Sherburn is an incredible place to live and raise a family. It provides a beautiful landscape, incredible schools, wonderful and caring community. We take care of one another and most importantly we nurture and take care of our children. I have been an active participant in this effort through my work over the past 10 years with substance abuse prevention. In my opinion, article 16 presents the Sherburn community with a simple yet very important question. What impact could marijuana establishments in Sherburn have on our children? Do you think marijuana establishments in Sherburn could be good for our children? In my opinion, the the answer is obvious. Marijuana will never be good for our children. It will only expose our community to potential significant problems. Consider the products by that are sold by some of these recreational marijuana establishments. Orange kush soda, cannabis quench lemonade, blue raspberry edible gummies, mile high chocolate bars, breath mints in canisters with cartoon cats and dogs.
Consider the scientific research that has been done regarding the negative effects that marijuana can have on an adolescent brain. They include memory, attention, executive functioning, and IQ. Consider the studies that link marijuana use to poor performance in school, higher rates of addiction, depression, anxiety, and to more serious drug use such as the use of opioids. Consider all these things. Then ask yourself again, do you think marijuana establishments in Sherburn could be good for our children? I also urge you to reconsider some of the arguments made to downplay the risks of marijuana coming to Sherburn. Some focus on the financial relief that pot shops could bring to Sherburn, a benefit to our town. Some question whether pot shops would actually come to Sherburn. Why worry about this if the shops may not come? Some point to the sale of alcohol in our community, which is also a problem for our youth.
Why allow these establishments, but not marijuana. Some question the scientific research? They say there are studies that come up with different conclusions about marijuana use. In my opinion, the response to these arguments is simple. Again, do you think marijuana establishments in Sherburn could be good for our children? Whether the pot shops would bring financial relief to to the town begs a more critical question. At what cost? The potential benefit cannot even be compared to the potential cost in form of in the form of impact on our community and youth. Whether the pot shops would actually come or not does not change the fact that if they did, pot shops would be a bad thing for our children. Whether liquor store stores also pose concerns for our children does not change the fact that by adding marijuana that list would be a bad thing for our children.
The fact that other studies exist related to the risk of marijuana usage does not change the fact that there is significant evidence from actual experiences and other communities that tell us the consequences of this issue are simply too significant to ignore. Again, allowing marijuana establishments to come to Sherburn would do nothing to help our community. Just the opposite. I'm I'm realizing here. I may have I I just forgot one thing that I did I overlooked on my on my own paper here. The experience of of other communities such as cities and towns in Colorado. Um, the information does indicate since legalization, Colorado has the highest use of marijuana use for 12 to 17 year olds. And uh, there's been a dramatic 32% increase in automobile related deaths caused by operators testing positive for marijuana use. So, with that said, um I really ask you tonight to join me, other concerned citizens, including Abby Fisk, who did a wonderful job putting together the bulletin, and the Sherburn Police and the planning board.
We would join good company, Medfield, Westwood, Norwood, and Walpole, who have also opted out of marijuana in their towns. Thank you. Thank you, Mimi. Uh yes, Mr. addresses. I want to take a I want to take a moment and explain the legal framework that we're dealing with here. The state has legalized medical marijuana. That's not the issue before us. Ballot question four passed at the last election that legalized recreational marijuana. It also allowed for facilities to be located in cities and towns that would dispense recreational marijuana. The issue in this motion is whether we should permit those recreational facilities to be located here in Sherburn. The question before us tonight has a companion piece to it, which is a ballot question that goes on the ballot for us to vote. We need both a town meeting vote and the ballot question for all the voters to vote upon to opt out of having recreation facilities here in town.
That doesn't mean that somebody who wants recreational marijuana can't drive to other communities around us and buy it. It doesn't mean they can't use it consistent with the statute. It doesn't change the rights of people to use marijuana as allowed by ballot question four as voted by the state as a whole. So the question here is, is this appropriate to have a building and a structure that would be what's called a pot shop here in Sherburn? Thank you, Paul. Any other comments? Uh, yes. I'm Bob Ambos. Can you hear me? 47 Lake Street. I'm will vote no on this question because I feel that it's premature to consider it. I'd like to consider it a year from now. Uh I'm especially interested in the financial benefit to the town. What would the town earn out of shops like this? Yes, I'm Michael Newman on Nason Hill Lane.
Uh, I also don't would vote no on this, but I would like to point out a structural problem with it that it includes marijuana cultivation, which I believe is a protected activity on agricultural uh properties greater than 5 acres. And if this was uh passed in its current form, I don't think it would survive. So, even though I'm against it uh in some way in support of it, I would like to see it amended to remove marijuana cultivation in all uh locations that it occurs. And I'll write that for the uh for the amendment. Okay. Town council, would you have a comment about that? Thank you, madam moderator. So, uh I don't think you are you turned on. Can you hear? Yes, I'm I'm turn. Okay. So, I just want to make sure that people are clear. You certainly do have the right to amend this to remove the uh marijuana cultivation.
However, we want to make sure that you are aware that it is not a uh protected agricultural use in Massachusetts. The legislature passed an amendment a few months ago which specifically provides that the cultivation of marijuana is not covered by the agricultural exemption under chapter 4A section 3. So again, you certainly have the right to take that out, but it is not required by state law. It is not protected under the exemption. Okay, Elliot, how about down here? Elliot Taylor. A yes vote is for no marijuana. Is that correct? I will be voting yes with a capital Y. Well, actually, you'll be voting I with a capital A. Um, why don't we take the comment in the back and then I think there's um Addie May down here. Thank you. Uh, Tim Tapley, 17 Great Rock Road. I actually just have a question for town council.
There are a number of marijuana uh delivery services that are currently active and growing within the Commonwealth and I'm wondering whether there is any consideration or whether there could be any consideration to prohibit the delivery of marijuana within the town of Sherbornne as well. All right. So, under the under the uh state statute, first of all, I'm not going to comment on those delivery services as to, you know, the legality of their current operation or not. That's a that's another issue. But the way the law is set up, there are certain types of marijuana facilities that are defined in the law and there those are the ones that are listed in the proposed um the proposed by that you're voting on today. and those are the ones the town has been given the authority to um exercise control over. Uh there's nothing in the state statute about those delivery services and since they operate uh across town boundaries uh that if the town were to amend this right now to to include those I think that might cause problems in terms of the legality in getting it approved by the attorney general.
Um Addy May, did you want to speak? Hi, Addie May Weiss. Um one Jackson Road. I'm just wanted to point out the planning board discussed at length section B and our concern was B essentially gives our town time to see how the state's going to decide to handle things. Um, if you notice in the language that the state statute allows for applications for pot shops to be um, submitted on or before April 1st, 2018. The state needed some time to that was the state's chance to figure out how they were going to work this out. As a planning board, we wanted to ensure that we had at least as much time as the state had and uh, before we decided whether this was a good thing or not for our town. So, at the bare minimum, we wanted to ensure that we um because town meeting any zoning to prohibit would be at our next town meeting in 2018 and would fall after the April 1st date.
At the bare minimum, our town wanted to have uh we felt that it was important for our town to have at least a time to to wait and see how this was going to be handled. So, um, section B, it was fairly unanimous on planning board that we supported section B. Um, I see someone in the back. Do you have Artist FL 32 Maple Street? Could I just This You need to step back from the mic. You're quite garbled. Step back and then speak up. Okay. Artist FLL 32 Maple Street. Um, this may be a redundant question. I'm sorry. Um, do I understand it correctly that um the state uh does not permit a marijuana testing facilities and so we are we want to um amend zoning bylaws to say that Sherburn does not either. I marijuana testing facilities. Could you could somebody explain that to me because Yeah.
Um, let me repeat what I think is the question. Okay. Um, what you what we are discussing right now in your uh report from the advisory committee is the section that is labeled A1. We're talking about the general bylaw. And um we have already had someone question the phrase marijuana cultivators, right? And I believe artist is saying that she is questioning the meaning of marijuana testing facilities. Yes. And who feels they can answer that question? Is it town council? Thank you, madam moderator. So all of the phrases that are listed in this article and in this motion are all defined by the state law. So, a marijuana testing facility is defined as an entity licensed to test marijuana and marijuana products, including certification for potency and the presence of contaminants. So, that's that's what the definitions of of a marijuana testing facility. Okay. And the state has prohibited um marijuana testing facilities.
Uh can can you explain the pro prohibition that we are what are we are we voting to we also prohibit that here we are dis yes that the motion is to adopt this as a local sherburn bylaw. So, so it would, this bylaw would prohibit um all the things that are listed in here, including marijuana testing facilities. I think what I'm I'm sorry I'm think what I don't understand is why do we need to do that if the state currently has already prohibited that? Through you, madam moderator. This the the state has not prohibited these facilities. Okay. Uh the state the what was passed by the by the voters on the ballot last year was an act which would now allow these types of facilities all the facilities that are listed uh in this proposed bylaw. And then the state provided a local option that if a town or a city wants to prohibit some of the some or all of these types of facilities that you may do so.
But as was explained earlier uh by Sleekman Dorenzis, the only way to do that is to have a town meeting vote and then have it on the ballot and have it approved by the vote is that's the way to prohibit these types of of facilities. Thank you. And the cultivating which I know was already addressed, does that uh apply to any number of plants or is it large cultivation or what is what is that? Any cultivation? Sure. Well, feel free. The law that was passed by the voters in question four allows everybody to grow their own marijuana up to 12 plants. Nothing before us will change that. Mhm. There is no vote yes or no on this article that's going to change that right to cultivate your own marijuana. Instead, what this is trying to do is to take defined terms in that statute which deal with large operations, not these small home cultivation for your own use.
to decide whether or not we want those in this town or do we want them not in this town. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. I'm not sure why we would be opposed to testing facilities. It seems like uh it's a pretty uh it's not something that would seem dangerous to us to have a testing facility, a business um of that nature located in Sherurn. I'm not sure what the negative impact of that would be. If anybody has a opinion on it that would shed light, I'd be willing to hear it. I'm just wondering because we're talking about, you know, a lot of things that impact taxes and so on and businesses and town centers and I'm just just wondering why that would be ownorous. Thank you. Yes. I just wanted to make one simple comment that when the perception of harm decreases, the use among teens increase.
So if we had a testing facility here, we were supporting a commerce that was related to marijuana. It really may change the perception of harm among our youth. That's my my opinion. And I just want to say one other thing. The planning board said it so well at one of the meetings that these A1 and A2 are really tightening things that we've already put into place. The moratorum which is B is something new. So I thought that that was helpful. So a yes vote would be to tighten the bylaws and adopt the moratorum. Uh John, we're just doing A1 right now. Do you do you want to com It's a general bylaw. Do you want to comment it? Sure. John Higgley, 14 Saddlebrook Road, uh chairman of the planning board, just to be clear on a couple things. One is when the planning board did deliberate this and others, we uh voted unanimously in favor of these three parts.
But the the clarification here is that um this this provides protection for the town until the state uh regulations are formulated. That's what we're that so so this is to provide time for for just these kind of details to be better formulated by the state including testing facilities and the other parts too. Okay. If there are Madam moderator, could I just say something? Sure. Um, there actually are three articles here. What what John just described was the moratorium article, which is B. Uh, A1 and A2 are actually permanent changes to the bylaw. They're not set up as mortorious. [Music] article to to reiterate what Mike said, article A1 and A2 would take effect immediately regardless of what the final regs are that are implemented by the state. The moratorum, you're correct, John, that the moratorum section B would allow the town to wait to see what the final regulations are that are adopted by the state of Massachusetts.
Okay. Um, just for clarification, the motion that is on the floor at the moment is simply about A1 to amend the general bylaws by adding chapter 29. Um, and Mr. Newman has proposed an amendment. Um, if he is here, where is he? Um, if you'd like to step to the mic and say, I move to amend. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded.
Is there any discussion about the amendment? Hi, I have a question, madam moderator. My Can you hear me? Okay. Um, sorry. No, not really. You're in the back. My name is Abby Oonnell. I live at 13 My name is Abby O'Connell. I live at 13 Pleasant Street. I have a clarification question. It seems to me, and I'm just maybe not understanding this, that section A is contradictory to section B. Is that correct? Go ahead. Uh, thank you, madam moderator. Uh, they they are not contradictory. They're actually somewhat connected. I'll try and explain it. So again, the the um ballot question that was passed by the voters contained a number of um provisions, local options for control of marijuana. One is to adopt zoning bylaws uh with respect to the various types of facilities that are now going to be allowed. The other option is um to adopt bylaws to completely prohibit certain types of facilities in the town.
So to some extent these rather being contradictory, they're sort of belt and suspenders. Um be because and because the way the law is written, there are some ambiguities in it to say the least. um in order to ensure that any loophole is covered, you you have to you have to do all three of these votes if that's you know the direction the town meeting wants to go. So the first two votes are the general bylaw and the zoning bylaw to prohibit these certain types of facilities and then the the second one is a moratorum which would allow the the town uh about a year plus to wait and see what happens with this new law. There are currently over 40 uh bills pending before the legislature to amend what was passed by the voters. All of those have been referred to a committee and that's currently uh under review as I'm sure many of you have read in the papers.