City Council

City of Salem, Massachusetts “Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c. 30A ss. 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.” The City Council Committee on __Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs co-posted with Committee of the Whole_ met in the Council Chamber on ____Thursday, January 22, 2026_______ at _6:00_____P.M. for the purpose of discussing the matters(s) listed below. Notice of this meeting was posted on ______January 20, 2026_________________ at ___ 5:39 P.M.______________________________________________ (This meeting is being recorded) ATTENDANCE OLLA – Hapworth (acting chair), Holappa, Prosniewski, and Varela (zoom). COW – Merkl, Turowski & King. ABSENT WERE: OLLA – Smith. COW – Sydoriak, Flynn & Davis. SUBJECT(S) #493 - An Ordinance amending Zoning relative to Section 6.10.12 – Requirements Specific to Marijuana Retailer Establishments – to increase the number of available licenses by three licenses, above the prior limit of no more than 20 percent of the M.G.L Ch. 138, Sec. 15 (CO-POSTED W/COW) #494 - An Ordinance to amend an ordinance relative to Ch. 24, Sec. 30 – Retail Marijuana Establishments (CO-POSTED W/COW) Granting Certain Licenses – Seaworms, Secondhand Clothing, Secondhand Valuables (OLLA Committee only) Social Equity Cannabis Business – A social equity marijuana business is a cannabis enterprise owned or operated by individuals from communities disproportionately impacted by the "War on Drugs" and marijuana prohibition. These programs are designed to provide intentional, legalized access to the industry for marginalized groups through licensing preferences, fee reductions, and technical support. Key Features of Social Equity Programs • Targeted Ownership: The business must generally be at least 51% owned and controlled by individuals who meet specific criteria. • Qualifications: Qualifiers often include having a past marijuana-related conviction, having a family member with such a conviction, or living in a disproportionately impacted area for a minimum number of years (e.g., 5 years between 1980 and 2010 in WA). • Support & Benefits: Programs offer free technical assistance, training, fee waivers, and access to special grants or loans (e.g., $25,000 to $500,000 in MA). • Priority Licensing: Many jurisdictions (e.g., WA, MA, NY) offer expedited application reviews or set aside a specific number of licenses for social equity applicants. Hapworth – We will start with the granting of certain licenses which includes a group of sea worm licenses, secondhand clothing and secondhand valuables. Prosniewski – Motion to approve and seconded by Holappa. Roll call vote is 4-0. Hapworth – Next, we have #493 and #494 which are the zoning ordinance and the marijuana establishments ordinance. This was a submission by the mayor’s office to increase the limit of retail marijuana licenses by 3 with 2 being social equity businesses. It has gone through the public process with a joint public hearing with the planning board and then in our final meeting of 2025, we motioned for it to be sent back to committee. This submission will expire on February 11, 2026, based on where it is with zoning. We have four options tonight. We could vote to adopt the exact submission from the mayor’s office which is 3 licenses and 2 of them being for social equity businesses. We could vote no and not allow the change in zoning or the additional licenses. Rennard – If you vote it down, you can’t bring it back to the planning board for 2 years, unless the planning board gives it a favorable recommendation and their recommendation was one additional social equity license, then it could be brought back within a year. Hapworth – The second option is we vote no and then it could potentially come back to us within one year. The third option is to take the planning board recommendation one additional license for a social equity business. The fourth option is to leave it in committee and let it expire on February 11, 2026. I will open it up for discussion and if anyone needs more background on it. King – If we leave it in committee and let it expire, is the rule the same and it can be brought back within a year? Rennard – No, it would have to start all over as if it had never happened. Hapworth – It would have to be presented to the council again, there would be a joint public hearing and then there would be x number of days for it to get approved/denied. Holappa – There is reference in the mayor’s letter to goals for social equity. Has there been any discussion on that or is this strictly an ordinance to increase the number of licenses? Hapworth – Some of the licenses would be for social equity, which allows those that have been harmed in the past by the cannabis industry to get a license with support of the community. Rennard – Yes, they would get preference, vetted by the Cannabis Control Commission then put on a list. Holappa – Will there be any assistance by the city for the new social equity license owners so that they aren’t set up for failure in what other cannabis retailers in Salem say is a saturated market? Rennard – The city would assist them through the process of getting the license but would not assist going forward with a business model or help to become a successful business. Varela – I believe in the social equity program, and I think it would benefit the residents of Salem. I think we need more time to discuss this ordinance. We have 5 retailers in Salem already, but it is not our job to determine what the market is and if we need more businesses, but it would be good to have more applicants. I think that we need to look more closely on the zoning for these establishments. A B1 zoning could be appropriate for this type of business. I recommend that we keep this in committee so that it will expire and then we can bring it back in and do a deeper dive into how many licenses would benefit the city, how do we do it and should discuss other cannabis retail uses in our state and we should explore those opportunities before we add more licenses. King – Would these licenses be just retail or would they be allowed to have other types of cannabis businesses? Rennard – It would just be retail. King – We need to keep in mind that there are different types of cannabis businesses besides just retail, like social consumption, agricultural, etc. I think that when we discuss these additional licenses, then we should also discuss including these other types. This industry is very robust, and I think we should give business owners the opportunity with more than just retail. Varela – We have been restricted to 5 retail businesses in Salem because we decided to adopt a host community agreement. I don’t think adding one additional license is appropriate at this time. I think we should wait and discuss adding the possibility of other uses like social consumption, etc. If this stays in committee, we can continue to discuss this and make changes that we think are appropriate for the benefit of the city. Holappa – If we allowed other uses, would they be able to use the same licenses or is there a different license that they would need to get to operate say a cannabis café? If we voted for the 1 or 3 licenses, would we be tied to that or could we add more or do we have to wait a year? Rennard – The new regulations are just coming down, but the café would have to be tied to a retail establishment somehow, say on the same premise, or the same owner. There are also other licenses that can allow for delivery, transport, etc. that aren’t related to the social consumption, but the social consumption must be related to a retail establishment. If you vote it down today, then you can’t continue to discuss it but if you bring a new ordinance that is substantially different, like you are changing the zoning then you can bring it back to the council. Varela – If we are going to start to talk about additional uses, then we should leave this in committee to continue the discussion. We may decide that 3 additional licenses aren’t enough. King – I think that since we have several councilors that are new, I think it would be best to keep this in committee. Prosniewski – I was thinking that we should vote with the planning board’s recommendation but after hearing the discussion, I am hesitant to vote that way. Also, given that Varela wasn’t able to be involved in previous conversations because he had a conflict of interest as a Cannabis Commission board member and that we have several new council members, I think we should continue the conversation and keep it in committee. And this industry is changing so we need to have more discussions about this before we move forward. Holappa – I think the intention of the ordinance is to allow for the social equity, but I am not confident that as the ordinance is written that it will accomplish what it is intended to. I would be in favor of taking more time with this and being more intentional about it. Hapworth – Smith just joined the meeting. There seems to be a majority of the committee that is in favor of keeping this in committee. Merkl – I appreciate the conversation tonight, it has clarified a lot of things for me, and I would be in favor of more discussions in the future and keeping this in committee. Varela – Motion that #494, marijuana establishments, remain in committee. Seconded by Prosniewski. Roll call vote 5-0. Motion that #493, zoning relative to retail marijuana, remain in committee. Seconded by Prosniewski. Roll call vote 5-0. On the motion of C. Prosniewski the meeting adjourned at 6:30P.M. Roll call vote 5-0. ________________________________________________________ (Chairperson)