JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD
A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Planning Board was held in the Council Chamber on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. for the purpose of discussing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relative to Section 10.0 Definitions, by inserting the phrase “including the dispensing of medical marijuana by a treatment center registered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health”. Notice of this meeting was posted on November 29, 2012 at 5:11 P.M. and advertised in the Salem News on November 20th & November 27th, 2012.
Councillor Siegel was recorded as absent.
President Joan B. Lovely presided.
President Lovely - introduced the members of the Planning Board.
City Planner Lynn Duncan, Danielle McKnight Planning Dept., Board members Randy Clark, Mark George, John Moustakis, Charles Puleo and Timothy Ready.
Solicitor Elizabeth Rennard - told how this amendment came about when she was approached by a City Councillor to write an ordinance relative to the new law for Medical Marijuana clinics which goes into effect January 1, 2013.
Councillor Lovely - asked where can a clinic go in the city?
Lynn Duncan City Planner - responded they could get a special permit and go in a Business Zone.
Councillor Sosnowski - stated this is the third time things of this nature have come before us. First the adult zone then the methadone clinic now this. He is in favor of amending the zoning ordinance to include this.
Councillor Furey - stated that he has adopted 5 children and that he believes this is a health and safety issue. This referendum deserves action. This is a serious problem but that we have to fill the will of the voters. He stated he would like to see hospitals take over these facilities. He asked the Planner if this could be done.
Lynn Duncan City Planner - stated that Salem Hospital is in a residential zone, they would need to be rezoned.
Solicitor Rennard - stated that this is accurate but also that the Hospital has approached the city to be rezoned.
Councillor Prevey - asked the Solicitor what would these facilities be like? Are they strickly for Marijuana?
Solicitor Rennard - stated it’s to early to tell. The State still is working on the regulation.
Councillor Prevey - asked do we know if it has to be overseen by doctors?
Solicitor Rennard - stated non profit entities.
Councillor O’Keefe - asked if the law stated Medical physicians are the only ones who can prescribe marijuana?
Solicitor Rennard - state yes
Councillor O’Keefe - asked if the word dispensary is part of the new law?
Solicitor Rennard - responded that she was not sure.
Councillor Carr - stated that Councillor Sosnowski brought up a good point he then asked the Solicitor about the Federal Law regarding Marijuana and could you not allow the clinics here.
Solicitor Rennard - State law trumps Federal Law if it is more restrictive, she stated Michigan had a case where a local town wrote an ordinance to not allow but found out State Law trumped Federal Law due to the health and welfare of its inhabitants.
Councillor Turiel - stated what we have here is a good solution for the moment. The public seems to believe the medical use has merit. This amendment is a good solution.
Councillor Lovely - asked Ms. Duncan are medical clinics allowed in residential districts as well as businesses? What prevents them form opening in a neighborhood business district?
Lynn Duncan City Planner - stated that the proposed dispensary would go before the Board of Appeals for a Special permit which could be denied due to traffic or children walking to school. So a neighborhood could be looked at. Also the current ordinance using the dispensaries covers it. This new ordinance for definitions tightens it up.
Solicitor Rennard - stated she is still waiting for the State to issue the regulations which may take care of it.
Councillor Sargent - stated it’s not unreasonable to use that they have to be so many feet away.
Councillor Carr - asked what controls would be in place to monitor dispensaries to operate.
Solicitor Rennard - stated that the law allows for 5 dispensaries per county and 35 dispensaries state wide.
Councillor McCarthy - it seems a summary of what other communities are considering are bans which in your opinion is not allowed.
Solicitor Rennard - stated that outright prohibition is in conflict with State Law.
Councillor Carr - feels the argument is with Federal Law
Councillor O’Keefe - stated that in reading the new law online there is no age restriction in the law for who can be medically prescribed.
Solicitor Rennard - stated that we don’t know what recommendations for regulations are yet. We should wait for the Legislature before we make changes.
APPEARING IN FAVOR WERE THE FOLLOWING:
Terry Kalgren, owner of an herb shop on Hawthorne Blvd. - stated that she has customers that have issues with pain and they can’t function. If this has proven to help people I hate to see this tinkered with. Most of these customers are between the ages of 50 to 70.
Randy Clark Planning Board Member – asked does this new law also allow to cultivate as well as sell?
Solicitor Rennard - stated yes.
Randy Clark – stated that cultivating and dispensing are two different things.
Timothy Ready Planning Board Member – asked a referendum has to set up regulations correct?
Solicitor Rennard - stated yes.
Timothy Ready - asked is there anything that stops them like being like a CVS?
Solicitor Rennard - stated CVS has retail as well as dispensary, the law states non-profit.
Councillor Carr – this is too soon to tell, what’s the urgency to move on it tonight?
Solicitor Rennard - stated she was contacted by a Councillor to draft this amendment.
Councillor Carr - stated he is not prepared to support this.
Councillor Turiel – stated the amendment is a good way to cover bases. After the regulations are done we can always come back and tweak the ordinance. This puts something in place.
Councillor Sosnowski – stated there is no rush but this is generic. No harm in doing it the state still has to regulate it. He asked why this can’t go to a drug store?
Councillor McCarthy - stated it could not go to a drug store because it has to be non-profit.
Solicitor Rennard - concurred.
Councillor McCarthy - stated this process could take 90 days
Councillor Sosnowski - stated the clock starts if the hearing is closed.
Councillor Ryan - stated the current ordinance should be sufficient but we want to know where it goes. If we leave it as is were ok but this is early.
Councillor Sosnowski - stated the process starts
Lynn Duncan City Planner - commented on the time line stating that if the hearing is closed the clock starts. The planning board has 21 days to make a recommendation to the City Council. The city Council has 90 days to finalize through both passages.
APPEARING IN OPPOSITION WERE THE FOLLOWING:
Teasie Riley Goggin 9 Wisteria St. – stated she is on the fence about this new law. She it’s supposed to be for medicinal help but thinks the law is not what it’s meant to be. Leave it to the State it doesn’t work for me.
No one else was recorded as opposed.
Councillor Sosnowski moved that the hearing be closed. It was so voted by a vote of 8 yeas, 2 opposed.
Councillor Sosnowski moved that the matter be referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation. It was so voted.
On the motion of Councillor O’Keefe the meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M.
ATTESTED: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK
| 
