Medical marijuana law recommendations to be reviewed by City Council
Date: 5/31/2013
By Carley Dangona
carley@thereminder.comCHICOPEE — At its May 28 meeting, the City Council Zoning subcommittee reviewed changes to adopt the Commonwealth's Medical Marijuana law and the new Federal Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone maps.
Massachusetts became the 18th state to approve medical use of marijuana when 63.3 percent of voters supported the ballot question in the Nov. 6, 2012 election. The law became effective Jan. 1.
On its website, the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy states, "Regardless of state laws to the contrary, there is no such thing as 'medical' marijuana under Federal law. Marijuana continues to be a Schedule I substance meaning that it has no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."
According to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH), the regulations became effective on May 24. In a memo, the DPH stated, "In the coming weeks, the department will be issuing guidance pertinent for each category of registrant. This guidance will clarify application processes and timelines, as well as requirements in the period prior to full implementation of the medical marijuana program."
When asked why Chicopee was not pursing a temporary moratorium on the issue as some surrounding communities have, City Councilor, James Tillotson said, "To do so would only be postponing the inevitable. We have to deal with it one way or another."
Tillotson led the discussion stating that he wanted to "stick with the original amendment" he submitted rather than adopt the changes the Planning Board had made. He explained that the board thought the original proposal was "too restrictive" and lessened the restrictions so that medical marijuana facilities could be established within all areas with the exception of those zoned "residential." In Tillotson's opinion, that ability "defeated the purpose of the zoning ordinance."
He did not support the reduction of the proposed buffer zone surrounding medical marijuana distributors from 1,000 to 500 feet. "I want to keep it away from the kids," he said. In his opinion, the shorter distance would not provide enough space between distributors and places children are present such as schools and daycares.
Kate Brown, director of the Planning Department, said that the state law and regulations did not provide zoning guidance.
Tillotson did change his original ordinance proposal to include the option for a business to apply for "variance and reduced setback requirements if it doesn't adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood." He also added a stipulation that only one facility could exist per zone.
City Councilor Frederick Krampits said, "I hoped it could've been distributed through pharmacies. If someone has been prescribed medical marijuana legitimately for a debilitating disease, he or she should be treated with dignity."
Krampits was concerned that residents would be inconvenienced by having to travel to "an out of the way" location to obtain their prescriptions. "They shouldn't have to go to some shady hole in the wall," he said.
Tillotson believed that the facilities would target the vacant industrial buildings due to the space requirements to grow, cultivate and distribute medical marijuana. He said that the law ensured that a facility would be "a first class place regardless of location."
The subcommittee also reviewed the new FEMA flood zone maps for the city.
Brown said, "The city has only had to do this [update the flood maps] once, in 1978. This is my first time through this process." She explained that the FEMA maps must be adopted by July 16 for cities and towns participating in the national insurance program to remain eligible.
She said that hundreds of letters were sent out, many to abutters within 300 feet of a change, but that only a few were directly affected by the flood zone changes.
John Vieau, councilor and chairman of the subcommittee, asked, "Has anyone or any of the homes been placed into a flood zone because of these changes?"
Brown answered, "No."
Vieau explained to a handful of concerned residents that the city fought for many years to ensure residents would not be forced into purchasing flood insurance by their mortgage companies or the government.
"The city has invested millions and millions of dollars into sustaining our levees and dykes to maintain them in pristine condition," Vieau said.
The subcommittee voted unanimously on both items to have the entire council review the changes at its next meeting, June 4.
