ORDER-2019-31 : Amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 235, Article XI to create a new Section 235-73.4 and amend Section 235-5 (Definitions), Section 235-16.1 (Site Plan Review), Section 235-17 (Table of Use and Parking Regulations) and Section 235-61 (Special Permit Granting Authorities) to regulate Marijuana Establishments

Transcript (~1 h 40 min @ 2:03:15)

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

▶ 2:02:37 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: dash 49 okay thank you and just as a point of information I as chair of this committee did receive a number of emails directly and I'd be happy I'll include those as well in the record so thank you so motion made by alderman Mortimer seconded by Alderman Medeiros. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, that passes. The first order on tonight's agenda is Order 2019-31, amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 235, Article 11, to create a new Section 235-73.4, and amend Section 235-5, Definitions, Section 235-16.1, Site Plan Review, Section 235-17 Table of Use and Parking Regulations and Section 235-61 Special Permit Granting Authorities to establish marijuana establishments. And I do see in the audience, we have several of our department heads here tonight.

▶ 2:03:39 Speaker 4: President Lemmerman.

▶ 2:03:41 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll start by just saying we've had a very, as everyone in this room knows, has have had a very thorough discussion on this um in this chamber among the planning board um our we had miss gaffey here for a very long time during our last discussion answering a number of questions as well as in the public dialogue and it's completely appropriate as it represents an entirely new industry for our city and while some communities as it was pointed out have moved forward and we can look to their experiences for guidance this is an industry really that's in its infancy in Massachusetts all over the state and Melrose is unique in its own ways the best indication that we have as of right now as to how a marijuana business would be run in Melrose is to look at the medical marijuana facility on route 99 and though it's a different use and of a different of the product and therefore a different business it's really the closest thing that we have what we know is that we have had no concerns in terms of parking traffic public safety we've heard from chief lyle that he's never been called there i assume that has not changed since our last meeting and that it has gone very well where it is i think that it would be wise of us to learn from our experience thus far we've heard the concerns around traffic public safety other concerns we don't yet know the extent to which those will come to fruition we've also heard the discussion about the benefits including the revenue to the city and again we do not know the extent to which that will come to fruition you know we had during a very lively and fruitful discussion decided to the planning board came back and decided to move their recommendation for zoning out of washington street for a number

▶ 2:05:42 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: of reasons um we don't a lot of those would remain for main street for me um we we do not we do know that there have been no reported negative consequences in the one area down on route 99. i would say that i believe that the best balance for our city is to take advantage of the opportunity before us not to mention do what is required of us and plan for this legal product sale in our city and to do so proactively yet cautiously and learning from our current experience and continuing to learn as this is rolled out and we always have the opportunity to come back and to revise it if we need to so my recommendation and something we heard several times tonight and would be to to keep the the experience we've had with medicinal mirror it with recreational and have one shop on the route 99 corridor as has been discussed

▶ 2:06:46 Speaker 4: thank you Thank You ma'am president alderman Mortimer thank you very much

▶ 2:06:49 Peter D. Mortimer: madam chair I agree with what alderman lemmerman said and incorporated by

▶ 2:07:02 Peter D. Mortimer: reference we can put this off we can keep it at route 99 for a year or two years exactly as alderman president lemmerman said and take a look we have the chance once this is instituted it won't go away so we can look at this and take our time and see how it pans out the Chamber of Commerce has officially come out against this the Park Commission which handles the youth of Melrose has come out against it and today to my knowledge she hadn't taken a position on this before today we have a letter before us dated March 4th where the mayor comes out and says she would like to see it committed to route 99 and Route 99 only she came out with that today and made an official statement she sent us a letter so that's the mayor's position on it she's a medical professional registered nurse has been for years in administration and in service so the mayor the Park Commission and the Chamber of Commerce have all come out with her position that we should keep it at Route 99 I'm entirely I'm entirely in favor of medicinal marijuana usage. I'm entirely in favor of adult use of marijuana usage, only because it can't be stopped. I liked Mr. Laughlin's comments, but it can't be stopped. It's everywhere, but what we can do is we can decide where we're going to have it. We can decide how we're going to keep our community unique. Melrose is a nice place to raise your children. nice place to grow old it's safe it's quiet and and we can take a pause we can take a pause and look at this I kind of don't like that they call it recreational no one calls it recreational vodka they don't they don't use that term it's kind of a little bit of us Madison Avenue a little public relations technique but it's here you know marijuana has been here since the beginning of time it's here to stay there's a lot of things we could do to Melrose for revenue. We could put up five ten-story apartment buildings in Melrose and they'd be safe, they'd be legal, but then Melrose wouldn't be Melrose anymore. I've been an alderman for 18 years and we've seen a lot of change, but we tried to manage that change very carefully and as President Lemmerman aptly pointed out, we have an opportunity to take a look at this and go on with

▶ 2:09:50 Peter D. Mortimer: that alderman mcmaster was very eloquent and well spoken when this came up before us when the idea

▶ 2:10:00 Peter D. Mortimer: was to put the adult pot shop i almost said recreational but let's call it what it is marijuana is a drug alcohol is a drug too but just because there's problems with alcohol doesn't mean we need to have the problems things can go wrong with marijuana some people think it's the greatest thing that ever happened it's not some people will say it's the worst thing that ever happened it's not but people have panic attacks people get paranoid for marijuana there's problems it's going to increase our need for police and fire services because we have our own ambulance service here now and but again we it's it's legal we should have it but we can manage where it passed in this city by one two percent 49 51 approximately 500 votes but a lot of the people i've spoken to subsequently have said yeah they voted yes in the understanding that in melrose it would be on route 99 and they would not have voted for it if they thought it would be on main street some of the pertinent points that alderman mcmaster made in previous sessions before this aldermanic board were that we've heard all the traffic but there is also the potential for crime is that somebody can an adult over 21 can buy an ounce of marijuana in an adult use pot shop roll up a bunch of loose joints and sell them and that happens and if you think it doesn't happen if there's an opportunity for someone to make money they're going to make money and there's parks in every direction the common the biggest park except for Mount Hood and Pine Banks I guess in any direction Mount Hood Pine Banks but the common is only four blocks away so somebody buys it and some adults with bad intention needing profit buys it buys an ounce of marijuana rolls up a bunch of loose joints and sells them at common are pine banks. Or, even more troubling, is they buy a big bag of gummy bears, the marijuana gummy bears. They buy a big bag of gummy bears and sell them to the kids. And please, don't think that people won't, oh, somebody wouldn't do that. If there's money to be made, somebody will do that. Somebody will do that. At least if it's on Route 99, We can take a look at it, and then if they're on Route 99, they pretty much have to drive back here by car. Anybody on foot or on bicycle or on the T could do those two things I just said with the ounce and the loose joints and the gummy bears. Anybody on foot or on the T or on a bicycle could do that, and that's something that Alderman McMaster very accurately and intelligently referenced. Another point that was made is the revenue.

▶ 2:13:02 Peter D. Mortimer: We're going to get 3%, as was mentioned. We sell a million dollars worth of pot, and we get $30,000. Do we want to change the character of Melrose to $30,000? We sell $2 million worth of pot, and we get $60,000. That buys one heavy duty pickup truck for the DPW. The override, we need $5 million. Wherever you stand on it, I'm not going to delve into that. That's not what we're here to talk about. But $60,000 if we sell $2 million worth of pot is a drop in the bucket compared to what the override needs. So I don't think to link those two is logically accurate, to link those two because the revenue is negligible, even if we sell a ton of pot. I'm not going to reiterate some of the other points, the traffic, the congestion, but we do have the kids downtown. they are going to be curious you know you can't even buy a nip of whiskey in Melrose you can buy beer and wine and to the credit miss Rebecca who runs the beer and wine store here in Melrose has kept it very classy there's no posters in the window saying sale case of beer case sale on a case of beer $20 it's very classy now maybe that would happen and maybe it wouldn't but we have a chance to examine it in a part of our city where we don't have to worry about that so let's take a pause let's pump the brakes take a look around and see what we have to do about that because downtown we have saint mary school we have the ymca we have numerous day cares we have a few karate schools we have dance academies and kids will imitate what they see i know it's everywhere anyway, but that doesn't mean we have to make it worse. That doesn't mean we have to make it worse for the kids. I know parts everywhere. I got a kid in the high school and as far as I know, she tells me what goes on and she's a good kid and we talked to her when she was very young and her older sister too, who's a freshman in college now. Yeah, it's everywhere and as far as I know, and I think they're telling me the truth, they haven't, but they see it. They're curious. They're good kids. My mind is you do your work before they're 12 when you're raising your kids, and they make their choices afterwards. You talk to them then because once they can outrun you, it's all over. And both of them can outrun me, that's for sure. So that's something that happens. Another thing is people talk about NIMBY. Well, this is just NIMBY. And NIMBY, over the last couple of decades, has gotten a bad name. NIMBY oh they're just NIMBY well you know not in my backyard well you know what sometimes some things are not appropriate for our backyard that's okay NIMBY isn't necessarily a bad thing and except this isn't even just NIMBY because we have it in our backyard route 99 is our backyard so we do have it in our backyard what I'm opposed to is not having in at our front yard NIMBY not in my front yard, Nymphie. This is downtown Melrose. We're not going to have it in the front. We're going to have it in the front lawn. You know, this is our downtown area. This is our beautiful downtown, which the Chamber of Commerce, and I'm the alderman who represents downtown. That's Ward 6. So we don't need Nymphie. We don't need it in our front yard. We have it in our backyard. And we can take a look at it and study it, put it under the magnifying glass, look at it under the microscope watch it with binoculars down there on route 99 and

▶ 2:16:51 Speaker 4: see how it plays out but what if you don't mind just under our rules we have

▶ 2:17:00 Peter D. Mortimer: about 10 minutes each and I will definitely I will definitely wrap it up very quickly thank you very much so that's that's the feelings I have and

▶ 2:17:11 Peter D. Mortimer: you know the legality of it the medicinal I'm not against it as a concept we have a choice to say what our city is going to look like this year next year or in five years or in ten years from now thank you very much

▶ 2:17:27 Scott M. Forbes: madam chair Alderman Forbes thank you madam chair I will try to be brief as I know where this is a roundtable discussion and kudos to Alderman Mortimer for creating a new acronym so good for you on that you know when when you live in the community like we do in Melrose and you're 90% residential any addition of a commercial space or an industrial space is going to be looked at differently as if you were in a Burlington where you have 40 to 50% industrial and commercial so you know I appreciate the dialogue that it's been a respectful discussion and we've heard from a lot of people not only this evening but in the days and weeks that led up to this meeting tonight in regards to the order I'm gonna be voting against this order in our packets Massachusetts general law chapter 94 G permits municipalities to cap the number of marijuana retailers at 20% of the number of package stores in the community we don't have a package store because we prohibit selling spirits which are legal and also this board has made a concerted effort to write to the Massachusetts State Lottery Commission to try to limit the exposure of legal games such as Kino Kino to go we have been very aggressive on tobacco awareness and have inserted ordinances before they became commonplace also live in a community where after your second drink you have to order food I don't view these as discriminations I view these as safeguards because we all have a vision of what we want our community to be and you know we live in Melrose this is how we want to look like and we're gonna be different from Wakefield in Stoneham and you know all the other they have their own place we have ours and we're gonna try to tailor fit and what we feel is best so when we talk about discrimination of space I feel like that what we're actually doing is We're trying to make a conscious decision on where this property is going to be best for our community because it is legal and we have to deal with it. I would also argue that Route 99 would actually be a more beneficial space because of the financial impact and income potential it represents. Route 99 and Route 1 are probably one of the most busiest roadways that you could ask for, and if you're going to have a business with that much exposure, that many cars per day, and also the accessibility to surrounding communities such as malden everett saugus and revere that to me makes perfect sense to start out i don't think our two square blocks of melrose would be able to provide such parking amenities so i'm all for revisiting this again down the road maybe after a few years when there's more information and data to be had i'm not closed-minded on this issue i honestly just feel that for here right now the route 99 alternative is the logical first step uh for the city of melrose thank you thank you alderman mcmaster

▶ 2:20:31 Shawn M. MacMaster: thank you madam chair i know that my vote tonight is likely to draw some criticism so i think that it's important for me to put my vote in proper context and and to make it very clear for both the public and the record why I'll be voting the way that I do. Now, I certainly respect and recognize the will of the voters, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the vote that took place in November of 2016 was some sort of a mandate, because it wasn't. We are where we are today because of a vote that occurred where there was a difference of 518 votes cast out of over 16,000 votes. That's not a mandate. Those 518 votes represent just 3% of the electorate. Yet the first conversation that we had as a city about retail marijuana occurred on January 14th when the initial zoning proposal came before us. that's 799 days after the 2016 vote. If this isn't an issue that speaks to our values as a community, I'm not sure what does. So let's talk about our values for

▶ 2:21:51 Shawn M. MacMaster: a minute. We're a community that prides itself on having a charming downtown. As people started to reference tonight in their remarks, we have no chain restaurants we have no retail box stores retail stores we're a city that still clings to its Victorian ever ever values residents and even members of the board have referenced those values tonight we have no bar rooms in Melrose there's no hard alcohol that can be purchased at any stores by virtue of a municipal

▶ 2:22:26 Shawn M. MacMaster: order residents cannot purchase more than a certain amount of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant you can't play keno and when we all leave here tonight which is likely to be well after 10 o'clock even later we'll be driving down main street and most businesses are going to be closed yet we're here tonight ready to vote on a zoning proposal for a business that is still illegal People can say it's legal, but the reality of the matter is it's still illegal under federal law in a business that will certainly bring with it social impact costs that we haven't even discussed. Frankly, this is a conversation that should have begun a long time ago before voting to lift the moratorium on retail sales, before voting to set a local sales tax, and before beginning the zoning process. what should have come first was a candid community conversation involving residents from all neighborhoods in the city about the direction that we want to take on this issue now there's

▶ 2:23:34 Shawn M. MacMaster: been a lot of talk about generating revenue there's been a lot of talk about getting out of

▶ 2:23:45 Shawn M. MacMaster: the gate before neighboring communities money and competition is what this conversation up until now

▶ 2:23:53 Shawn M. MacMaster: has all been about stop and think about it for a minute what does this say about our values as a community there hasn't been a single conversation not one about public safety or public health we haven't talked about substance abuse prevention for our children our most vulnerable residents we haven't talked about how to mitigate the risk for diversion now all of us have received emails from members of the public some members of the public who claim that the diversion of drugs, the diversion of marijuana is somehow a fallacy, I can tell you that Chief Lyle will tell you something differently, and I can tell you that my 20 plus years in law enforcement would tell you something differently as well. The reality is that if you make marijuana more accessible, if you have parents going home and putting it in their home, or you have siblings going home and putting it in their home, it's more accessible. There's more of a risk that it's going to be diverted, that it's going to get into the hands of our youth. think about it we're already concerned as a city about the anxiety problems among our youth we devoted a full session a full session at parent university about anxiety it's an issue that is something that families are confronting not just in melrose not just in neighboring communities but across the united states young people today are facing different issues than years ago so to think that somehow in the face of the type of anxiety being experienced by young people that if marijuana is available in a in a person's home that a young person may not necessarily access that marijuana to address anxiety to me is completely short-sighted our youth risk behavioral surveys provide data on this it's also data that's supported by our interfaith behavioral health

▶ 2:25:45 Shawn M. MacMaster: contract yet we haven't discussed this at all to me it's counterintuitive to raising revenue when there are an inevitable social impact costs that we haven't even considered as the city now i understand that we have to zone for marijuana it's a responsible thing to do the attorney general has said that we can't kick the can we can't delay this but i'm still not convinced as i've raised before and i've said at a prior meeting that we don't expose ourselves to criminal and civil liability now the u.s attorney for the district of massachusetts recently had this to say following marijuana legalization some in the commonwealth have come to view federal drug laws as a mere inconvenience stubbornly antiquated rules that surely must yield to those with superior insight and the best of intentions that's what the u.s attorney andrew lelling had to say and we don't don't need to look far to see what the impact of this is just look at neighboring Cambridge Cambridge right now is immersed in a federal civil recall

▶ 2:26:49 Shawn M. MacMaster: lawsuit named as a co-defendant in a case is being complicit in violating

▶ 2:26:55 Shawn M. MacMaster: federal law so let's just stop and think where we are in terms of our finances in

▶ 2:27:02 Shawn M. MacMaster: a city right now just about this time last year we had mr. Van Camden come before us, and one of the things that he talked about when he presented the legal department's budget is the need to cut a position. So we cut the assistant city solicitor's position, so right now we have one full-time attorney. We all know what would happen here if the city of Melrose was named as a co-defendant in a RICO case. We don't have the capacity to deal with the legal fees that we're going to incur. We would have to hire a Boston-based law firm, big law firm there's only a few that specialize in this to be able to handle this case which just in pre-trial litigation i mean just discovery depositions motions summary judgment all of that

▶ 2:27:53 Speaker 5: will easily incur six figures but nobody's talking about that nobody's talking about that at all

▶ 2:27:58 Shawn M. MacMaster: So to me, I think it's counterintuitive that we proceed on a matter that's still illegal under federal law that potentially exposes us to a civil RICO lawsuit when you could have a commercial property owner or a residential property owner file suit saying that their property taxes have decreased. Now, some would argue that property taxes would increase, and there's some data out there to support that it would. But it's not longitudinal data. None of the data, people love to throw data around, none of the data relative to marijuana is longitudinal data. It's not good data. And I would suggest that the data that's being thrown around is going to reveal something very differently in the future. So I think it's counterintuitive that we are looking, we're making this about revenue. When any revenue garnered could potentially end up being spent. or revenue from elsewhere within the city, even insurance money, whatever it might be, there's going to be money that will be spent to defend the city, potentially a lawsuit. Now, call me risk-averse, but when it comes to the law and when it comes to finances, I tend to be averse. Now, and I'll wrap up with this, Madam Chair, a more simplistic reason for my vote, and I know it's not a popular position,

▶ 2:29:24 Shawn M. MacMaster: is just based on the illegality of of marijuana we know everyone here does despite what the resident said despite what the attorney general has said in massachusetts is that it's still a federal controlled substance but we haven't considered that at all again it's all about competition with other communities it's all about revenue it's a money grab the standard by which i try to base every single vote in this chamber is whether or not I can go home at night and I can put my head on the pillow and I can go to sleep and I can't do that voting in support of a zoning proposal for marijuana anywhere and I base that on these three concerns the concerns for the process and the lack of community dialogue the risk of litigation that would incur significant cost to the city and the illegality of marijuana is the controlled substance under federal law so for those reasons I'll be voting no on any proposal this evening relative to marijuana Thank You madam chair Thank You madam chair I'd

▶ 2:30:21 Michael P. Zwirko: like to begin first I'd like to thank all of the residents who came out this evening and the multitude of individuals that sent us correspondence over the past few weeks especially to those that were in the chamber speaking I know it's not easy you know you sweat you get dry mouth and you're a little nervous but it's important and that's that's how democracy works and that's how it flourishes so thank you for coming out tonight it means a lot to all of us so appreciate you lending your voice I'd actually like to suspend the rules at this time because I do see that we have our city planner here with us so I make

▶ 2:30:57 Peter D. Mortimer: that motion second the motion to suspend the rules

▶ 2:30:59 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: Alderman Zwirko has made a motion to suspend the rules seconded by Alderman Mortimer all in favor aye the rules are suspended if the city officials could come forward we'd appreciate it and thank you so much for being here tonight and being here pretty late so thank you I'm gonna suspend with the soliloquies

▶ 2:31:14 Michael P. Zwirko: at this moment I have a lot to say on this but I also think that there needs to be some clarifying points I know that this process has been very long as alderman McMaster just noted that the first time this really came up was at a public hearing on January 14th but there was a vote in 2016 and you know I just kind of want to ask some questions that i i know the answers to but i just want to kind of clarify some things there's been an internet petition that's been going on there's been lots of banter on uh you know social media and i think it's important for folks to kind of do a little bit of level setting but i also have some questions at the the amended proposal that's before us so thank you for being here this evening it is just shy of 10 p.m where else would you rather be be so we do have a amended proposal before us that it does talk about which I'm gonna refer to just now called the M rod that is the marijuana retail overlay district is that correct in the proposal so 2016 Melrose residents pass the order the ballot question that was before them a narrow margin and in determination of this we actually let me back up so after that passed we put up a moratorium forward right and that moratorium was to allow us to give pause because the Cannabis Control Commission at the time was really kind of wrestling with what the question meant how it could be regulated and and which how it could roll out essentially to cities and towns across the Commonwealth

▶ 2:32:53 Denise Gaffey: correct that's right there were no regulations in place at the time that's

▶ 2:32:55 Michael P. Zwirko: right so we Melrose decided to put that moratorium into place because we wanted to see exactly what they were going to promulgate from the CCC after those regulations started to become clear your office then took up marijuana zoning amendments and brought them forth I think you posted them in the beginning of December but there wasn't a hearing until January 14 and there was a determination made by the administration of mayor and furnace administration that under the law the package store as alderman Forbes had referenced that because we do allow the sale of alcohol that and we have three licenses although currently there's only one shop that's currently selling it that that under the law would allow us to impose maybe that's the wrong use of the word but we we needed to cite for at least one recreational facility so just to

▶ 2:33:54 Denise Gaffey: clarify we actually got that confirmation in the planning office from speaking to the to the Cannabis Control Commission so that wasn't determined by

▶ 2:34:01 Michael P. Zwirko: the city that was determined by the CCC correct so just the sale of alcohol it's not liquor it's not a package store it's based on your number of liquor stores

▶ 2:34:08 Denise Gaffey: but we have zero so right they we have we are required to we we can allow we could allow one we could limit the number of retail establishments to one

▶ 2:34:18 Michael P. Zwirko: correct we can limit but we do have to have one correct right and that's because of the sales of alcohol right okay so I just want to clarify that for everybody that's watching at home or that's in the room we have to we have to cite for at least one retail facility here and I think that's a very important point we certainly could cite for more as as is in the proposal right right correct so getting to the proposal itself I'm wondering about additional buffer zones there was a lot of concern that was raised in the Washington Street corridor about its access and proximity to a daycare could we impose further

▶ 2:35:06 Denise Gaffey: buffer zones in the amendments when I spoke with the city sister about that he he advised against it he did not feel that that there was any anything in the in the law that would allow the city to do that you know on the 500 feet from K

▶ 2:35:23 Michael P. Zwirko: to 12 schools and was there any reasoning in addition to that because it

▶ 2:35:26 Denise Gaffey: wasn't enabled explicitly in the law and this came up at the the hearing on the

▶ 2:35:29 Michael P. Zwirko: 14th of January the difference between which is interesting but medical marijuana for example is actually more restrictive correct in its zoning yes there are more buffer zones I think that they include places where individuals or children congregate which could and we've we've determined that to be like a

▶ 2:35:51 Denise Gaffey: park so they elaborated actually on what did they so we it was determined to be places like parks so that did end up creating buffer zones over almost the

▶ 2:36:03 Michael P. Zwirko: entire community so for retail it's actually less restrictive meaning as you can see from the map that's attached to the order again as I refer to as the M rod the overlay district that that map the buffer zones extend from the property lines 500 feet which are schools as indicated on that map so where we have to cite for at least one we are hesitant to or advised against imposing other buffer zones based on community feedback at not only the public hearing on the 14th but also at the subsequent public planning board hearing on the 28th of January it was decided and is very well detailed in the amended proposal before us to remove that location so really the way I see it

▶ 2:36:51 Michael P. Zwirko: is that we're kind of the overarching question is one versus two if two where to cite them and if one actually where to cite them and any determination that's made this evening doesn't mean that in the future three months three years this could be opened again correct at any time right so this is not the like the bottom of the ninth inning when it comes to retail marijuana in Melrose

▶ 2:37:19 Denise Gaffey: no I would just point out that the moratorium is expired it expired in December of 2018 so it does behoove us to take the Alderman to take some action on this owning well you're rather than later no and you raise a really good

▶ 2:37:31 Michael P. Zwirko: point which is where I'm going next on you know there have been some that have stated that they're against this proposal and what I would say is we should really caution about being against at this point rejecting something and maybe modifying it to something that we could all perhaps agree with because I'm worried that if this amended proposal that's before us just outright rejected could you tell me if if this board were to reject that proposal as drafted without amendments tonight what does that do for us as a community and what are the risks

▶ 2:38:03 Denise Gaffey: with that occurring so it leaves us without any regulatory framework at all and it what it means is if a marijuana establishment wished to try to come into melrose then the building inspector would be he would be required to look into our current uses and try to figure

▶ 2:38:23 Michael P. Zwirko: out where it fits so without the guidelines as amended potentially it could go anywhere based on his determination well if it's a retail use

▶ 2:38:31 Denise Gaffey: it would most likely go in one of our you know business districts sure right then we wouldn't have any of the other regulatory through this we have more

▶ 2:38:40 Michael P. Zwirko: control right yeah it'd be a little chaotic if we were to reject this without a minute okay and there's been a couple of questions about economics in terms of citing locations and things of that nature and I'm just curious did the before the original proposal was drafted and sent to us in December and up to now have there been any economic or professional economic opinions or studies that were made on this or is this based off anecdotal evidence from other communities that we've seen I mean basically if you're saying place it in the M rod or Washington or 99 was there any cost-benefit analysis from an economic standpoint on any of those locations no we weren't doing cost

▶ 2:39:28 Denise Gaffey: benefit analysis we're considering where appropriate locations for business uses okay I just didn't know feedback from the residents in the people who participated at the public hearing at the last at the joint public hearing the

▶ 2:39:47 Michael P. Zwirko: the amendment also talks about marijuana facilities other than retail could you explain some of those because I know that there was a comment at the January 14th meeting by an individual of the public who stated and it was brought up in the amended proposal before us about cautioning us in closing some of the hours from eight to eight or etc maybe potentially for shift changes so employees could go to certain types of marijuana facilities if need be so outside of retail like there are other marijuana industries in this proposal that are allowed could you explain what some of those are for the public because i i don't know if they're testing facilities i don't know if they're grow facilities i so i don't know if they're um product procurement facilities so just there's the table that kind of outlines where certain could go could you explain those yeah and they're

▶ 2:40:36 Denise Gaffey: all defined in in the proposed ordinance as well uses like marijuana cultivators product manufacturers research facilities testing laboratories transportation and distribution facilities and retailers those are the primary categories so these are all categories that are allowed that were in the regulations so we need to we need to include them as well in our in our local

▶ 2:41:07 Michael P. Zwirko: regulations from a zoning standpoint but they're not like a ground floor storefront no they're all

▶ 2:41:12 Denise Gaffey: different right they're all different and they're defined i don't know if you want me to go through

▶ 2:41:18 Denise Gaffey: each one no no no that's that's fine i mean we kind of assume that the retail use is most likely is the one that's most likely to be um you know the use well that's what you've seen this evening

▶ 2:41:24 Michael P. Zwirko: in terms of the content of the discussion so um and thank you for answering those questions um look I think that this is something I don't have any further questions at this time I just as we begin to address this order and the amendments before us I think it's important to recognize what what role we're playing at this point in the evening and that we can always take up an opportunity to address this at a future date should we need there was an resident who spoke earlier this evening about the lag time between you know even now and in the future as to how many hoops one has to go through but I think we're also going to benefit from seeing what other communities are dealing with I think here at this point it makes

▶ 2:42:17 Michael P. Zwirko: sense to well and just one other comment I can't get away from this because I think it's really important because a resident also made mention to the fact that this is ripe for compromise and that's kind of where I thought about this I voted in favor of the question in the fall of 2016 and I have seen how the rules have changed from the CCC and when you have a majority that wins regardless of the margin but specifically when the margin is very very close I think it's incumbent on that majority to listen to the minority and I think it's important to say this is not a winner-take-all proposition we have the benefit of it being legal across the Commonwealth we have the benefit of the residents supporting the question in 2016 that allows us to move forward in a very pragmatic way and I think it's almost too much if we go beyond what is legally allowed as a minimum so while I understand and appreciate what the Planning Board was doing and expanding from one to two I just don't think that that's the way that we should treat this as a those that were on the winning side I think it's best in terms of a compromise to pull that back a bit and say one's fine for now I'm gonna end my questioning here because I think others may have questions for our planning director but I think we need to look at the proposal this evening and carve out the best way that maybe from the feedback we've received that works best for our community so those are all the

▶ 2:43:51 Manisha Bewtra: questions I had at this time alderman thank you I don't have any questions for miss Gaffey at this time but I did want to make a statement so I actually I voted no on the ballot question in 2016 so I was among those 518 and there was a lot of reasons why I was sort of struggling with that question then and struggling with it now I think ballot questions can be really messy and some of the things going through my mind at that time three years ago were you know public health concerns some of my own misconceptions which I think a lot of folks in the who came to comment tonight and who have reached out to us by email or phone or letter have mentioned that maybe you know over time they've had a perception of marijuana and the marijuana industry and as they've had a close personal experience they've had a change in that perception and then additionally my desire for a well-regulated industry were the reasons why I originally voted no in 2016 what I've been pleased to see since then is is that the industry has become well regulated through the work of the Cannabis Control Commission that has put out excellent guidelines for communities to follow. I think it's a little unfortunate that it's been a little messy in the making where there were guidelines for medical and that that had to be revised to reconfigure the law so that the medical and recreational uses are compatible with one another in terms of what's allowed where.

▶ 2:45:50 Manisha Bewtra: I appreciate everything everyone has said. This isn't an easy issue. It is an industry in its infancy as my colleagues have mentioned. I do wanna state, I think many of you who know me from shopping and dining downtown, I very much support our downtown. Most of my clothes are from downtown. Most of the gifts I buy are in downtown Melrose. More often than not, I choose to dine in a downtown Melrose restaurant, unless it's under protest from family members who maybe don't want to have their alderman

▶ 2:46:25 Speaker 4: be approached constantly while dining.

▶ 2:46:28 Manisha Bewtra: But my preference would often be to dine at our restaurants. And I very much respect the work that small business owners do and the vibrancy you've created in our downtown. I would argue that any business that we, any retail business that comes to downtown Melrose will generate traffic. We did receive some comments from residents who noted that they sometimes go, for example, to Salem and frequent, they make an appointment to go to the recreational marijuana dispensary there um and then in that process they make kind of a mom's afternoon out or a mom's night out of it they go to other downtown businesses they frequent the restaurants and walk around downtown salem so i would argue that in in many ways this use could create positive foot traffic

▶ 2:47:35 Manisha Bewtra: another point that I the planning board memo put out was that having a use like this in our downtown ultimately in some ways is a safer location because there's a lot of eyes on the street there is that foot traffic in downtown versus the more isolated location of route 99 I hear a lot of the concerns regarding youth and you know having marijuana use become more normalized as it becomes legal I think for me some of those concerns have been allayed because from what I understand about these facilities is that they are going to be highly regulated with public safety a public safety presence they're discreet I think the fact that signage wouldn't be allowed or I would recommend that you know we don't allow signage and advertising or very minimal signage in terms of at least the name of the business but in terms of advertising at a very minimum or not no advertising signage at a minimum level and the fact that these facilities would only be accessible if you're over 21 and that the products as another resident mentioned themselves are fairly expensive I think those have allayed some of my concerns regarding having marijuana in the presence of for me in particular the high school population I think you know there's been concerns raised around having marijuana near daycares and to me I'm not really seeing that concern I think where I came as a young woman and or girl in high school middle school is when I started hearing about marijuana and knew of fellow students who would be able to access pot at that time illegally and it would still be illegal for for minors I think it's really strange how we regulate substance abuse across the board on the one hand we have legal prescription drugs that are currently abused and our prescription drug abuse problem is quite severe we have an opioid crisis and as some folks who are in this industry have mentioned opioids have actually access to marijuana has actually been a way of curbing opioid abuse and addiction. We regulate tobacco and alcohol very differently and I'm very concerned about vaping and Juul which I've seen advertised very openly at some of our local convenience stores. I would support

▶ 2:50:36 Manisha Bewtra: substance abuse education. I am concerned about you know making sure we regulate public consumption which is already regulated under the law but that we make sure to enforce that I don't think that having the facilities is the same as using the substances in public just like I don't buy a bottle of wine at Bacon Hill and then crack it open when I walk out the door and chug it I don't think

▶ 2:51:06 Manisha Bewtra: that that is a concern I hear my colleagues concerns that you know if people are bringing the substances into their homes there's more presence this industry is becoming more normalized I do I hear all of that but I think in terms of us in our role as a board of aldermen for a now legal substance I am concerned about limiting access to a legal industry ultimately we live in a market economy I think having a cap on one retailer doesn't sort of mesh with that well to me because that one we took that one license or the provision would go almost automatically to an existing business garden remedies so I don't think it really allows for competition there isn't a huge difference between one and two but it's something and then beyond that I think first there's there's sort of demand right so a retailer a prospective retailer would actually have to want to come into Melrose want to review and understand our site plan and site our special permit review process would have to find a desirable site building they would also be concerned about you know will I have enough parking for my business all of these other things before they even come to the city of Melrose but then once they get here we have a pretty stringent approvals process as the planning boards memo states any applicant would have to satisfy all location operation security requirements of section 235 73.4 as well as meet eight special permit findings we have a lot of approvals that would happen if we happen to vote yes tonight on the Planning Board's proposal as is this is not going to open the floodgates for so we're only talking about at this point in time one or two facilities and they would have to go through all these hoops of first money I'm sorry but if you

▶ 2:53:27 Speaker 4: don't mind wrapping it up just under our rules that'd be great thank you one or

▶ 2:53:31 Manisha Bewtra: two facilities they'd have to go through all these hoops of first wanting to be here and then going through this planning board's process um and that's a good place for me to wrap up where ultimately i appreciate all the work that the planning board has put into this and i personally would support the proposal as written thank you thank you alderman wright

▶ 2:54:05 Francis X. Wright Jr.: thank you madam chair um initially i guess i want to say i have mixed emotions about the impact of these types of facilities on our school children um as someone who grew up in malden next to cappies on main street who sold newspapers in the bars and they were bars shot in the beer bars at 10 11 years old in malden um those were educational experiences i learned from those

▶ 2:54:37 Francis X. Wright Jr.: No, I did. I did. I really did. I mean, you can laugh, but I think sometimes we shelter our kids and then at 21 they can do things that they weren't exposed to. And I saw the good and the bad of this by being exposed to things. but I'm not dismissive of the impact the negative impacts they can have on kids so I really have mixed emotions about that but

▶ 2:55:02 Francis X. Wright Jr.: I moved to Melrose at one point I got married and my wife and I settled here and I still love Malden it's all the diversity economic, cultural and everything and I visit it often but Melrose is a different community and I respect that and I love Melrose too Melrose this is very simplistic in my mind Melrose has chosen to be Bedford Falls and not Pottersville it's a wonderful life and people have touched on this we have a certain downtown that's kind of from a bygone era and I respect that and I think I'm going to keep this real short. I echo what the President said, President Lemmerman, and Alderman Forbes said with regards to, Alderman Lemmerman with regards to let's take a pause, let's step back, let's see how this impacts other communities for two years and all the mid Forbes for I believe that route 99 it's not just we're not putting it out in the woods it's probably at the best chance of having economic viability on route 99 it's gonna pick up all that traffic coming in and out of Boston in and out of the airport so we it is a good spot for it and it's not near children in malden it's not near children in saugus it's not near children in riviera it's an industrial commercial zone uh even in malden the malden stretches until you get way down by selm street um so i think what we need to do is to pause and and see how this impacts not necessarily just route 99 but let's see what happens in other communities that put it near downtown you know You know, whether we're talking about Medford Square, Malden Square, Porter Square, Davis Square, any other square, let's take a look at those for the next two years and see how they impact them. Because I know growing up next to Cappy's, we had traffic problems, we had parking problems, we had issues that, you know, it just became part of a way of life. And I don't think we're looking to add that here in Melrose. Now maybe it won't exist. Maybe if we take a look, and as these things expand and open across the state, and people come to Melrose and say, hey, we'd like to put one here, and let's take a look at what's happened elsewhere, we'll revisit this and say, okay, you know what? We can make this work. But right now, I don't think it's the time. I think we need to study it. We need to see what happens.

▶ 2:57:57 Francis X. Wright Jr.: And maybe, we remember how we got to the point where we have beacon hill uh at the corner over here and and buckaloo selling uh wine and beer and that was by a ballot vote and maybe that's how we get to this you know people say if they had only known that that this vote would mean having a place downtown that that votes would have been different well maybe that's how we'll find out maybe a couple years from now somebody will put this on the ballot and people will decide themselves whether they want to have one two or three more recreational marijuana shops in Melrose

▶ 2:58:40 Monica C. Medeiros: thank you Alderman Medeiros thank you thank you very much I think one of the most important things that came up it's sort of an overriding thing in all of this is how important public feedback and the public process is in all of this and especially when we're you know talking about big changes and new laws and you know we we talk about and think about you know the ballot question in 2016 and yes there was a public obviously there was a big statewide campaign there was a big public process but there really wasn't in terms of writing the legislation that was voted on that legislation wasn't written by you know a City Council or a Board of Aldermen its Board of Selectmen it wasn't written by our state legislators it wasn't written by our US Congress it was written by your elected officials in any way shape or form it was written by the marijuana industry with them a proposal put forth to benefit the marijuana industry and you know certainly you know the ballot question passed there was public support for that including in Melrose I think it's been very well talked about that was a small margin but it wasn't necessarily that everybody understood every bit of what the ramifications of that are and as we move forward and we talk about what are we going to do here in Melrose I think it's so important that we have public participation in all of this and we see and I think it's been great about how many people have reached out to us and have emailed us and have come here and spoken before us but when we talk about how did we get here and we saw you know in back in January you know instead of us proactively going out to the community and saying hey what do you feel about this where do you want to see this instead of us having a discussion which I think we've had a great discussion here tonight about what do we think about this there's a lot more we could probably talk about and we should talk about really you know we had a proposal that came to us from the Planning Board first for an area in Ward five and really with not that much public discourse with those residents and with the public of the city and Melrose in general before that happened we had a lot of residents come here and express their opinions stay until after midnight along with us and now here we are you know almost two months later and we have a different area and sort of the same thing though that you know I don't think any real outreach was specifically done to to that neighborhood or to those neighborhoods around downtown and you know sort of to the community of the whole so it kind of you know it puts me back to where I left off at the end of our last meeting in that you know I really I think the wisest thing are there's so many questions that we have about this in general and there's so many strong opinions on both sides we know that you know this is something that is still definitely as Alderman McMaster very well pointed out illegal but nonetheless if if we don't do anything we are left with no regulations like miss Gaffey pointed out we're left with a retailer who wants to come in could go anywhere in the city in a city that you know did not vote in an overwhelming majority for this and I think it's really our responsibility to come up with some zoning it's in our right to be able to zone for different types of uses and we do that for many different types of businesses and and this should be one of them and there's lots in this industry that you know we don't know about we're dealing with the substance that is not federally legal that is not products that are not FDA approved the state has come up with regulations and so on when we don't have long-term data to show us you know the good and the bad of this because we are dealing with something that's really new so for this proposal here you know the the best thing that I that I go back to where I was at the end of the meeting that you know I think we should we've had some success down on Route 99 without too much trouble I think that there's not you know one of the main concerns is really from residences and no matter whether we move this from downtown to you know Washington Street or to some other ward or we're gonna have the same you know we're pretty compact city and we're gonna have the

▶ 3:03:41 Monica C. Medeiros: same issues and route 99 is I think the best place to start and cap this at one you know if we allow more than one retailer we can't go back and take that license away so cap it at one start at route 99 and see what happens let's see how much you know maybe there's no problems and everybody becomes comfortable with this use the after some time I think there's novelty right now and there will be but after some time the novelty is gonna wear off and we'll get to see what it's really like are there problems or are there not problems we'll get to see how much revenue this actually does or does not bring into the city because right now we can only make guesses we will find out if we need police protection or not and if there are issues I mean I you know I continue to have real concerns about the downtown location in general and and really in anything that's in really that close to two kids we as a community you know it's been said many times right we're fairly restrictive we've run so much work I think particularly about tobacco we've done so much work to try to reduce tobacco use in this city we prohibit it from parks we don't allow it to be sold in pharmacies anymore and I I had seen actually a couple of weeks ago it made me think of this it was a story on the news about tobacco use in different communities and the community with the highest tobacco use in the state is Brockton and pretty much everywhere you look there are there are gas stations there are convenience stores there's everything with big signs advertising cigarette sales and tobacco products and the community with the lowest tobacco use was Newton and they don't allow to tobacco to be sold in so many different places that they there's almost there's almost no places that sell tobacco so you know as we think about what kinds of things we want to encourage and what kinds of things we want to discourage you know I'm I'm very concerned about drug use among youth and among adults I mean the opioid crisis is something that's attacking everybody and you know we don't know and it's something that I can't sit here and not consider that is the messages that we're sending we know there's so many people who are dealing with stress and anxiety in the kinds of things that I would like to see us promote as a city rather than something that alters your perspective is things that are coping skills you know rather than somebody turning first to high blood pressure medication maybe they have to take it I'd like to see them working towards getting healthy and losing weight and being fit you know those are the things that are long-term hopefully going to help us as a society to be healthier in mind body and spirit and I know that there are some benefits and to everything but I I hope we you

▶ 3:07:09 Monica C. Medeiros: know consider the messages that we're sending and and I like to see us I'm not sure what the will of the committee is for action tonight but I certainly would be in support of an amendment to cap this at 1 and to keep it every 99 thank

▶ 3:07:31 John N. Tramontozzi: you Alderman Tramontozzi thank you madam chair I want I just want to thank all the members of the public for coming you know this evening to speak on behalf of this for or against this order we did receive many communications for residents regarding this I will be voting against this order for the reasons that I've heard primarily in this chamber as well as in other communications I don't think the downtown area is the appropriate place for a marijuana dispensary retail store the business community does not want it

▶ 3:08:10 John N. Tramontozzi: I respect that the residents that I've heard from this around the area don't want it they all them in this chambers have expressed opinions about it against this amendment is appropriate I'm not going to repeat it again 99 route 99 we have a facility there and we discussed though I mean we're not left without any zoning the zoning in route 99 that we zoned for the facility I'm perfectly happy with just the one there some value that maybe we need some more competition you know if you want to put a second one we don't need it in downtown put it at 99 hey if McDonald's and Burger King can be right next to each other is perfectly happy I think you can have two dispensaries there at 99 and promote competition so again I'm perfectly happy with the one if that's the will of the committee and and I will be voting against this order and I appreciate the

▶ 3:09:20 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: time thank you I go ahead and take an opportunity to speak for the first time and then see if anyone else has comments again I agree with the vast majority of of my colleagues on the board tonight that at this point an incremental approach to the policy of selecting where to zone makes the most sense to me that's based on all of the really helpful public comments that we received tonight and over email and on social media and thrilled that the community has been so involved and I encourage you to stay as involved and other topics will come before us in the months to come. The historical character of Melrose resonates with me and the current character bears that out in terms of some of the existing retail restrictions that my colleagues have mentioned. I'm also very mindful of the way we ask our children to get to school in our city which is somewhat uncommon for our surrounding areas. We do not provide buses many students walk to school many students walk with their parents and that means something to me I thought that some of the comments tonight from members here who may even still be here were very compelling in terms of their support for a second dispensary downtown but I was what I noted was that at least two of the the statements noted that initially they hadn't been exposed to this and that it was only through exposure through their work with family members or clients that they became to have a new experience and a different appreciation for in this case medical marijuana but it could also be adult use and I think that our community is not in a place where we've had that level of exposure and certainly well I know that to be the case is it's just a really new industry statewide so on that point I think it sounds like there is a large majority of members of this body who support limiting the zoning for retail to one location at this time I would like to turn to the other reach the other marijuana establishments that are discussed here So President, sorry, Alderman Zwirko talked a little bit with you, City Planner, about Cultivate, the different types of establishments that we are looking to zone as well. And that has not received much attention yet tonight or in our public comments, understandably. But I am actually somewhat concerned that under this proposal, the board would recommend that we allow these establishments to be in any business district, not just industrial. So that would include a cultivator who can cultivate process and package marijuana a product manufacturer who can obtain manufacture process and package it a research facility to engage in research projects a testing lab a transportation and distribution facility This one is sort of conjures some concerns as well an establishment that could purchase marijuana obtain it process it to transport and temporarily store it on site so I'm interested I didn't attend admittedly your initial meetings when you were developing the first draft and so I did come to your last meeting but these were not discussed and when I reached out to the Cannabis Control Commission director of government relations today I did confirm just as we've discussed with retailers that we do need to zone for these establishments they are legal and if we don't place them in particular zones then they could in theory crop up anywhere but I'm wondering why the Planning Board thought that that some of these other establishments would be appropriate in places like downtown or in other local business districts as opposed to just zoning them for our

▶ 3:13:29 Denise Gaffey: industrial locations I think the planning board felt that that those uses had very minimal impacts associated with them and I mean admittedly most of our attention is spent on the retail use because that realistically is the use that we anticipate is going to be here we don't see a lot of sites available for for some of these other types of uses but it seemed to us that we should you know be open in our business districts to reasonable business type

▶ 3:13:58 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: uses and this these seem like them okay I guess I personally would disagree yeah and I think it's absolutely the all right so I mean I decide where these uses should be sure so as my colleagues think about this we've been focusing so exclusively on the retail but these facilities strike me is also being an entirely new business model that will have this substance on site and I am NOT comfortable including them downtown at the outset because I don't think we know enough about security and odor and to your point I don't think we have a lot of locations in downtown that it would even be a minimal to these types of uses so in addition to I think what I'm hearing is that folks would consider an amendment to the proposed zoning ordinance to limit it to one to limit excuse me retailers to one site for now I would also entertain a motion to consider limiting all types of establishments to to the industrial for these other types but maybe you could speak to that if that's going to be particularly problematic in some way I don't think it will be under the state law but you have a better sense of the different zones that we have in our city

▶ 3:15:18 Denise Gaffey: well I I think it's always a little problematic to try to isolate uses to just one zoning district I would be a little bit loath to do that and in our industrial zoning district doesn't have many parcels associated with it so you know I I would consider I mean at a minimum you would you would want to allow the use in the industrial and the BB BB district which is kind of where

▶ 3:16:03 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: the route 99 corridor is okay thank you other question under the the ordinance I didn't see a lot about accountability so once an establishment goes through a really rigorous process that you all have outlined and I really appreciate that many different departments are going to be involved in this that the application is very extensive I think you know based on the experience you've had with garden remedies I have a lot of confidence that there will be plenty of screening at the outset but I'm wondering where the how accountability would work if you find that some provisions that are required under this ordinance are found that you know an establishment is not in compliance with them is it who it who enforces that the building commissioner okay and is and

▶ 3:16:53 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: forgive me is there a provision in this ordinance that would indicate precisely what what type of fine could be issued whether the license could be pulled how

▶ 3:17:08 Denise Gaffey: that how does that work I think the fines would just operate the way they they currently operate in the city charter you know I'm not familiar with them it's not really my role but they're already there are fines that are established through the building Commissioner for that kind of thing and

▶ 3:17:27 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: what was your other question the like couldn't a license be who revokes a

▶ 3:17:30 Denise Gaffey: license I'm not exactly sure I mean I think if it's if it's if there's a local license that's required then you I guess you would be the body to do that but if there's if it's violation of us you know some kind of provision under the Cannabis Control Commission then they might be the agency okay it might be

▶ 3:17:48 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: helpful to maybe we could put those questions to the city solicitor who's not unfortunately not here tonight just better understand what there's a lot here that appropriately addresses the outset of a business coming into a community but it's I'm a little unclear on precisely what type of oversight exists thereafter and to your point it's not necessarily your area to focus on so I understand that maybe just two other quick questions while we have you because I really appreciate you being here so late under that's on page four of the current zoning amendment that has been put to us under general requirements and conditions, could you just explain, there's new language that was added that says that marijuana establishments are permitted as allowed in the table of use and parking regulations, and marijuana retailers are also allowed by special permit in the marijuana retailer overlay district. is your what is what does it mean to be permitted as allowed versus allowed by

▶ 3:19:00 Denise Gaffey: special permit so it's just saying that that was that amendment was made pursuant to this idea of allowing for creating an overlay district right so that's just there if to say that if the use is allowed by special permit in the

▶ 3:19:17 Speaker 4: overlay I see that's all okay it's just for that overlay district that right

▶ 3:19:22 Denise Gaffey: okay so if you opt to eliminate that I that concept you would just strike that

▶ 3:19:27 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: all right actually then that gets my other question so I think that's all I have for now I just I'd like to just maybe hear from my colleagues a little bit as well about other marijuana establishment because we haven't had a real chance to talk about that alderman's work go Thank You madam

▶ 3:19:45 Michael P. Zwirko: chair I was remiss earlier to not thank the work of the Planning Board on this I i think that they were very thoughtful in their analysis and i attended a lot of the meetings and appreciated a lot of their debate so i just wanted to state that i do appreciate the work that they've done and wherever we land on this i actually think that there's been a lot of good work that's been completed so at a time should the city decide to reopen additional locations this this work is not at a loss so i think that there's been some some good items here um it does address i wanted to bring up a question because I had first mentioned about some of the other non-retail types of businesses with respect to marijuana in the marijuana industry security in your cover letter the cover letter by the chairwoman of the the Planning Board miss Ward specifically speaks to security that would apply to any of the businesses regardless of whether or not they're a retail industry is that correct all of these regulations all of those right so when we're talking about odors when we're talking about yeah so it would apply yeah most of the comments that we've received I would say over I do not recall although I could have missed it but I don't think I have heard anything about a marijuana business other than a retail facing marijuana business in Melrose that leads me to believe that people were okay with the other types of industries in this strand of business so it's been here it's been discussed at many planning board meetings it's been available viewable by the public you know the only concern I have with the the M rod is the allowance of a retail facing marijuana shop so at this point I think I mean we have spoken ad nauseum we've heard great feedback back from the public I think we need to move forward on this so I would like to offer an amendment at this time I would like to amend the the zoning amendment as proposed to reduce the cap to one and ensure that a retail facility is removed from the M rod in its location I know that's probably being a little bit simplistic but this is a very involved ordinance and a zoning amendment and I think if we remove the retail portion of the marijuana industry definitions from the M rod that allows for the others to go if they see a desire and a demand to be there and it will retain the existing industrial zone area for a retail facility so I I throw that motion on the floor some clarification I'd be happy to

▶ 3:22:35 Monica C. Medeiros: second that to which section the so it would we would need to retain the

▶ 3:22:42 Michael P. Zwirko: district itself because of the other industries so if you just if you look at the table the principal use table I would ask that the marijuana retailer actually the table only refers to the M rod it actually doesn't delineate the allowances in the M rod so the marijuana establishment location I think it's section by the red line I think it's II I can actually walk you through that I

▶ 3:23:16 Michael P. Zwirko: think that was that's the special permit section I'm sorry the marijuana establishments isn't it is it now F on the red line version so the

▶ 3:23:31 Denise Gaffey: establishment of districts so there are a number of things that you would want do which i can walk through yes please anticipating this action um i think you would eliminate the um provision b which is section 235-6 establishment of districts so there'd be no need to amend section 6 to insert marijuana retail overlay district so you could just strike that provision

▶ 3:23:52 Michael P. Zwirko: the entire the entire district is that it only pertains to retailers correct yeah it was only

▶ 3:23:57 Denise Gaffey: done for that purpose and then on the table you would eliminate the footnote number six which speaks to again the additional use locations the marijuana retail overly district then below that you would eliminate paragraph c under section 235-73.4 that's the establishment

▶ 3:24:20 Denise Gaffey: of the marijuana the mrad right and so there you have um two two further paragraphs which

▶ 3:24:27 Speaker 2: delineate the parcels so you would just take that out and then then in the next

▶ 3:24:32 Denise Gaffey: general requirements that would become paragraph C versus D and you would take out in the first paragraph subparagraph one that segment at the end of the 1a And then on further on, paragraph E, which will become paragraph D, when it talks about

▶ 3:25:05 Denise Gaffey: the special permit and the requirements, paragraph, it's paragraph DE1, I'm sorry, D1F, where it refers to the two marijuana retailers, you just change that to one.

▶ 3:25:21 Speaker 2: So that modification would be made. Did you find out?

▶ 3:25:26 Speaker 4: Yes, I did.

▶ 3:25:27 Speaker 2: You got it, okay.

▶ 3:25:28 Monica C. Medeiros: And that's. So I'd second that motion.

▶ 3:25:31 Speaker 2: Yeah, those are the changes we're making. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Point of order, ma'am.

▶ 3:25:39 John N. Tramontozzi: I don't even know what's going on over here in terms of what's being amended. I can't vote on something I can't see in printed form. so we can discuss that if you want to hold it in committee and revise it that's fine if that's the will of the board I think we should just vote on the vote on this order and then if something different comes to us at a later date so be it but I don't think we can start amending as I'm not sure the point of

▶ 3:26:05 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: order and we're just a comment on the motion that's properly but it does anyone else have any comments we have a motion to amend that is attempting to to create line edits to remove the mayor the overlay district and all references to it and we have it made by aldermen's work I was seconded by ultimate Medeiros

▶ 3:26:28 Michael P. Zwirko: on discussion I never I never lacked I never left and I still have the floor here so we have the amendment in front of us in a printed version it's right here we were just walked through what the

▶ 3:26:48 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: amendments would be so I yield on discussion on the motion Alderman

▶ 3:26:52 Peter D. Mortimer: warmer you have been in the queue yeah I think I'm next in queue thank you very

▶ 3:26:58 Peter D. Mortimer: much the aldermen have expressed their opinions and if you can count I think what we need to do here is this is getting too complicated this is a change of a zoning amendment it requires a to pass the eight votes on here we got that somebody should make a motion for this to pass in hopes that it fails now

▶ 3:27:26 Peter D. Mortimer: forget about the amendment respectfully just somebody make a motion that this passes in hopes that it fails because it's not going to get the eight votes then it fails and we get out to my order which is number three on the agenda tonight which says that all marijuana businesses including the cultivation and packaging that you were referencing retail medical medicinal they all have to be relegated to Route 99, which is two zones in our zoning. It's straight I and BB. In lower Washington Street and Washington Street, I don't like that lower term, just in Washington Street, it's IA and BB1. I can amend mine to make it Route 99 and we can call it zone BB and zone I all marijuana businesses must be located as in zone BB or zone I and the only places those zones exist is on route 99 and it's two zones it's two different zones it's I and BB so it meets the requirements that's why I made my order simple clear direct so we can take a look back back we've talked this thing to death apparently very few people want this downtown including the alderman nobody in from Ward 5 they came out and forced and spoke against it part of Main Street

▶ 3:28:55 Speaker 4: is in Ward 5 as well point of order we I think we're just yes please because I'll do respect

▶ 3:28:58 Francis X. Wright Jr.: to Alderman Mortimer and I tend to agree with his sentiment but he has a separate order and that would be my opinion would be a separate request or order before us to amend the zoning ordinance and I look okay to the planning director if you have a separate order before us don't we need to have now set up a new another

▶ 3:29:26 Denise Gaffey: public hearing well I would also just point out that we can accomplish the exact same that's where he's recommending through this proposal that's in front of you right we have them right I'm going yes I would caution against just voting against it without thinking about that because then you have to you have nothing and you have to start the whole process over again whereas you actually have a proposal in front of you yes you can very easily manipulate to do

▶ 3:29:51 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: what you want and to your and to your point this is this has more than just don't precise doing there are other components vice chair boys are making

▶ 3:29:59 Robert A. Boisselle: all the changes here with two or three people doing this does this have to go back to the Planning Board itself to make that final decision through the

▶ 3:30:09 Denise Gaffey: chair to know the planning was very clear in this letter and I and I also just want to clarify the purpose of this report was to take the information from the joint public hearing all the public commerce that were made and to distill them to talk about them and and provide the alderman with the sort of with the feedback which is what the planning board is attempting to do in this report the planning board makes it very clear that it's it's the alderman's decision to ultimately decide how many you know whether to cap it at one two or more than that or where the districts should be and i think it's perfectly legitimate to make a decision to decide to be incremental about this and to take it slowly and to um to regulate the use on route 99 and it can be done within this framework just by the simple modifications that we just talked about alderman wright

▶ 3:31:00 Speaker 4: i'm sorry vice chair was that all that you had right now thank you thank you

▶ 3:31:09 Francis X. Wright Jr.: i i totally agree with the planning director and i appreciate all the mizureko's efforts to get us there the hour is late um my thought is that we hold the matter in committee and we request that the changes be made so we get a red line version back next monday we're meeting again is that correct we are we can't bring it back so that all the changes that we're talking about tonight and all the ms work i was bringing up which is to as i understand him that all marijuana related facilities at this time be zoned on the route 99 corridor and therefore we bring that back to us we see it in front of us we see it in a red line version and it's not 11 o'clock at night and we're able to vote on it and um and go forward that that would be my thought but alderman Zwirko still has

▶ 3:32:09 Speaker 4: a motion before and alderman Zwirko has the floor thank you madam chair the i i want to speak on

▶ 3:32:23 Michael P. Zwirko: the order that's before us especially the the amendments that were made um you know i i can understand the the desire to see this in a cleaned up version it it's it's a motion to amend i mean we're asking for a motion to amend to be sent before us i i i don't recall us ever doing that so but I also want to you know thank Alderman Wright for showing illuminating a path kind of forward here because Melrose has actually taken this approach very very slowly and thoughtfully that means way back when we put in the moratorium you know even the the year that the planning department spent on this between meetings and their staff work and then coming before us in December and then again in January I mean we've this has been a painstaking process and I mean I've actually it's the only thing I've heard about for the past month even while we're mired in a discussion on an override so I mean I think we all essentially know where we want to be I appreciate Alderman Mortimer order my fear is exactly the procedural problems that miss Gaffey pointed out we can do exactly what the what we presume the intent of Alderman Mortimer order is through a process that's already gone through we're here this is this is the the penultimate moment if not the ultimate moment and I mean people want to look at it you know wait a week to look at what we already know what we're gonna do I just don't see the point in pausing we I think we're in agreement I mean I think we know exactly what we want to do and we've discussed it we're here this we even had a month before the time that this came back to us in February so I don't think I've received as many emails on a subject and I can't remember when two years probably so we haven't received comment on the other types of industries people are happy or content with it being in the industrial district it was removed from the southern part of the city in Washington and retail facility in M rod doesn't seem to be palatable it's I mean that's the spirit of the order the motion to amend it's

▶ 3:34:55 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: before you president Lemmerman thank you miss Gaffey the the followed along with your recommended changes I believe you were doing that in response to the recommendations of those can i just confirm that the amendment that you just ran through

▶ 3:35:13 Speaker 2: would restrict us to one permit yes though all of those items yes the amendments that she ran

▶ 3:35:15 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: through would one restrict us to one permit it would restrict a retail facility to the bb district on route 99 and the eye district yeah they're both it would leave the other uses alone including the industrial to include the industrial districts right does it do anything else that i haven't mentioned no would you be able to if we were to move forward with a vote this evening provide a red line version before this board took a final vote yeah i could do it tomorrow

▶ 3:35:44 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: my recommendation is that we take a vote on this as amended take a vote on the amendment and take a vote as amended it would only be a recommendation to the full board we could change our minds if it turns out that it's not what we are understanding but i think it's been clearly laid out

▶ 3:35:59 Monica C. Medeiros: thank you we have a motion to amend that's properly seconded before us does anyone else have any discussion on the particular amendment alderman Medeiros thank you yes and I think you know just to go one step further and this is it this is a tricky process we don't do this a ton right this is a long zoning amendment I think it certainly makes sense to work with what we have because I think there either has been a lot of hard work put into it and they especially in terms of the um you know the permitting part of it i think that there's a lot of agreement here i can certainly understand the members concerns about this being confusing and going through it and um you know maybe not all of us are operating on paper copies and but i do think that you know rather than have another uh amendment come before us that a committee hasn't voted on another red line version that really the appropriate thing would be for us to to at least to vote to say that this is something that we want to see and otherwise it's kind of a lot of work for nothing so i think that um you know a vote and whether or not we move it forward to the full board or whether we hold it in committee for another red line version i'm i i'm happy to to move it forward after this amendment however um i think that we'd have more you know i think that's an appropriate uh way to move forward um any other alderman Rita

▶ 3:37:28 Francis X. Wright Jr.: briefly as long as uh the matter is not going to come back before us later this evening when we resume our full board meeting i'm comfortable with this yeah good point just quick point of

▶ 3:37:37 Manisha Bewtra: clarification um to alderman Zwirko if i may um that your proposal is to cap retail facilities at one and only allow them and bb and i but to leave non-retail marijuana establishment districts

▶ 3:38:00 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: as is correct thank you and as as a member of this um committee i'll just say i am supportive of this particular amendment i think we've heard from a super majority um at the table tonight that we are uh the majority is a like mind on this i do not think the public has has been made particularly aware of the other types of marijuana establishments that are in here because the retail understandably takes up all the oxygen but these are again these are going to be facilities that have who knows how much marijuana on-site and we don't allow breweries in our city as far as I'm aware and you know large distribution of alcohol so if the same I would say that a lot of the concerns we heard tonight from the public about retail strike me as at least being worthy of consideration and more public engagement on that as well but in terms of this particular amendment I'm certainly in support of it so with that we have an amendment on the floor from aldermen Zwirko seconded by alderman Medeiros to take to take the draft that we have now and simply reduce it to allowing for only one retailer and limiting that location to the route 99 the zones that are there all in favor I'm sorry we had more discussion I

▶ 3:39:24 Shawn M. MacMaster: apologize alderman McMaster just on the motion madam chair I just I don't want my vote which I'm about to make to be misconstrued I understand the amendment I feel better about the amendment but personally I'll be voting against the amendment because i think vote despite the fact that we have to zone despite the importance of zoning a zoning proposal is going to pass personally i'm not comfortable voting for something that would make the city complicit in violating federal law i stood at this rostrum a year ago this month and i took an oath to uphold state local federal laws and i'm not comfortable voting for it so that's just to qualify how I'm voting I understand the amendment I feel better about it but I won't be voting to support it

▶ 3:40:12 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman Mortimer thank you very much madam chair I very much identify with Alderman McMaster's comments we're caught between a rock and a hard place trouble rolls downhill the state is telling us we must have one retail establishment and the federal government is telling us as they are doing with Cambridge try it and we'll bring you into a Rico case so we're the ones caught between a rock and a hard place but because we do have to do something and some of these other cities have done it I like the spirit of the amendment that it's going to be limited to one retail facility that retail facility will be in zoning zone I or zoning zone BB which essentially is only on route 99 which is the spirit of my subsequent order which for procedural purposes I will make a motion later on tonight for leave to place on file on that order so we don't have the problem but I also very much like your idea that we also and we can do this at the full board when this comes before the full board not tonight tonight, as Alderman Wright aptly pointed out, because we don't want to pull this from committee tonight. We want to see it before we go to the next full board meeting. I would be friendly to an amendment on that night that we also include the cultivation and packaging facilities as you liken them to breweries or distilleries. That we also relegate those to the Route 99 area. We can do that, but in, you know, for the sense of let's do something tonight, I like this, this, that the retail will be on Route 99 only, and there will only be one, and then we can deal with the more manufacturing aspect of it later. And I very much identify with Alderman McMaster, too. You know, we're between, the state says you must have one, because you have a beer and wine store, you must. And the federal government says you may not, and you may get an Orico. It's horrible for us. Like everything else, the state and federal government keeps raking us over the coals time and time again. Okay.

▶ 3:42:26 Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's go ahead and have a vote.

▶ 3:42:30 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: All in favor of the amendment? Aye. All opposed? Opposed. Opposed. Okay. That motion carries. So now we have before us, am I correct that we now have before us the order as amended? Are there, what is the will of the committee? Motion to recommend.

▶ 3:42:49 Speaker 1: Second.

▶ 3:42:50 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: okay we now have a motion to recommend for passage as amended um made by alderman's

▶ 3:43:03 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: worko seconded by alderman forbes on discussion okay um all in favor no opposed opposed opposed sorry okay um that motion also passes so this motion will be uh this ordinance will be recommended to the full board and we can continue the conversation then thank you