Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board trims cannabis articles; planning board to hold zoning hearing
Summary
Facing sequencing and clarity issues, the Select Board removed two cannabis‑related warrant articles (including a social equity bylaw) and referred a zoning prohibition amendment to the planning board for hearing; staff said town counsel advised that a social equity policy can be done by policy rather than bylaw.
The Select Board reviewed and adjusted several cannabis‑related warrant items ahead of the annual town meeting, voting to remove two articles (including a social equity bylaw) and referring a zoning prohibition amendment to the planning board for public hearing.
Board members discussed sequencing concerns: because West Newbury was a 'yes' community in 2016, a voter ballot question is required for a prohibition on recreational cannabis; that question appears on the ballot and the board explained that a town‑meeting bylaw alone would not take legal effect without the ballot outcome. To avoid confusing voters, one member suggested placing the prohibition article before the zoning/regulatory bylaw in case voters opt to prohibit commercial cannabis uses.
Town staff reported a late opinion from town counsel that the social equity requirement could be implemented by administrative policy rather than by bylaw; staff recommended striking the social equity bylaw article (Article 19) from the warrant and handling social equity through policy. The planning board will hold a hearing on the proposed zoning prohibition on April 21; staff placed required legal ad placements to meet statutory notice requirements.
The board approved an amendment to the marijuana overlay district as revised by the planning board for inclusion in the booklet but said it would incorporate any substantive town‑counsel edits if they are non‑housekeeping. Select Board members emphasized they would not advocate on the ballot question (state law restricts board advocacy on ballot items) and encouraged public education (a posted five‑minute explanatory video and scheduled informational sessions had been prepared by staff).
