Loading...
11-5-18 BPB CC Joint Meeting MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL Board: Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly City Council Date: November 5, 2018 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Ned Barrett, William Boesch, Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, Wayne Miller Members Absent: Allison Kilcoyne, David Mack, James Matz Councilors Present: Council President Paul Guanci, Council Vice President John Frates Jr., Scott Houseman, Don Martin, Estelle Rand, David Lang, Timothy Flaherty, Julie Flowers Councilors Absent: James Latter Others Present: City Solicitor Stephanie Williams, Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne, Associate Planner Emily Hutchings Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary *BevCam videotaped the meeting. Council President Paul Guanci opens the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Recess for Public Hearing Hutchinson calls the Planning Board portion of the hearing to order at 8:02 p.m. Flannery: Motion to recess to Public Hearing. Zane Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0). Ned Barrett arrived at 8:08 p.m. Public Hearing: City Council Order #213 — Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing Land Use Categories & Regulations for Mariivana Establishments Planning Director Aaron Clausen made an approximately twenty minute presentation to the Planning Board and City Council summarizing the context, history, and proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding the regulation of marijuana establishments. City Council President Paul Guanci opens up the meeting to questions from the City Council. Councilor David Lang asks Clausen what will happen if they don't meet the December 31" deadline. Clausen comments that as long as they submit the proposed zoning ordinance and it is approved, the regulations would take place. Lang then asks about the map shown in the presentation of the IR and IG areas that seem to have a lot of space for the four facilities they would likely permit. Lang would like to know if they need to include the central downtown (CC) area or the CG area which would be located closer to neighbors. Lang would prefer new facilities to be further out perhaps by the airport or other areas further from residential homes until they can fine tune everything. Clausen tells Lang the point of making these amendments was so that they don't create situations of concentration with the retail and RMD [Registered Marijuana Beverly Planning Board & City Council Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes November 5, 2018 Dispensary] uses. Clausen continues to explain that there are a lot of IR zones to accommodate those types of uses but he believes it would have little impact to any surrounding neighborhoods that they are located in. Lang then asks why the area of the Cummings Center is exempt from those uses. Clausen says because there is a daycare facility in the Cummings Center that exempts the entire parcel of land. However, there may be a way to go through the special permitting process to seek a waiver and to ensure that the children at the daycare are protected by conditions placed on it. In addition, the commercial area south of Elliot Street by Starbucks is also exempt, unless a waiver was sought and received. Councilor John Frates asks what is the definition of a childcare center, as well as a church. Frates then asks what if a childcare center or church tries to preemptively strike before a facility is approved. Clausen explains the childcare center has to be licensed with the Commonwealth and they were able to obtain that list of properties and added them to the map. Clausen then explains they didn't create a buffer for churches, and that they created a buffer system mainly for facilities that are serving children. Councilor Julie Flowers comments that many constituents are concerned about what a retail establishment can actually look like such as what kind of signage and things in windows that may be marketing to children. Clausen comments that the CCC [Cannabis Control Commission] regulations strictly regulate what kind of signage and language can be used to promote the retail establishment. They can't use slang terms for marijuana, such as "weed" or "pot." They can't show diagrams of pot leaves or joints. The ordinance states that any marijuana related materials such as edibles, pipes, weed, and accessories not be visible from the street. City Solicitor Stephanie Williams comments that the ordinance prohibits retail establishments from displaying items that can be seen from the street and it is a licensing requirement. Williams then states that there are limitations on advertisements that can be geared towards children or people under the age of 21. Councilor Estelle Rand comments that the buffer zone for childcare centers and playgrounds helped to even out the distribution of potential sites, especially in Ward 2. It helped to alleviate some concerns of some of the constituents in Ward 2 about the concentration of businesses. Rand then asks about the hours of operation being able to be adjusted. Clausen comments that the hours of operation in the ordinance are aligned to be set with the hours of operation for liquor stores. Clausen explains that the Zoning Board of Appeals has the ability to look at the project and establishment type, how it's operated, where it's located, and at the surrounding area, and decide on the hours based on a variety of reasons, such as a daycare facility or church nearby. But they cannot restrict it so much that the business can't stay open. Rand then asks about the Zoning Board of Appeals having the opportunity to have some Peer Review information and requiring additional conditions for a special permit to reduce the buffer requirement. Rand asks if a Peer Review can review the buffer requirements or can they look to a community that has done this before for guidelines and examples. Clausen says that a Peer Review would be used for a technical review of a project for things like odor control and what to do for exhaust venting and reducing odor being exhausted into the neighborhood. It would be used for things like traffic impacts and storm water impacts. He adds, that an applicant has to provide a plan for waste disposal and the Zoning Board of Appeals may want to do a Peer Review of that component. But certain things need to be approved by the CCC before it gets to Beverly Planning Board & City Council Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes November 5, 2018 the Zoning Board of Appeals. He notes that the ZBA may be more concerned with the facade of the building, hours of operation, and how signage is displayed. Rand then asks Clausen for some examples, such as karate schools, which have a high concentration of young students and what the process was for either including them or not in the buffer zone. Clausen explains that they started with what the CCC regulations had identified such as the K -12 public and private schools and they used that as a baseline for places that serve children. In addition, they looked at daycares and after - school facilities that are licensed and certified with the state. They lessened the buffer for parks as they are more broadly used. They didn't look at private facilities, like a karate or music school because if they included those uses they would have a high probability of zoning out any kind of marijuana establishment, which they can't do. Councilor Scott Houseman asks Clausen if the City is required by law to allow four retail sites. Clausen says that they must have four and that since the residents voted on it, the City Council cannot disallow it. Houseman then asks if there is a possibility that they could have more than four. Clausen confirms they could. He comments that there are 19 liquor stores in the City and it is set at 20% match so the number could go up if the number of liquor stores increases. Houseman comments that this is very different from what the Zoning Board of Appeals normally handles and asks if there will be additional staff support from the Planning Department to help them with the decision making process. Clausen tells Houseman that during the application review process there will be multiple departments that will review applications and provide commentary to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Clausen then explains that the Building Commissioner gives professional support to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Houseman then asks about the vape shop in the City and if they were to become a facility to distribute marijuana that according to the ordinance, the current paraphernalia would not be allowed to be displayed in the window any longer. Clausen tells him that is correct. Houseman comments about the distribution in the City and the distance between the retail shops not being mandated by a given distance but created by the choices available within different zoning districts. Houseman then adds that the availability of locations is based upon what zoning districts they can be in and if the variety of choices will help the concentration of too many locations in one district. Clausen comments that the reason they provided a variety of districts is to allow the use in commercial areas where they can have like uses. In addition, Clausen comments that they have created a buffer requirement so that once a retail establishment opens there will be a buffer of 2,000 feet from one retail facility or RMD to the other, which is under a 1 /2 mile. Councilor Flowers asks what the standards would be for having a facility around other childcare facilities like the Sterling YMCA or the McPherson Youth Center. Clausen tells Flowers that if it is not licensed by the state as a childcare facility, it would not be part of the buffer. But the Zoning Board could add safeguards for this during the approval process. President Guanci comments on the McPherson Youth Center about it being connected to the park and Clausen comments then it would be in the buffer zone. President Guanci asks Clausen to inform the public why they have waited to have this discussion until now. Clausen comments that the council adopted the moratorium in June 2017 and since Beverly Planning Board & City Council Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes November 5, 2018 then they have been working with a variety of city departments such as the police, fire, municipal inspector, and health department to review case studies of how marijuana establishments have been adopted in other states. They first wanted to see how it was applied outside of Massachusetts and experiences with RMD's and how they are currently allowed. At that time, there were no state regulations, the CCC was not created yet, and in March of 2018 they finally issued those regulations. Since then, City staff took the best practices and case study analysis that was conducted and drafted a zoning ordinance that it could fit well with the regulations. Hutchinson opens the floor up to the members of the Planning Board. Hutchinson asks Clausen if because there is a difference between medical marijuana establishments and retail marijuana establishments and they can have 20% of locations based on how many liquor stores there are, does that count either or both combined. Clausen tells Hutchinson that the 20% applies only to the retail establishments. Hutchinson then asks if there are no limits on the medical marijuana or RMD establishments. Clausen tells her that is correct. Hutchinson then asks about the 500 -foot buffer, except for the buffer on parks and playgrounds where there was only a 300 -foot buffer. Clausen tells Hutchinson they believed that parks had a less intensive use by children than a school would have. Clausen then comments that if they included the 500 -foot buffer on the parks then it would further restrict where the facilities could be located. Williams comments that at the state level there is no buffer with respect to parks, so that is additional protection that the City has added. Hutchinson asks if they considered putting marijuana cultivators in those buffer zones. Clausen comments that it is part of a broader discussion of whether or not cultivators or manufacturers should be part of this buffer as well. They determined that because that use is more manufacturing or lab based that in certain zoning districts they are consistent with those uses. They could be built so one wouldn't know the difference between a marijuana cultivator and another manufacturer. William Boesch asks Clausen about the state licensing process and when does the identification of a potential site come into play. Clausen comments that when an applicant goes to the CCC for a license there needs to be a host agreement in place between the community and operator, then they seek their license. They need to demonstrate having their license with the CCC before they apply for a special permit with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Boesch then asks what the status is of the conflict of state and federal law on the legality of marijuana and does it affect this. Clausen tells Boesch that they cannot enforce federal law. Clausen clarifies that it is up to the City to create an ordinance for how this use can be regulated locally. Williams comments that the meeting does not make marijuana use legal or illegal, as it is already legal in Massachusetts. City Council President Paul Guanci opens up the meeting to questions from the public. Gary Gill, an activist and public speaker for medical marijuana, tells the Board and Council he got involved with this issue because a partner of his needed a medical card due to HIV /AIDS. Gill says that most facilities that sell marijuana are very tasteful with modern signs and frosted windows. Gill suggests they work with the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance. Gill also comments that the biggest hurdle is dealing with host agreements. In addition, they need to make the facilities handicapped accessible and for the train stations and buses to do the same so not to deter potential customers. Beverly Planning Board & City Council Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes November 5, 2018 Michael Latulippe of 190 Bridge Street, Salem, is one of the members of the Cannabis Advisory Board and mainly focuses on the needs of the medical registered marijuana patients. Latulippe comments about the definition of Hemp in the ordinance and says it should be defined separate and excluded from the definition of marijuana. He recommends that they remove it from the ordinance. He also suggests that for the waiver of buffer requirements by special permit section to add the goal of being an economic empowerment priority applicant as part of the reason to have the buffer requirements waived. These applicants can apply for hardship in cases where a primary buffer was preventing them from applying to get a special permit. Latulippe then suggests that it's not clear whether the license is required before applying for a special permit for the establishment. He suggests they add that the provisional license will be sufficient to apply for a special permit. And add that the final license will be given after the initial build out is completed. Claire Cabot, 103 Hart Street, Beverly Farms, comments that the FDA has never done any studies about this substance and police are at a disadvantage because there is no reliable test to when they pullover an impaired driver. Cabot recommends that once they open a couple of stores to use a percentage of that tax money to do a study for how this may affect the community. Suzy LaMont, 20 Porter Street, Beverly, asks if the Cummings Center is one of the potential spots that the buffer waiver would be allowed, she sees a lot of potential for retail there and notes there are manmade barriers to childcare facilities. LaMont then asks about the neighborhood commercial (CN) zoning and why is it excluded from the ordinance, given the Cannabis Commission standards, buffers, and performance standards that the establishments have to require. Clausen explains with regards to the Cummings Center there would be the waiver process if an applicant comes through for that location. Clausen then comments that with the CN district, their view is that the retail and RMD are regional serving uses based upon the CCC regulations that have been rolled out. There are surrounding communities that will not allow retail marijuana uses, so have to think about retail stores as regional serving. Considering that scale, he doesn't feel that character is consistent with the CN districts which are at the edge of residential neighborhoods and worried about allowing it there overwhelming an area. LaMont comments that most of the CN zones have a liquor store in them and she doesn't see a marijuana store being more detrimental than a liquor store. Clausen comments that these stores will be serving those in the region and not just Beverly residents. Brian Belts of Newburyport asks about obtaining a host agreement and what is the timeline for when those will be executed. Clausen comments that he is unsure and they need to pass the ordinance first and then they can start meeting with operators and work with them through the process. Belts is hoping that the City accepts economic empowerment applicants to help those who wouldn't have the opportunity to operate a store otherwise. Joseph McCarthy of 53 Town Farm Road, Ipswich, is president and CEO of Ipswich Pharmaceuticals and Associates which is a registered marijuana dispensary. They have a special permit in Rowley to open up a retail location, in addition to one in Beckett, MA, and Hindsdale, MA (no special permit needed) where their cultivation is located. McCarthy comments that they have an RMD license and have been prioritized as adult recreational owners. He is hoping to have a host agreement with the City of Beverly. Beverly Planning Board & City Council Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes November 5, 2018 John Taylor of 41 Cole Street, Beverly, comments that he does not support an exemption for economic empowerment. He believes that every recreational facility should be subject to the regulations. Taylor then asks if an increase in Beverly liquor licenses would result in an increase of marijuana retail establishments. He then comments about the violation /fine requirements and that the City needs to make sure that the owners will comply with them. Williams comments that the proposed ordinance is written so that it would be based on 20% of the liquor licenses that they have, so if the City gets more liquor licenses, then the number of retail establishments could go up. Jim Isenberg of Lawnbank Road, Beverly, comments that the 2,000 -foot buffer is very limiting and could take out certain parts of the City. Isenberg then comments that an applicant can't file with the state without a host agreement and by then they may have already invested at least $50- 60K before they can come back to the City and get approval for a location. He recommends that the applicant know whether or not the location they have chosen will actually work before going through that process. Barry Bales of Forrester Street, Salem, comments that he is concerned as well that applicants would already be investing money into the possibility of a location even before they have a host agreement in place. Gin Wallace of 34 South Terrace, Beverly, tells the Board she is a resident and downtown steward and fully supports the buffers as designated. She is pleased to hear that the facilities will be spread out in the City. Danielle Spang from 16 Mulberry Street, Beverly tells the Board that she lives in downtown Beverly and she is thankful as well that the facilities will be spread out and not in the same neighborhood. Spang then asks if there is a restriction against waiving the 2,000 -foot buffer requirement. Clausen tells Spang that there is an option to waive the 2,000 -foot dimensional restriction. There are criteria that the Zoning Board of Appeals will look at to have a reasonable reason to allow that waiver. Councilor Rand asks if new businesses will be treated similarly to the way they are currently guiding other new businesses through the process of joining Beverly as a home for their business. Clausen comments that the process will probably be more formal including the host agreement process, having the applicant meet with the Mayor and different City departments to discuss their business. Clausen then adds that they will not waste the applicant's time or investment into their business. President Guanci recommends any of the entrepreneurs join the downtown Beverly Main Streets and the Greater Beverly Chamber of Commerce. Councilor Houseman asks for clarification of the application process and understands that it would start with getting a host agreement, then going to the CCC, and then back to the City for the permitting process. Houseman then asks if it is different from the order that other cities and towns have done. Williams comments that they have reviewed as many ordinances and bylaws as possible and there aren't many that are as comprehensive as the Beverly ordinance. Williams Beverly Planning Board & City Council Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes November 5, 2018 adds that they are comfortable with the process they have set up. Williams then comments that Mayor Cahill has been very helpful in helping them draft the ordinance for the City. Miranda Gooding, 10 Hopkins Avenue, Beverly notes that the ordinance is well - written and clear. She comments about the timing and application that is related to the current state process and how the Zoning Board has to handle two separate layers. One being the typical Zoning Board special permit discretion which the Board normally is used to exercising and the new layer is the consideration of the buffers and whether they can be waived. Gooding mentions the fact that the applicant has to go through the provisional process with the state as well as the host agreement without any assurance that a special permit will be granted. She believes that they need to consider looking at the zoning map and considering just the CG and CC zones, if they apply the buffers, there are very few locations that are as of right eligible for these locations. She believes the Planning Board should think about those buffers further for possible waivers. Isenberg comments that they wouldn't know until almost the end of the process where another applicant may have applied to have a facility in and that they should be able to know ahead of time. Bales adds that so far there have only been three licenses given out for recreational use in the state, and several currently licensed RMDs. The remainder of the industry has yet to be formed. Guanci closes the City Council portion of the hearing at 9:50 p.m. Barrett: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (6 -0). Adjournment Barrett: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 pm. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (6 -0).