TOWN MEETING | FROM PAGE 1 Page 14 man Michael Serino. “All we’ve seen is expenditures that we’ve been paying for. Lawsuits, expenditures and time and effort. The amount of time that department heads, the town manager have spent on marijuana has been huge,” she said. “In closing, I think Saugus should focus on the two establishments that were given S-2 permits, and not look to bring a third, a fourth, a fifth marijuana establishment into our town. We need to stop the bleeding and stop the lawsuits. There is no public need to have three marijuana establishments in town,” she said. Town Meeting followed the recommendation of the Planning Board, which voted unanimously to recommend passage of Article 21. “When Town Meeting made a mistake” Precinct 10 Town Meeting Member Peter Manoogian recalled frequent conversations he’s had over the years with Town Counsel John J. Vasapolli, who would raise the question “When have you ever seen Town Meeting make a mistake?” “I think when we went against the wishes of the voters that said ‘no,’ they didn’t want marijuana in Saugus. I think Town Meeting did go against the wishes of the voters and did make a mistake,” Manoogian told his colleagues. Manoogian was referring to the 2016 state election when voters statewide approved Question 4 by a 54 percent margin, allowing the possession, use, distribution and cultivation of limited amounts of marijuana by persons ages 21 and older. But Saugus residents voted 7,652-6,710 – 53 percent – against the measure. The Annual Town Meeting voted unanimously in 2018 for an article that banned the operation of any marijuana retail establishments in town. Four years later, members voted 31-13 (with five members absent) for Article 36 – an amendment to the town’s Zoning Bylaws to allow for marijuana establishments in town. “Yes, Mr. Town Counsel, I have seen the time when Town Meeting made a mistake and this was it. I hope this puts an end to the THE SAUGUS ADVOCATE – FRIDAy, MAy 23, 2025 Saugus all the way up to the New Hampshire border,” Seribleeding,” Manoogian said. “You just voted a budget last week that shows you had to put more money into the legal department to defend us [against litigation initiated by companies fighting to open marijuana establishments in town],” Manoogian reminded Town Meeting members. Manoogian recalled when companies were making their case for marijuana facilities in Saugus, promising all sorts of benefits for the town. “We had a PowerPoint presentation showing all of the parks and playgrounds and the conditions that they were in. And the nexus was made between adopting marijuana for Saugus and rehabilitating our parks and playgrounds,” Manoogian said. “Never has so much been spent in money and time to gain so little,” he said, recalling “Those that complained about the town manager supposedly dragging his feet on the west side fire station or rebuilding the parks and playgrounds.” “He was spending time working with this MERC [Marijuana Establishment Review Committee] on planning out and following the regs on marijuana – how to establish it,” Manoogian said. Essentially, the town manager wasted invaluable time on preparing Saugus for the marijuana business, diverting attention from more important town projects, according to Manoogian. Meanwhile, several companies vying for marijuana business in Saugus filed lawsuits against the town “There’s still lawsuits on marijuana and we haven’t seen a red cent,” Manoogian said. “Nothing went into the parks and playgrounds that were on that PowerPoint that night. So, let this be a lesson for us. Few communities benefit Selectman Serino, like Manoogian, has been advocating for town officials to follow the sentiment of Saugus voters when it comes to the pot shop business. Serino cited his personal analysis, using state Department of Revenue data, to determine whether surrounding companies have benefited from the retail marijuana business. “I analyzed all of the surrounding communities, from no said. “And out of nine cities and towns that sell it, from 2022 to 2024, six out of the nine have lost revenue. And only three, usually cities, improved their revenue very slightly. So, the revenue isn’t there,” he said. If the Board of Selectmen issues additional S-2 permits for retail marijuana dispensaries, it wouldn’t help the town, Serino concluded. “You’re not going to see any significant increase,” he said, adding that the two current license holders would wind up sharing with additional companies. The licenses for marijuana dispensaries are based on how many package stores the town licenses. Currently, Saugus has 12 that allow beer and wine sales. The number of marijuana dispensaries Saugus can have is based on 20 percent of the 12 package stores, according to Serino. “That comes out to 2.4 percent,” he said. “It’s my understanding that we’re being sued for a third license, which we don’t have. I think it’s important that taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for legal fees for these establishments that want to sue, sue, sue. We need to protect the town,” Serino said. Serino said he’s concerned that the state legislature could change the law to allow more than 20 percent based on the package stores. Panetta noted that changes in state law have already cancelled out benefits to communities that host marijuana dispensaries. “In 2022, there was a state law requiring all municipalities to document and justify these impact fees, linking them to actual costs imposed by the cannabis business,” Panetta said. “I’m sure many of you read that Boston and other communities had to pay back cannabis places because they could not justify what they would be charging, which was up to 3 percent of gross income. They couldn’t justify it and had to give it back,” she said. “I think this is especially important for our town since a third dispensary on Route 1 – that’s the only place we could put it – would not add to any additional impact fee revenue for the town. So, why are we going to have a third dispensary in our town?” A need to act now There was no dissent expressed during the discussion of Article 21. Some members agreed there was an urgency for the town to take protective measures. “We need to get these things done,” Precinct 10 Town Meeting Member Martin Costello said in support of limiting marijuana establishments to two. “We stop the litigation. We don’t have expansion where there will be lounges there and people can go in and get ‘high’ and get in their cars and go on Route 1, because there’s already a horror show out there now,” Costello said. Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member Jeanie Bartolo expressed gratitude to Panetta and Serino for introducing the article. “I just want to say ‘thank you’ to Deb and Mike because you kept this out of our neighborhoods,” Bartolo said. “And if we have to have it, I can handle Route 1. But you kept it out of our neighborhoods and our squares. And I want to thank you,” she said. Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member Kristi Talagan, who owns a business that works as a compliance trainer for the state Cannabis Control Commission, said she agreed that limiting the number of retail marijuana dispensaries to two was the proper action. “They are not doing well – some of these businesses,” Talagan said. “And yes, we’ve lost the wave of revenue. In the beginning, there was a lot of revenue to have with the cannabis businesses. But at this point, they’ve [the state] changed the regulations,” she said. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how long it will take for Town Manager Scott C. Crabtree to negotiate host agreements for the two businesses that received S-2 special permits from the Board of Selectmen. Issuance of the S-2 permits has been polarizing for the Board of Selectmen in recent years and spurred political sparring during the campaign for selectmen two years ago. Sanctuary Medicinals – one of seven applicants seeking to locate a retail marijuana dispensary in Saugus – was the only one left standing after a hearing in December of 2023. After denying the requests of five other candidates for a S-2 special permit under town zoning bylaws, selectmen voted 4-0 to issue one of three available S-2 permits. Sanctuary Medicinals has submitted plans to build its dispensary at 181 Broadway, site of the former 99 Restaurant. Uma Flowers, LLC, with a proposed location at 24 Broadway (Route 1 North) – the site of a former house that was torn down – was the unanimous selection of the seven-member MERC, achieving a perfect score of 140 total points, based on an “exceptional” rating by each member in each of the five categories that were considered. But Uma Flowers could only muster three of the selectmen’s four votes for the issuance of an S-2 permit. Selectman Anthony Cogliano, who has been an outspoken critic of the MERC report and its ranking of Uma Flowers with a perfect score, cast the lone vote against Uma Flowers. “I don’t believe it’s in the top three locations,” Cogliano said. Uma later sued the Board of Selectmen and alleged in a complaint filed against the town and the Board of Selectmen in state Land Court that then-Board of Selectmen Chair Cogliano “appeared to act with bias against Uma and in favor of Bostica,” another company competing for an S-2 permit. During a court hearing, Cogliano admitted that he enjoyed a personal friendship for 30 years with Raymond Falite, Bostica’s manager. Last December, Judge Michael D. Vhay issued a judgement in favor of Uma Flowers against selectmen on one of the four counts and ordered that the Board of Selectmen’s 3-1 vote be annulled and the case be returned to selectmen for further proceedings. “The amount of time and effort spent on bringing marijuana into Saugus has been substantial,” Panetta said. “We have spent 10s of thousands of dollars in lawsuits, and the town is still in a lawsuit with one of the establishments that were not granted a marijuana license,” she said. “The two establishments voted on got the best ratings overall from the MERC Committee and were the only two establishments that were recommended.”
15 Publizr Home