Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2017-06-01
Attendance
Robert A. Boisselle ; Donald L. Conn Jr. ; Scott M. Forbes ; Gail Infurna ; Jennifer L. Lemmerman ; Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis ; Monica C. Medeiros ; Peter D. Mortimer ; John N. Tramontozzi ; Francis X. Wright Jr. ; Michael P. Zwirko
Agenda
- Call to Order
- Public Hearing -- Joint Hearing with Planning Board
- Orders
- ORDER-2017-129 : Amend the Revised Zoning Ordinances, Chapter 235 for Registered Marijuana Dispensary Regulations as set forth herein
- ORDER-2017-130 : Amend Revised Zoning Ordinances, Chapter 235, Sections 235-5 and 235-16.2 to Enact a Temporary Moratorium on Recreational Marijuana Establishments as set forth herein.
- Adjournment
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CALENDAR● JUNE 1, 2017 Aldermanic Chamber, Melrose City HallJoint Meeting with the Planning Board 8:00 PM 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 The public should take notice that the Melrose Board of Aldermen may, on certain occasions, have a quorum in attendance due to standing committees of the Board of Aldermen consisting of both voting and non-voting members. Members attending this duly posted meeting are participating and deliberating only in conjunction with the business of the standing committee. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Peter D. Mortimer Chairman Present Gail M. Infurna Vice Chairman Present Michael P. Zwirko Alderman at Large Present John N. Tramontozzi Ward 1 Alderman Present Monica C. Medeiros Alderman at Large Present Robert A. Boisselle Ward 4 Alderman Absent Francis X. Wright Jr. Ward 3 Alderman Absent Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis Alderman at Large Present Jennifer L. Lemmerman Ward 2 Alderman Present Scott M. Forbes Ward 7 Alderman Present Donald L. Conn Jr. President/Ex-officio Member Present
ORDER-2017-129 Amending Revised Zoning Ordinances Amend the Revised Zoning Ordinances, Chapter 235 for Registered Marijuana Dispensary Regulations as set forth herein Referred to the Planning Board
ORDER-2017-130 Amending Revised Zoning Ordinances Amend Revised Zoning Ordinances, Chapter 235, Sections 235-5 and 235-16.2 to Enact a Temporary Moratorium on Recreational Marijuana Establishments as set forth herein. Referred to the Planning Board City of Melrose Page 1 Updated 6/27/2017 2:06 PM
Transcript
▶ 0:00 Peter D. Mortimer: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is 8 o'clock on June 1st, 2017. This is a joint meeting of the Planning Board and the Committee on Appropriations. We have two orders before us. The first one is regarding zoning for a medicinal marijuana dispensary. where it will be zoned to be placed, if there should be one so placed anywhere in our city. The second order regards recreational marijuana, and that is an order of whether or not we will accept the moratorium that the state legislator has offered us to prevent recreational marijuana shops from opening in our city until 2018. So they're two different and distinct orders, although they roughly cover the same subject matter. This meeting is being recorded by MMTV and
▶ 1:04 Peter D. Mortimer: it is available for future viewing on the Melrose Mass website as well as the MMTV website. Is there a motion to open the floor for public participation please? So moved. Second. Alderman Ferner has made a motion to open the floor for public participation. That motion was duly seconded by Alderman Lemmerman. Are there any members of the public wishing to come forward to speak on either of the orders on our agenda this evening? Seeing none, Alderman Inferna has made a motion to close public participation. Once again, duly seconded by Alderman Lemmerman. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none. In fact, I didn't call for the vote on the motion to open public participation on that motion previous to open public participation.
▶ 1:50 All in favor, please say aye. Aye. And now to close public participation, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. So public participation is hereby closed on these two orders. President Kahn, please. Yeah, just so that anybody who's watching understands what's going to happen here. We're required pursuant to chapter 48 to have this order go back to the planning board, who will have a hearing deliberate on this and make a recommendation to us. people who are interested in this order can can follow it through the Planning Board after the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen then we will take it up again we can't vote on it until we get the recommendation back from the Planning Board so anyone at home who's
▶ 2:37 Peter D. Mortimer: interested in these orders can go to the Planning Board meetings relative to this where they can wait and they could come back here when these two orders come back before us correct you took the words right out of my mouth and I think I think I might add that the planning board after we adjourn tonight has 21 days to come back to us with a report within 21 days. And then we will, as a board of aldermen, take action on it, as a committee and then a board of aldermen. Thank you, President Kahn. Seeing no members of the public have come forward and none are here, I will call to order the public hearing at this time. So the public hearing with the planning board is hereby in order. Seeing no members of the public here, to take a motion to suspend the rules from Alderman Zwirko,
▶ 3:25 Denise Gaffey: duly seconded by Alderman Lemmerman, we're under suspension and we'll hear from our city officials, our city planner, Denise Gaffey, assistant city planner, Aaron Zwirko, will enlighten us on the matters before us this evening. Good evening ladies. Good evening. Please proceed. So we have prepared some slides. I believe they were uploaded into your packets, and people can also view them from home. For the slide presentation, we combined both of the orders, so we have slides for both. But we're going to start with the order relative to medical marijuana dispensaries. Thank you very much. And as you can see from the first slide, we just outlined a little bit of the history. um the planning board was here several years ago back when medical marijuana was
▶ 4:24 Denise Gaffey: was Approval by the voters of massachusetts and at that time we recommended in the board of alderman Approval a moratorium there was a lot of there was a lot of uncertainty at the time about how medical marijuana was going to be regulated much like there is today with regards to recreational marijuana so what many communities were doing and what we opted to do was enact a moratorium while the regulations were being sorted out by the department of public health so that has been in our zoning ordinance since 2012 and the moratorium technically expired in june 30th of 2014 which is a couple of years ago um the the market for medical marijuana has been been fairly quiet and the regulations have been very slow to become established and so we
▶ 5:20 Denise Gaffey: there was not a lot of pressure on us to to reconsider medical marijuana dispensaries until recently so in the last several years we've we've opted to turn our attention to other zoning matters but during this past year especially with the entrance into the discussion of recreational marijuana, we decided to turn back our attention to medical marijuana as well. And coincidentally, we've started to get a lot more interest from medical marijuana establishments in terms of citing an establishment in the Melrose area. So we thought it was a good time to reconsider our moratorium and to create some regulations. And so that's what we're proposing tonight. So there's only subcommittee has met several times to talk about the regulations that are in front of you
▶ 6:09 Denise Gaffey: So and then it was ultimately Approval by the Planning Board for initiation as a zoning amendment Slide one of the things So the the proposal for medical marijuana establishments essentially defines the use it it creates parameters about where medical marijuana establishments can be located in the community and then it outlines some very rigorous controls and that need to be found in order to cite a medical marijuana establishment so the definition that's proposed is when we had when we were here a few years ago and talked about medical marijuana talked about the moratorium we created a definition in our zoning ordinance and in that definition was based on the the way the Department of Public Health was defining these establishments at the
▶ 7:08 Denise Gaffey: time they have subsequently tweaked the language a little bit so we are recommending that we modify our definition as well and so we are now going to suggest that we use the term that the Department of Public Health uses which is a registered marijuana dispensary so that is how that is what that is the language that we would use in the zoning ordinance and then we create a definition for that which is shown up on your screen in front of you and it's essentially the same language the same language in the Department of Public Health regulations defining the registered marijuana dispensary with one One distinction, if you notice at the bottom of that paragraph, we state that a registered marijuana dispensary does not include non-medical dispensaries, so we wanted to create the distinction
▶ 7:58 Denise Gaffey: there between medical and recreational. So that's one change. Otherwise that language pretty much mirrors what you'd see in the TPH regulations. So citing a medical marijuana establishment, obviously this was the big issue and the big of discussion amongst the zoning subcommittee and the planning board members and so we take a cue from the regulations once again which it establishes a radius of 500 feet from a school daycare or facility in which children commonly congregate and on the slide you can see how DPH defines where children commonly congregate so it has to be structured and and it does not include things like ice cream parlors and bowling alleys but you know formal formal areas of daycares and things like that would would count
▶ 8:57 Denise Gaffey: as in place where children congregate so that 500 foot radius the planning board decided was it was a good you know a good distinction to use in terms of siting and what we did if you jump ahead one slide so we actually we took it we took the map of the city and we applied the 500 foot radius around all of the business districts including the medical district excluding residential districts for obvious reasons and essentially what we came up with is all of the major business districts in the downtown area and along the rail corridor were captured by that 500 foot radius and the business in industrial district in the southeast corner which is on the Saugus in Malden border and does not does not
▶ 9:56 Denise Gaffey: create that conflict so we ultimately decided that to designate the BB in the industrial districts as the as the districts where this use would be allowed and there's a slide just following that which that's a little bit hard to see but this outlines the different parcels in that district along Route 99 or Broadway and there are not there aren't many parcels here admittedly there are and there's a parcel there are a couple of cemeteries there's a parcel that's right there then there's the parcel owned by the city which is used as a transfer station currently and then there is a parcel owned by rotundi for I'm sorry I'm forget what that R&D I think construction and then across from that is the is a motel and former restaurant
▶ 10:53 Denise Gaffey: which is a vacant building it currently so those are the those are the sites that would be captured by by in allow for this use the zoning amendment that's in front of you takes you takes you through all the regulations what we are recommending is that the marijuana dispensary would require a special permit so it would not be allowed by right but rather by special permit and and the special permit granting authority would be the planning board there's a new section in the zoning ordinance section 235-73.3 which would be created and outlines all the provisions for the special permit and the goal is to create a process very similar to site plan review that would address the very specific and unique concerns
▶ 11:46 Denise Gaffey: related to registered marijuana dispensaries so the regulations outline the purpose purpose of the zoning the applicability general requirements and conditions relative to location and operation signage and security it outlines their special permit findings that are that are required there's a provision about annual reporting and a provision that talks about the discontinuance or abandonment of use of this use so we're just going to walk through each of those provisions relatively quickly so in terms of location and operation we looked at we evaluated a lot of different ordinances from other communities and we also looked very closely at the regulations that dph has promulgated and and determined that
▶ 12:42 Denise Gaffey: a limit of 5,000 square feet for a medical marijuana establishment would be appropriate some of the other provisions that are specifically written into the zoning including include publicly accessible interest in entrances that are visible from the public way there'd be no drive-through windows associated with this use and it cannot be in a building with residential units we are very specific in the zoning about that 500 foot radius from schools daycare centers and facilities where children commonly congregate we outlined some hours of operation in particular we prohibit these establishments from operating between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. and then there's a provision about consumption on premises which not be allowed and then ventilation and I
▶ 13:32 Denise Gaffey: should point out these these uses are also very highly regulated from from the Department of Health and from the state so they also come very highly regulated and we are providing another layer of regulation through our zoning in terms of signage the goal here is to have these establishments look pretty innocuous and not stand out as with any in a flashy signage or signage that looks like it's promoting the use of marijuana so we we have a provision that signage has to comply with the DPH regular regulations and obviously with our signage ordinance the sign can only have the name of the establishment no graphics related to marijuana or paraphernalia on the exterior of the building sign cannot be illuminated after the establishment is closed no
▶ 14:26 Denise Gaffey: neon signage at all and every publicly accessible entrance must display the following language registration card issued by the Mass Department of Public health required and that's a dph requirement the regulations contain language and requirements around security contact information for an establishment must be provided to the police department and the building commissioner solid waste containers must be locked and enclosed landscaping must be non-obtrusive so kind of not not too full so people could congregate behind landscaping and so just keeping the keeping the entrances visible and then exterior lighting so that all areas are clearly visible applications so what we're proposing again is that this process would be very similar to the
▶ 15:26 Denise Gaffey: site plan review process that's that the Planning Board currently employs when they're looking at developments and in fact the the use itself would be exempt from site plan review because instead we would have this to send this process which is essentially which is very similar to it and with specific regulations relative to marijuana medical marijuana use so additional application requirements there are several items in the zoning that we call out that are required in the application including evidence of the establishments use intended use of the site disclosure of all owners and shareholders and partners etc there's security measures copies of the registration materials and letters from the police department and Board of Health indicating that the
▶ 16:21 Denise Gaffey: application materials were reviewed and the safety and security measures measures are adequate. And then there are very specific findings that the Planning Board needs to make in order to approve a medical dispensary. It has to meet and demonstrate a local and regional need based on the proximity of other RMDs serving Melrose patients, designed to minimize any adverse visual or economic impacts on abutters or other parties of interest, meets all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' permitting requirements provides an indoor secure indoor waiting area designed to provide convenient safe and secure access and egress addresses issues of vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation parking and queuing
▶ 17:07 Denise Gaffey: and provides adequate security measures so some of these are some of these are the kind of items that the planning board routinely looks at when they're looking at a development like traffic circulation and access and some of these are of course very specific to this use specifically things like the security measures in the indoor waiting area there are provisions about reporting the planning board about conditions rather and reporting the planning board may impose any reasonable conditions to improve site design traffic flow public safety air quality and preserve the character of the surrounding area so the planning board has that discretion when they're reviewing and ultimately you know approving or not approving a project and then annual reporting is a
▶ 17:53 Denise Gaffey: condition of the special permit so a report would be filed with the Planning Board the Board of Health Building Commissioner Police Department and City Clerk copies of current applicable state licenses need to be these submitted on an annual basis and then demonstrate continued compliance with state and local requirements so there's a there's a lot of them a lot of reporting requirements here to give the city the appropriate oversight over the continued operation of these establishments and finally we have a provision in here about the end of use and one thing the board talked a lot about is what would happen if an establishment was a particular applicant was changing hands or going out of business and wanted to transfer transfer the ownership to
▶ 18:41 Denise Gaffey: another establishment we decided they would have to they'd have to come back and do go through this process again so it would not be transferable and all materials plant equipment and other paraphernalia must be removed when licenses are revoked or suspended surrendering state licenses or permits and then or within six months of ceasing operation whichever comes first so these are all the specific provisions that are outlined in the zoning amendment that is in front of the Board of Aldermen order 2 0 1 7 dash 1 29 and we our slides are designed to jump ahead to recreational but we can stop now and take questions on this particular thank you very much happy our first in queue we have Alderman Inferno please thank you just a
▶ 19:37 Peter D. Mortimer: A couple of procedural things, Mr. Chairman. I understand we had public participation prior to the public hearing starting. We did because of the second order, because the second order is not included in the public hearing. All right, but now we have a public hearing here, and I think maybe this is the opportunity that they should step back and have, if there's anybody in the public, to come up and voice their concerns, and then we can question. Took the words right out of my mouth, I was just supposed to do that. Although it does appear that there's, doesn't appear to be, but possibly. We'll find out, we never know until we try. Thank you very much, ladies. Are there any members of the public wishing to come forward and
▶ 20:23 Peter D. Mortimer: pose any questions or make any comments regarding the dispensary, the RMDs, as they'll now be known, the registered medical dispensaries, the registered marijuana dispensaries. Seeing none, we will close the public portion of the public hearing on a motion from Alderman Zwirko, seconded by Alderman McAteer-Margolis. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right, so the public portion of the public hearing is closed. And ladies, would you join us once again? Alderman Inferno has you doing a little tango up here. I just wanted the record to show that we- Absolutely. the public to have their say we do things properly around here and if i could still have the floor you do have the floor thank you i just have a couple of quick questions um in the signage
▶ 21:17 Gail Infurna: um when we were talking about that um i know downtown we've kind of had some concerns with those flashing open signs and things like that would the restrictions could they um also include flashing signs they're not allowed if they're happening downtown they should not be right it would maybe to make it more explicit could we see that in the regulations here we could have neon sign so that we just made a blanket reference to the compliance with the signage ordinance which has that as a provision but we can certainly call that out yeah and then the other thing I read in the order somewhere and I don't have it up right in front of me now but when you were talking about notification of the applicants I saw that the
▶ 22:05 Denise Gaffey: Conservation Commission was in there and I was just kind of curious why they would need to be notified I think we probably it wasn't in the slides it was in the actual order that I read it in one of the right okay I think we were probably using a similar procedure to what we use with site plan review so with site plan review when we get an application there are certain departments that get a completed copy of that application like the building commissioner and the city clerk's office obviously and the city engineer and public works and then there are others who just get notified so we notify the mayor's office and the superintendent that's that's where it was right so we simply send them a notification that we have an application it's not um we don't send them the all the
▶ 22:54 Scott M. Forbes: the application materials we're just letting them know you know there's an application here and if you're if you're interested in commenting on it this is the time frame I was reading it that's really all it is we don't yeah yeah they're not really being asked to you know are required to engage in the process it's more just notification okay great thank you thank you all for now Thank You alderman Inferno next in queue we have alderman Forbes please thank you mr. chairman I appreciate slide presentations a lot of useful information in here the one question I have and I you touch based on it as far as the location is concerned so I think that really is when you talk to people that that is really the hundred thousand dollar question here that Broadway area
▶ 23:37 Scott M. Forbes: of route 99 is that after all the criteria that we impose is that the only place that that dispensary could be in the city well it is because we are specifically saying also the BB and the industrial districts so those are the only two districts where it's allowed so at no point in time there's never going to be the option that it would be anywhere in the Main Street along the corridor anywhere like that no so between between identifying those two districts and requiring that 500-foot buffer based on the analysis that we did for that okay the one other question I had when you talked about compliance and an inspection, who is responsible for that? Is that done in the state level or is that something that we would take upon at the local level to go in and
▶ 24:26 Michael P. Zwirko: make sure that a dispensary like this is compliant based upon the criteria that you stated? I understand that the state is inspecting these very rigorously on a regular basis. Okay. Even monthly from what I understand for the existing establishments. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the work on this. This is really forward-thinking in an era of uncertainty of surrounding especially recreational use and facilities. It's also good to just update that based on what we know off of the few years that it's been around and what other cities and towns have been doing. So thank you for that. I have a couple of questions and i think i i noticed a typo too but i don't know if you can answer this now maybe
▶ 25:20 Michael P. Zwirko: it's applicable should we enter into discussions or agreements with these rmd facilities but it's stated in the definition itself that these would be non-profit entities and i'm curious if they're non-profit does that mean that we cannot collect the property tax for the facility or how would exactly that work um i know that some nonprofits specifically medical and religious organizations you can't draw property taxes from them would that be applicable here is it too i mean can you is it a hypothetical is it unanswerable at this point or it's probably not unanswerable i'm just not sure of the answer okay about that about taxes because i mean i know that there will be a benefit um revenue-wise from these facilities i'm just curious if we can i mean effectively not only
▶ 26:11 Michael P. Zwirko: leverage the revenue from the facility but also the actual tax parcel itself yeah my my my my understanding based on how other communities have done this is that they're they are leveraging some financial benefits to offset some of them you know costs that might be involved through host agreements so but beyond the host agreement I'm not exactly sure about yes we just have a lot of nonprofit tax parcels in the city and you know we're ninety five ninety six percent residential so anytime we can kind of eke out a small parcel of you know for-profit tax in commercial use where we like to do that so I just you know I'd raise it because I did notice it in the definition so it's just something we might want to keep it tuned to but also
▶ 26:55 Michael P. Zwirko: in alderman inferno brought this up when she had mentioned the notice provision and what I believe is section d2 I was curious one amendment that I would like to see that the Board of Aldermen get notified on applications if possible that are pending that way we at least can make comments or seek the entire application and even attend a possible public hearing at the Planning Board level you could just add us to the group okay that'd be an amendment I'd like to see I also noticed in section d1 a romanette 9 it says nodes of transportation I believe that's modes of transportation for what it's worth I don't know if there's a planning difference between those two words but I didn't notice that so I know it's a knit but I wanted to mention it and the other
▶ 27:44 Michael P. Zwirko: question I had is Alderman Forbes alluded to this with the inspections done by the state is there any quarry or background checks that go in I know that you said that you wanted to have the beneficial owners listed trustees etc but is there any requirement for you know background checks of those beneficial owners I know that when the gaming law was passed the the potential criminal background of the individuals associated with those facilities was highly scrutinized is that the same here with medical marijuana facilities if so is it by the state or the local because the state would certify all of the owners trustees managers etc etc so if anyone is doing that sort of background check it's happening at the state level when they come when RMD comes in to
▶ 28:37 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: request that certificate so we can research yeah I would appreciate some research on there thank you and the those it appears to be all the questions that I had I appreciate your time Thank You mr. chairman thank you very much Alderman's work Oh Alderman lemon please thank you mr. chairman thank you very much for this information just a quick question on the signage I understand the not wanting the marijuana or paraphernalia graphics outside the building and totally agree and appreciate that but I do have a question about sort of identifying what these establishments are particularly if they have things like edible products they could look like a bakery or something like that I remember actually there was a campaign ad during the ballot
▶ 29:24 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: initiative about that is there going to be any requirement that they are clearly identified for what they are and that they're not you know a bakery or anything of that kind if they were to maybe set themselves up to look that way mm-hmm so when you enter an RMD you have to go through a vestibule system where identify yourself and then you're allowed through the second door so if a child or a teenager thought that it was a bakery and tried to enter it they would be stopped at the vestibule door okay okay that's that's good I think that would help it from stopping people from going in I think even just for community members in the area knowing what it is it might be helpful if there's I don't know how we could do it I don't know if I mean we are on our
▶ 30:10 Denise Gaffey: level but some way to identify that I mean we are saying that the the sign can only identify the establishment by its name so if the name of a company you know is I don't know I'm just yeah struggling to think of a name but um you know if it would just have the name on it so okay I mean yeah okay not likely to have a the word bakery no no it could be a vague name too though I would just say maybe when we're going through the permitting process that's something that could be kept in mind that you know just making sure that folks know what these are you know just for I think so that they're aware of the business going on there one of the current ones that's big Medimar yeah yeah a lot of them have a medical reference in their name yeah
▶ 31:13 Denise Gaffey: garden remedies is one I'm familiar with I've heard of so you know they they don't they tend not I mean they need you know they don't really tend to want to promote themselves as matter as marijuana establishments you know that would give the impression of recreational I think the the bar is set so high at the state in terms of how they present themselves right that just to get through that process I mean after all of these years of having the law in place there are nine of these establishments just in place that's not very many it kind of speaks to the the intensity of the process that they have to go through okay and now just for people who are watching at home and for the record which is being recorded here by our collective committees that was
▶ 31:58 Monica C. Medeiros: uh mr john welch who spoke uh mr john welch from the uh planning board you still have the floor all right that's all i have thank you very much sir thanks welcome alderman medeiros please thank you thank you yes and i have said before thank you for all your hard work on this and for uh putting something together i know this is it's important to kind of get out in front of this and and make sure that we are being forward thinking and making sure we have something that fits with the goals and desires of the people of Melrose, and I think this attempts to do that. To the comments about non-profit, I believe the, I'm sure actually the ballot question that had gone through and passed specifically determined that these must be
▶ 32:54 Monica C. Medeiros: non-profit entities not for-profit so so I think that that's where that language is probably coming from although I don't know at some point in the future if that will change and we might want to make sure we think about that but I I don't believe that you know the thing about ballot questions sometimes is that they are sometimes initiated by people who would stand to benefit and of course you know not paying taxes would be it would be a benefit to nonprofits so I would not expect that we would get property tax from from these entities but of course we could try to to work in a payment in lieu of taxes plan I was hoping you could speak a little bit more about ventilation I know you just mentioned ventilation in the um and kind of explained what the requirements are and what
▶ 33:56 Denise Gaffey: kinds of issues we might expect to come up all right let me just flip ahead and while you're flipping ahead i'll ask you a little bit about about growing are we expecting that by allowing this use that that establishments would be able to to grow marijuana on-site and or not well the definition does allow for cultivation from the conversations with that I've had with several of these establishments I that's not typically how they operate they they're the establishments themselves are typically just the sort of retail if you will and then their cultivation takes place off-site i think that is that is that's the standard procedure for all of them but i know some of the the parcel area that we are looking at here is kind of large enough that right so there could be some cultivation
▶ 34:55 Denise Gaffey: that would occur so yeah um so i guess maybe back into the ventilation question i'm wondering if the transforming something from a plant to an edible or an oil if that's the kind of thing that we're talking about so the requirement i'll just read it for everyone's benefit the requirement that the planning board will need to um need to certify as part of their special permit process is that all rmds shall be ventilated in such a manner that no pesticides insecticides or other chemicals or products used in cultivation or processing are dispersed into the outside atmosphere and so that no odor from marijuana or its processing can be detected by a person with an unimpaired and otherwise normal sense of smell at
▶ 35:46 Monica C. Medeiros: the exterior of the RMD or at any adjoining use or property so we you know obviously this is going to be new to us in reviewing this so we would we we would have to seek out a way to determine that that's going to be the case. And just in that, thinking about that, I know we talk a lot about having a secure indoor waiting area and things like that, but if there is cultivation, it's possible that we could have, I'm sure everything is supposed to be locked, but we might have some field or something that that would need to be managed and secured so you know I'm gonna leave that up to you guys but I just to think you know something that we should be thinking about I think as as the planning board reviews this and how
▶ 36:42 Peter D. Mortimer: how would we work in reservations I could just offer in response to Greg Samson from the planning board well one of the reasons are if you wouldn't mind You're part of this hearing too? Yes. And usually what we do is we'll let the person who has the floor finish. Oh, sure. And then if you would raise your hand, then you can address anything that any previous Alderman said, or anything that was said before, and or you can submit your own thoughts and ideas. Okay. At that point. Thank you very much. Alderman Medeiros, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Samson. I will look forward to that later on. just last but not least in terms of location and I see the map and can you just talk a little bit more about like what was used for the criteria to mark
▶ 37:33 Monica C. Medeiros: out these parcels where we're seeing there's either where children might congregate and are these are these areas that might change for instance are their private daycares that are here and you know I kind of be interested to see a map if you took out the the private kind of daycares and and you know if that open if there's a change of use in a property that's maybe a private home daycare if that opens up another parcel so that we can really have a clear view of you know the things that that we you know I don't expect a park to change for instance but or a school necessarily but if there are private daycares I mean we know they can change use pretty quickly so I wasn't sure in terms of the map
▶ 38:20 that you provided how many of those are there so based on the data that we used at the time that it does include them I don't know what the split is of it of course it could change but the large majority of the parcels that have created these buffer areas are our parks that have like scheduled soccer games on Saturday our school buildings our daycare centers that aren't in a private home that you know run out of a church or another facility in downtown Melrose so the large majority of the parcels that are included in this analysis are ones that wouldn't may not be so quick to turn over like a private home daycare so it could certainly change over time and that's why we also limit it to two specific zoning districts rather than just using as the criteria so they're
▶ 39:22 there it looks to me that there are some spots where there's like BB maybe just behind downtown that doesn't have an overlap or so I'm not sure if that's a parking lot that we're looking at or so that is right but the BD zones not one of the zoning districts that weaving identified as allowing they used to locate in so I thought we were looking at BB and I as allowable yeah so BB is not but BB oh I'm sorry I miss heard you I thought you should be D oh yeah sorry be BB as in boy boy yeah yes so that there would be one small area right near the Cedar Park train station where the overlays do not match up so there there are okay so certainly before this came to us I would I would like to see at
▶ 40:32 Denise Gaffey: least as an alderman a map that showed that sort of takes out these private daycares because I do think especially private home daycare could change very quickly and I'd like to make sure that I'm looking at something and really understanding what the implications could be from the zone you know the zoning changes that we might make I mean the other thing just to point out and we can make it a little clearer in the in the zoning is that the only bb the the districts that you're talking about along the rail corridor are bb1 districts so they are there is a distinction there so we can make it clear that we're talking about the bb which is the one on the southeast corner it is a little bit it is a little bit clunky in our ordinance because we yeah bundle
▶ 41:27 Monica C. Medeiros: them together but it's separated out yeah maybe and maybe it's just I am looking at a color you know there's a lot of shades of gradations and yellow I know and it's a small it's hard to see it on that yeah thank you yeah I mean just so is your concern that you don't want to see the use in that in that area I mean I think that you know I'm not sure which which ones would be you know allowable or not and I think it's it's really only fair to to neighbors and residents and you know that we that might be potentially affected down the line that they you know clearly understand what what we're doing that we clearly understand what we're doing in terms of changing the zoning ordinance I mean today in 2017 these might be the only two sections right off route 99 you know that
▶ 42:22 Denise Gaffey: are allowable but you know if in six months you know somebody's home changes hands and a private daycare you know goes out of business that we're looking at some other residential neighborhood possibly being affected and and i don't know if that's the case or not the case right now but i want to make sure i do know what it is so just to be clear and maybe it's not clear yet it sounds like it's not i think the intent is to make it very clear that that corner the southeast corner with the bb district not the bb1 but the bb and the i district are the is the area so then we you i mean even though you have that you have the 500 foot buffer as well and we show those borders in the other business districts which was just part of the analysis in the study what we did um because
▶ 43:11 Monica C. Medeiros: and actually to be honest when we first started thinking about this we thought the medical district might be an appropriate place for it so that was where our where we started out when we were doing this analysis and then when we overlaid that buffer we realized well it just that's not going to work and then we really thought about all the the you know the uses and i understand we need to find some place where this is allowable because it is even though it's federally not legal it is allowable in the state and i mean i think you know i think a lot of people's opinions maybe have changed about where this might be acceptable or not acceptable considering that i know you know we're going to get into the recreational marijuana section of this in a short while but
▶ 43:53 Monica C. Medeiros: that if if the state doesn't take action in a certain amount of time and if we have if we have a medical marijuana facility operating and in place that you know at a certain point in time if the state hasn't made promulgated regulations that that can turn into a recreational right right so we were mindful of that and i think that is one of the other reasons why the planning board felt that you know this was this was a good location because we ultimately were thinking forward thinking and um in the sense was that having the recreational uses in our downtown is is not what what we wanted to endorse so thanks and yeah and so i just i mean i think probably the confusion is on my part is from you know there are very many gradations sure okay well
▶ 44:46 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: yeah and if it's confusing to me it's probably confusing to somebody else sure yeah we can clarify that thank you okay thank you alderman medeiros uh next in line we have alderman macatia margolis uh followed by mr sampson thank you mr chairman um thank you for your work on this and for your continuing effort to clarify it um in that vein um is that area that we're talking talking about on 99 the only BB district yes yes so if we just say you can only have it in the BB district yes well we will clarify that I when I said it was a little clunky because currently the way our zoning works the table says BB and it also says BB one right so it does look like yeah I think we just need to clarify that right so if it just says create a separate column that's the only
▶ 45:34 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: place in Melrose that we have a BB district that's designated as industrial whatever what's the other part of it that you made it BB and industrial BB and it's the only industrially right we have another industrial the smart growth overlay district is nice but it's not BB but we call that industrial I am I a right we gave that a different distinction as well right okay that's helpful going back to the signage and the name is there any regulations on the name I mean like you said you know you can't have like graphics and you can't you know make it but I mean if somebody wanted to call it you know the feel-good pot store they probably would have a hard time getting a letter from you know from the DPH or even from you know a letter from the from the mayor that's
▶ 46:25 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: part of this process you have to get so part the process would be basically that it would be Approval everything would have to go through the state in terms of they're regular allowing them to apply to Melrose even for a license and then once they get to Melrose let's go to the mayor presumably the Board of Health the building inspector police right right I mean certainly through this process we will be touching all of those different we don't know I believe Alderman's work Oh asked us if the Melrose police would be doing background checks or is that already done at the state level I think well he did ask that question we will find out for sure but I believe it's done at the state level okay and I'm also regarding the
▶ 47:07 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: nonprofit issue it it's actually not required as a nonprofit it's required as a not-for-profit and those are actually two different entities however like where I work is a nonprofit but we don't own the building so the landlord does pay property tax and as part of our lease we do share in that that but that is a you know lease arrangement that we have with the landlord so unless one of these entities was going to be purchasing a building and even as such as a not-for-profit I'm not quite sure if they're exempt as a nonprofit like a like a church would be for instance so but I do think it's it's certainly worth exploring whether or not we'd be taking something off the tax roles and and in that light also my understanding is that the medical
▶ 48:00 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: dispensaries we are not allowed to tax the revenue is that correct the tax would only be coming on the recreational use if there is a recreational use facility that eventually opens right I believe that is true yeah it's going to clarify I think each individual community can tax up to 2% maybe even more than maybe it's already 2% on for the recreational in addition to the state tax yeah yeah I don't think we would get any municipal revenue from medical unless we unless the city negotiated it through a host agreement I see okay all right that's that's also good to know and just to clarify the question about signage Aaron was just just pulled out the regulations from DPH and it does say that I'll read the language use of medical symbols images
▶ 48:57 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: of marijuana related paraphernalia and colloquial references to cannabis and marijuana are prohibited for use in any logos that are used okay so colloquial use would be something like I just said yeah they have a lot of they have a lot restrictions on signage okay so basically all of our regulations that you folks have been working so diligently on are just a little more tweaking of what the state is already gonna right they already have to comply with these before they even come to us right right and there's one other thing and I oh I just wondered in terms of signage and and the lights and the closing and open signs and whatnot who would be policing that would it would our Board of Board of Health inspectors be checking on that would it be our
▶ 49:56 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: building department zoning if it's a zoning requirement about about hours you know illumination only person went to the hours of operation that kind of thing that would be the building Commissioner I believe police that and there are adequate parcels down there now to incorporate such a facility there are there aren't many and there is a potential for outdoor cultivation does not seem to be restricted right right I think I think there is potential and is that something that the planning board discussed at all or would discuss in their special permitting process yes yes we would okay because I think that could be kind of like a whole other can of worms so I would just like to see possibly some language about that only based on where it would be cited and
▶ 50:57 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: yeah I mean I think if that is the only location that we want to designate that is probably what what is suits the community best I am concerned that we do have housing down there that is transient that is section 8 that you know I'm not crazy about the idea personally of having a facility such as that right across the street or right next door particularly if there's a potential for some kind of outdoor cultivation so i would like that to be um i'd like you to consider that going forward okay thank you mr chairman thank you waldeman macatia margolis next in queue we have mr sampson followed by president khan mr sampson please thank you um i just wanted to follow up on a couple of the comments um with respect to cultivation we did
▶ 51:55 consider that we discussed it a lot um the 5 000 square foot cap that we proposed was one response to the cultivation question because we thought it was far less likely that a facility could cultivate if it was limited to about the size of a doctor's office and then secondly um it does say that all in rmd shall be located and conduct all operations within an enclosed permanent structure So this would prohibit outdoor cultivation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sampson. President Kahn, please. I have three quick points and then I'm going to make a motion. Whether everybody likes this, doesn't like it, or is indifferent about it, it's a lawful use. And it's dangerous for us to have a lawful use that has no zoning district and
▶ 52:47 expressly prohibited so we need to we need to get some kind of an ordinance passed I think a special permit is the appropriate remedy 98% of the city is residential districts this is not a permitted use you can't get a special permit to have this use in a residential district you can only have this use in a bb or an i bb and i is route 99. not downtown not along railroad tracks not in my neighborhood not in your neighborhood that's the only district where it would be permitted it would not be permitted anywhere else were this to pass the other thing we need to be a little bit careful of i've appeared before the planning board in melrose many years ago on site plan review i've appeared in many other communities uh representing clients on site plan review you
▶ 53:42 Peter D. Mortimer: don't just walk in say i want this this this this there's a field in the back that's two acres wide there's a process we've all seen it the planning board works with the applicant and it imposes reasonable conditions so um i think we need to get something in place and let the planning board do its work and i would move if there's no other speakers that we retain this order in committee and request that the planning board proceed with their process second president khan has made a motion that we retain this order in committee and ask the planning board to advise us and they are required to do that within 21 days the full order has not been read at this time the motion was seconded by Alderman Inferna but I will read the motion at this time excuse me
▶ 54:38 Peter D. Mortimer: read the order at this time it's order 2 0 1 7 dash 1 3 0 amend revised zoning ordinances chapter 235 sections 235 dash 5 and 235 dash 16.2 to enact excuse me wrong order that's the that's the other order that we'll hear later tonight this This is the one that the public hearing is on. Order 2017-129, amend the revised zoning ordinances, chapter 235 for registered marijuana dispensary regulations as set forth herein. Once again, President Kahn has made a motion that we retain this in committee, duly seconded by Alderman Inferna. On discussion, is there any further discussion? Can I just make a request? You may, please. I would like to respectfully request that the alderman consider waiving the
▶ 55:36 Denise Gaffey: 21 day requirement and giving the board a little extra time because the board is going to meet again at the end of June on June 26 so it's likely the subcommittee will meet before then and then the full board will take up the report that we're going to issue back to the Board of Aldermen on the meeting of the 26th so that's just slightly beyond 21 days all right thank you very much what I will do is if there's no further discussion on this motion to retain it on committee I'm going to ask one of the aldermen to make a motion in accordance with your request for an extension so is there any further discussion on the main motion is there any further discussion on the main motion alderman in front of
▶ 56:20 Did you want to? Nope, I just was checking to see how many kind of extensions they want. All right, very good. Mr. Welsh, would you like to contribute? Just some clarification. Any of the cultivation centers that exist right now are high tech operations. They're not people growing their stuff out in their garden. It's done in literally a clean room kind of an environment. All right. And marijuana is grown to different grades depending on what doctors, well, they don't prescribe it, but they write notes for it, if you will. So it's all a very high-tech, very expensive operation for somebody to do. So I don't expect we would ever have to worry about somebody just growing pot like the hippies in Colorado used to do in their garden, you know?
▶ 57:10 Peter D. Mortimer: It's a very, very controlled cultivation, and even when it moves from cultivation into distribution, it goes through a counting room, almost like you would see in a casino, where there are people who do nothing but sit in a room and count exactly what it is and the grade, and so it's a pretty high-tech operation. Just comments on it. Thank you very much, Mr. Welsh, for your comments. Is there any further discussion on the main motion, which is to retain this order in committee? Seeing none, all in favor of retaining this order in committee, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, this order will be retained in committee. And motion to waiver the 21 day rule to 35 days. Second. Alderman Inferno has made a motion
▶ 58:03 Peter D. Mortimer: to extend the 21 day period to 35 days in accordance with the request made by our city planner, Ms. Gaffey. Said motion was duly seconded by Alderman Forbes. On discussion of that motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes and that extension is granted by the Board of Aldermen. The next order we have before us is Order 2017-130. to amend um the revised zoning ordinances chapter 235 235-5 and 235-16.2 to enact a temporary moratorium on recreational marijuana establishments as set forth here in is there a motion please the rules are suspended yeah we can hear we can hear uh conversation on this so we can make a motion please proceed miss gaffey sure so moratorium
▶ 59:16 Denise Gaffey: okay so this order is um recommending that the board of aldermen approve a zoning amendment to enact a temporary moratorium on the recreational marijuana use and um reasons for this are that the there's a lot of uncertainty right now anyone who's following the news knows this that there's a lot of activity going on at the state state legislative level and amongst the regulators about how exactly the ballot question which was Approval that last fall is going to translate into regulations and because of that uncertainty a lot of communities I think there are almost 80 now have either enacted a temporary moratorium or are in the process of enacting a temporary moratorium and we've also attended some
▶ 1:00:07 Denise Gaffey: workshops on this and that that have been led by state regulators who are recommending that this is a good approach to have the moratorium in place for the time being while the state officials work out the details of how this is going to look and and then we were being a better position to do to do are planning and have some regulatory controls much like we've just recommended for the medical use in place by sometime next year so we're suggesting a moratorium through december 31st of 2018 we've we've been told that this that date is is is an appropriate date and there would be no concern among state officials about that date many other communities are also issuing moratoriums through the end of 2018 um just to give us the time that we need to do the planning around this
▶ 1:01:03 Denise Gaffey: this use so that's essentially it um the the zoning amendment creates a definition for recreational marijuana establishments and this definition is based on the definition in the related to the ballot question and then we have language that creates the that outlines the purpose of the moratorium and the deadline for the moratorium period running through december 31st 2018 and that's essentially it thank you very much miss gaffey um alderman inferno beat alderman's worker by about one second please proceed alderman i was just going to make the motion to enact a temporary moratorium through december 31st 2018. point of order we can't do that we have to send this to the planning board that's good we also have this one right see this this is still part
▶ 1:01:58 Peter D. Mortimer: of the public hearing uh because this is a zoning ordinance okay we're still under the public hearing thank you at this point oh thank you alderman Zwirko please would a proper motion be a retaining committee it would be i would make such a motion second Zwirko has made a motion to retain this order and committee uh and it will be reported back to us by the uh planning board uh would you probably in that same time on that too all right we'll handle that motion shortly but um on this motion to retain the order on committing on discussion we have alderman Medeiros please thank you mr chairman i just uh we may not have anybody from the public here wishing to speak about this portion but i think it would be prudent of us to reopen the public portion of the public
▶ 1:02:47 Peter D. Mortimer: hearing since to for any members of the public to speak on this order specifically 2017-130 the moratorium on the recreational use uh that seems uh like a fine idea i think we kind of covered it but in the uh interest of having complete public participation um i will exceed to your request ladies would you step back there's a motion on the floor there's a motion on the floor to retain this in committee that's correct um he has who seconded alderman's workers motion mr chairman would you withdraw your second tip for the time being i i will withdraw my second thank you very much uh alderman forbes would you re i would draw your motion temporarily on this worker i will thank you very much sir So now, are there any members of the public wishing to come forward and
▶ 1:03:45 Peter D. Mortimer: talk about the temporary moratorium? Seeing none, ladies, would you join us back at the table, please? Would you care to renew your motion, Alderman Tuerko? I would, thank you. Motion to retain. Care to renew your second? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So now we're in the public hearing still for the Alderman and members of the planning board regarding the temporary moratorium. We're still under the public hearing. Alderman McAteer-Margolis, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So my only question is, what if the state comes up with appropriate regulations and decides before December 8th, 2018, how they want to allow this to be done? right well we'll still have a moratorium in place and we won't be in non-compliant we won't be in
▶ 1:04:35 Denise Gaffey: non-compliance from what we're being told i mean i think i think that is a goal of theirs to have those regulations in place by maybe it's june or july we're kind of expecting by the spring that they'll they'll have more clarity um which will be when we as a planning board can get back together on this and start to talk talk about you know we're you know how we're going to regulate it but right now we really can't do that with too much with so much uncertainty okay but you would not worry any um pushback from not having from continuing the moratorium after the date of the state approvals no we're not okay all right thank you mr chairman thank you alderman makatia margolis are there any further aldermen or members of the planning board wishing to be heard on this motion
▶ 1:05:29 Peter D. Mortimer: Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, this order will be retained in committee. Is there a motion? Motion to extend the review period to 35 days. Second. Alderman Aferna has made a motion to extend the review period to 35 days. Said motion was duly seconded by Alderman McAteer-Margolis. On discussion, please. Seeing none, we'll have the vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, the period for you to report back to us will be extended to 35 days. Is there a motion to adjourn the public hearing, please? So moved, Mr. Chairman. Alderman Forbes has made a motion to adjourn the public hearing, duly seconded by Alderman Inferno. All in favor of adjourning the public hearing, please say aye.
▶ 1:06:18 Peter D. Mortimer: Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, the public hearing is hereby adjourned. Is there a motion to adjourn the committee on appropriations, please? So moved. Second. Alderman McAteer-Margolis has made a motion to adjourn the Committee on Appropriations, duly seconded by Alderman Inferna. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, the Committee on Appropriations is hereby adjourned. Thank you, one and all. Thank you.