UPDATED, Nov. 10: Without knowing how voters statewide might decide the recreational-marijuana ballot question, the town Redevelopment Board on Monday, Nov. 7, unanimously approved a special permit to the Massachusetts Patient Foundation Inc. for a medical-marijuana dispensary at 11 Water St.
Some public opposition expressed
The permit includes conditions that prohibit nonmedical sales, calls for all storage of marijuana in a protected vault and requires a vote of support from the town Board of Health.
The Redevelopment Board vote follows more than a year of discussion about the dispensary and was taken after the state’s Department of Health granted provisional registration to the nonprofit foundation.
One resident raised her voice during the public meeting, complaining about the proximity of the dispensary to children as well as the lack of public notice, and another called for delay until voters decided the recreational-marijuana question was decided.
The issue has been reported since Oct. 15, 2015 (see links below), and an attorney for the foundation called the reference to the ballot question a “red herring.”
In August, the Redevelopment Board heard two hours of testimony about a medical-marijuana dispensary proposed for Arlington Center, and members voted to hear more, so they put off matters three weeks. Now, uncertainty about changing state guidelines, has led town officials to delay consideration two more months.
The board’s Sept. 12 hearing was postponed to Nov. 7 “with the consent and agreement of the applicant,” the Massachusetts Patient Foundation, which is seeking a special permit to allow a dispensary at 11 Water St. What’s behind the substantial delay?
Request infomation submitted
Valerio Romano, an attorney for the foundation, told the board Nov. 7 that all of the information sought at Oct. 17 meeting had been submitted. That included a traffic study, an inventory policy and a staffing plan.
Dave Watson, the newest board member, raised an issue he had presented in October — whether changes in buffer zones meant that the issue the board faced differed from what Town Meeting had voted in 2014. That year, it followed the 2012 statewide majority vote supporting medical marijuana and approved allowing a dispensary in town. He said he did not want to go against the wishes of Town Meeting.
Fellow member Michael Cayer agreed, but the issue was not probed at much of an extent. As to conflicting messages this summer from the state Department of Public Health regarding the dispensary’s nearness to a pediatrician’s office, Cayer says there appears to be “no hard and fast rule” about it.
Watson also asked about making the dispensary secure, and Romano said walls, floors and ceilings of adjoining offices would be built with impermeable material.
An early audience of 10 swelled to as many as 25 during the evening, but only a few spoke to the dispensary agenda item.
A vocal mother
Karen Elizabeth Thomas-alyea, who said her children use the Robbins Library, a church and a preschool — all within 500 feet of 11 Water St. — spoke forcefully, at length and a number times during public comment. Chairman Andrew Bunnell asked her to stop at least twice.
“I will not be silenced,” she said. “…. Can you think of a worse place to for such a facility?”
Later, board member Andrew West said: “This is a medical facility …. This will help people. This is exactly where you do want it. There will always be children” nearby, np matter the location.
A second speaker, Chris Loreti, a former member of the Redevelopment Board, suggested Town counsel Heim’s views about the impact of dispensary siting on children reflected that the Board of Selectman had been “bought off” with marijuana money. Bunnell tried to interrupt, saying the comment was out of order.
Loreti said he wanted his comments on the table and expressed displeasure with the chair that he could not continue those comments.
Once established, the dispensary is to make payment to town coffers and them provide an annual percentage.
In an opinion, Heim has written saying the proximity of a doctor’s office and a library do not rule out a Water Street dispensary.
“The selectmen ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking that the library does not apply,” Loreti said.
He asked the board to postpone action until the public votes Nov. 8 on the recreational-marijuana question.
Romano responded that the foundation is a nonprofit, and he agreed to make part of the permit’s condition that it never sells nonmedical marijuana. “We are not a pot shop,” he said.
After Watson noted that, in effect, there is now no buffer zone, the board voted, 5-0, to approve the special permit, with conditions.
2 hearings continued
In other business, which drew a number of speakers, the board voted unanimously to continue hearings for:
— A special permit for 117 Broadway, Housing Corporation of Arlington, to allow Mixed-Use containing commercial and residential uses in the B4 Vehicular Oriented Business District, under Section 7.13 of the Table of Use Regulations; and
— A special permit for 19R Park Ave. (Downing Square), Housing Corporation of Arlington, to allow new construction of a residential property in the R-7 Apartment District — High Density zone.
Oct. 19: No action recommended on dispensary buffer zones, rock-removal articles
Sept. 1, 2016: State uncertainty about dispensary regs postpones hearing two months
Aug. 23, 2016: Public questions put off hearing on medical-marijuana dispensary three weeks
April 13, 2016: Selectmen take 3rd step toward dispensary after 7 object
Cambridge Day, Feb. 24, 2016: Debate over medical marijuana facility nudges officials toward citywide zoning
Oct. 21, 2015: Board seeks more specifics about proposed medical-marijuana dispensary
Globe, Aug. 5, 2015: Norwood selectmen not opposed to marijuana dispensary bid
This news summary was published Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016, and updated Nov. 11, to add a name and to correct Loreti’s comments after reviewing the ACMi broadcast >>
