Master Plan Informational Hearing, the application of Moran Properties LLC, a comprehensive permit major land development project for low and moderate income housing comprised of 56 apartment units proposed off Devil's Foot Road, assesses plat 181, lots 13 and 28, assesses plat 148 lot 37, located in the post-road zoning district in a zone to be determined.

And we all received a master plan decision that was emailed and we were given hard copies this evening.

We did not highlighted it uh page one is uh the applicable documents, uh page two references the plans that were submitted, page three, two, three, uh, and going into four was the background listing all of the waivers and uh conditions that were needed, page four five and six were the findings of facts, and on page six, there were three conditions that were discussed.

The first being a merger of the three legal lots of record into one lot of record, number two, a sample lease or deed restriction with the affordability liens and a financial performer to be submitted with the primar uh preliminary plan application.

And three, after the expiration of the appeals period from approval of the final plan without the filing of any appeals, the applicant shall submit a letter withdrawing the master plan decision for assessors plot one eighty-one lots 13 and 14 recorded on July 30th, 2020.

Does anyone have any questions, concerns?

Yep, sorry.

I do have a question, uh Mr.

Chair.

Uh in the past, it's my recollection that the voiding of a of a of an approval on a prior project has typically recognized the filing of or I'm sorry, a recording of the master plan.

Why is it that we're waiting for final in this case?

We do we we did that with with the the pinewood one we only had master, and we uh that was when we we voided it at master plan recording.

In this case, if the uh plan is voided right now, the master plan, and this new plan goes through as then appealed and overturned, the applicant's left with nothing.

How is that different from how we acted on Pinewood?

I I was not involved in pine, but I was accused on that one.

Right.

Well, pr but procedurally, we uh procedurally we it I think we did it for more than pine wood, but we typically recognize the recording of the master as the voiding of any prior apprules.

I mean if that's what we're gonna do, that's what we're gonna do, but I I just found it curious that it's different.

In this case, they do have that, so I it's very unusual to have on concurrent application on the same piece of property, but it's really not fair to the applicant to void the already approved plan, whether it's master preliminary, whatever it might be, uh, and then not protect the the applicant in the event that there is an overturning of the new plan, which leaves the applicant with nothing really I don't disagree with that though, so I'm um now I'm curious why we did it previously.

I don't know.

I again I was not involved in my panel, so I'm not sure why that was done that way.

Thank you.

The applicant was taking a risk if the applicant did do that, yes.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Would anyone like to make a motion to approve the master plan decision as written?

I'll make that motion that we approve it.

I will second.

Motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

Sorry, Eric, was that you for the second?

Yes.

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, that's six L.

Uh next item on the agenda, item 3B is a discussion and recommendation to the town council.

Amendments to the North Kingstown zoning ordinance related to the Rhode Island Cannabis Control Act.

Jim, if Hester accused himself, would do you want to switch items 3B and 3C, so that that's at the end.

Um I I certainly would because I sent you an email, McCall and I've got a concern over this that we would be drafting amendments to something that is in violation of federal law.

And just because the state has decided that it would be uh a great source of revenue, and the state has created a a law and and directed towns to do a certain thing, I don't know how we ignore the fact that it is still federally illegal, and I wonder if we don't open ourselves up to some sort of uh liability as well as having a responsibility to whether we like laws or not to follow them.

Do you want me to respond to that?

Yes, please, ma'am.

Well, again, um this is a unique situation, and the point you raised is certainly a valid point.

But the with respect to marijuana regulations, uh Rhode Island's not uh a trailblazer in this area.

This has been going on for 20 years in the United States.

Back in the 1970s, polls were taken, and people were asked, uh, were they in favor of legalizing marijuana?

At that point, only four percent of the population, or five percent of the population was in favor of uh legalizing marijuana.

Polls that have been taken in the past couple of years show that uh 70 percent of the population is in favor of uh of legalizing marijuana.

That is not changed the federal law.

Under the federal law, uh marijuana is designated as a Schedule One controlled substance, which puts it in the same category as heroin and cocaine.

And the Senate has in some res uh the issues here, the Congress, not just the Senate, the Congress has in some respects tried to change that, but is not gone all the way.

In other words, the Congress passed legislation uh prohibiting the U.S.

attorneys or Justice Department from spending any money to prevent states from enacting legislation such as this with respect to medical marijuana.

They have not done it yet with respect to recreational marijuana, but uh that is coming at some point.

Uh medical marijuana or recreational marijuana as being legalized by the various states, and I think that there are 37 states right now are doing medical and or recreational marijuana.

So with respect to this, I don't think there's any liability for any planning commission member or any town council member with respect to this.

The uh federal laws are enforced by the federal agents, not by local authorities.

In other words, the local police don't enforce income tax evasion laws.

That's a federal law with respect to marijuana, it's got to be enforced by federal authorities.