===OCR macOS Vision===
===PAGE 1===
Board of Selectmen: Jamie Toale, Chairman; Damon McQuaid, Vice Chairman, Katey Adams,
Member
Board of Selectmen Member not present: Phyllis Luck, Clerk
Planning Board Members present: Matthew Allison, Chairman, David Prokowiew, Tanner Cole
Planning Board members absent: Kenneth Chenis, Paula Bertram
Park Commission Members present: Karin Menard, Susanna Jewell
Also Present: Heather Lemieux, Town Manager; Adam Burney, Land Use Director; Jack
Rodriquenz, DPW Director; Alex Lind, Anthony Caiozzo, Aiden Swift, Gregory Roy
The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Toale invited the Planning Board to call their meeting to order.
RECEIVED & FILED
1. PUBLIC COMMENT:
There was none from the Board members or the public.
Il. ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements this evening.
FEB 06 2019
LUNENBURG TOWN
CLERK OFFICE
I. WORKSHOP
JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING BOARD
A. Ballot question regarding prohibition of sale of recreational marijuana
Land Use Director Adam Burney reported in March of this year, the Cannabis Control
Commission promulgated their final regulations. In doing so, they solidified the position of c.
94G, §1 which is the law for adult use of marijuana and that communities that wish to prohibit
marijuana establishments, any or all within their community who voted yes on the ballot
question #4 in 2016, are required to memorialize by town meeting vote and ballot vote. In the
Planning Board's initial conversations and research into what people in the community want,
they started reaching out and asking people where they want to regulate it and want it located.
There was a reasonable amount of people who came out and said they would like to prohibit
marijuana establishments in the community for a variety of different purposes. The Planning
Board took that under advisement and discussed and felt both prohibition and regulation was a
prudent course of action. What they would do was have a regulatory bylaw. Both the prohibitior
and the regulations will be presented at Town meeting. The adoption of the regulations is
imperative, even with the passage of prohibition, as should the ballot initiatives fail, the zoning
bylaws would govern the location of marijuana establishments in Lunenburg.
The Board is here tonight to discuss with the Selectmen the option of placing five ballot questions
that could prohibit each type of "marijuana establishment" that could be permitted. The five
questions cover cultivation, manufacturing, testing facilities, retail, and transportation.
===PAGE 2===
Ms. Adams believes as question #4 was in 2016, a new election should take place to gauge the
current desires of the citizens. She supports prohibition and feels there could be other avenues for
economic development.
Mr. McQuaid remarked that the reality he sees is that marijuana users will use it whether or not
they obtain it legally or not. If through a retailer, one knows the product has been tested and the
Town will benefit financially and ensures the money is not going to drug cartels.
Mr. McQuaid asked the Planning Board members if they will recommend or not. Mr. Cole stated
we did not feel question #4 accurately reflected all of the nuances that go along with putting
marijuana uses in town and we should give the voters the option to vote. Mr. Prokowiew stated we
believe giving people the option to either prohibit it or accept these regulations and that is what
we are recommending to the voters.
Mr. Toale stated the role of the Planning Board is to prepare for the eventuality that it may be legal
and to make sure that the unintended consequences are considered. You have spent an incredible
amount of time trying to do that and in fact you were able to get a moratorium passed so that in
case it was not prohibited, it was well-regulated. Further discussion ensued around the 2016 state
Mr. Burney reiterated that the Board is looking at six articles for town meeting; five for prohibition
and one for regulations. He believes that the Planning Board will recommend passing of all six
articles and then have the ballot questions affirm or deny the first five prohibition articles. So all
of it would get passed at once, there would be regulations in place at the same time as the
prohibition and the ballot would be the determining factor as to whether each prohibition article
passes.
Mr. Allison stated he did not believe it was the Planning Board's place to support or advocate for
one or the other. The Planning Board is attempting to regulate what was legalized by the State.
As Lunenburg was a "yes" community, both town meeting vote and a ballot initiative are
required. He stated we don't have many people come to the meetings, but Town Meeting will be
packed because this is such a hot topic.
Ms. Adams was in agreement with the Planning Board and feels the choice should be given to
the citizens. Mr. Cole felt the 2016 vote was significantly different from what the citizens would
be voting on now.
Mr. Toale stated his only concern was that a lot of citizens voted already and a small number of
citizens attended a couple of Planning Board meetings and have recommended prohibition. This
was on our agenda tonight; there's nobody here to say anything. I am probably going to vote to
put this on the ballot; I just want to ensure its what the Town wants.
Mr. McQuaid reiterated that he feels the Planning Board should make a recommendation at town
meeting. As a town planner, there has got to be some impact that you see on the town, good or
bad, and I would think you would want to express that to the town.
===PAGE 3===
considering this; he encouraged Ms. Adams not to make the motion this evening. Ms. Adams
stated she made the motion. Mr. Toale asked for a second. Mr. McQuaid stated he was not
prepared to vote tonight, he would like Ms. Luck to be present There was not a second to the
motion. Mr. Toale stated he would like to place this on the agenda again with the full Board. He
invited the Planning Board to come back. He repeated he does want to know what the town
wants. Mr. Toale noted our moratorium has not been approved by the Attorney General yet. Do
we have a backup plan if it is not? Mr. Burney stated we expect to hear back from the Attorney
General's office in early March. Mr. Toale stated he thought the Planning Board is doing an
outstanding job with the regulations. He asked for any public comment at this point.
Karin Menard, Parks Commissioner, stated she was in agreement with the Planning Board. But
even though she voted "yes" on Question #4, there were parts she supported and parts she didn't.
She believed it was important for people to have a choice at the ballot.
a. Capital plan request for updating the Master Plan
This item was tabled for a future discussion with the Planning Board because they did not list it
on their meeting agenda.
The Planning Board adjourned their meeting.
B. JOINT MEETING WITH PARKS COMMISSION
a. Discussion on Skate Park Committee
Park Commissioners Menard and Jewell came forward. Ms. Lemieux reported the Parks
Commission expressed concerns at their meeting about the skate park last week so they have
been invited tonight to discuss further. Mr. Toale invited the Skate Park Committee to come
forward as well. Ms. Menard stated the students had approached them in February with their
presentation. At that point we absolutely supported it, the funding mentioned was $100,000 and a
location had not yet been decided upon. As the months progressed the project grew and then the
Board of Selectmen agreed to a piece of property for them to use. We are greatly concerned now
that it is a 10,000 square foot skate park; it is much larger then we as a commission would like to
see. The location is concerning for a couple of reasons. My concern is parking. We would like to
discuss this with all parties now so six months from now we don't say this is not what we want.
Anthony Caiozzo, 1091 Massachusetts Avenue, stated when the skate park committee
approached them in February, we had done research on demographics and the use of the facility
and came up with an area of 7,500 square feet at a cost of $250,000 which was a rough
approximation. That is pretty much what we presented to the Selectmen two months later.
Ms. Menard asked the Board if they were in support of the current size. Her research in the past
week found a skate park of that size could support a population of 25,000 people. As a Parks
Commissioner I represent the people of Lunenburg and my job is to deal with parks-related
===PAGE 4===
She would rather not see a destination skate park in this town. Discussion about scaling down the
size, future maintenance, long term costs, lack of available green space and parking ensued.
Mr. Toale stated when the students first came forward it was much smaller and the Police Chief
had recommended a place with high visibility for safety reasons. He stated he now has concerns
as the project is growing bigger and more expensive. Ms. Menard stated she did not believe any
of the commissioners don't want this project moving forward because what these young men
have brought to the table has so much worth to it. But she also wanted them to know as a town
we have limited resources. There is still the cost of long-term maintenance. Ms. Menard would
like the skate park committee to go back to the rest of the members and express the Park
Commissioners concerns and look for an alternate location.
Mr. McQuaid stated he still believed it was the best location safety-wise. One thing he had
suggested before was to pick a design that can be easily phased. Start small.
The skate park committee will do some more research on other parks and demographics and
return to the Park Commissioners. Ms. Menard stated the Parks Commission should have a
discussion with the Senior Center about parking and any other concerns. Mr. McQuaid asked
them to consider times of use for all facilities and how parking is affected.
Ms. Menard believed there is a compromise for all. Mr. Caiozzo asked for all to send their
questions and concerns to the students so they can address them. Mr. Roy stated when we get to
the part when we can pick a designer who can provide actual figures, we will provide a
comprehensive report. We understand your concerns and this collaborative effort. He believed
they could do some things to aid with parking in the area.
Ms. Lemieux reported MRPC will be conducting a parking study of the town center this spring.
The Park Commissioners adjourned their meeting.
V. CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Minutes/ Warrants/ Action File Issues
The Board signed an accounts payable warrant in the amount of $553,525.91, a payroll warrant
in the amount of $879,649. 64 and a deductions warrant in the amount of $578,528.18. There
were no minutes or action items.
2. Committee Reports
Ms. Adams reported she attended the MRC meeting this past Thursday. She stated they are
currently accepting submissions for sidewalk grants under the Safe Routes to School
Infrastructure. Ms. Lemieux reported the town is only eligible for the Primary School under that
program. Other schools can apply but they have to be in the program at least six months before
they are eligible for grant money. She believed School Supt. Burnham is working with the
Principals on that.
===PAGE 5===
Ms. Adams stated when we have an opportunity to bring a vote, we like to question whether or
not we want to and we have the opportunity to invite other Boards, we want to make sure that we
don't. This current Board seems to operate on a really small vision of what they want and I just
think any opportunity you can invite and include increased participation, you are going to have
an outcome that reflects what the town wants and not what a group does. She asked if the Chair
had plans for the town center to present them at the beginning of the next workshop.
Mr. McQuaid stated we are the ones who are supposed to form an opinion and ask the town
if they want to support it or not. If you want to have a town meeting every single week and have
everybody vote on everything, I don't know what we are doing here.
Ms. Lemieux stated one of the board's goals is to adopt an action plan for activities during FY19
dealing with the five municipal buildings. Ms. Adams noted we also have a goal on
communication so when we take action on these things, we need to communicate. Ms. Lemieux
agreed communication is important but we should also have a schedule for the remainder of the
year for activities on this topic.
Motion: D. McQuaid
To adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
2n°: K. Adams
Vote: All in Favor
Respectfully submitted,
Elainem Peterson
Elaine M. Peterson
Executive Assistant to the Town Manager
===PAGE 6===
Adam R. Burney
Land Use Director
28
Fax: (978) 582-4353
960 Massachusetts Avenue
Innenburg, MA 01462
DIB
INCORPORA
MEMORANDUM
Date:
11 December 2018
To:
From:
Jamie Toale, Chair
Board of Selectmen
Adam R. Burner, Land Use Director
RE:
Adult Use Marijuana Prohibition Ballot Questions
Article 16 on the 18 November 2018 Special Town Meeting was proposed by the Planning Board to extend the
Moratorium on Non-Medical Adult Use Marijuana Establishments until the end of May 2019. This article was the
result of the Planning Board's approach to the question of "are non-medical adult use marijuana establishments
desired in the Town of Lunenburg?"
As you are aware the Planning Board initially proposed the moratorium in May of 2017 in response to the passage of
Massachusetts Legalization, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana Initiative. The initial moratorium was
intended to provide the Planning Board with adequate time to reasonably review the regulations promulgated by the
yet to be established Cannabis Control Commission. At the time the moratorium was established the timeline being
proposed had final regulations being released in March or April of 2018. This would not allow the Planning Board
adequate time to review these regulations, establish a reasonable approach to how these regulations would apply to
Lunenburg and carry out a planning process to create zoning regulations. For this reason, the Planning Board
proposed the moratorium be in place until the end of November 2018.
the Planning Board discussed the merits of prohibition and regulation there was a thoughtful decision that the
citizens of Inmenbug should be offered both options. As Lunenburg was a "jes community" in the 2016 ballot it is
required to hold a local ballot vote on the prohibition of any or all marijuana establishments. It was initially
thought that the November ballot would be an ideal time to do this as it was in close proximity to when Special Town
Meeting is held and would allow for the citizens to voice their support or opposition to the location of marijuana
establishments in Lunenburg. In discussing this option with the Town Clerk the Board was informed that the
placement of local initiatives was not permitted on statewide ballots.
With the information that it would not be permitted to include the question on marijuana establishments on the
ballot the Planning Board discussed the matter and determined that it would more appropriate to extend the
moratorium with the intent of presenting regulation and prohibition concurrently at the Annual Town Meeting in
May of 2019. This was buttressed by the Board scheduling specific discussion forums on the proposed regulations for
each of the license classes currently being issued by the Cannabis Control Commission. Draft regulations are slated to
be released in January of 2019 and will be the subject of a series of public meetings culminating in a Publie Hearing
in early March as in required under M. G.L. 40A.
===PAGE 7===
ARTICLE 1
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Code of Lunenburg, to modify $250-4.1 by inserting 9250-4.10(1)
Marijuana Cultivator; or take any other action relative thereto.
NON-MEDICAL
4.10
MARIJUANA USES
RA
RB
LB/R
OP/L
VCD
4.10(1)
, Marijuana cultivator"
-
-
-
-
3. Per G.L. c. 94G, § 3(a)(2), marijuana cultivators, as defined by G.L. c. 94G, § 1, are prohibited within the Town of Lunenburg
but expressly excluding Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers. Said prohibition shall be effective only upon passage by the
voters at a regular or special Town election.
4.10(1) "Marijuana cultivator", an entity licensed to cultivate, process and package marijuana, to
deliver marijuana to marijuana establishments and to transfer marijuana to other marijuana
establishments, but not to consumers.
QUESTION 2
Shall the Town adopt the following By-Law?
[By vote of the Board of Selectmen, the aforesaid question may be added to the ballot. What follows
the question must be: (i) a fair and concise summary of the By-Laws specifying that, if adopted, no
marijuana manufacturer establishments will be permitted to operate in Lunenburg; and (ii) the text of
the By-Laws themselves, above.]
ARTICLE 2:
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Code of Lunenburg, to modify §250-4.1 by inserting $250-4.10(2)
Marijuana Product Manufacturer; or take any other action relative thereto.
NON-MEDICAL
4,10
MARIJUANA USES
RA
RB
LB/R
OP/L
R:
VCD
SS
Varijuana produc
10(2) | manufacture
4. Per G.L. c. 94G, § 3(a)(2), marijuana product manufacturers, as defined by G.L. c. 94G, § 1, are prohibited within the Town of
Lunenburg but expressly excluding Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers. Said prohibition shall be effective only upon passage
by the voters at a regular or special Town election.
4.10(2) "Marijuana product manufacturer", an entity licensed to obtain, manufacture, process and
package marijuana and marijuana products, to deliver marijuana and marijuana products to
marijuana establishments and to transfer marijuana and marijuana products to other marijuana
establishments, but not to consumers.
===PAGE 8===
the By-Laws themselves, above.J
ARTICLE 5:
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Code of Lunenburg, to modify §250-4.1 by inserting $250-4.10(5)
Marijuana Retailer; or take any other action relative thereto
4.10(5) | Marijuana transporter
6. Per G.L. c. 94G, § 3(a)(2), marijuana transporter, as defined by G.L. c. 94G, § 1, are prohibited within the Town of Lunenburg
but expressly excluding Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers. Said prohibition shall be effective only upon passage by the
voters at a regular or special Town election.
4.10(5) "Marijuana Transporter" an entity, not otherwise licensed by the Commission, that is licensed to
purchase, obtain, and possess cannabis or marijuana product solely for the purpose of transporting,
temporary storage, sale and distribution to Marijuana Establishments, but not to consumers. Marijuana
Transporters may be an Existing Licensee Transporter or Third Party Transporter.
===PAGE 9===
provisions of the Loning Bylaw to address the impact and operation of recreational marijuana
establishments and marijuana retailers and related uses." Clearly, the task is not to advocate for
complete prohibition of marijuana establishments in Lunenburg.
Second, although the BOS does have the power/authority to propose a warrant article and ballot
question to the residents to prohibit marijuana in Lunenburg, such a decision should be based on a firm
belief that a significant number of residents want such a warrant article be put to the town. The facts of
the matter appear to indicate otherwise:
a. The Town voted in favor of legalizing recreational Marijuana in the state ballot.
One would hope that the voter support of legalization was just that. There is no
evidence that it was "yes, just not in my back yard"
, although some would have you
believe, without any evidence to back up this claim, that this is the case.
b. Where is the compelling evidence that the town now wants to prohibit marijuana?
A significant number of Lunenburg voters participated in the State election/decision. It
is likely that a smaller number will participate in Town Meeting and the subsequent
vote. There should be a very compelling reason and data to support re-voting this,
where fewer voices will most likely be heard from.
Does the Planning Board support Prohibition? If yes, what in their impact analysis would support a
complete prohibition? Can the PB share the status or conclusions of the impact analysis?
The PB conducted a survey, to which 152 residents responded:
• Only 38% felt that all use categories should be prohibited.
• 62% felt that none of the use categories should be prohibited.
• Only 23% felt that cultivation should be prohibited
• 77% felt that cultivation should not be prohibited
Marijuana could be a significant source of new economic development and revenue for the Town. Since
the Town has already spoken in favor of recreational marijuana, there are, in my view, sound reasons
the BOS would not initiate a process to ban it.
• The Town can impose additional local taxes on retail establishments, increasing the Town's
revenue.
• Local jobs would be created.
• Development/businesses in industrial areas could help fund needed infrastructure and
encourage other types of commercial development which would result in additional taxes
• In prior Economic Development charets, ease of access to goods and services was a key desire of
the community, this is just another consumer product that our residents may desire.
===PAGE 10===
1) Those who claim to be against marijuana because it makes available "another vice" should set their
sights on cigarettes, alcohol and VAP, which are already known to be more harmful and dangerous
than marijuana, and are available at many locations in this community.
2) Increased local access: only legal purchase of marijuana is allowed; residents who want to purchase
it will do so in a neighboring community if is not available locally.
I regret not being available for this workshop. I will certainly make sure to make it known well in
advance of future workshops, once announced, if/when I anticipate being unable to participate. I feel
for workshops, in particular, it is far better for all BOS members' voices to be a part of the discussion.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING THIS INPUT AS A HANDOUT AND INSURING THAT THESE POINTS ARE A PART
OF THIS IMPORTANT DISCUSSION.
Phyllis