, of cultivation and process centers, hours of operation, and siting of those facilities.
Vinskey said the ordinance will define the mechanics of zoning, the where and what of those facilities.
“Will it be a by-right use or will it require a special permit and site plan process and in which districts would the facilities be allowed?” Vinskey said.
The state law sets a 500-foot exclusion zone between the marijuana facilities and “places where children congregate” but local ordinance can be even more restrictive in the siting of the medical marijuana dispensaries and facilities.
“School drug-free zones are a 1,000 feet under state law,” Vinskey said. “The phrase ‘where children congregate’ in the state law is nebulous and needs to be better defined.”
The state Department of Public Health, which promulgated the medical marijuana regulations, also requires that the facilities be secure and has determined that greenhouses for cultivation do not meet the security standard, Vinskey said.
One of the issues the work group requested the AG to issue an opinion pertains to cultivation and agricultural exemptions.
“Is growing marijuana an agricultural use?” Vinskey asked, “It makes it difficult to regulate. Will the potato field next to your house this year become a pot field next year and how do you secure that?”
Vinskey said the security requirement of the DPH will mean that cultivation will have to occur inside buildings. Vinskey said that the special permit should be issued to a specific site and to the cultivation operator, not the property owner. That special permit would not be transferable.
Another issue is patron security, especially in the area of medical marijuana dispensaries.
“Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, so the credit card companies and banks want nothing to do with it,” Vinskey said. “So it’s a cash business with an average annual cost to patrons of $2,2000. There is a crime concern because of the large amount of money transacted.”
The state law allows home delivery, but requires that the marijuana be secured during transit to the patron’s residence.
The ordinance may also include a Health Department component, such as registration and licensing, as well as local fees to cover the costs of administration.
Vinskey said the goal is to include responses from the AG to refine the model ordinance and to present a recommendation from the Planning Board to the City Council early next year to allow several months of local review and amendment before the city’s moratorium expires on May 1, 2014.
