AMHERST — A fourth proposed medical marijuana dispensary received a letter of support from the Select Board last week, but not before concerns were expressed by members about the possibility of such enterprises displacing existing businesses and being grouped close together near the University of Massachusetts campus.
After a nearly 90-minute discussion that focused on the merits of the application, the Select Board on June 20 voted 4-0 in favor of issuing a letter of support for Happy Valley Ventures MA Inc., a Newton nonprofit, to put its dispensary at 422 Amity St., the site of Rafters Sports Bar & Restaurant. Member Andrew Steinberg abstained.
Happy Valley Ventures would build a new 4,000-square-foot building along University Drive, raze the building that has housed Rafters since its opening in 1991, and construct a second new building that would either serve as a restaurant or retail store, said Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., the lawyer representing the company.
But Nuciforo, a former state senator who has law offices in Pittsfield and Boston, said he could not promise that Rafters would still exist if the company receives permission to open from the state’s Department of Public Health.
The three previous applications endorsed by the Select Board were different in that they proposed using vacant buildings on University Drive and Meadow Street, and a proposed new building at an empty parcel on University Drive.
Steinberg said Wednesday he is concerned about what number of medical marijuana facilities is appropriate for the town, the potential concentration of such shops in one geographic area and the possibility voters will legalize recreational marijuana in November.
“In the end, I felt I didn’t want to vote for issuing another letter of support,” Steinberg said, adding he is nervous about three sales points for marijuana, potentially for recreational use, on a street that is one of the gateways to UMass.
Nuciforo told the board that Happy Valley Ventures is a community-oriented nonprofit that will provide a first-class experience for patients in western Massachusetts, and that it will be ready to transition to recreational sales should they be permitted.
Peter Hechenbleikner, interim town manager, said residents should not be worried that all the projects proposed will arrive in Amherst.
“Just because there are four letters of support doesn’t mean there will be four medical marijuana facilities in the community,” Hechenbleikner said.
Hechenbleikner said annual gross sales of medical marijuana in Amherst are estimated at $10 million, and there are already questions about whether multiple companies could each be successful providing marijuana treatment options.
Select Board members said they do not appreciate that an established business like Rafters could be lost, even though they voted to let the process play out.
Board member Constance Kruger said the challenge for existing businesses is that the landscape for properties has changed with the money involved in the marijuana business.
“The legalization of medical marijuana changed the real estate values for some parcels, leaving local businesses not always able to compete with these higher land values,” Kruger said.
Jerry Guidera, interim director of the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce, said he believes that forcing out a successful restaurant and bar would not be good for the town.
“No one wants to see a business displaced,” Guidera said. “That’s not what we consider economic growth.”
But Guidera added that he remains confident that Rafters will exist in some form even should Happy Valley Ventures open.
In fact, Rafters owner Dolly Jolly said the plan is to keep the restaurant open until her family is told it will have to move or close.
Jolly said earlier that even though her family has the right of first refusal on the building, the $2 million proposed sale price was too high, at more than twice the $854,200 assessment.
According to an agreement signed March 19, that is the purchase price agreed to between Happy Valley and West Amherst LLC, managed by Laird Summerlin, of Edisto Island, South Carolina, to buy the 1968 building and 1.31 acres at 422 Amity St.
The fourth letter of support came a week after the Select Board debated whether it should cap the number of support letters it will issue on behalf of medical marijuana facilities.
The board has submitted letters of support for two dispensaries proposed a short distance away: MassMedicum Corp. of Easton, in a new 2,000-square-foot building at 85 University Drive; and Mass Alternative Care of Springfield, to use a former restaurant space at 55 University Drive.
In March, the board approved a letter of support for GTI-Massachusetts NP Corp. to use a 3.3-acre site at 169 Meadow St. in North Amherst.
Another dispensary, called the Happy Valley Compassion Center, is proposed for Route 9 in Hadley near the Amherst town line.
Steinberg said it appears communities have the authority to limit the number of dispensaries, which he argues may be wise public policy with so many planned near UMass.
The town’s bylaw governing medical marijuana sites was based on a state limit of five per county, but this cap was changed by the administration of Gov. Charlie Baker, Hechenbleikner said.
It will not be easy for town zoning to catch up with this, said board member Douglas Slaughter.
“There was no way for us to modify our zoning to react to that regulatory change of a new administration in any reasonable way,” Slaughter said. “It puts us in a bit of a pickle here in some respects.”
But Chairwoman Alisa Brewer said she is mostly comfortable with the process being used.
“I’m a little worried about putting the brakes on now when I’m not sure how that serves us,” Brewer said.
Kruger said she is not sure she would have a way of saying no to medial marijuana applicants that meet all the rules the town has set.
“I am worried about four (dispensaries), but I don’t really have a way that I can figure out how to not hear the next one to make a decision,” Kruger said.
Hechenbleikner, though, said it is unlikely that the board will entertain other applicants in the near future, instead waiting to see how these play out in the coming months. Each must also get approvals from the town Zoning Board of Appeals.
The concerns about replacing existing businesses with marijuana stores, and the proximity to college students, were issues already confronted in Boulder, Colorado, which is much larger than Amherst, and, like Amherst, hosts a major institution, the University of Colorado.
Mishawn Cook, licensing administrator for the city, said in an email that the city council, in its code, placed limits of no more than three marijuana businesses of any license class within 500 feet of each other.
“The original stated purpose of this restriction was to preserve a diversity of business in our city, in sales, manufacturing and industrial zones,” Cook said.
Colorado began allowing retail sales of marijuana for recreational use in 2014. Boulder currently has 81 licenses issued for greenhouse grow operations, dispensaries, wellness centers, and manufacturing of infused products.
Guidera said it is too early in the process to say if medical marijuana or potentially recreational marijuana sales would pose dangers to Amherst’s business community. He speculates, though, that having numerous such businesses in one section of Amherst might be harmful.
“We would be concerned about lining University Drive with multiple marijuana dispensaries,” Guidera said.
Hechenbleikner said the Select Board will not be bound by its support for medical marijuana businesses should state law change and allow sales for recreational use of the Class D drug.
Boulder put in place safeguards such as not allowing pot shops in mixed-use zones with residences and prohibiting sales on the ground level in its downtown business improvement district.
“This combined with the density restriction has likely helped preserve a variety of business both in our downtown district and adjacent to CU campus,” Cook said.
Steinberg and Kruger both serve on the Campus and Community Coalition to Reduce High-Risk Drinking that brings together university and municipal leaders to combat alcohol issues. They said the group has not yet decided whether marijuana should be a topic for the coalition as it might become easier to acquire.
As for concerns about having these enterprises close to the campus, Cook said the federal Department of Justice took care of that problem by sending 10 letters to businesses that were already operating near the University of Colorado, with the federal officials telling them to move or close up.
“Subsequently, we no longer really have marijuana sales locations that are close to the CU campus because those locations did comply and moved or closed,” Cook said.
The University of Colorado, through its student conduct code, makes it clear that any use or possession of cannabis is not allowed on campus:
“As part of the campus rules, marijuana is still prohibited on campus for use or possession,” said Ryan Huff, spokesman for the university.
The code reads: “Use or possession of marijuana, including medical marijuana used or possessed under Colorado constitution article 18, section 14, is strictly prohibited on campus.”
“Being a university, we have federal funding and we have to follow the Federal Drug Free Schools Act,” Huff said.
With the change in law, there is no evidence of an uptick in use by students. “We haven’t seen a fluctuation in more people using or possessing,” Huff said.
UMass spokesman Edward Blaguszewski said current policies prohibit any use or possession of any marijuana on campus, but as dispensaries arrive near the campus, and the possibility of full legalization in the state looms, there could be implications.
“We need to spend more time on the matter,” Blaguszewski said. “One aspect to be considered for us is the federal law and federal funds and how these are distributed across the country and how they could be be impacted by marijuana legalization.”
Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.
