55 University Drive bottom left, proposed housing across the street
Red lines indicated 300' reach
The Select Board may want to think about the "letter of support or non opposition" for a medical marijuana facility proposed at 55 University Drive since it could kill a proposed 32 unit apartment development directly across the street.
According to the recent Amherst zoning bylaw governing medical marijuana facilities there has to be a 300 foot buffer zone from apartments (unless they are located in a mixed use building).
The Planning Board is sponsoring a warrant article for spring Town Meeting to change the zoning on the 5.79 acre property directly across the street from 55 University Drive from Office Park to Business Limited, which would allow for the construction of badly needed student housing.
Building Commissioner Rob Morra confirmed, "As written the bylaw does not consider one use existing before the other." In other words first come first serve. And if you are a pot facility first, that means no housing will be developed within 300' feet of your front door.
The 300' buffer extends far enough into the open field across the street (which is already development challenged by wetlands) to make the proposed project unfeasible.
Thus a potential $7 or $8 million development, that would pay the town $150,000 annually in property taxes, is killed by a much smaller medical marijuana facility that will pay less than $20,000 annually.
So Amherst Select Board, what's more important? Helping to ease the significant stress on our housing market -- while generating substantial tax revenues -- or providing a medicinal herb?
Because of stringent bylaw exclusions University Drive is about the only place in town for a medical marijuana facility
26 comments:
Ha! Ha! It's dispensaries that can't be built near housing developments, not developments can't be built near dispensaries. Nice Chicken Little moment though.
Yeah, you would think.
And if the Planning Board could go back and do over I'm sure they would rewrite it that way.
You are allowed to think before you write, Larry.
Dispensaries are few and far between in the state, making it a sort of commodity. Also people who do need this "medicinal herb" often have severe ailments and pain making travel uncomfortable and inconvenient. The dispensary also would bring in a lot of revenue in and of itself via taxation and licensing fees etc. Tough issue but food for thought.
It's not going to hold anything up. It all comes down to wetlands and drainage.
But I thought that the Housing needs a zoning change AND the dispensary needs a Special Permit.
Neither are likely to happen.
when did TM pass the bylaw with 300 ft exclusion?
Fall 2013
7:25 is spot on - and why not go all the way: that farmland across the street could grow a lot of herbs, medicinal and otherwise.
Artificial problem. Too important to be left to people in government, espexially given how much they screw up weed policy and gravitated towards mass incarceration as an alternative. Such people aren't qualified to clean tiolets, let alone lock up people's children or plan their lives, busniness and exonomic decline.
I'll use the same dispensary I've used for 50 years. My friend Ruben.
Your logic is flawed. Show me a town ordinance that forbids housing developments within 300 feet of a marijuana dispensary. There isn't one.
Yeah, there is. Amherst.
You can always build the housing and put the drug addicts in it so they can walk across the street and get their drugs. Biggest juxtaposition going is medical marijuana.
We have an ordinance that forbids building housing within 300 feet of a dispensary? You sure about that?
Since it's 300 feet from building to building, not property lines, and the apartments will need a parking lot, it won't necessarily make a difference depending on where the apartments sit.
The solution lies with the Planning Board changing the restriction, not with the Select Board. The Select Board is not evaluating merits of the location they are simply allowing the dispensary to apply to the department of health
Yes Anon 9:14 AM, I am sure that is the way Building Commissioner Rob Morra interprets the bylaw.
And yes, Anon 9:17 AM, the Planning Boatd should change/tweak the wording of the bylaw, but it would still need a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting.
Speaking of Chicken Little and "food for thought"... I'm mostly bummed The Hanger moved. Kidding aside, what if the "mixed-use" building was a dispensary on the ground floor and apartments up above? Far out loophole?
Larry's interpretation is probably not correct.
Because a marijuana facility cannot be built within 300 feet of a residential use, does not necessarily mean that a residential use cannot be built within 300 feet of a marijuana facility.
That would be an unreasonable "taking" of someone else's ability to use their land.
Yeah, that was my original thought as well.
But then I did the research.
Really mass incarceration? For small amounts? Give us the numbers please.
Why don't you all just use my guy Ruben? For a fee I will introduce you and set you up.
Better call Saul.
Or Walter White. Lol
Post a Comment