Zoning – Buffer zone – Marijuana

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff that operates a marijuana dispensary has challenged a variance allowing another dispensary to operate less than a 10th of a mile away, the plaintiff lacks standing because it has not put forth credible, sufficient evidence to support its claim of a specialized injury.

Variance affirmed.

“Plaintiff Verdant Reparative, Inc. (‘Verdant’) challenges the August 8, 2023 decision of the Boston Board of Appeal (‘Zoning Board’) to issue a variance to Vinyl Roots, Inc. (‘Vinyl Roots’), relieving it from a provision in the Boston Zoning Code requiring that any new marijuana dispensary be sited not less than a half-mile away from an existing one (the ‘buffer zone provision’). …

“… Vinyl Roots argues that, even if Verdant has alleged injury to an interest the buffer zone provision is meant to protect, it has not proven that the variance issued to Vinyl Roots actually will cause the injury it alleges. …

“The Court finds that Verdant did not put forth credible, specific evidence to support its allegation that Vinyl Roots’ operation will cause it a specialized injury, and therefore has failed to establish standing to pursue this appeal. …

“In sum, because all that Verdant offered was ‘[s]ubjective and unspecific fears,’ and ‘conjecture and hypothesis’ about the impact of Vinyl Roots’ operation on its own business, the Court finds that there is an insufficient basis to support its claim of injury, and thus it lacks standing to bring this appeal. …”

Verdant Reparative, Inc. v. City of Boston Board of Appeal, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-060-25) (11 pages) (Cowin, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Docket No. 2384-CV-01962) (Dec. 29, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.