Motions

Transcript (~47 min @ 1:15:02)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 1:14:58 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: second we have a motion made by Alderman Mortimer second by Alderman Boisselle all in favor aye opposed we are in recess

▶ 1:17:04 Speaker 3: unlike this feels a little like I mean like that was intense in a different way

▶ 1:17:10 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: I think that'll walk welcome back we're still in the public comment portion of

▶ 1:17:19 Speaker 3: the Appropriations Committee thank you as I said before my name is Mary Gervino I'm a resident at 62 school street in Melrose I am here I would like to officially enter into the record and I've given Peter Mortimer the originals myself and a neighbor have put together a petition for those individuals who agree with Peter Mortimer proposal to not have the marijuana dispensary in the center of town but to keep it down towards route 99 I just want to say that from a door-to-door perspective we were able to collect 61 signatures online we were able to collect 114 signatures from Melrose Ian's 14 non Melrose Ian's but in total we have 175 signatures that I would like entered into the record that stand against the proposal to install a marijuana dispensary thank you hi

▶ 1:18:31 Speaker 2: everyone my name is Jane Allen I live at 179 East Foster Street and I'm a research public health analyst working in the areas of cannabis and tobacco so the primary reason I wanted to come here tonight is to thank you all I was here speaking on January 14th and when I read the report and saw the new proposal I really felt that you all had really listened to the concerns of the community and responded to them and I really appreciated that so I want to thank you for that important issue for me is equity and I'm concerned about a lot of the issues people have raised including youth use which of course as we know it's detrimental to the developing youth brain that said we haven't seen youth use increase in states that have legalized and part of that is the way they've done it and I think we'll be cautious as they have been and create shops that are discreet and don't have exterior signage and that kind of thing and I anticipate in doing that following best practice and the research evidence I anticipate that we will also have good outcomes in Melrose so a concern of mine was that when we zone cannabis to a tiny corner of Melrose what it does is it discriminates against people who've already been discriminated against by past marijuana policy so we create a situation in which there's only a small number of buildings in which a shop can open and then the landlords of those buildings can increase the cost as Commissioner title talked about in January so that's a concern of mine I would like to see now that we're legalizing cannabis that we're opening up that space so that people who've been disproportionately harmed by past policy can come into that space and and and enter it as a legal business and I want to make sure that they have that opportunity so for those reasons I appreciate that you've expanded the zoning I feel that we won't see any negative impact on our community and the research shows that to date I haven't seen research showing any increases in crime any increases in youth use related to density and placement of cannabis

▶ 1:21:40 Speaker 5: shops thank you thank you good evening so I am here to not debate whether pot shop should be legal or illegal it's legal now we have one already I'm just medicinal one what I'm here to say is that I think this is the perfect opportunity for people to compromise we have it already zoned out on route 99 I think it should stay out there there's so many issues that can happen if it was downtown increased traffic I hear from people in Everett in from Reading that are telling me that there's gonna be a pot shop going in at Caruso's on Main Street only I don't know how they got that information already but like people outside of the town are already like expecting it to happen there's a park across the street right there it's a thousand feet from the public library there's a main street there's at least two churches within the area a daycare

▶ 1:22:45 Speaker 5: there are multiple routes for schools children take to school my kids walk to school you know like they walk by downtown they hang out downtown the kids are always downtown we need to be looking at uh you know the children really we live in a city that doesn't have you can't buy a bottle of vodka

▶ 1:23:12 Speaker 5: here right you can't play keno but now I'm sorry but now we're gonna have like a pot shop downtown that kids can just be walking by and you know I understand everybody's everybody that's here for supporting it but you know it's discriminatory to people that want to buy vodka you know or people want to go in and have a beer at one of our restaurants to you know we made these choices and that's how we that's how we've decided as a city to live and I I support alderman Mortimer order to to keep it on route 99 no thank you for

▶ 1:24:18 Speaker 2: your time good evening my name is Kelly tome and I've lived at 1056 Main Street for over 25 years I have two children one who graduated from ours high in 2016 and one who is just finishing eighth grade at the middle school and I'm here today to express my full support for opening up the zoning outside of the little route 99 piece that most people don't realize is Melrose into into Melrose Center proper I've read via letters to the editor and our local newspapers as well as countless posts on the Morris community Facebook group that we must think of the children and think of the traffic the crime and other issues that will, and I quote, ruin our city. However, it is my understanding that entry into such a store will be limited to those 21 plus, that visible advertising will not be allowed, that public use and consumption of any product purchased will not be permitted, and that there are a variety of other restrictions. There were many, many pages on the documents that I read before here. Combined, these measures likely will reduce the risk of problems to to no more than occur at our current stores which sell tobacco or alcohol. I have visited medical marijuana dispensaries for the past year as a state certified caregiver for a patient who uses cannabis for chronic severe pain. Every preconceived notion I had about what a marijuana establishment would be like ended up wrong. And it's this experience that influences my position on the establishment of a retail store in Melrose. I believe many of the fears and allegations of what such an establishment would do to our city are based on similar misconceptions to those that I once held. In my role as caregiver, I visited two dispensaries in Massachusetts to obtain necessary medical products for my patient, primarily Netta in Brookline and Patriot Care in Lowell. Speaking about Netta, from the outside, you would never know what product is available within. It's in fact located adjacent to a daycare facility. And in speaking with the staff, They have said that there are zero incidents or concerns or have had problems based on the co-location of those two facilities. The clientele that visits is a cross-section of America, diverse in age, ethnicity, economic means, gender, and physical condition. They're not the wide-eyed stoner folks fearmongers imagine, any more than those entering Beacon Hill Wine and Gourmet on our own Main Street are stumbling stereotypical drunks. It's a quiet, discreet facility in a former bank building, and I feel safer entering there than I do most liquor stores. I also don't have any trouble parking there. A primary fear I've heard repeatedly is that teens will obtain marijuana products from a retail store located conveniently in town. I remember hearing these same worries about alcohol when Beacon Wine opened, I forget what year, but several years ago. Speaking from my experience with medicinal products, the merchandise available at this proposed retail store is not going to be the cheap stuff that they're buying from their friends at school. Regulated marijuana products are expensive, and retail products will have the sales tax added to it that medicinal products do not carry. My patient has spent literally thousands of dollars this past year, not with the goal of using recreationally but to be able to regulate her pain levels to a sufficient status that she can function in a day-to-day environment lastly I believe there is a radical misperception as to who a typical recreational user is based on conversations with friends who live in states with legal marijuana currently yes there are 20-somethings just finishing college there are also doctors, mall workers, engineers, musicians, parents, retirees, and more. Melrose voted to allow recreational marijuana sales in our city and I believe such a business should be treated no differently than any other business. In a two-block stretch on and around Main Street we have a CVS where prescription opiates and high caffeine energy drinks that can cause damage to our youth are available, at least the energy drinks, to those youth. We have a grocery store that sells tobacco and we have two stores well presumably when Buckelews reopens where wine and beer may be legally purchased I see a retail marijuana establishment as no different and I would feel the same if we were speaking about this opening in the Franklin Square business district several hundred yards from my own home thank you very much for taking the time

▶ 1:29:01 Speaker 4: to hear my thoughts thank you thank you hi thanks for let me speak for a couple

▶ 1:29:32 Speaker 2: minutes um i support the one dispensary in melrose i am opposed to a downtown dispensary i'm a business owner in melrose on main street at giacomo's restaurant um i feel that there's going to be more traffic parking is already an issue our downtown is the envy of all the surrounding communities i don't know why we would put this square down there and start to change things it's it's perfect the way that it is there's been some other things said netta that is a great dispensary but there is a policeman out there every second that it's opened and that's probably why there's no trouble and they're directing traffic as people go in and out they said the salem dispensary is uh didn't have any track traffic when it opened it was because it's by appointment only there's going to be traffic there's already traffic it's just not gonna be good for all the businesses down there people that want to go down there shop local shop small you already have trouble finding a spot to go to the y to drop your kids off it's going to get a lot worse so i do oppose it thank you thank you madam chair would it be possible to have

▶ 1:30:47 Shawn M. MacMaster: members of the public identify themselves for the record in addition to writing down uh your name

▶ 1:30:55 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: and their address thank you please state your name and for the record thank you so i'm a resident of

▶ 1:31:03 Speaker 3: Melrose, my name is Michael Muralda, homeowner and also a father. I just want to point out that the traffic concerns are largely, largely overstated. The traffic concerns have shown up, particularly in Leicester, one of the first recreational cannabis stores to be open on the east coast of the United States. So obviously there's a lot of hype that goes into that. There's about a dozen stores that are open now. Not a lot of them are experiencing the same traffic concerns. To put it into perspective in terms of how long it's going to take for this store to open here, it's probably going to be over a year because you have to go through the finding of the real estate, the store, have to go through the community host agreement, which will take months for you guys to finalize, and then has to go through the Cannabis Control Commission approval process, which is also going to take three to six months. Currently, there's only 12 recreational stores that are open in Massachusetts. That is over the course of a three-month period. So we're looking at another three months, there's going to be 24 stores open if they continue at the same pace. Within a year, there will be 48 stores open, and Melrose will not be open. There's 250 establishments that are in line to get licensed by the Cannabis Control Commission. It's going to take a long time to get licensed. What that means is that there will be a lot more facilities, Somerville, Cambridge, Boston already have community host agreements with retail establishments. What that means is we're not going to become a destination. There's not going to be a lot of traffic concerns. In fact, there will probably only be as much traffic or less traffic than a restaurant downtown. So just want to put that out there. Traffic concerns are probably not that much of an issue when this establishment gets finalized.

▶ 1:32:54 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 1:33:14 Speaker 5: good evening everyone my name is Lauren Grimmick I'm a resident of 19 Morgan Street but I'm here speaking on behalf of the Melrose Chamber of Commerce of which I'm employed as the executive director the Melrose Chamber of Commerce our board of directors has met and has decided that in speaking with many of our downtown business members we do not support having a recreational marijuana establishment in the downtown area we think that as this industry is growing and as it would be new for our community and again in recognizing that many of our business members are opposed to having it there that's where our board stands on this issue we do support the existing zoning having it out at route 99 where garden remedies is they are a chamber member we've been out to their facility which is very clean professional secure and we feel that that's the best place for a recreational establishment at this time for our

▶ 1:34:45 Speaker 4: community thank you good evening everyone I'm not a public speaker I don't usually come forward and that situations such as this I was very surprised when this this whole thing passed I did not vote for it I don't support it I've been very blessed to live in Melrose for almost 76 years and we love our city I love our city and I think we're taking a chance having a facility for the sale of marijuana right downtown where the kids leave school they walk by it everyone who has children knows that teenagers are going to be curious about this it's it will bring a great deal of interest I believe in the medical marijuana although I don't know a great deal about it but having a place downtown I think is just asking for trouble and there's nothing more important than at the children and even senior citizens you know we all matter and I just think it's wrong to have this facility downtown. That's all I have to say. Thank you for listening. Can you tell us your name? Pardon? Your name? I'm sorry, Lorraine Goodhue. Thank you.

▶ 1:36:19 Speaker 3: My name's Joan O'Hara. I live at 24 Larchmont Road. I'm opposed to it, and I guess I want to remind you or refer you to the Boston Globe this weekend where the turners talked about Melrose Square, how unique, how beautiful, how excellent, and And that's why they took the shot with their business, the Rising Eagle. I'm retired presently, but I was a school social worker. And I saw things that happened. I know it passed, but I think to put it downtown is really detrimental. And for my sake, I want to also tell you that if the weather wasn't so detrimental tonight, a lot of the senior citizens and more people would have come out against it. Thank you.

▶ 1:37:04 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 1:37:13 Speaker 2: Hi, my name is Janine Finuti. I've lived in Marrows almost 50 years. I actually voted against the marijuana law when it was put up, but Massachusetts passed it, and the citizens of Marrows passed it, overwhelmingly, and that was the decision, and now it's law. and we as a city are saying that we need more additional revenue and it seems very unwise to decide to be hostile to any business and then i hear people saying well we shouldn't have it downtown because it's near children yet they're overlooking the fact if you put it on 99 it's near children just not mellow's children it's near malden children and it's not far from malden elementary so it kind of says to me okay if we have to have it just not in my backyard and yet we have with the miracle the marijuana children are not allowed in there no one under 21 would even be allowed in the store yet teenagers walk into uh you know the local uh store and can right where the you know cigarettes are sold they can walk into the stores where the alcohol is sold and yet we're using this as a reasoning we need the additional revenue and for that we should allow it downtown because that is where we zoned for businesses to go and we should not allow any business to say well we shouldn't have this type of business because what's to say next well you know that business would kind of compete with mine so i don't think it should be downtown so that's just what I that's it I think we should allow it anywhere and be welcome to all forms of revenue thank you hi I'm Lee Schlinger I've lived in

▶ 1:39:12 Speaker 3: Ward one on our Street for about 19 years I've come to support the marijuana business in Melrose including retail sales anywhere in the city I've come in the past with all sorts of data from Colorado saying how regulated retail sales have lowered crime lower driving under the influence of THC seems that perhaps details like this don't influence people but the tide of opinion is changing this Globe article on Friday shows the increasing support all the presidential candidates as well as the current president supports or says it should be up to the states so things are changing as I've said before here I largely see this as an economic issue. No one likes to pay taxes, but they're necessary to create and support the community. We support our community largely through property taxes. Largely these are residential property taxes. We hear all the time that Melrose does not have enough businesses to support itself, not nearly as many as much as our surrounding neighbors. It's part of Melrose's charm and also a source of difficulty. In my mind, property taxes are some of the most objectionable type of tax they are regressive anti-progressive type of tax that are there regardless of how much you earn how much you spend instead tax on property that you bought years ago decades ago and the city can update assessments from time to time increase rates within the law within what the law allows even when the residents income and ability to pay might not have increased perhaps even decreased we hear about people having to move out of town because they can't afford their property taxes anymore and when these mechanisms are deemed not to be enough their proposals to override the legal limits on tax increases in such cases such overrides sometimes these overrides are needed sometimes justified however I think it is incumbent upon the city government to do everything within its power to find sources of revenue to make whatever and make whatever cuts are needed to minimize the need to increase taxes while still providing adequate services to the community before anyone thinks I'm lost that this is not a meeting about the override I would suggest it is and it isn't we have a legal industry here that wants to come to Melrose on top of that retail sales in this industry come with 3% sales tax that can go directly to the city I think that doing anything but approving this legal industry including retail sales to come to Melrose would be sheer malpractice by the city administration and elected officials it would demonstrate this that the city does not care to take steps to limit the need to increase tax burden on its residents if the city does not approve this additional source of revenue I do not think I can personally support the override and suggest other residents do the same as I have said in the past I i support marijuana businesses including retail sales anywhere in the city i do not think we need to have carve outs simply let the 500 foot rule dictate where the business can be located i understand the concerns about environment and traffic but we're not talking about some head shop with drug pushes outside pulling people in people have to be 21 years to get in the store have you been down to garden remedies you can't even tell what they sell there it's a a very clean environment. We've heard from our chief of police that that location has not been the source of problems and has great security. Yes, there's been traffic issues in some communities, as we heard in Leicester, but that was the first one. And as the novelty wears off, like when Sonic or Krispy Kreme opened up, there was a lot of traffic, but it died down, right? As there's more locations throughout the state, it won't be a novelty. Also, So there's a great way to get rid of traffic. Let's get rid of all businesses, and we won't have traffic. This is a legal business. And why would we not have a retail location down on Washington Street where the T is? Why are they getting exempt? I understand there was a concern for traffic. Why not elsewhere in the city? Down on Washington Street, Malden's going to put in a location. We're going to have the traffic and the other issues, just not the revenue. What about other locations in the city? I live close to Franklin Street. is there not a location allowed there why isn't it open to everywhere in the city on Franklin Street I can get pizza and Thai and Spanish and Peruvian food and coffee and anything else from the convenience store including cigarettes I can even buy insurance there's buildings with parking there's parking on the street why is that not in the proposal this is a legal product if we just limit it to route 99 we're likely limiting ourselves to one location we should be maximizing our revenue here as locations open up throughout the state Additionally, no one's commented on, but I'd like to strongly comment on the proposals for a special fund based on the tax revenue here and earmark for the revenue from this. I strongly oppose that. Marijuana is legal in Massachusetts. People are going to use it whether it's sold in town or not. If we have a need for special programs, special education, special equipment to handle marijuana usage or problems from the opioid crisis or whatever else we should have it here we should allocate money from general funds from Melrose to support such programs why don't we have such programs already I assume it's because there are other more pressing needs we have in the city like public schools new police cars and other such things we hear about all the time the city allocates funds to support our community and this drives the tax burden on revenue on residents That's okay when we need things. Revenue from retail marijuana sales should simply go to the city's general funds. Why should it be earmarked? Should property taxes from Dunkin Donuts stores be earmarked for caffeine awareness programs? Property taxes from wine shops go to alcohol awareness. From pizzerias and bakeries to education about carbohydrates. What makes sales of marijuana special? It's a legal product for sale of people who are 21 and older. I guess it's special in that the state law allows a local sales tax to that end we should be thankful and use this money to better our community overall what are the needs for drug education and special programs will marijuana revenue be enough well we need more will it be too much and we'll have a slush fund of extra money there that we won't know what to do with while separately we'll have to raise property taxes on people because of other needs in the city if we need funds for drug education and other programs allocate them from general funds let all the revenue come to the city general funds taking this revenue for special products projects is equivalent to not having it all hence if this revenue is earmarked I again feel the city is not doing what it can to limit increases of tax burden on citizens on residents and hence I would then in that case if the earmark passes likely oppose the override and would suggest others do the same let the marijuana revenue help the city's revenue situation by adding to responsible businesses in our city

▶ 1:47:26 Speaker 3: wherever appropriate in the city hi I'm Caitlin Murphy I own Madison Ave on Main Street and I've also lived in Melrose my whole life I think that as a community we need to stand as one and support the businesses that are already in business and our historic downtown in order to grow our city and community we need to nurture the businesses that have already proven to be a part of melrose with more support from our melrose community and more flexibility the revenue expected from the pot shop could come from our own businesses if our beer and wine shops could sell liquor their businesses would grow if the restaurants could sell drinks without having to serve food they too could generate more revenue why is it acceptable to sell recreational pot and edibles and paraphernalia that supports smoking weed and not vodka i remember when i was younger mcdonald's wanted to open near hunt's photo and melrose residents were up in arms and were completely against it because it didn't fit in our community and it wasn't the image that we were trying to create here to that point my business a business that has been in this community and supported it for eight years has been broken into twice in 2018 the metal bars needed to protect my valuable inventory are not wanted in the downtown district in between robberies the windows i needed that are stronger and more secure had to go through rounds of approval through the historic society and my landlord was even asked to quote draw what they will look like as if they wouldn't have been square so the color and the shape of windows are scrutinized to protect the image of downtown but we are willing to let a pod shop operate on main street as a lifelong melrose resident and business owner i'm concerned and against the the potential approval of a recreational pawn shop thank you good evening joe garino local

▶ 1:49:19 Speaker 5: downtown business owner thank you for allowing me to speak uh this evening regarding the retail marijuana i came before you the last time this was on your agenda regarding the ward 5 proposal and at that time i was speaking as a resident of the ward now i'm speaking to you as a business owner and he's a member of the board of directors of the chamber as for some of my concerns the last time we got in parking and infrastructure in the ward five the same goes for the downtown area and also the odor if you go to um people have referenced the salem there's a constant odor when you drive by that building they have a porter party outside in the parking lot a lot of the old buildings in downtown melrose would have a hard time putting in ventilation systems that would be required to reduce the odor the local businesses support a lot of the

▶ 1:50:16 Speaker 5: organizations uh in melrose the local businesses also support melrose through being a member of the chamber some of the things that we do flower baskets christmas wreaths summer stroll victorian fair home for the holidays that wouldn't be possible without the local businesses So I come before you tonight and ask that you support us now and not allow a pot shop in the downtown. I do support it in the Route 99 area. It seems like that's the only area that can handle the parking and the infrastructure. I'm going to leave you on two things. I ask you two things by working maybe with the planning office in ways that we can attract other businesses to complement the existing businesses in downtown Melrose and Franklin and Cedar. And I ask yourselves, what do you want the future of Melrose to be known as? I know it as the hidden sleepy gem. Thank you.

▶ 1:51:27 Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Jerry Moroz. I was speaking about Order 2019-56 about the Stabilization Fund. And, you know, we have a Contract Stabilization Fund, and everybody understands is the purpose of a stabilization fund for that. We have a suits and claims stabilization fund. We understand that too. You have things for rainy days and you have expenses that might not be the same every year. You might go a few years with nothing and you build up a stabilization fund. You may have a big suit of claim to need. We have the special education stabilization fund and we have the capital stabilization fund. They all make sense. They're all in the intent of a stabilization fund. Now, technically, the stabilization fund that's proposed, you know, meets the requirements of the law. You can use the fund for any purpose. But it really isn't a stabilization fund. And to commingle public safety and substance abuse with education in the public schools, it to me reeks of another kind of slush fund that Melrose is graded to having, that somebody can just use it for whatever they want to use it for, whatever they want to use it for under those three categories and they aren't related and this idea that we can just keep putting money in these separate places to pull from for the use of the arbitrary moment doesn't make sense to me I agree with the person who spoke earlier that the money should go and if instead of a stabilization fund for this money it should go into the regular revenue stream of the city you know to try to couch it in terms of public schools for this money being somehow dedicated to it doesn't make any sense so anyway thank you good evening

▶ 1:53:27 Speaker 5: Jim O'Loughlin Lincoln Street I just want to start by saying marijuana is special for you because 49% of your constituents voted against it so you're at the end of the day you're all gonna have to put on your Solomon hats and figure out what to do in this city I also think it's important that we kind to get past this fairly quickly and move on to other more important things. To that end I want to talk a little bit about Alderman Zwirko order for creating an education public safety and substance abuse stabilization fund. I generally support this as there will be costs associated with providing for public safety that need to be provided for. I come back to the December 2018 recommendations of the Cannabis Control Commission specifically as they relate to police training and I quote all Massachusetts police officers should complete a specialized 16-hour impaired driving enforcement course now while I appreciate there was some discussion regarding public safety in the January meeting most of it pertains to the facilities themselves and I'm really not worried about the facilities themselves I am worried about driving safety in impaired driving and the lack of a quantitative standard so I'd really like to hear how our officers are going to be trained and how that's going to be paid for. I'm also kind of interested to see how much revenue is actually going to be in this. Quite frankly, with all the hype, I don't think there's going to be that much. I certainly support this money going towards substance abuse training and support. I think the scope of the order should be expanded to include community impact money. We've not heard much about that as you're aware there's a provision in the law that allows for the collection of an additional three percent of revenue for the first five years to mitigate community impact and we just not heard much about it I do assume that the Board of Aldermen would have a hand in approving any such agreements and this wouldn't all be done upstairs I do have trouble getting fully behind the aspect of using this money to support public education the override is supposed to cover public schools and I have a little trouble associating this money with kids quite frankly that's me I could however better support the order if the money set aside for the schools was tied to substance abuse education or counseling to mitigate the effects of substance abuse I imagine there are at least a few kids in the schools where substance abuse is a problem at home and these kids could benefit from counseling and support I'd be happy to see the money go for that and I do want to react to something that I heard from the state official back in January when she indicated and she referred to Somerville as being a marijuana forward community while I don't think she was implying that the 45 or 46 percent of the people in the state who voted against this, or the 49% of the people in Melrose who voted against this are somehow backward in their thinking. To be quite honest, I see nothing progressive about the legalization of marijuana. Progress is supposed to be about training people, educating people, getting people better prepared for an increasingly global environment and increasingly automated environment. It should be about pulling people up, giving them a hand up. it should not be about encouraging enabling intoxication so i just don't see how marijuana legalization is progressive in any way shape or form

▶ 1:57:38 Speaker 2: first of all i'd like to thank the board for allowing us to come and voice our opinions on this subject my name is charles sheridan uh... i live at forty six country club road and i am opposed to having marijuana shop in downtown meadows due to the fact the parking and the impact it's going to have on our public service agencies back when i first went on the job and i was a firefighter for 35 years we had 73 guys now we're down in the high 50s the pd is the same problem greatly reduced how are we going to function and do all the protections of our citizens with The bus lines coming right through Melrose, the trains, all these different people coming in here. I talked to a person that is up at Route 99, and he says that shop is busy all day long. Traffic in and out, in and out. So I would really urge you not to allow this to happen in downtown Melrose for our own safety and well-being. Thank you very much.

▶ 1:58:52 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 1:59:04 Speaker 4: Are there any other members of the public wishing to speak on the orders before us?

▶ 1:59:20 Speaker 2: Hi, my name is David Dario. I'm a lifelong Melrose resident. I'm a business owner in the downtown area, and I do support Alderman Mortimer proposal to limit the location of the recreational shop to the Route 99 area. I keep asking myself that I've worked in the downtown Melrose for 40 years or so now since I was a young lad I am very proud of the downtown area and Melrose does have a certain charm to it I have great difficulty seeing how this type of business is going to fit in with some of the signature things that are Melrose the Victorian Fair the great halloween event we have you know with the kids downtown uh the stroll is a good one and home for the holidays uh i i think that the the proposal to limit it to the route 99 area is realistic uh i think it's effective and i think it solves a lot of the the concerns that we have in the downtown area, which also has a great deal of residential use on the rear of Main Street from one end to the other. Regardless of where on Main Street you consider putting the shop, there's residential that is never more than a stone's throw away. The impacts to the residents, regardless of how well the shops are regulated, is going to be is going to be felt in many levels the you know the traffic is certainly is certainly an issue that anybody familiar with downtown experiences on a day-to-day basis for this from the simplest

▶ 2:01:23 Speaker 2: tasks of people trying to get a cup of coffee the congestion is definitely an issue the adequate parking is an issue and these locations do seem to to draw you know from from far and wide but I I do support Alderman Mortimer proposal I I think and I'm behind that thank you very much thank you anyone else wishing to come

▶ 2:02:12 Peter D. Mortimer: forward motion to close public comment madam chair second motion to close

▶ 2:02:15 Speaker 4: public made by Alderman Mortimer seconded by Alderman McMaster all in