CAMDEN — With a close vote at a special town meeting, Camden voters have enacted a six-month moratorium on marijuana sales and social clubs. After a substantial discussion, however, the town amended its original moratorium language to assign a committee to gather public input on ordinances related to retail and marijuana social clubs while the moratorium is underway.

Camden’s language also allows its moratorium (see attached PDF)  to be extended another six months, if the Select Board chooses.

The 32-plus citizens who gathered Feb. 21 in Camden’s Washington Street Conference Room differed in their opinions on a moratorium. Some questioned its need, given that the state is already conducting its own rulemaking process to allow recreational sale and use of marijuana in Maine.

Maine voters legalized recreational use and sale of marijuana last November. The citizens’ initiative provided for nine months of rule-making, beginning Jan. 30, about how the state will regulate marijuana sales. While it is now legal to use and possess marijuana (over the age of 21), it is not legal to sell it.

In January, Rep. Owen Casas, I-Rockport, wrote in, What you need to know about Maine's new marijuana law, that the “nine-month timeframe was extended by the Legislature an extra three months so the anticipated start date for legal sales of recreational marijuana is Feb 1, 2018.” 

The state’s Marijuana Legalization Implementation Committee wants to hear from stakeholders and members of the public about how to regulate growers, producers and sellers, how to tax the substance, and how the law will affect the workplace, said Senator Roger Katz, R-Augusta, Senate Chairman of the new MLI Committee, in a public request made Feb. 23. 

The Camden moratorium had initially been placed on the Select Board agenda last November, but was tabled. In December, there had been lively discussions among the Select Board members themselves about the need for a local moratorium, with Leonard Lookner, who died Feb 5, questioning why the town would want to discourage potential enterprise, and Chairman John French citing the need for defining districts where marijuana retail could take place.

At the Feb. 21 special town meeting, town Attorney Bill Kelly said numerous municipalities have enacted moratoriums while the state crafts its rules.

“There’s really nothing to do but adopt this ordinance until the state has got its act together,” said Kelly.

“We’re in this grey area in that no licenses will be issued,” he said. 

But, he added, Camden risked entering “vested interest” battles without the town officially declaring a moratorium on considering zoning applications for marijuana enterprises.

“If someone wished to establish a club or retail sales, they could start the process now and invest money for the intended purpose and there is nothing at the local level to prevent it,” said Kelly.

The moratorium, he said, is: “putting people on notice that we are not getting a vested rights situation. As this is a total state of flux, would not be good planning. The Select Board can extend it for another 180 days. That likely might happen because we won’t have guidance from the state.”

“Vested rights,” according to U.S. Legal, “protects property owners and developers from changes in zoning when they have received a valid building permit and have completed substantial construction and made substantial expenditures in reliance on the permit. This doctrine allows the owner or developer to proceed in accordance with the prior zoning provision as they have vested rights to a validly issued permit.” 

Camden resident Alison McKellar asked Kelly: “What is it that the state moratorium doesn’t do. We are sending purely political message. Why would someone choose to deceive us. Why wouldn’t we wait for nine months, see what state does, and have a committee looking at concerns of community and then in nine months see if we need a moratorium?”

Kelly replied: “You are correct that you could wait, but I’d think if someone came in for a building permit, there’d be no reason to deny them at this moment. The town would be in a bit of a pickle. I don’t know what the state is going to do. Where do we fill in the gaps when we don’t know where the gaps are going to be? There’s so much know, and no one has litigated. I can see someone coming up, saying ‘you gave me a building permit, I acted in best interest, and now you say I can’t do it in a district.’”

He said: “Vested money could be substantial, and then it comes down to vested rights. I don’t know if it would win, but why put us in that legal battle?”

Wyatt McConnell, a Camden citizen, suggested Camden assemble a committee and report back to the town three months prior to the conclusion of the state’s moratorium. 

“I think we need to study ordinances and make sure we do that instead of spinning wheels on a moratorium,” he said.

Kelly cited two Maine Municipal Association model ordinances, one is a moratorium and one for “an outright prohibition.”

The nonprofit MMA comprises Maine’s towns and cities and lobbies for them in Augusta, as well as helps craft policies, and even assists, for a fee, in municipal personnel searches, as it is currently doing with Camden.

MMA is holding a Freeport workshop, “Lifting the Haze: Marijuana and Legal Considerations,” Feb. 28. The workshop will cover how the state and federal regulations intersect. According to MMA spokesman Eric Conrad, that workshop sold out five weeks ago.

He said that “dozens and dozens” of Maine municipalities have enacted moratoriums, but MMA was not tracking which ones.

MMA’s monthly magazine, The Townsman, has two articles related to marijuana, one from a regulatory and zoning perspective, and another investigating how local police chiefs are handling the recreational use of the substance.

“The federal government plays a role too, and local officials now are presented with a dizzying array of legal and economic decisions,” said MMA, in its workshop brochure. The event will also take a look at the industry, cultivation, processing and retail facilities, potential market size in Maine, Obama’s Cole Memo and the treatment of marijuana by the Trump Administration.

At Camden’s meeting, Kelly remained firm in his concern for vested rights conflicts.

“We don’t know how big the player might be, how deep pockets are,” he said. “And we don’t know where the state’s going to stop and where we could pick up. I’mm guessing we won’t need more than a year. The logic being followed is to be more cautious.”

“Are you advocating for waiting for the state before we get our ordinances drafted,” asked McConnell. “I don’t see wisdom in delaying the studying.”

“Sure, start now,” said Kelly.

Board Chairman John French said moratorium “gives us the opportunity to put a group together.” 

Board member Marc Ratner agreed, saying the moratorium and beginning the research are not mutually exclusive.

Citizen John Scholz, who sits on the town’s planning board, asked whether the Select Board would be setting up a separate committee: “or would you be asking planning board to study the districts and have public hearings on this to get input. It would be good to know.”

“That would be tough to answer tonight because we havent’ had conversation amongst ourselves,” said French.

Citizen Etienne Perret said: I seem to hear a lot of fear in this conversation and wanted to point out that thousands of towns have dealt with this quite successsfuly and it is the will of the people to make this possible. The point is to regulate as opposed to deregulate.”

Citizen Geoff Scott said the matter was question of process and suggested an amendment to the moratorium be made to assign a committee to research local ordinances governing marijuana retail.

Another citizen countered that creating a new committee would be worrisome, given who might be on that committee, and said the Select Board should be the body to research the issue.

Kelly advised against too much amending, saying the moratorium was not fiscal matter, and that “substantive amendments are not permissible in draft zoning ordinances.”

It may constitute, he said, “a no harm, no foul situation.”

Resident Mark Kwiatowski asked: “Do we even need to have them at all, social clubs and retail shops? Should there be some talk about whether we even want to have it at all?”

“That’s part of the scope,” said Ratner. “What does the community want?”

Special Meeting Moderator Deb Dodge then turned the discussion back to the moratorium, and John French said the committee matter would be put on the next board agenda.

“We will do the usual advertising for members, discuss makeup of the committee and scope of it,” he said. “It makes better sense than to amend the moratorium and agenda.”

Citizen Mark Benjamin said: “I worry that Camden is gaining reputation is being anti-entrepreneurial and anti-business. This feels like yet more rules by which people can’t make a buck.”

French responded that the time would allow for Camden to “define the areas for residential and business, and rules for where bars can be. It’s just common sense. We’re not trying to tell someone they cannot be here.”

In the end, the amendment to create a committee passed 18 to 11, and the moratorium, with the new language, passed 17 to 14.

Reach Editorial Director Lynda Clancy at lyndaclancy@penbaypilot.com; 207-706-6657