JOINT SALEM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 12/4/12
A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall, Council Chambers, Second Floor, at 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Randy Clarke, Tim Ready, Mark George. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: George McCabe, Lewis Beilman, and Helen Sides.
City Council President Joan Lovely opened the meeting at 7:00 pm.
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Draft ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance definition of medical clinics
President Lovely reviewed the wording of the zoning amendment in question in regards to zoning for medical marijuana dispensaries. She asked Chuck Puleo to introduce the members of the Planning Board, which he did.
Beth Rennard, City Solicitor, gave an overview of the ordinance. She gave the history of the ordinance, referring to the medical clinic amendment passed last year, and saying this revision would specify that medical marijuana facilities would be included. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH) has been developing regulations and there will not be any licensed marijuana dispensaries until January of 2014, hence they want to address how these facilities will be treated if they come before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Council President Lovely asked Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, to review what zones these dispensaries could go in, to which Ms. Duncan described the areas.
Councilor Sosnowski stated his support for the new wording.
Councilor Furey spoke about the devastation caused by drug abuse. He thinks a hospital should take over this and asked Ms. Duncan if a hospital could take this over in terms of the current zoning. She stated that the hospital is currently zoned mostly residential and they are looking at adjusting their own zoning. Councilor Furey then asked Ms. Rennard what she thought and she responded that Ms. Duncan’s explanation was accurate and the head of the hospital has spoken with the city about changing the zoning.
Councilor Prevey asked what dispensaries look like and how these places would operate. Ms. Rennard said that it is too early to tell as they are waiting on the MADPH to promulgate regulations and she could not speculate.
Councilor O’Keefe asked if a dispensary is defined in the statute, to which Ms. Rennard said she was not sure, but she would have to look.
Councilor Carr asked if they would be held to the state requirements to which Ms. Rennard cited a case in Michigan where a town tried to prohibit the dispensaries and they found that the state law preempted the town stating that the state had a right to protect the health and welfare of its residents but local governments can make further regulations. Councilor Carr noted that this conflicts with federal law.
Councilor Turiel stated that society is moving towards a greater acceptance of these dispensaries. He thinks the solution is an effective one; more to the point, this is the better path to take. He also noted the conflicts in law between city and state.
President Lovely described the business district in her neighborhood, and she asked Ms. Duncan what is to prevent someone from opening a dispensary next to a home that is built in a business district. Ms. Duncan responded that if there is to be a proposed dispensary, there would be a discretionary permit by the Board of Appeals and used last year’s proposed methadone clinic as an example. She also noted that the methadone clinic did not go forward due to conflicts in traffic generation and children walking to school. The Board of Appeals could deny due to the location of homes. Ms. Rennard said that this may be a two step process in terms of the issuing of the regulations and how this will impact zoning.
Counilor Sargent it’s not unusual for communities to put in required distances between certain business and residences it’s important to think about that.
Councilor Carr asked Ms. Rennard what controls would be in place at a local level to which Ms. Rennard stated that there is a county limit and a state limit.
Councilor McCarthy then asked Ms. Rennard about an outright ban. Ms. Rennard responded that in her opinion that cities and towns can enact ordinances but not those that conflict with a general law and a ban would be such a conflict.
Councilor O’Keefe stated that there is no age restriction in the current law, and he feels that there is a flaw in the law. He disagrees with the law, but it was overwhelmingly approved in Salem. He feels that they should wait until they hear more from the state before making a decision.
President Lovely opened the topic up to members of the audience. She asked for members of the audience in favor of the ordinance to raise their hand and come to the podium to speak.
Terry Kalgren, owner of Artemesia Botanicals, 3 Hawthorne Blvd., says that she has customers in need of pain relief who talk about the benefits of medical marijuana. These are not people who are looking for gateway drugs. She has a customer that is sick with Parkinson’s Disease and cancer and the marijuana has helped her. She hates to think about people who are in pain being denied this.
Mark George asked Ms. Rennard for clarification on the law, specifically if it is for the cultivation in addition to distribution to which she responded in the affirmative.
Randy Clarke asked if it is correct that the referendum gives the responsibility of developing regulations for marijuana dispensaries to MADPH to which Ms. Rennard said yes. His second question asked how this would differentiate from a local pharmacy. Ms. Rennard stated that the way a clinic is defined is in the ordinance and noted that this is strictly a dispensary. Ms. Rennard recommended waiting for MADPH’s regulations.
Councilor Carr asked what is the urgency is to move forward tonight. Ms. Rennard stated that she does not see urgency, though she was contacted by one of the other councilors to address this. She feels that they have language in place that they feel is sufficient for the moment. Councilor Carr said he would not support this tonight but may support it down the road.
Councilor Turiel said he thinks the currently-worded amendment is a good start for the time being. If the regulations take shape, then at that time they can make the rules stricter once they come out. This gives us the ability to regulate the treatment centers, of which there will be five in Essex County, and he thinks it’s a good idea.
Councilor Sosnowski noted that all they are doing is inserting a piece of wording into the ordinance and asked why can’t this go to a drug store as this is going to be a prescribed drug by a licensed physician. He recommended that they should have one or two leading pharmacies be the distributor.
Councilor McCarthy asked if based on the regulation, it could not be CVS, to which Ms. Rennard said that was correct because it has to be run by a non-profit entity.
Councilor Sosnowski said that they cannot refer this out to the Planning Board as that will start the clock ticking and if they really want to hear more of this from the state, then they should keep it in committee.
Councilor Ryan stated that they are thinking about this way too early. He doesn’t have a problem making it more specific but they don’t know what the state is going to do.
Councilor Sosnowski reviewed the timeline of reviewing and adjudicating the ordinance. He asked for Ms. Duncan to comment on the timeline.
Ms. Duncan stated that from the close of the public hearing, the Planning Board has 21 days to report back to the City Council and then the city council has 90 days to report back.
Council President Lovely then asked for members in the audience who were opposed to the ordinance to raise their hand and come to the podium to speak.
Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, she is in the middle because she does not know what the law means. She does not have all that great trust in the state. She thinks that our children are the future and they are imbibing in marijuana that is laced and she is not sure that this will help the situation.
Councilor McCarthy moved to close hearing and moved that hearing be adjourned. Approved 8-2.
Councilor Sosnowski moved that this issue be moved to the Planning Board for recommendation. 10-0. All approved.
Meeting adjourned at 7:44pm.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 12/20/12
| 
