Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 8/24/2022
WEST SPRINGFIELD — A ballot initiative that would have sought to reverse the legalization of cannabis businesses in town has failed to gather enough signatures, according to the town clerk’s office.
On Aug. 17, the deadline for the petition to be submitted, clerk’s staff reported an unofficial signature count of 868, well below the 2,256 signatures of registered West Springfield voters that would have been required to place a referendum question on November’s ballot.
John Sweeney, one of the sponsors of the petition, said his group had in fact collected the required number of signatures, but many were not on the correct form, leading the clerk to invalidate them. The clerk’s office was not available to comment on Sweeney’s assertion before press time.
At the July 18 meeting where the Town Council approved allowing recreational cannabis businesses, Councilor Daniel O’Brien said he had collected 1,200 signatures of residents opposed to lifting the ban. That group of signatures was not accepted because they were not on an official petition form issued by the West Springfield town clerk.
Under West Springfield’s town charter, the only way to place a referendum question on the November 2022 ballot is through citizen petition. The mayor and council can agree to a ballot vote, but only in municipal elections on odd-numbered years.
The council voted 6-3 to allow cannabis businesses only in industrial zones, and only in locations more than 300 feet from a residence and more than 500 feet from a school or park. These restrictions rule out most West Springfield properties, with cannabis-eligible parcels concentrated in small pockets along Interstate Drive, Riverdale Street, Union Street and Memorial Avenue. The types of businesses that would be allowed include cannabis retailers as well as grow operations, cannabis product factories and testing laboratories. Any business wishing to locate in West Springfield would have to secure a permit from the state Cannabis Control Commission and sign a host agreement with the town, in addition to the usual building permits and Planning Board oversight that any new construction would face. Under the terms of the July 28 vote, only three recreational cannabis permits can be issued.
The petition drive may have been the last chance to reverse the council’s decision. At the Aug. 15 meeting of the Town Council, President Ed Sullivan said that the council cannot revisit its own vote.
“To the contrary, there is Massachusetts case law that suggests that it would not be legal [or] permissible for the council to waive its own rules at a subsequent meeting to reconsider a motion that had been finally acted upon,” said Sullivan.
But Sweeney, a former Town Council president himself, said there may be room for cannabis opponents to appeal the decision.
“This won’t be the last time you report on this issue,” said Sweeney.