Waltham council hears request to expand marijuana business hours and allow permit transfers; hearing referred to committee

WALTHAM, Mass. — A joint public hearing of the Waltham City Council and the Board of Survey and Planning on proposed amendments to the city’s zoning rules for medical and nonmedical marijuana businesses drew applicants, councilors and planning staff for detailed questions on operations and ownership transfers.

The petition, filed as amendments to Articles 11 and 12 of the Waltham zoning code, would change hours in Section 11.6 and 12.6 to allow marijuana establishments to operate 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sundays, with closures on Thanksgiving and Christmas. It would also change Sections 11.11 and 12.11 to make special permits valid for three years and to allow a special-permit transfer subject to public hearing and City Council approval.

Why it matters: Petitioners said the changes will align Waltham with neighboring communities, avoid customer confusion at opening and allow an applicant to purchase property where a permitted cannabis business operates without invalidating the special permit. Councilors asked detailed questions about the scope of the amendment, transfer mechanics and enforcement.

Valerio Romano, an attorney representing Ooma Flowers Waltham LLC, told the council the company’s Waltham site at 196 Bearhill Road has completed its final Cannabis Control Commission inspection and expects to open soon. Romano described two distinct goals behind the petition: to allow the property transfer process for a site once fully permitted, and to expand operating hours to the 8–10 p.m. window during weekdays to be competitive with neighboring municipalities.

Romano said the transfer language was drafted with input from the city law department so that any transfer would require a special-permit modification hearing before the City Council and that the transferee must demonstrate compliance with all conditions and applicable local and state regulations.

Councilor Anthony LaFosse, who represents Ward 1, welcomed the applicant and said the extended hours match surrounding towns; Councilor Kathy Ann Harris pressed Romano to state the petition’s two explicit requests on the record. Harris repeatedly sought clarification whether the transfer language applied to the sale of property rather than an immediate license sale; Romano said the intent is to permit property acquisition after permitting, not to grant an automatic right to sell an operating license without state and local approvals.

Several councilors and Survey & Planning members asked which communities were used in the hours survey; Romano said the draft compared Watertown, Newton, Belmont and Boston among others. Romano also told councilors that special permits under the proposed text would be valid for three years and that transfers would require a Council public hearing and demonstration of compliance by the transferee.

No members of the public spoke in opposition during the hearing; no formal vote on the zoning language was taken. At the end of the hearing the chair closed the public comment period and the matter was referred to the Ordinance & Rules Committee for continued review and drafting (referral motion and committee date not attributable to a single named mover in the public transcript).

What the petition would change, as read into the record: • Operating hours: 8 a.m.–10 p.m. Monday–Saturday; 8 a.m.–8 p.m. Sundays; closed Thanksgiving and Christmas (amendments to Sections 11.6 and 12.6). • Term of special permit: Special permits under the sections would be valid for three years; transfers of a special permit would be treated as a special-permit modification requiring City Council public hearing and approval (amendments to Sections 11.11 and 12.11).

Next steps: The Council referred the joint hearing to Ordinance & Rules for further committee review and law department input; Ordinance & Rules indicated a meeting date of May 7 on the record during the session.

Speakers quoted and referenced in this report were present in the public hearing record and include councilors and the petitioner’s representatives; all quotes are taken from the meeting transcript.

Ending note: The hearing record shows detailed operational and transfer questions remain to be resolved in committee, including how transfer reviews will be implemented and how the city will ensure parity across prospective cannabis operators.