Case Title: West Street Associates LLC v. Planning Board of Mansfield

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13069

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-13069 
 
WEST STREET ASSOCIATES LLC  vs.  PLANNING BOARD OF MANSFIELD 
& another.1 
 
 
 
Bristol.     May 3, 2021. - August 30, 2021. 
 
Present:  Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, Kafker, Wendlandt, 
& Georges, JJ. 
 
 
Marijuana.  Municipal Corporations, Marijuana, By-laws and 
ordinances, Home rule.  Zoning, Validity of by-law or 
ordinance, Special permit.  Corporation, Non-profit 
corporation. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on 
January 3, 2017. 
 
 
The case was heard by Jackie A. Cowin, J. 
 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative 
transferred the case from the Appeals Court. 
 
 
 
Benjamin B. Tymann for the plaintiff. 
 
Jason R. Talerman for Ellen Rosenfeld. 
 
Valerio G. Romano, pro se, amicus curiae, submitted a 
brief. 
 
 
 
 
1 Ellen Rosenfeld, as trustee of the Ellen Realty Trust. 
2 
 
 
BUDD, C.J.  When marijuana initially was legalized for 
medical use in 2012, the licensing of medical marijuana 
dispensaries was limited to nonprofit entities.  See St. 2012, 
c. 369, An Act for the humanitarian medical use of marijuana 
(2012 act).  The marijuana laws thereafter were amended to allow 
for-profit entities to dispense medical marijuana.2  See St. 
2017, c. 55, § 72.  Here we are asked to determine whether a 
previously enacted municipal bylaw that permits only nonprofit 
entities to operate medical marijuana dispensaries is preempted 
by a statutory provision specifically eliminating that 
restriction.  We conclude that the answer is yes.3 
Background.  We summarize the relevant facts which are 
undisputed and taken from the record.  In 2016, Ellen Rosenfeld 
sought and received from the planning board (board) of the town 
of Mansfield (town) a special permit to construct a medical 
marijuana dispensary on West Street.  The site was purchased by 
Rosenfeld as trustee of the Ellen Realty Trust, and the proposed 
operator of the dispensary was CommCan, Inc. (CommCan), of which 
Rosenfeld is president.  The plaintiff, West Street Associates 
LLC (WSA), an abutting landowner, challenged the issuance of the 
 
2 See Commonwealth v. Long, 482 Mass. 804, 809-811 (2019), 
for a chronology of marijuana legislation in the Commonwealth. 
 
3 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by Valerio 
Romano. 
3 
 
permit pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, arguing that the board 
failed properly to consider the decisional criteria for such 
permits as required by the town's bylaws. 
Consistent with the 2012 act, the town required any 
applicant seeking a permit to operate a medical marijuana 
dispensary to be a nonprofit entity.  See St. 2012, c. 369, 
§ 9 (C); Mansfield Bylaws § 230-3.4(K)(3)(c).  As CommCan was a 
nonprofit at the time the permit was granted, its corporate 
status was not an issue when the lawsuit was filed. 
Before the matter was tried, voters approved the 
legalization of recreational marijuana use, see St. 2016, 
c. 334, and comprehensive legislation thereafter was enacted to 
govern the distribution and sale of both medical and 
recreational marijuana.  See St. 2017, c. 55 (2017 act).  The 
2012 act was repealed and replaced by the 2017 act.  See St. 
2017, c. 55, § 47.  Among other things, there is no longer a 
requirement that medical marijuana dispensaries be nonprofit 
entities.  See St. 2017, c. 55, § 72.  In fact, the 2017 act 
contains a provision that expressly allows nonprofit 
dispensaries to convert to for-profit entities: 
"Notwithstanding any general or special law to the 
contrary, any person with a provisional or final 
certification of registration as of July 1, 2017[,] to 
dispense medical use marijuana . . . shall be entitled to 
convert from a non-profit corporation . . . into a domestic 
business corporation . . . ." 
 
4 
 
Id.  Soon after the 2017 act was passed, the Department of 
Public Health repealed its regulations governing medical 
marijuana, see 1380 Mass. Reg. 35 (Dec. 14, 2018), and the newly 
created Cannabis Control Commission (commission) promulgated new 
regulations implementing the 2017 act.  See 935 Code Mass. Regs. 
§§ 501.000 (2021).  As most recently amended, the commission's 
regulations require only that marijuana treatment centers "be 
registered to do business in the Commonwealth as a domestic 
business corporation or another domestic business entity."  935 
Code Mass. Regs. § 501.050(1)(a) (2021).  The commission and 
Secretary of the Commonwealth also issued guidance to 
dispensaries seeking to convert to for-profit entities. 
 
After the passage of the 2017 act, CommCan converted from a 
nonprofit to a for-profit corporation.4  CommCan's change in 
corporate status since the filing of WSA's lawsuit came to light 
during the bench trial held in November 2019.  The judge 
directed the parties to brief what, if any, impact the 
conversion had on Rosenfeld's eligibility for the special permit 
issued by the board and challenged by WSA. 
 
After reviewing the briefs and hearing argument, the judge 
found no error in the board's decision to grant Rosenfeld a 
 
4 CommCan also seeks to convert from a medical marijuana 
dispensary to a retail marijuana establishment, which is the 
subject of a separate appeal.  See CommCan, Inc. v. Mansfield, 
488 Mass.     (2021). 
5 
 
special permit and concluded that the bylaw that required 
medical marijuana dispensaries to be operated by nonprofit 
entities was preempted by the 2017 act.  WSA appealed, 
challenging the preemption decision, and we transferred the case 
to this court on our own motion. 
Discussion.  1.  Home rule.  Since the earliest days of the 
Commonwealth, the Legislature has provided cities and towns with 
the power to self-govern.  See Commonwealth v. Baronas, 285 
Mass. 321, 322 (1934); Cox v. Segee, 206 Mass. 380, 381 (1910).  
General Laws c. 40, § 21, the original version of which was 
enacted in 1692, states in relevant part:  "Towns may, for the 
purposes hereinafter named,[5] make such ordinances and by-laws, 
not repugnant to law, as they may judge most conducive to their 
welfare, which shall be binding upon all inhabitants thereof and 
all persons within their limits." 
Ratified in 1966, the Home Rule Amendment expanded this 
local power by granting municipalities the authority to 
undertake any action "not inconsistent" with the Constitution or 
laws of the Commonwealth.  See art. 89, § 6, of the Amendments 
to the Massachusetts Constitution.  "The purpose of the Home 
Rule Amendment is to preserve the right of municipalities to 
 
5 There are twenty-six categories listed covering a range of 
topics including "directing and managing their prudential 
affairs, preserving peace and good order, and maintaining their 
internal police."  G. L. c. 40, § 21 (1). 
6 
 
self-government in essentially 'local matters' by allowing them 
to adopt and amend their own charters, while preserving the 
Commonwealth's right to legislate with respect to State, 
regional, and general matters."  Gordon v. Sheriff of Suffolk 
County, 411 Mass. 238, 244 (1991).  General Laws c. 43B, § 13, 
the codification of the Home Rule Amendment, provides in 
pertinent part that "[a]ny city or town may, by the adoption, 
amendment or repeal of local ordinances or by-laws, exercise any 
power or function which the general court has power to confer 
upon it, which is not inconsistent with the constitution or laws 
enacted by the general court." 
2.  Standard for preemption.  Municipalities generally are 
afforded "considerable latitude" in self-government in matters 
of local concern.  Bloom v. Worcester, 363 Mass. 136, 154 
(1973).  In determining whether local action is inconsistent 
with State law, similar to the Federal preemption analysis, "the 
touchstone of the analysis is whether the State Legislature 
intended to preempt the city's authority to act."  Connors v. 
Boston, 430 Mass. 31, 35 (1999).  Cf. Boston v. Commonwealth 
Employment Relations Bd., 453 Mass. 389, 396 (2009) ("A Federal 
statute may preempt State law when it explicitly or by 
implication defines such an intent, or when a State statute 
actually conflicts with Federal law or stands as an obstacle to 
the accomplishment of Federal objectives"). 
7 
 
Although legislative intent to preclude local action need 
not be stated expressly, it nevertheless must be clear.  Bloom, 
363 Mass. at 155.  Such intent "may be inferred where 'the local 
regulation would somehow frustrate the purpose of the statute so 
as to warrant an inference that the Legislature intended to 
preempt the subject.'"  Fafard v. Conservation Comm'n of 
Barnstable, 432 Mass. 194, 200 (2000), quoting Boston Gas Co. v. 
Newton, 425 Mass. 697, 699 (1997).  See Bloom, supra at 154 
(State preemption of local bylaw requires "sharp conflict 
between the local and State provisions"). 
 
3.  Application.  We review the preemption decision made by 
the judge de novo.  See Doe v. Lynn, 472 Mass. 521, 527 (2015).  
For the reasons that follow, we agree that the local bylaw is 
preempted to the extent it requires all medical marijuana 
dispensaries to be nonprofit organizations. 
The town bylaw at issue states in pertinent part: 
"[A]ll registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary 
special permit applications shall include proof of 
registration with the Massachusetts Department of Public 
Health under the provisions of Chapter 369 of the Acts of 
2012 and 105 [Code Mass. Regs. §] 725.100." 
 
Mansfield Bylaws § 230-3.4(K)(3)(c).  The bylaw references the 
2012 act and the Department of Public Health regulations, both 
of which required medical dispensaries to be nonprofit entities.  
St. 2012, c. 369, § 9 (C); 105 Code Mass. Regs. § 725.100(A)(1) 
(2016) (registered marijuana dispensaries "must operate on a 
8 
 
non-profit basis for the benefit of registered qualifying 
patients"). 
However, the Legislature disavowed these statutory and 
regulatory provisions when it repealed and replaced the 2012 act 
in 2017 and expressly allowed medical marijuana establishments 
to be for-profit.  The new marijuana law states in relevant 
part: 
"Notwithstanding any general or special law to the 
contrary, any person with a provisional or final 
certification of registration as of July 1, 2017[,] to 
dispense medical use marijuana . . . shall be entitled to 
convert from a non-profit corporation . . . into a domestic 
business corporation . . . ." 
 
St. 2017, c. 55, § 72.6  Soon thereafter, the Department of 
Public Health regulations were repealed, see 1380 Mass. Reg. 35 
(Dec. 14, 2018), and the commission issued new regulations to 
implement the 2017 act.  See 935 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 501.000 
(2021).  The commission's regulations now require only that 
marijuana treatment centers "be registered to do business in the 
Commonwealth as a domestic business corporation or another 
domestic business entity."  935 Code Mass. Regs. § 501.050(1)(a) 
(2021). 
 
6 The judge found that Rosenfeld obtained a provisional 
registration from the Department of Public Health.  Neither 
party contests that Rosenfeld held the provisional registration 
as of July 1, 2017. 
9 
 
By retaining the requirement that medical marijuana 
dispensaries be nonprofit, the town bylaw "frustrate[s] [one of] 
the purpose[s]" of the 2017 act.  Fafard, 432 Mass. at 200.  In 
repealing the 2012 act, see St. 2017, c. 55, § 47, and replacing 
it with a provision permitting for-profit entities to operate 
marijuana treatment centers, see St. 2017, c. 55, § 72, the 
Legislature evinced its clear intent to allow for-profit 
entities to distribute medical marijuana.  This legislative 
purpose cannot "be achieved in the face of [the town's] . . . 
by-law on the same subject."  See Bloom, 363 Mass. at 156.  As 
the trial judge explained in her ruling, "By limiting medical 
marijuana facilities to nonprofit entities, the bylaw[,] while 
not prohibit[ing] those facilities, does restrict them in a way 
that the [S]tate explicitly determined they should not be 
limited."  Accordingly, the town's bylaw is preempted by State 
law to the extent it requires all medical marijuana dispensaries 
to be nonprofit organizations, and the board cannot be forced to 
revoke the special permit at issue because CommCan appropriately 
exercised its statutory right to convert to a for-profit entity.7 
 
7 Because we uphold the judge's ruling that State law 
preempts the local bylaw limiting medical marijuana dispensaries 
to nonprofit entities, we need not reach Rosenfeld's alternative 
argument that CommCan's corporate conversion is not relevant to 
the planning board's decision because CommCan was a nonprofit 
entity when the planning board issued the special permit.  Nor 
do we reach Rosenfeld's argument that local zoning bylaws may 
not regulate corporate forms. 
10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed.