##VIDEO ID:3YYz3Joeen4## welcome to the zoning subcommittee of the Rivier city council October 21st 2024 all rise and salute the flag please I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all rooll Club the members of the zoning subcommittee councelor Gino SAA here here councelor Kelly here here councel noeli here here councelor sylvestri here here Council zambuto I mean chairman zambuto here Quorum is present there's one matter tonight on the agenda this is a zoning subcommittee's meeting for the purpose of discussing amendments offered by counselors pass hero and Kelly relative to the following proposed zoning ordinance a zoning ordinance establishing definitions uses special permit District boundaries and regulations for marijuana establishments before we get started I want to have a few ground rules here this meeting is not tonight about who's against marijuana we we've heard from most of you that you're against marijuana the reason for this meeting tonight is to vote on amendments to the uh to just strictly vote on amendments we're not discussing whether marijuana is good or bad or any of that we're discussing boundaries for the map uh should the council vote uh in the next meeting for to repeal the law that's in place and to and to go forward with this Mar we're putting uh some guidelines in place here tonight so I will allow people to speak on the Amendments only if you want to do that but I don't want to hear that you're against marijuana or for marijuana it's that's not what this is about so uh that's that's where we're at here and and so we're going to try to go forward or in an orderly manner and um I think we'll uh we'll take each Amendment separately and I think I'll take comments on each Amendment Madam clerk where do we go councilor Kelly submitted some proposed amendments she actually uh submitted a revised um buffer zone from a th000 to 600 feet I believe every Committee Member received a copy of that I don't know councelor Kelly did you want to go through each one by one there thank you so the First Amendment basically just um seeks to exclude a section of the southern side of squire Road this section of Squire Road is very unique in that it allows for General business districts and Highway business districts to directly abut a densely populated family oriented residential neighborhood with absolutely no buffer zone therefore I'm asking that it be excluded from the list of permissible locations for recreational marijuana use establishments um and I'd also like to point out that the planning board reviewed this amendment and also voted favorably a favorable they had a favorable recommendation on it um that's it I I just ask that we vote favorably on this tonight thank you anyone else on the this particular Amendment everybody seems to be in agreement with this do we want to vote on this you can do a vote you can do a roll call it's up to you let's have a roll call shall the zoning subcommittee approve the amendment to the proposed recre marijuana zoning as follows SE section proposed section 171 16480 section A1 entitled GB districts subsections a b and c shall be deleted in its entirety subsections D and F shall be releted as a b and c accordingly on that Amendment councelor greo SAA no no councelor Kelly yes yes councelor noeli no no councel sylvestri no no and chairman Zim buo yes yes the amendment is approve I'm sorry the the amendment fails president I'd like some clarification apparently councilor sylvestri believes that this amendment speaks to the entire southern side of Squire Road that is not what the amendment is speaking to the amendment is speaking to um three locations at the side of the beginning side of Squire Road the portion of Squire Road beginning at Patriots Parkway past um the fish market area is not included in this list as an excluded area I'd like to make that classification and um maybe we should have another roll call because the councelor Misunderstood the amendment thank you the zoning sub committee would have to vote to reconsider the prior vote I will vote to reconsider it she she I second okay shall the zoning subcommittee reconsider the last vote that was taken all in favor all opposed so AED yeah can we be more specific on what's included and what's not included okay bear with us here this is new territory in a lot of ways new territory yeah I know it doesn't include that parcel that's after pkway right not and okay everybody knows what we voting on now good on the motion again shall the zoning subcommittee approve a proposed amendment to propose recreational zoning as follows amending section 171 16480 section A1 entitled GB districts subsections a b and c shall be deleted in its entirety in subjects D I'm sorry subsections D and F shall be Rel lettered as ab and C accordingly councel Gino SAA yes yes councelor Kelly yes yes councelor noeli yes yes councelor sylvestri yes yes and chairman zambo yes yes that Amendment passes yes thank you madam Clark um this amendment basically this does not refer to a buffer zone it refers to the abutter notification Zone which applies to applicants when applying for a special permit um right now the law would require a 300 foot AB butter notification Zone meaning that the APPL applicant would be required to notify a Butters within a 300t radius of where they int tend to open their business what I'm asking for is that this 300t a butter notification Zone be increased to 600 ft thereby it will give residents more residents um notification that such an establishment would be opening um so this just speaks to awareness and transparency I understand that um the Mass General law for special permits does um set forth a 300 foot a butter notification Zone requirement however when I I spoke to the town planner he said that there didn't he didn't think that there would be anything from preventing us from doing this so I just thought I would like to open the discussion on it since it would allow for a greater number of residents to be made aware that one of these establishments would be opening near them thereby giving them the opportunity to oppose if they so wish during the special permit process thank you any counselors want to discuss this councelor Gino SAA thank you okay so this is with 600 feet uh Council Kelly right yes it is okay but your motion is for a thousand you're are you changing that motion in order to do the 600 ft or um I think that would have to be taken up first I supplied everyone with a amended sheet which sets forth 600 ft for not only the ab butter notification Zone which we are discussing now but also a buffer zone which will be discussed later in the in the subsequent amendments so if we vote favorably on this would it change the outcome of the other no the buffer zone no no I'm sorry they're two independent issues this is just um this is just the requirement that if someone were applying for a special permit because they wish to own one of these establishments they would be required to notify a Butters within a 600 foot radius okay so um section g of 173.50 the phrase by certified mail upon re receipt requested shall be inserted after the word writing right that's what you have that's act the certified mail is actually the next Amendment right now what we're discussing in Amendment Three um Amendment two Amendment two is just the distance for the about notification zone so if passed the certified meal may give people residents the impression that those property owners are interested parties and they it can cause a lot of confusion within the buffer zone because it's like people that don't even live near there are going to be getting notification so this amendment will require that the applicant must send notification to Property Owners of of the uses listed below within 600 ft of the proposed location by certified mail return receipt requested in order to get on site plan review and start the application process the cost of certified mail could would place an undue burden on on the same right Amendment Ash yes we are Amendment two Amendment two Amendment two reads seven amendment to section 17305 section g the phrase by certified mail return receipt requested shall be inserted after the word writing period That's amendment number two okay can I finish thanks okay thank you um the cost of certified mail certifi with green card return now everybody has to have that green card return is $964 per piece of meal certified with the the and then morea Butters that we have that i't even in in the zone that's anywhere near it the more cost it's going to be on the city in contrast as an example like for example the liquor licenses they only require direct Butters to receive certified meal and it it it is in within the 500 ft of school zones which is what the state um is asking us to follow that's their guidelines so applying this requirement to all of others within the buffer zone could potentially be cost prohibitive thank you may I respond to that anyone else have anything to say go ahead councilor Kelly I I would just like to point out that the cost would be strictly borne by the applicant looking to open the establishment they are in the commercial business of opening a commercial you know a commercial business we're not asking a resident or putting this burden or this cost um on someone that can't afford it if they're opening up this business I think they can afford it um regarding the 500 fet I would be amenable to decreasing the 600 to 500 ft I think the um the goal here is just to make sure that residents are aware that an establishment such as this is going to be Loc ated within 500 ft instead of 600t from where they live and I believe that does make them an interested party I believe that that does give them some standing um this we're not talking about a liquor store we're talking about a recreational marijuana use facility uh we don't have any evidentiary tests right now that can um test for um the way blood alcohol levels are tested we don't have anything like that so I think this is an important change in our zoning and I think therefore more people rather than less people should be made aware of it thank you so just as a point of clarity this would actually be going from 300 feet to 500 feet am I reading that correctly what's the first par on a on Amendment two this the zoning subcommittee is on Amendment two this is simply providing instead of just simply in writing a regular notice by mail councelor Kelly's Amendment would require that notice be sent by certified mail return receipt requested that's the amendment that the committee's on okay so that's not the case now that it's not required by certified male is that correct current there's no marijuana zoning I know marijuana I'm comparing it to the liquor stores the Li I believe liquor stores are directed Butters only okay so and then schools located within 500 ft would receive a notice by certified mail so this is a big jump from that uh precedent okay uh anybody else want to discuss this or have anything to add to this or just one Mr President if I could Kelly I'm sorry I just want to remind the Council of how many times that in my short time being on the council and in years previous going to zoning uh subcommittees and and Council meetings where special permits are being discussed we often do hear that residents don't receive notice we often do hear that I didn't know this was happening or right you know I missed a deadline because I didn't get the notice the certified meil would actually ensure that the residents got notice we would we would be um you know and I and in other towns sounds I know that establishments will actually go above and beyond and do the certified mail even if it's not required in their ordinance um I believe the establishment in Malden right at the beginning of Route One I was actually in the post office when they were doing it because they wanted to make sure that they were giving residents ample opportunity and notification because this is an important and and uh change in zoning um so they will often go above and beyond to make sure residents have um notification of it and that there aren't any residents that come before the Council of the zba saying you know what we didn't receive notice we didn't know about it so it's just to ensure that people get notification thank you Council noveli thank you Mr uh chairman Mr chairman you know I don't I don't mind increasing the notifications but when you're doing certified meal many of the buildings that may be in this area the people don't live there they live out of town and honestly they don't care you know they're worried about the the that that they have their taxes but they will not tell the residents that something's going on if they live in Marblehead or if they live in Wakefield they're not going to run back down to the house and say oh by the way there's a public hearing on such and such a thing a landlord will not do that and so not everybody is going to get the notification because of that if they mail it to the address of the home that's involved that's within that whatever distance we decide then they'll get it so I'm against the certified meal I don't mind the distance when it comes up but I'm against the certified meal situation thank you Council council president carlan thank you Mr chairman um I just want to say that I I do agree with this amendment I think the more notification we can give the better um I live over 700 F feet away from Squire Road if something was to be built down there a new business was going in I would also want to be notified as a resident that something was going to be uh you know needing a per special permit or a variance so I'm in favor of this amendment thank you anybody else just clar just clarification um was it 600 ft or we going down to 500t and fe's not in the question right now that's not even the question no okay thank you CER certified or not okay are we ready to vote here Madam clerk I'm sorry councelor I thought you said that we as the public could comment on the Amendments thank you so um address please vivana katano Mountain Avenue Rivier uh just want to comment in support of the ab but notification I think councelor president Kong Leandra made an excellent point at the meeting on October 7th that often times things in this community happen without residents knowing and so that's why we have a room full of people here today because we found out Word of Mouth not because we saw it on the city's website that the city was discussing this is because people started calling each other and say do you know this is happening and so we we just I ask that you please do the certified mail because it will assure that as many people as possible especially the people the people that don't care they won't reply good their job is done and the people that do feel very strongly I don't want this business in my backyard and next to my business I don't want this business in my neighborhood or so close to my school they'll have a chance to at least come before you and be fully notified so I ask that you please uh strongly consider the certified mail it will show transparency especially counselors if next week if the full Council does vote to repeal the marijuana ban at least we will know okay when is this coming to my area so that I can talk about it thank you so much thank you for your comments name and address please good evening my name is Christine Robertson I reside at 187 charger Street I live 120 ft from Squire Road so welcome to my neighborhood I think everyone in this city that is a taxpayer homeowner or renter deserves to know what's going on in their neighborhood if they're going to open a business they can well afford to send out a certified letter I've had many things happen in my neighborhood that I did not get letters for and they're in business today I'm sorry I think that's wrong we pay the taxes we pay your salary you need to consider what we have to say thank you thank you for your comments good evening name and address for the record please Edward M nazaro Jr 238 Beach Street re And in regards to um ia's concern about the certified letter why not require them to also send out by regular mail in multi multiple languages not just in English maybe Spanish Vietnamese or whatever it may be because we do have a large diverse population in our city and everybody should have the opportunity wherever they speak for their native language be it English Italian whatever it may be also have a large Muslim population as well so I would ask to to set certified and also by regular mail maybe car an occupant or what may be so I don't think it harms anybody the more information people have the better thank you thank you Mr Naro okay that appears to be everybody can we clarify this what we're actually voting on please Council Kelly's Amendment uh number two was as follows section 17350 g the phrase by certified mail return receipt requ requested shall be inserted after the word writing on that Amendment Council greo SAA yes yes councel um sorry councelor Kelly yes yes councel noeli yes yes councel sylvestri yes yes and chairman zambo yes yes the amendment has been approved next item thank you okay so now we can get into um the actual a butter notification Zone which I originally asked to be amended to 600 feet um I think I I would be willing to consider 500 ft I just don't think the 300 feet is enough at all um again this is an important zoning change I want as many people to be notified as possible I want to make sure that they get notice um so I definitely think that the 300 ft in this situation is not adequate um so if if if anything um if the council will not favorably accept 600 feet I would be willing to accept 500 feet thank you councelor Gino saan I would like to put in a motion to have it for 500 feet um and my reason is this the the enemy is located at least 500 ft away from the nearest school entrances that's that's what I'm looking for the buffer zone dist distance of 500 ft shall be measured in a straight line from the geometric center of the marijuana establishment entrance to the geometric center of the nearest school entrance unless there is an impassible barrier within the 500 ft in these cases the bus for Zone distance shall be measured along the center of the shortest publicly accessible pedestrian travel path from the geometric center of the M the buffer zone as it applies to the school shall not be reduced the state law is 500 ft that's what the state C we're not we're not talking buffer zones right now so we're talking about the distance the 500 no we're talking about a notific we're talking about the the buffer zone district dist she just said 600 would be willing to do 600 to 500 that's to the ab butter notification Zone only the notification zone so okay so I I apologize no don't you don't need to apologize it's very confusing Ashley didn't read it so I didn't realize that that's what you were doing all right so that's what we're doing here counil Kelly read it instead of you so sorry all right so now anybody else want to discuss the distance not of the buffer zone of the notification Zone I think I got that right is that right 500 what what what talking number three right can I just read it be clear yeah please read it zoning subcommittee members to be clear we are on amendment number three that was presented by councelor Kelly the amendment is as follows section 17305 section g the reference to 300 feet shall be changed to 600 feet in this instance this is not regarding the buffer zone around any of the proposed different uses but rather the notification requirement by certified mail which was just voted on by this committee so am I to get this straight that you're you're changing this to 500 feet instead of 600 feet is that correct yes yes Council so do we need a substitute for that or we just proposing it as 500 ft a counselor is allowed to change their own motion as you know on the floor if they want so it's changed consider it changed to 500 let me reread this then okay okay go right ahead amendment number three as proposed by councelor Kelly section 17350 section g the reference to 300 feet shall be changed to 500 feet everybody all set for a roll call here okay Madam Clerk shall the zoning subcommittee approve the following Amendment to the proposed marijuana zoning ordinance section 17350 section g is hereby amended by deleting the reference to 300 feet and inserting in place thereof 600 I'm sorry 500 feet Council Gino sa yes yes councelor Kelly yes yes Council noveli yes yes Council sylvestri yes yes and chairman zambuto yes yes that Amendment passes amendment number four thank you so basically this amendment is seeking to Omit a section in its entirety because what the section seeks to accomplish is that once a buffer zone is agreed upon and designated this language would allow the city council if requested by an applicant seeking a special permit to open one of these establishments to reduce the buffer zone so I'll give you um an example for clarification purposes if we were to have a buffer zone of 500 ft an applicant could be looking to open up an establishment that is less than that 500 feet maybe 200 feet or 300 ft away from a school he would then be allowed to State his case before the city coun Council and ask the city council to approve that reduced buffer zone for that particular applicant in that particular circumstance my point in trying to delete this Clause is that if we are going to have a buffer zone I feel as though the buffer zone should be strictly adhered to once we're once we agree upon what the amount of the buffer zone should be I believe it should be strictly adhered to the reason is that it's going if we do anything other than that and we circumvent uh we allow to circumvent the um you know to reduce the buffer zone it's going to lead to inconsistency um we've seen that before it's also going to set a precedent for future situations so if one person requesting a special permit for an establishment happens to be within 300 feet of a school this special permit comes up the city council votes on it and allows them to have their special permit that means the next person that's looking to open one of these establishment can go ahead and do the same thing and cite the precedent before that um so again we effectively are going to put a buffer zone in place that that really won't have any teeth in it because it can just be circumvented at the will of the city council um so I think it does lead to inconsistency it'll set a precedent for future um regulations it will uh negate the need for comprehensive planning um and it may actually erode public trust and Community sentiment by giving perceptions of favoritism depending upon who's requesting the special permit and therefore so I ask that we just take this language out we delete it in its entirety and once we agree on a buffer zone we can't it can't be circumvented and it will have to stand thank you thank you Council Kelly Council Gino sa I think this amendment takes the power away from the city council and um if a marijuana establishment meets all the other criteria set forth by the city and the state except for the buffer zone for example if we have a really good applicant who knows what he's doing and he has a rep he's a reputable business owner he proposed a location a marijuana location which was 499 ft away from a listed buffer zone um they wouldn't be able to operate it just it doesn't make sense it takes away the power that the city council actually has to Grant a variance um with the distance requirement for something like that I mean it's just you're talking a foot you're talking 6 in you can't budge if it's at 500 ft period so if it's 49.5 they can't have it so I'm going to be voting no on this thank you anyone else council president C Leandro thank you Mr chairman um I I happen to agree with this amendment I think that uh where it may be 499 ft what if they come back and it they want to do 300 feet what if they have signed petitions from you know a couple of the abing neighbors but then the people across the street don't want it um you know when we create this ordinance the power of the council is to create repeal or modify these ordinances so I just think that this would be a sign of good faith to the community to let them know that our buffer that we're going to set is the buffer there's not going to be any way to change it so I'm I'm in favor of it thank you thank you anyone else okay uh let's vote the amendment on councelor Kelly's amendment number four section 17 306e subsection 1 shall be deleted in its entirety Council green OAA no no councelor Kelly yes yes councel noeli no no councel sylvestri no no and chairman zuto yes yes the amendment fails number five okay this amendment speaks to the number of permissible establishments that the city would be allowed to approve um basically there is a section of the Massachusetts General Law 94g chapter 94g which states that the number of permissible establishments is dependent upon an amount equal to 20% of our liquor licenses this basically breaks down to five establishments for us so if um everything goes through that would mean that Mr President through you to the to the council member um is this a point of information Council point of information I I will St your point I I'd like to get an opinion before we vote on this because I'm not sure that we can do what this is because the whole law behind the it going to a ballot question or or put forward would be determined on this happening so for her to say no going to cut it to two would automatically drive this to a ballot question correct I was getting to that right so um I was getting to that okay well I'm going to cover that thanks for the point counselor thanks for the point I'm gonna and I'm going to cover that so basically if we do all if we allow or we agree to have anything less than what the state recommends which is five that would basically trigger a ballot vote the ballot vote would simply be a question of whether or not point of information Mr chairman St your point that is absolutely not true it we we can have up to five we do not have to open five right so counselor we can sit here and say all the all the nightmarish uh things that we can say we can sit here and say what if and we're going to possibly it might end up next to a school it might end up on a roof somewhere right but but you know what it it it it have faith in your in your other body and stop making us look like we we're very like shady and and absent minded because that's all you're doing here we are it is within my purview it is within my here okay order I don't want back and forth talk yet okay Mark you know what you're very sarcastic that last comment that you just made very sarcastic councelor I know the amendment simply limits the amount of permissible approvals that the city would be able to ISS issue okay if we were to say that five is too many and we would like to reduce the number to two or three establishments and capitate that it would trigger a ballot vote under massachus General Law chapter 94 Section 3 the vote simply would St stay whether or not the city wants to have the maximum permissible establishments of five are a number fewer than five point of information Mr chairman State your point okay I would like the crowd to understand as well if that does trigger a ballot question and it goes to the ballot and it passes and it passes the ballot so let's say it goes back to the public and it passes I would like to finish my my but I want you to make sure they understand fully because I'm getting the Mark if you let finish I'm letting I am going to explain there going to be a non-binding vote that's so we're not going to have any more we're going to we're going to let councelor Kelly finish I understand let let councelor Kelly finish her you can simply vote against it that's all okay continue continue to finish continue the amendment please this is just going to be prolonged if I have to keep repeating myself and going over this okay if the valid vote was taken first of all it would be a non-binding vote meaning that if the city agrees to a number less than five the city council does not have to go along with that vote in addition it would cost the city approximately $100,000 so I would like everyone to be aware of these considerations before voting on this however I believe that this directly relates to the amount of an abutter notification Zone because we did receive maps from the town planner and it looks like if we were to increase our butter notification Zone we wouldn't be able to have any of these things in the city because it would be too hard for them to be located anywhere okay so that tells me maybe five then is too many so that's why I decided to set forth this amendment instead of the five I'm asking that it be reduced to two I think two of these establishments in the city is plenty I think any more than that is overkill um if if anyone wants to recommend another number three or four point of information Mr President State your point okay I want I want everyone to understand that if that is what happens and a ballot question is triggered in the ballot question passes all of these amendments that we're voting on tonight go out the window it goes strictly by the state guidelines so all the restrictions that she is adding into the to the law right now would go out the window and we would have to follow state regulations that can you provide me a citation for what you're basing listen this is not a back and forth part like the citation on that Council Kelly it's not a back and forth body here we're not going to go I I let him do a point of information finish your Amendment please it's my opinion that five of these establishments operating in the city is too many we should consider reducing the number to two thank you thank you anybody else any discussion on this council president Cog Leandro thank you Mr chairman through you to councelor Kelly counselor is there a number that we could lessen this to that would not trigger a ballot question I am open to recommendations I'm I'm more asking from a a like a legal standpoint if if that's a possibility okay all right so we have the city solicitor here can you come up to the podium please and tell and straighten that out now the state law require is 20% as Michelle Kelly clearly counselor Kelly clearly articulated of the number of liquor stores which I believe we have 23 so it comes out to like 4.6 which equals five that's the lowest we can go without going to a ballot thank you for that point of information ask and one other thing I'm hearing I I got confused because I'm hearing uh uh Town planner I thought we were in another I thought we moved to something or we changed the CH you mean the city planner yes okay sorry sorry for that could I ask um attorney cap attorney capy is it your legal opinion um that if we were to trigger a ballot vote and it would be limited to just this one specific that all of these other amendments would have no validity that's that's probably the case yes how probably the case why do you say that because I haven't researched it and I didn't read in the statute when I was reading it that it would wipe out any other controls by the local uh governing body such as yourselves so that's why I say that but the local controls that we have in the proposed ordinance say was a 300 foot buffer zone whereas the Commonwealth suggests 500 so since that is in direct conflict then what would happen in a case like that well it's not in direct conflict because the the the the statute allows the city to reduce the buffer zone right but that would be a modification and you said that all modifications would would no have no longer have validity no I didn't say that that's not what I said I said the opposite actually I'm agreeing with you oh I'm sorry I misunderstood you okay I'm sorry so so so the modifications would this is a complicated issue so the modifications would stand no the best of my knowledge yes anything but what would go and Mark may know more than I anything but what was V syv do you have a question for the solicitor I do Paul if you could please if you could please look into this because I think what counil is missing right is that if the city voted on it yes or no we we could not then step in and make our own laws around that and and these wouldn't matter because they voted for the CDC regulations that the state provides well I mean I'll clarify the the vote would simply be on the number of establishments nothing else so any other controls that in place as far as I'm concerned would still remain that have passed this body thank you but bear in mind if the question fails on the ballot you go go back to the five establishments okay okay so uh Council Sylvester you all set I'll set thank you um Madam clerk Where Do We Stand we want to vote on this uh Amendment okay oh wait a minute do I have someone that wants to speak there won't be any it'll be do you want to speak on this amendment specifically yeah I actually I do want to speak about this amendment specifically um you got two minutes I'm going to be so quick I promise so I originally I thought we were doing three and so now today I'm hearing that we're doing five and so I just want to mention to the counselors here tonight you guys are talking about what's going to take place should you repeal the marijuana ban I don't know if that conversation is going to go to the full Council but again notice notice what we're voting for that even if some of us could agree guys let's do one we we're talking about five if this thing fails we are we're talking about five no name and address for the record please we don't have press the button Alberto vasio 419 Proctor AV um the reason why I said this question doesn't matter if it's before or after is first of all thank you counselors and I just if you guys could just each one address this in 15 seconds or less cuz I don't want to take too much of your times but as a point of clarification to all these people who have come here who obviously are against marijuana and believe that their opposition still matters is the vote next week a forego conclusion um because if so then and if not then why are we having this discussion before that goes wouldn't this render it just just a let me clarify what's going on here tonight what's going on here tonight is the amendments that if the council in legislative affairs approves the uh REM removes the ban on marijuana then these conditions would be subject to right but if not then it's a mute point all of this is for are you asking what the reason we're having this meeting tonight instead I'm asking why the order why it's in why put the C before the horse it's a timing issue we didn't have enough time in the in the meeting we had and we couldn't have this meeting same night as that meeting I just want to explain it to them this is just Why this is just a business part of it and it if if for some reason the legislative affairs committee does not vote to repeal the marijuana law this is dead and it's it's Mr chairman Mr chairman if I may just just to add a little bit more Leandro thank you very much Mr chairman so just so everyone knows subcommittees are where we do a lot of the hashing out of these issues now the votes you're hearing tonight are not not the final votes these are simply either a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the entire city council which will take place on October 28th so this is where we discuss the zoning amendments the subcommittee then says we're in favor or not in favor then we have legislative affairs for the repeal they say we're either in favor or not in favor and then the entire city council will get together and that's where it it's going to be voted uh up or down there so the order of the subcommittee truly doesn't really matter it's we have to make sure we have these conversations before we get to the city council meeting of a whole into councilor chairman zambuto Point um we don't have enough time because of the statutes that we set we can only have so much time for subcommittee meetings before we have to have the city council meeting so that's why we're having this tonight as opposed to before the the council meeting of the whole like we always do so does anyone else have any other questions about the procedure and process process of this I just want to make sure that everybody's very clear on it Miss katano absolutely uh Mr chairman through you AB very quickly could you clarify the things that you guys have voted on tonight like the uh certified mail um and the other the abutter notification councelor kander are you saying they're not final because you they will actually be final once the full Council vot on me tell you what it is let me tell you what it is these These are recommendations to the city council we voted out favorably these recommendations we offer it to the city council and the city council as a whole votes up or down got it but it's only recommendations good name and address for the record please my name is SGA I live on glendel Street Rivier Massachusetts and I'm here to uh voice on my concerns about these uh amendments that are not enough uh and I'm proposing and asking you why are we rushing while still we we are witnessing today so much confusion even among yourselves imagine the whole room and the whole Community there are still a lot of people who doesn't know about it can you know Rush this process is there a reason why we're rushing and not letting the community to process the whole thing and understanding I mean we're getting like I'm hearing about millions of dollars but not spending money on uh on a certifi mail this is not fair we're not rushing anything here you may think we're rushing and you may think we're disorganized we're trying to get it right so we're trying to have everybody's opinion flushed out so in case somebody has something that we missed then we have it but these again these when we're finished here tonight these are only recommendations to the full city council can I ask you something and so uh but if you think we're rushing this I disagree age with you sorry all right I'm saying this because the community I understand fully the concern I understand and I have the same concerns and and believe me maybe even more but this is the process this is what we do it's it's not being rushed Mr chairman point of information State your point thank you councelor I just want to say that the just to the comment of rushing the last city council meeting we had this could have all been voted on and over with but because of the Community speaking up and saying we need we want to hear more we we need to make sure that more people know about this that's why we're here tonight so we table these so that we could have more conversation and alert more people in the community that's all thank you anded one more thing so you voted on uh your favor recommendations if the city council vote Yes for everything which I'm assuming cuz you already make up your mind except for a few this is all where the reality for the future marijuana retail stores uh not enough distance between High uh schools Child Care Facilities library parking you're you're making up you're making up stuff here don't say there's not enough distance we're talking 500 ft from a school 500 ft that's the state law and we haven't even discussed that yet but the bottom line is that's the state law that is the law right now thank you and we've got to move on thank you Anthony Pali 51 Arcadia Street Mr chairman members of the subcommittee I'd really like to save the taxpayers $100,000 I'd like to see you guys just be okay with the possible five locations and here's my reasoning why one with the buffer zones if you go up to two football fields you're basically not going to get more than three anyway so you're already at three why waste the money and then it's if it's the will of the council even if it passes the council still gets to decide so it still could be a waste of $100,000 I think going to a ballot question would be a burden on the taxpayer and I'm not for it thank you thank [Applause] you okay where where we at we're voting on am number five we're voting on amendment number five you want to clarify it again please thank you amendment number five offered by councelor Kelly is as follows chapter 17304 C shall be deleted in its entirety in place with the following text the number of marijuana establishments shall be limited to two no special permit may be granted for a marijuana establishment which violates this limit on that Amendment councel greo SAA no no councelor Kelly yes yes councel noeli no no council sylvestri no no and chairman zambuto yes yes the amendment fails okay so now what do we have here there are now proposed joint um amendments that were filed by councelor Kelly who's on the committee as well as councelor Robert H okay he can SP he can speak from the podium councelor Kelly thank you so now we can talk about buffer zones um so the ordinance as written as proposed calls for a 300 foot buffer zone to daycare facilities schools and the like um we I kind of had some discussions with a lot of residents and and you know everyone seems to want this buffer zone to be increased um they don't feel that the 300 ft is an adequate buffer zone the state law um does recommend a buffer zone of 500 ft I'm originally asking for 600 feet I would be open for discussion to have a 500 feet um limit instead or buffer zone instead if if you know I I would like to amend my amendment I guess and I would propose the 500 feet instead if that is more reasonable um but definitely the 300 ft is just way too low um for for the buffer zone as proposed thank you thank you Council Kelly anyone else nobody else oh c has apologize should have saw you standing thank you man Robert H 161 Fenley Street I just wanted to talk a little bit about the reasoning behind the buffer zone um at the LA last council meeting there were a few of us who thought the 300 ft could have been increased a little bit uh we suggested 500 I suggested 600 we went up to a, and after looking at the the zoning maps and after further discussion we realized that couldn't happen because that would pretty much wash everything out so councilor Kelly and I co-signed on um two amendments um keeping everything uniform schools senior centers community centers places of worship at 600 ft thank you thank you counselor name and address for the record my name is Anthony cantino and I live at 240 suffk Avenue the issue here right now is uh a buffer zone where you can sell it what is the buffer zone where you can smoke it I'd like to [Music] know thank you that's the puffer Zone yeah go ahead councelor G Gino S I just need a little bit of clarification please um Council Kelly did you put in a substitute motion to do 500 because Council has said 600 so if it's not 500 I want to put the substitute Motion in for 500 which I was planning on doing she already amended her motion is it 500 and I think that includes has I think you sign on to that correct okay great so you're okay with the 500 yes okay thank I think we went 600 but we're okay with five okay thank you thank you okay so where are we at here so this was Amendment one can we can we talk to the public Ashley real quick go ahead thank you uh vivana katano Mountain Avenue I was asking for a thousand again this is why a lot of people are really upset about this if 1,000 ft is the size of a whale okay so the more whales we can put between the marijuana dispensaries and our schools I'm asking for 1,000 ft at least 600 thank you let me just say that asking for 1,000 ft okay all right so that's that's very nice but wait if you if you're asking for 1,000 ft it eliminates all marijuana so we all know we I know so so we know we know we know that you we know that you don't want marijuana you don't have to tell us in every everything you say we got it we got it okay go ahead good evening everyone Anna Rodriguez to Conan Street and I'm a Char provider I'm at the owner and the business hid and rever and I'm asking for a, for my own okay business thank you thank you thank you very much okay good evening Christine Robertson 187 Chargers we know who you are now yeah so do a lot of people do all I'm going to say the numbers count th000 ft 600 feet 500 feet every foot counts for the safety of our neighborhoods and our children all I'm asking asking is for everyone that is listening that is here you need to come on October 28th and voice your opinion because that is when the council will vote on this we can nitpick away we can be unprofessional and derogatory to one another this is no place for it we need to conduct the business of this city and we need to go forward thank you thank you very much name and address please ah angelically in 11 Harington Street uh uh I want to explain in English I want to try but really I am very sad I am a teacher for a long time and 15 years or more it's very very very sad had near the schools near the my house or the the house the people has kids one store or 10 stares the marijuana I see you all the time that you are happy when this appro this laas this thisas I don't know is this andas I don't know if you don't have kids don't have a The Neighbors I'm sorry I got to stop either point the point is hold on you either have to talk on the amendment or I got to ask you to sit down okay I don't want to go into who has kids who doesn't have kids or any of that stuff because it's irrelevant at this point we're talking about this amendment that's all I want to hear okay sorry but that's it 1,000 medas feet M feets it's not sufficient okay it's in sufficient it's nasty it's worse for the community for the kids for our kids thank you next name and address please yes my name is Ena tall I live on Florence Avenue here in Rivier and good evening everyone thank you for your work and really thank you um councelor Kelly for trying to fight for this because I think that um 600 would have been wonderful I hope that you can still think about it this is really for our children it's not just for us because we know no matter what happens they will get their hands on it they will because they do it in other cities we see it it's going to happen in Rivier you know and to go from zero to five like you know there's some in Chelsea in East Boston we can drive we can go if we want it as adults but to put it in our communities where we have all children that will put their hands on the subject 600 would be nice if we can think about it thank you name and address Bonnie curan Barrett Street yeah I just have a question like are they're increasing the liquor licenses right now in the state did we already is this with the increase it I think it is yeah it's very important this is with the increase yes she increase thank you okay uh now we're getting ready to vote here Madam clerk zoning subcommittee members this is on proposed join Amendment one by counselor Kelly and councelor H Amendment one is as follows section 17305 section s the references to 300 ft shall be changed to 500 feet and section 17360 e the references to 300 ft shall be changed to 500 feet excuse me oh okay all right I thought you were taking the next one okay thank you okay on on the amendment Council greo SAA yes voting yes councelor Kelly yes voting yes councel noveli no no councel sylvestri no no and chairman zambuto yes voting yes the amendment passes final amendment I think is it yes oh you got some in your Park no okay don't don't don't me don't T me got have a little humor here right okay so this basically is the same um Amendment talking to buffer zones except it was actually um something that councelor H um suggested to me that he also wanted to apply the buffer zones to senior centers and places of worship and I can tell you having gone to a senior center event last week um I received overwhelming opposition from almost from every single person I spoke to at the senior center um so I think this is a great um addition to the buffer zone to add the senior centers and also places of worship we know that places of worship is a place where children often frequent so I think we can include both of them I don't see anything that says in the state law or or anywhere else that says we're prohibited from doing so um so I'd like to consider including senior centers and places of worship um in the 500 foot buffer zone thank you counselors anyone else any counselors want to speak on this Mr President Mr Council noski thank you I'm sorry um of course when we look at these three locations community centers which we don't have any in the city senior centers and places of worship none of them are near the districts that are designated for the marijuana establishments within within these numbers so I don't you know and we wouldn't do it anyway you know point just wouldn't do something like that and I can't see having to put it you know in the ordinance thank you thank you counselor any other counselors I have a question for the city ahead for the city planner for the city planner yes now you're the city planner instead of the Town planner hi hi um I just want I was wondering if you could just clarify that because I do know that section of the southern side of Squire Road that is remaining as a permissible location um doesn't that include a place of worship or or in are you aware of any other places of worship that could be um included in these permissible areas all within a 500 foot radius from them places of worship perhaps um community centers actually I would recommend if you were to adopt this amendment that you take all three of these terms and you define exactly what they mean generally in our zoning ordinance when we introduce new terms we have to Define them so we know what we're referring to because particularly Community Center is pretty ambiguous um so Senior Center we all know where the senior center is I think that's outside of the buffer zone here um but the other two potentially you could find them depending on how you define those terms so I would recommend if you did adopt this to define the term so we didn't have that ambiguity um and as to your second point about the the tracks on the southern part of square road that are permitted um I I would recommend we get seek some clarity on exactly which ones we're talking about because it's not certain to me that they are permitted as the language is written today I think the sections that you asked to have removed were the the sections up to Patriots Parkway but I don't believe that those additional sections were actually recommended to be included so you should take a look at the zoning map and I think it was not included either way um I think if you you would have to make a motion in the affirmative to add those I could be mistaken and I'm seeing a shake okay okay all right all right so trust the city clerk okay point of information Mr CH your point Mr through you to councelor Kelly there's actually I believe the church on Squire Road is there uh to my understanding they're not they're not going to be there much longer but there is uh a church on Squire Road right close to the circle so thank you okay so on the uh oh no it's okay I'm sorry so we're going to uh we're going to take up this uh what looks like an addition to putting um community centers churches and Senior Center uh whether or not they are uh whether or not they actually fit in the uh proposed areas is a question uh name and address for the record please press the [Music] [Music] button e [Music] thank you thank you for your comments do I need this no not for me sir I'm kidding Anthony Pali 51 Arcadia Street U Mr chairman members of the subcommittee I I take a little bit of issue with the uh house of worship because if I were somebody that didn't want it near me I would just open up a church I know that sounds goofy but you I would just put in the paperwork and I would just say that my house is a place of Warship and then are parks considered rec centers where the kids play I think it's extremely too vague and I think it's way too easy to set up a place of Warship to make this go away well I think I think also that the the city planner told us that uh you'd have to have some strong definitions on these particular places and I don't think okay we'll see we'll see how the vote goes here so Madame clerk let's call the role or be let's clarify what we're doing here and now the zoning subcommittee is on the proposed joint amendment by councelor Kelly and councelor H this is amendment number two section 17306 e shall be modified to include the following text the me is located at least 500 ft distant of community centers senior centers and places of worship call the rule please on that Amendment councelor greo SAA no no councelor Kelly yes yes Council noveli no no councel sylvestri no no and councelor I'm sorry chairman zambuto no no that Amendment fails that concludes nope that concludes um councelor Kelly's and H's amendments there were some amendments uh submitted by a non-member of the zoning subcommittee councelor Haro uh it's my understanding that those amendments are all currently part of the state law am I correct in that I did review them it's my understanding that many of them are already codified within the state law governing marijuana in addition to the mass code of regulations thank you do I have a motion on the floor so those will be placed on file placed on file now now before you before the committee is now the amended now the Amendments had gone through now there's the amended version of the proposed zoning ordinance for recreational marijuana does the committee want to take a recommendation on that as a whole what's the will of this party I'd ask that we keep the Amendments separate is that what we are can't do that we have to amendments get added to the motion they get they get added to this motion isn't you don't keep them separate so I agree we we go we go forward with the adapt adopting these amendments that's what is typically done amendments are right so these amendments will be forwarded favorably to the r city council just all in favor of oppos so voted no further business thank you all for your time there's another meeting next week 28th 5:00 P p.m. the zoning there's no zoning there's no zoning meeting there's a there's a ledger fears and a uh Parx and r