As the state enacts legislation aimed at giving cannabis shop permits to those most negatively impacted by the, so-called, “War on Drugs,” Haverhill officials are facing a state deadline to decide how the city will support such applicants.
According to a draft of Haverhill’s social equity policy, conditions to qualify include that a majority of a business’s owners have previous cannabis-related convictions, live in an “area of disproportionate impact,” meet certain income requirements, or have descendants from particular minority groups. These were specified as “Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino or Native American or indigenous.”
In an email to the City Council’s Administration and Finance Committee workshopping the policy, Councilor Melissa J. Lewandowski said the document should make clear belonging to the group prioritized by the state does not “guarantee” an applicant a license.
With the state’s Cannabis Control Commission—or CCC—having set a May 1 deadline, councilors and City Solicitor Lisa L. Mead discussed at a Monday meeting whether to include sections on cannabis delivery businesses and community impact fees.
Lewandowski raised concerns about whether to give applicants “exclusive access” to delivery licenses for three years because the city has yet to make specific legislation about the service.
“We should have some type of verbiage in the zoning relative to delivery. There should be some language in there on the limits on how much we’re allowing to be in the vehicle, operating hours, etc.,” Lewandowski said. “And I understand that all that is also codified in CCC regulations regarding delivery, but I just think it behooves us as a community to be able to do that because we can under local control.”
There was some confusion about an entry on the CCC’s website which indicates Haverhill has opted in for delivery, with councilors saying they do not remember authorizing such businesses. A CCC spokesperson told WHAV the entry means Haverhill allows cannabis deliveries to its residents, and was included so businesses know they can deliver to customers in the city. This particular entry, the spokesperson continued, does not indicate whether the city will allow delivery businesses to set up shop in the city.
Mead said her team’s research has shown the city has not opted in, adding, “if you do opt in, you can put guardrails on it.” To avoid potential fines from the state, she suggested the committee not strike the section on delivery licenses. If it turns out the city has not already opted in, and the council chooses not to, she said it can be removed at a later date.
Council Vice President Timothy J. Jordan questioned the section on reducing community impact fees by 50%, saying Haverhill does not seem to levy them on its cannabis businesses.
“When I read that, I’m just a bit confused,” he said. “My understanding is that we have four marijuana shops in Haverhill and that only one of them, I believe, is paying the fee. The other three are not, to the best of my knowledge.”
Asked to clarify by Jordan, Mead would not confirm whether three are not paying. She added that municipalities are not required to provide a discount, and Haverhill’s agreements with its cannabis shops are currently being renegotiated according to new state regulations.
As WHAV reported, Stem Haverhill filed a civil suit against the city in 2021 for $887,488 in community impact fees collected over the past three years, alleging, among other things, recent reform should apply retroactively to the agreement requiring the payments. At a hearing in February, Essex County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey T. Karp said he was leaning toward rejecting Stem’s claim that the city had unlawfully collected the sum.
The committee removed the language reducing impact fees and did not change the section on delivery businesses, awaiting more information from the city solicitor.