Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
In August, the BATFE ruled that no one possessing a medical marijuana prescription card may own a firearm. Safe bet this will be extended to recreational users should that become allowed.
Proponents of proposed Grafton marijuana clinic pull application
The former Cumerland Farms storefront that had been the site of the proposed Sage Cannabis marijuana clinic.
The former Cumberland Farms storefront that had been the site of the proposed Sage Cannabis marijuana clinic.
Grafton, MA – The ongoing saga of the Sage Cannabis marijuana clinic seems to have ended this week when town officials received a letter notifying them that Sage had abandoned its plans to create a marijuana clinic at the old Cumberland Farms building at 206 Worcester St. a site abutting the Hollywood Drive residential neighborhood. This issue has become an ongoing controversy between the Town and angry residents since November, 2015, when the Board issued a Letter of Non-opposition to the clinic’s siting.
In a communication with the town, officials were notified late Tuesday night, June 14, that Sage Cannabis will be withdrawing their application from the Department of Public Health for a site in Grafton. In their words, they “are pursuing another town closer to Boston that better meets their business model.” At the time of the letter, Sage had been called Milford Medicinals. Voters were completely surprised by the town’s letter of non-opposition and many were furious that in their minds, the Board of Selectmen acted without consulting them on this project. A number of meetings regarding the clinic location were held between February and May of 2016. Aggravating an already prickly situation, another company, Nature’s Remedy, has since approached the town with a proposal to build an indoor marijuana growing facility at CenTech Park (http://www.communityadvocate.com/2016/05/29/selectmen-hear-plans-for-marijuana-farm-in-centech-park/).
This week’s notice from Sage does not include any information of what location they are now considering. The former Cumberland Farms location has sat empty and abandoned for all of 2016. There has, since early spring, however, been a Realtor’s lock box on the front door, apparently used to show the property to other interested parties.
CLYW - Calypso Wireless, Inc.
CLYW is a stock selling scam that has had former officers accused of fraud.
Since 1997 Calypso has had no revenues from the sale of any product.
If I had been given free shares I would dump them.
If you need a write-off by all means buy it.
Robert Leon the inventor of the patent is gone and is selling all the shares he can as fast as he can.
On December 6, 2005, Robert Leon, the Company's former Chief Technology Officer, commenced an action against the Company seeking additional compensation and reimbursement of certain expenses. The Company believes that it has fully complied with all of its obligations to Mr. Leon and does not expect the outcome of the action to materially adversely effect the Company.
George Schilling the former CEO has lost his memory according to his public statements and remembers no transactions while he was president.
Calypso has changed accounting firms more often than they have recorded any legitimate deals.
Do your own DD and by all means do not listen to the Calypso employees posting on other boards telling you to buy this over-hyped, high risk, stock selling, no revenue, PINK SHEET POS company!
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=55877
Proponents of proposed Grafton marijuana clinic pull application
Grafton, MA – The ongoing saga of the Sage Cannabis marijuana clinic seems to have ended this week when town officials received a letter notifying them that Sage had abandoned its plans to create a marijuana clinic at the old Cumberland Farms building at 206 Worcester St. a site abutting the Hollywood Drive residential neighborhood. This issue has become an ongoing controversy between the Town and angry residents since November, 2015, when the Board issued a Letter of Non-opposition to the clinic’s siting.
In a communication with the town, officials were notified late Tuesday night, June 14, that Sage Cannabis will be withdrawing their application from the Department of Public Health for a site in Grafton. In their words, they “are pursuing another town closer to Boston that better meets their business model.” At the time of the letter, Sage had been called Milford Medicinals. Voters were completely surprised by the town’s letter of non-opposition and many were furious that in their minds, the Board of Selectmen acted without consulting them on this project. A number of meetings regarding the clinic location were held between February and May of 2016. Aggravating an already prickly situation, another company, Nature’s Remedy, has since approached the town with a proposal to build an indoor marijuana growing facility at CenTech Park (http://www.communityadvocate.com/2016/05/29/selectmen-hear-plans-for-marijuana-farm-in-centech-park/).
This week’s notice from Sage does not include any information of what location they are now considering. The former Cumberland Farms location has sat empty and abandoned for all of 2016. There has, since early spring, however, been a Realtor’s lock box on the front door, apparently used to show the property to other interested parties.
The SEC suspended trading three years ago as it called CLYW a scam and its officers crooks. The officers soon disappeared, one to Paraguay. The receiver was ordered to roll-up the company while making sure stockholders got money for their shares. After three years the receiver complained that he didn't even get reimbursement for his "work" and under stockholder questioning reported that there was zero worth to the company. Another poster here has reported that the patent that was declared worthless at a badly botched trial had been purchased for an undisclosed sum by an unknown entity. This story will certainly become a business school case study. The former officers have so far gotten-off scott free.
Selectmen hear plans for marijuana farm in CenTech Park
Grafton, MA – The Grafton Board of Selectmen held a public hearing at Grafton High School to discuss a proposal from California-based Nature’s Remedy to create an indoor marijuana farm at CenTech Park. The hearing was held at the high school to allow for more seats for voters and other interested parties after an earlier marijuana hearing for Sage Cannabis near Holliday Drive had created an agitated, large crowd at a selectmen’s meeting where there was insufficient room for interested parties to attend. The room at the high school used on May 24 had approximately 50 seats and most of those were filled.
The team from Nature’s Remedy, led by CEO John Brady and Attorney Philip Silverman, gave a presentation, noting that the proposed site, although still in CenTech Park, had been moved to another location not abutting wetlands. He said that the company had seen an opportunity to locate the farm in Grafton in preparation for growing marijuana for medical use and perhaps, at some time in the future, also for recreational use if a ballot question that is proposed for the November elections is approved.
The men told the board that the cost to start the farm would be between $8-9 million. Heavy security personnel needs, systems, and procedures were quoted as elements driving the cost.
Board chair Jennifer Thomas asked about the size of the proposed growing facility. The answer was 20,000 square feet to start in a building that had 50,000 square feet floor room. Brady remarked that, while recreational marijuana is at the moment illegal in Massachusetts, if it were to become legal, his company would be interested to serving that market, too. This led to a discussion about whether a letter of non-opposition to this plan to the state could be limited to medical marijuana use only so as to preclude recreational use in town should such be voted in the November 2016 election.
Selectman Craig Dauphinais, asked Brady how he could manage such a project when his background was in building residential property, to which Brady replied that there really wasn’t much difference between the two. He added that his company had spent considerable time talking to people in Colorado, where both medical and recreational marijuana use has been lawful for several years.
The chair then opened the floor to public comment. James Gallagher, who has been a vocal opponent to the Sage Cannabis facility on Route 122, thanked the board and the facility’s sponsors for being far more open about this project and the thought given to locating it outside a residential neighborhood. He then asked if this facility might be used for recreational production as well, to which Brady replied, “Not if the town objects.”
The board ended the hearing for the night without conclusion, with it to be continued to another time.
Yeah. Selling for a one penny profit. Some "winner."
On the bright side, I can use all my CLYW stock certificates to wallpaper my entire house for free!
Selectmen discuss ongoing issue of marijuana facility
Grafton, MA – At the request of Selectman Dennis Flynn, on May 3 the Grafton Board of Selectmen again addressed the ongoing issue of licensing marijuana dispensaries and growing facilities in the town. Flynn noted that teen use in Colorado has increased 20 percent since marijuana was legalized there and that, according to recent research, regular use of marijuana is linked to lowered intelligence and poor school and work performance. He concluded by stating that with the advent of legal marijuana – to be smoked and eaten – its variable potency was especially troubling.
At their April 19 meeting, the dispute over the approval of the marijuana dispensary on Grafton Street near Hollywood Drive had been expanded to include a new application, this one for Nature’s Remedy, a marijuana-growing facility. This followed the initial letter of non-opposition for Sage Cannabis’ dispensary near Hollywood Drive which generated much push-back from angry voters.
James Gallagher and Mark Johnson addressed the selectmen regarding this issue May 3. In concert with the board’s discussion, they agreed that the board must do a better job in calming voters’ concerns, especially regarding where such facilities can be located and a process to deal with such siting requests. One thought was that the Special Permit process might suffice with the selectmen presiding over such a hearing. Under this proposal, the business would make its presentation and then the voters would have their say. Abutters would be notified of any such hearing at the town’s expense.
In a bit of news that had not before been known by the selectmen, Johnson informed them that in fact a letter of opposition or lack of a letter of non-opposition would indeed stop the state from continuing to approve any marijuana clinic or growing facility.
“It matters,” he said.
Further, a host agreement is also something the state looks for when considering a marijuana license. Johnson asked the board if a possible zoning bylaw change passes at Town Meeting, what group would be responsible for future clinic and growing approvals. To this Chair Craig Dauphinais said it would probably be the selectmen.
The board agreed that further work needs to be done on this issue. An article on the warrant for the May 9 Town Meeting deals with a proposed bylaw regulating marijuana clinics and farms in Grafton.
The Sage Cannabis facility at 206 Grafton St. has been unusually quiet, with no visible work being done to create a dispensary.
Really? And your source is...? Hello?
Marijuana site again invigorates selectmen’s discussion
Grafton, MA – At their regularly scheduled meeting April 19, the recent dispute over the approval of the marijuana dispensary near Hollywood Drive was expanded to include a new application, this one for a marijuana-growing facility.
Nature’s Remedy, based in California, has notified officials that they may want to locate a marijuana farm in town. Town Administrator Timothy McInerney suggested that the best place, if approved, might be CenTech Park. Selectman Brook Padgett suggested that locating it there might be more palatable to voters than the proposed Sage Cannabis dispensary at 206 Worcester St., which has been controversial with voters.
The discussion then moved to the review process of the Nature’s Remedy facility, to avoid the problems that arose during that of Sage Cannabis. One suggestion was to pass the decision to Town Meeting, to which Padgett replied, “Why pass the decision to 150 people at Town Meeting when we have 18,000 town residents?” He said that, instead, a public hearing would allow more voter participation.
Selectman Chair Craig Dauphinais noted that the problem with Sage was that people felt left out of the town’s decision and Padgett agreed that the Sage issue should have been brought before the Planning Board and to a public hearing, even though it was acceptable to zoning regulations.
“I know some people oppose marijuana facilities in town, but this is a legal business,” Padgett said.
“We should side on the side of caution,” replied Selectman Dennis Flynn. “We shouldn’t allow this to become what happened with Sage.”
McInerney said that the first step in discussing the Nature’s Remedy proposal is to determine whether the board’s opinion will be different if marijuana is ruled a recreational drug.
Selectman Jennifer Thomas suggested that the board might send a letter of non-opposition but make it clear that they oppose the clinic if marijuana is de-criminalized recreationally.
McInerney then reminded the board that a letter of opposition can be simply dismissed by the state; the town has no power to stop such a business if it meets state requirements.
The board decided to again address the proposed new facility at the Tuesday, May 3, meeting. Dauphinais also suggested that, to avoid the uproar surrounding the Sage issue, the board set up a public hearing for people to come and voice their concerns.
Planning Board, Selectmen wrestle with marijuana bylaws
Grafton, MA --
Marijuana business bylaws will be on the docket as warrant articles in the May and October town meetings.
The questions before the Planning Board and Selectmen at Tuesday’s joint meeting is to figure out how to find bylaw language that protects residences, supports businesses and does not violate state law.
When voters passed the use of medical marijuana in 2012, towns and municipalities were left to create zoning bylaws. With a new medical marijuana retail facility slated to open at 206 Worcester Street, residents in the surrounding neighborhood have voiced opposition due to the proximity to homes and congregating children.
While Selectmen signed a letter of non-opposition to the facility, neighbors insisted that the new facility will negatively impact their neighborhood with more traffic alongside other concerns. Now a proposed state law, and potential ballot question, could add fuel to these concerns.
A new House bill (H 1561) proposes to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana for recreational use, similar to alcohol and tobacco. Introduced by Rep. David Rogers (D-Cambridge) and Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville) it is a pre-emption to a likely state-wide ballot question in November to allow for legalized recreational use.
Within the provisions of the bill, one town official said, is a section which allows for current medical marijuana facilities to begin retailing recreational marijuana. “There is nothing that could prevent a flip of a medical marijuana (facility) to (one that sells) recreational marijuana,” said Planning Board member Michael Scully.
With no current bylaws in Grafton, both boards wrestled how to address meeting the needs of residents without violating state law or running other businesses out of town.
Of consideration to the Planning Board was how to delineate the type of permits for a registered marijuana dispensary versus an off-site dispensary. The retail store slated for 206 Worcester Street is considered an off-site dispensary.
At the spring Town Meeting, a registered dispensary would require special permitting in industrialized zoned areas, while an off-site dispensary will be subject to a regular permit in commercial and industrialized zoned areas.
Resident Mark Johnson asked Selectmen to consider adding in language of buffer zones from residential addresses. He also wondered why the zoning of the marijuana businesses was not allowed in other zoning areas, including mixed use. “You are shoving it down our throats in our part of town,” said Johnson, as a response to the current zoning demographics which limit where the off-site dispensaries can be located.
Selectman Craig Dauphinais said that currently it is allowed in three zoning areas, not just the commercial section of Worcester Street. Planning Board member Bob Hassinger reminded the boards that any discussion on buffers would be a separate article and would have to follow state law in order to not make it appear arbitrary in deciding where businesses are allowed to operate.
Selectman Bruce Spinney suggested the town adopt a moratorium on allowing retail of recreational marijuana until they can come up with a viable zoning plan. Selectman Jennifer Thomas suggested the moratorium be considered as a warrant article at the October Town Meeting in order to buy the town time to formalize zoning and resident concerns.
There will be a follow up public hearing on the topic at the Planning Board meeting scheduled for March 28.
Planning Board, Selectmen wrestle with marijuana bylaws added by Grafton News on March 10, 2016
View all posts by Grafton News ?
5 Responses to "Planning Board, Selectmen wrestle with marijuana bylaws"
Mark O'Connor March 22, 2016 at 12:09 pm
Interesting article in the Globe today:
http://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2016/03/22/in-exchange-for-approving-pot-dispensary-applications-cities-demand-lucrative-cash-perks
Reply
Taxed Enough Aleady March 13, 2016 at 5:58 pm
Government reduced to acting as a front for the drug cartels….so that legislators may say this fall: “See? The towns approved it…so we must”
Reply
Mark Johnson March 14, 2016 at 9:44 am
That philosophy is already being used by Sage Cannabis. They have sent a letter to the DPH responding to regulations that should prohibit them from opening here.
The letter states “the Grafton Board of Selectmen have been unwavering in its support of the Sage facility”.
Sage also claims that Grafton has thoroughly vetted the location as evidenced by the issuance of the appropriate permits.
Their basic argument is that, since it is good with Grafton officials, the DPH regulation does not apply to them.
Reply
Mark Johnson March 10, 2016 at 7:52 pm
The current zoning bylaw amendment that is being presented to the voters in Grafton falls very short.
The changes consist of “copy and pasted” definitions of RMD (grow and sales) and OMMD (retail sales). The other is changing the use table allowing both to be permitted in Community Business, Industrial, and Office Light Industrial.
This is being pushed as many town officials want to get “something” on the books now and we can revisit again later.
I don’t support that line of thinking. All involved would be better served by addressing this in a comprehensive manner. Offer a complete package to the voters, not bits and pieces in May, maybe more in October, and so on.
Current language in the Massachusetts house bill on recreational marijuana (to be voted in Nov) guarantees all medical marijuana dispensaries will receive recreational sales license. All the more reason to scrap this simple version and work on something proper.
I would urge voters to reject this overly simple approach. Vote NO in May.
Demand a comprehensive approach! One vote on the subject.
Reply
AladdinsLamp March 10, 2016 at 4:23 pm
So what’s being said here, is that our town is Clueless.
So if I can help our “leaders” out with a comeback plan, may I suggest: its Colonel Mustard, with the wrench, in the library.
http://www.thegraftonnews.com/26728/
Planning Board, Selectmen wrestle with marijuana bylaws
Marijuana business bylaws will be on the docket as warrant articles in the May and October town meetings.
The questions before the Planning Board and Selectmen at Tuesday’s joint meeting is to figure out how to find bylaw language that protects residences, supports businesses and does not violate state law.
When voters passed the use of medical marijuana in 2012, towns and municipalities were left to create zoning bylaws. With a new medical marijuana retail facility slated to open at 206 Worcester Street, residents in the surrounding neighborhood have voiced opposition due to the proximity to homes and congregating children.
While Selectmen signed a letter of non-opposition to the facility, neighbors insisted that the new facility will negatively impact their neighborhood with more traffic alongside other concerns. Now a proposed state law, and potential ballot question, could add fuel to these concerns.
A new House bill (H 1561) proposes to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana for recreational use, similar to alcohol and tobacco. Introduced by Rep. David Rogers (D-Cambridge) and Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville) it is a pre-emption to a likely state-wide ballot question in November to allow for legalized recreational use.
Within the provisions of the bill, one town official said, is a section which allows for current medical marijuana facilities to begin retailing recreational marijuana. “There is nothing that could prevent a flip of a medical marijuana (facility) to (one that sells) recreational marijuana,” said Planning Board member Michael Scully.
With no current bylaws in Grafton, both boards wrestled how to address meeting the needs of residents without violating state law or running other businesses out of town.
Of consideration to the Planning Board was how to delineate the type of permits for a registered marijuana dispensary versus an off-site dispensary. The retail store slated for 206 Worcester Street is considered an off-site dispensary.
At the spring Town Meeting, a registered dispensary would require special permitting in industrialized zoned areas, while an off-site dispensary will be subject to a regular permit in commercial and industrialized zoned areas.
Resident Mark Johnson asked Selectmen to consider adding in language of buffer zones from residential addresses. He also wondered why the zoning of the marijuana businesses was not allowed in other zoning areas, including mixed use. “You are shoving it down our throats in our part of town,” said Johnson, as a response to the current zoning demographics which limit where the off-site dispensaries can be located.
Selectman Craig Dauphinais said that currently it is allowed in three zoning areas, not just the commercial section of Worcester Street. Planning Board member Bob Hassinger reminded the boards that any discussion on buffers would be a separate article and would have to follow state law in order to not make it appear arbitrary in deciding where businesses are allowed to operate.
Selectman Bruce Spinney suggested the town adopt a moratorium on allowing retail of recreational marijuana until they can come up with a viable zoning plan. Selectman Jennifer Thomas suggested the moratorium be considered as a warrant article at the October Town Meeting in order to buy the town time to formalize zoning and resident concerns.
There will be a follow up public hearing on the topic at the Planning Board meeting scheduled for March 28.
Planning Board, Selectmen wrestle with marijuana bylaws added by Grafton News on March 10, 2016
View all posts by Grafton News ?
5 Responses to "Planning Board, Selectmen wrestle with marijuana bylaws"
Mark O'Connor March 22, 2016 at 12:09 pm
Interesting article in the Globe today:
http://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2016/03/22/in-exchange-for-approving-pot-dispensary-applications-cities-demand-lucrative-cash-perks
Reply
Taxed Enough Aleady March 13, 2016 at 5:58 pm
Government reduced to acting as a front for the drug cartels….so that legislators may say this fall: “See? The towns approved it…so we must”
Reply
Mark Johnson March 14, 2016 at 9:44 am
That philosophy is already being used by Sage Cannabis. They have sent a letter to the DPH responding to regulations that should prohibit them from opening here.
The letter states “the Grafton Board of Selectmen have been unwavering in its support of the Sage facility”.
Sage also claims that Grafton has thoroughly vetted the location as evidenced by the issuance of the appropriate permits.
Their basic argument is that, since it is good with Grafton officials, the DPH regulation does not apply to them.
Reply
Mark Johnson March 10, 2016 at 7:52 pm
The current zoning bylaw amendment that is being presented to the voters in Grafton falls very short.
The changes consist of “copy and pasted” definitions of RMD (grow and sales) and OMMD (retail sales). The other is changing the use table allowing both to be permitted in Community Business, Industrial, and Office Light Industrial.
This is being pushed as many town officials want to get “something” on the books now and we can revisit again later.
I don’t support that line of thinking. All involved would be better served by addressing this in a comprehensive manner. Offer a complete package to the voters, not bits and pieces in May, maybe more in October, and so on.
Current language in the Massachusetts house bill on recreational marijuana (to be voted in Nov) guarantees all medical marijuana dispensaries will receive recreational sales license. All the more reason to scrap this simple version and work on something proper.
I would urge voters to reject this overly simple approach. Vote NO in May.
Demand a comprehensive approach! One vote on the subject.
Reply
AladdinsLamp March 10, 2016 at 4:23 pm
So what’s being said here, is that our town is Clueless.
So if I can help our “leaders” out with a comeback plan, may I suggest: its Colonel Mustard, with the wrench, in the library.
http://www.thegraftonnews.com/26728/
An interesting ride and soon to be a case in business school. One can't help but wonder about the principals involved.
"Biofuels Power
"On February 1, 2016, BPC purchased another gas field in Humble, Texas. They are in the process of preparing for the the installation of their gas-to-liquids plant they bought from Japan, and which was received in early January 2016. This is their third gas-to-liquids plant. Their other two plants are being redesigned for deployment to stranded gas wells. The company is configured to produce naphtha from the natural gas. They could process the natural gas to make diesel or jet fuel, however naphtha continues to be around $100 per barrel, so they are configured for naphtha right now.
"The management of the company is planning on conducting a roadshow over the summer months."
Voters still unhappy with marijuana clinic location
As of March 2, 2016, there is no visible activity at the site of the new marijuana dispensary approved by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health at 206 Worcester Street, North Grafton. The use of the site continues to be one of high tension between the Grafton Board of Selectmen and local residents, especially those in the Hollywood Drive neighborhood. The building, which used to house a Cumberland Farms store and a Chinese restaurant, currently sits empty.
Grafton, MA – On Nov. 17, after a scheduled public hearing had been concluded, the Grafton Board of Selectmen voted to write a “letter of non-opposition” regarding a proposed marijuana dispensary to be run by Sage Cannabis (formerly known as Milford Medicinals) at 206 Worcester St., (Route 122), the location of a former Cumberland Farms.
Since that time, a number of residents have expressed displeasure over the board’s decision.
At the Grafton Board of Selectmen meeting Feb. 16, the board directed Assistant Town Administrator Doug Willardson to do the following regarding continued opposition by some to the planned marijuana dispensary on Route 122 at Hollywood Drive:
Describe the local permit process for the Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensary (RMD) facility proposed for 206 Worcester St. (Rt. 122).
Contact the Massachusetts Department of Public Health regarding sites within 500 feet of the proposed facility that may be considered “places where children congregate.”
Ask the applicant if he is willing to relocate the proposed business to another site.
Discuss with the applicant potential parking issues if there are a large number of patients.
Discuss with the applicant and review potential solutions to mitigate traffic concerns in the area.
Results reported at the March 1 meeting were:
The business meets zoning regulations and a marijuana clinic operation license is issued by the state, not the town, which is essentially cut out of the loop. A building permit was issued Jan. 11, 2016.
The applicant provided such a list to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH). DPH responded with a request for further details and stated it will make a decision after this has been approved.
The applicant said he has already spent a lot of time and money on the siting issue and would not consider relocating.
The applicant stated that there will be only six to 10 cars in the lot at any one time.
The previous tenant, Cumberland Farms, generated a lot of traffic. It is believed that the clinic will not generate any more.
Resident James Gallagher, of Hollywood Drive, addressed the selectmen March 1 as he had in February. He began by restating that the applicant’s answers and alleged uncooperative attitude show why he and many other people were angry.
“It looked like a deal of some kind had been struck,” he said. What is clear now, he added, is that this board had no role in the process.
“It wasn’t until the last meeting that I understood how this came about,” he noted. “I know now that this was indeed done properly.”
However, Gallagher maintained that unresolved issues have not been addressed, such as establishing the required buffer area for children and residential neighborhoods, adequate parking, and traffic considerations.
“I still have hope that this location can be changed,” Gallagher said. “The first the neighborhood knew about this was after it had been approved. If you don’t have a concern to first talk to voters, this is what happens.”
Replied Selectman Dennis Flynn: “We didn’t do everything right and we need to do so next time.”
Residents express concern with location of marijuana clinic
Grafton, MA – James Gallagher, of Hollywood Drive, Grafton, spoke before the Grafton Board of Selectmen at its Feb. 16 meeting to express his concerns regarding a medical marijuana dispensary that is being built at 206 Worcester St.
Gallagher met with the board as a follow-up to its Jan. 11 meeting which was ended abruptly by the board after a number of residents became visibly angry during a discussion of the proposed facility.
The approval of the dispensary near a residential neighborhood in Grafton “took residents completely by surprise,” Gallagher told the board during the Feb. 16 meeting and “and occurred without voters’ knowledge or input.” This, he said, shows that the town and the board are “totally reactive rather than proactive” in such a situation.
As a result of the current voter unhappiness with the matter, he had two requests: (1) review the site and determine if it is suitable for such a business; and (2) commission an independent traffic study to demonstrate whether the business generated by the clinic has been properly considered. He said he believes such a traffic study is required by law.
Further, he contended, state law forbids such a business being located within 500 feet of any place where children congregate, such as schools and bus stops. He said believed this requirement has been ignored.
Finally, he said, parking space at the facility is vastly inadequate for the staff and clients who are expected to be there at any one time.
“Will Grafton be compensated for the impact from such a nonprofit business?” Gallagher asked. “Will proper signage and road improvements be made? I am unaware of any host agreement with Grafton.”
Selectmen Chair Craig Dauphinais admitted that no such agreement had so far been made.
Gallagher then said that “this is why conspiracy theories abound.”
Selectman Dennis Flynn then spoke, complimenting Gallagher on his presentation, and noting that the board had not considered changing the location of the clinic. He added that this matter had been discussed as part of another hearing but did not give residents either notice of the matter nor a chance to give their input.
“People are angry,” said Gallagher, “and some believe the board has been paid off.”
“I think the board needs to admit it made a mistake because it probably thought it would have a chance to revisit this before it was approved,” he noted.
He reiterated that people are angry over how this was approved and that the board needs to deal with the issue of voter unhappiness.
Selectman Bruce Spinney, as he had done previously, said that the process had been followed properly and that other hearings had not been necessary because the clinic meets zoning requirements.
“We actively looked at the traffic situation and we knew some business was going in this location,” he said.
He stated that at this point he did not know what could be done to assuage voter concerns other than commission a study regarding traffic.
The board then moved to direct Town Administrator Timothy McInerney to write a memo for town residents regarding the permitting process, the issue of children near the site, the possibility of relocating the clinic, and issues of traffic and parking. The memo is to be approved at the next selectmen’s meeting which will be held Tuesday, March 2.
My experience is that the SEC doesn't get involved with penny stocks. The FBI doesn't take an interest in matters where an individual's loss is less than $50,000. The Secret Service (yes, they deal in financial crimes) says if you invest in penny stocks, you are on your own. We took a gamble with CLYW and we got barbequed. Everyone associated with CLYW has either fled the country or disappeared. I know a broker whose loss is in the six figures.
What is most disappointing is the court's utter disinterest in what happened and who is to blame. The courts are not supposed to care the dollar amount of the crime.
Remember the names of the guilty. I'm sure they will be back some day.
Ask him. I did.
IIRC, the judge gave the receiver three years to roll-up CLYW and see that the shareholders got the most return on their investment.
I called the receiver some time ago and he told me he was basically done with CLYW -- didn't even expect to get his expenses back. Since then, nothing.
Hope this helps --
Grafton residents express opposition to proposed marijuana clinic
Grafton, MA – During a special Board of Selectmen’s meeting that lasted just over three hours on Jan. 11, residents expressed their displeasure with a recent move by the board to approve a proposed medical marijuana clinic to be located at 206 Worcester St., (Route 122).
On Nov. 17, after a scheduled public hearing had been concluded, the Grafton Board of Selectmen voted to write a “letter of non-opposition” regarding a proposed marijuana dispensary to be run by Sage Cannabis (formerly known as Milford Medicinals) at 206 Worcester St., (Route 122), the location of a former Cumberland Farms.
Approximately 200 people attended the Jan. 11 meeting which was held at Grafton High School after the selectmen were caught off guard at their Jan. 5 meeting by the number of resident who showed up intent on expressing their opposition to the proposed clinic.
The board’s chair, Craig Dauphinais began the meeting by explaining that Michael Dundas, the CEO of Sage Cannabis would make a presentation he had previously made about the proposed clinic, which is set to open in mid-2016. But before Dundas did so, many voices were raised from the audience asking why this had to be presented again when most people at this meeting wanted to voice their concerns.
Dauphinais tried to explain that he felt this course was best when Selectman Dennis Flynn asked that the meeting be officially called to order. As soon as Dauphinais did so, Flynn began reading from a long list of concerns he had received from Grafton residents about the clinic. Flynn continued to read from the list, ignoring the repeated tries of Dauphinais to bring order to the meeting. Flynn ended by proposing that the board rescind its letter of non-opposition to the clinic.
Dundas then tried to complete his presentation, but was continually interrupted by voters who asked many questions and made comments. In all, more than 35 people rose to speak on the issue. While several were in favor of the clinic’s location, most were against. Several non-Grafton residents also spoke in favor of the clinic.
Selectman Bruce Spinney noted that the clinic meets zoning criteria and is a legally recognized business. He repeated this a number of times despite repeated protests from voters. A man from Webster, who claimed to have been on several town boards there, insisted that “this ship has sailed;” that since the clinic had been approved for this location there was nothing the town could now do to stop or move it. Spinney and Dauphinais agreed.
As the meeting continued audience members spoke, with one claiming that the board had taken “action behind closed doors.” Vice Chair Jennifer Thomas (who had taken the lead after Dauphinais had to depart), asserted that all meetings are public and conform to state open meeting laws.
Unable to regain control of the meeting after residents continued to voice their opposition, Thomas adjourned the meeting.
Overflow crowd results in discussion regarding proposed marijuana facility being rescheduled
Grafton, MA – A discussion on a proposed marijuana facility that was to be held during the Jan. 5 Board of Selectmen’s meeting was rescheduled to a future date after an overflow crowd of residents showed up.
On Nov. 17, after a scheduled public hearing had been concluded, the Grafton Board of Selectmen voted to write a “letter of non-opposition” regarding a proposed marijuana dispensary to be run by Milford Medicinals at 206 Worcester St., (Route 122), the location of a former Cumberland Farms.
After this action, a group of Grafton residents formed a Facebook group, Concerned Grafton Citizens. The group urged residents to attend a “Town Meeting” on Jan. 5 which was in actuality not a town meeting but rather the regularly scheduled selectmen’s meeting where the board was due to continue the discussion.
On Jan. 5, an overflow crowd of clearly agitated citizens filled the board’s meeting room and continued out the door and down the passageway. The board members, who were surprised at the number of attending residents, decided to reschedule the discussion to Monday, Jan. 11 at the Grafton High School, at 7 p.m., to ensure enough seats be available.
Grafton selectmen will not oppose medical marijuana dispensary
Grafton, MA – The Grafton Board of Selectmen held a public hearing Nov. 17 regarding a request for a letter of non-opposition for Milford Medicinals, a company seeking to open a medical marijuana dispensary at 206 Worcester St., (Route 122). The company currently operates a registered marijuana dispensary in Milford, Mass.
Grafton would be Milford Medicinals’ second site. Both Town Manager Timothy McInerney and Chief of Police Normand A. Crepeau, Jr. had previously been given a tour of the Milford facility.
Addressing the public hearing, Michael Dundas, the company’s spokesman, said that the facility would dispense marijuana by doctor’s prescription only and that it would be a secure facility.
He noted that the company wants to become part of the Worcester area business community despite the total client base initially being perhaps 1.5 percent of the medical patient population (approximately 40 clients per day).
Dundas said that the building will be retrofitted to Department of Public Health as well as town standards, with no external signage nor clear viewing into the building from outside. All staff and volunteers will be thoroughly screened – “the state process is extensive,” he maintained. All sale of marijuana will be done at the dispensary – there will be “no vertical marketing.” The product will arrive in Grafton packaged and sealed.
Phil Leger, chief of environmental health and response for Worcester County for the Central Mass. Regional Health Alliance, gave his cautious approval of the planned dispensary, noting that such issues as heavy metals testing of the product and state licensing fees remained uncertain. He also suggested the possibility of getting funding for town expenses in lieu of licensing fees. Dundas said that the building would be leased rather than purchased and assured the hearing that the business is to be operated as a not- for-profit corporation as the state requires.
Crepeau offered his qualified support but noted that the proposed site was “problematic” from the law enforcement viewpoint. He agreed that the absence of signage was a good idea but cautioned that applicable Drug Enforcement Agency information should be distributed to all town officials.
Selectman Jennifer Thomas moved that the board grant Milford Medicinals a letter of non-opposition, to which Selectman Dennis Flynn disagreed. He said he was disappointed that the board had not discussed this matter further before a vote and that he wanted to continue the discussion. He noted that in the 1960s he saw what marijuana had done to damage kids and their schools and that he has worked with families that were having severe problems with drugs.
“It’s a gateway drug,” he asserted. He urged the Board to not approve a dispensary in the proposed location, but rather in an industrial location instead.
The board voted to support the letter, 4-1, with Flynn dissenting.
http://www.communityadvocate.com/2015/11/20/grafton-selectmen-will-not-oppose-medical-marijuana-dispensary/
Grafton, MA – The Grafton Board of Selectmen held a public hearing Nov. 17 regarding a request for a letter of non-opposition for Milford Medicinals, a company seeking to open a medical marijuana dispensary at 206 Worcester St., (Route 122). The company currently operates a registered marijuana dispensary in Milford, Mass.
Grafton would be Milford Medicinals’ second site. Both Town Manager Timothy McInerney and Chief of Police Normand A. Crepeau, Jr. had previously been given a tour of the Milford facility.
Addressing the public hearing, Michael Dundas, the company’s spokesman, said that the facility would dispense marijuana by doctor’s prescription only and that it would be a secure facility.
He noted that the company wants to become part of the Worcester area business community despite the total client base initially being perhaps 1.5 percent of the medical patient population (approximately 40 clients per day).
Dundas said that the building will be retrofitted to Department of Public Health as well as town standards, with no external signage nor clear viewing into the building from outside. All staff and volunteers will be thoroughly screened – “the state process is extensive,” he maintained. All sale of marijuana will be done at the dispensary – there will be “no vertical marketing.” The product will arrive in Grafton packaged and sealed.
Phil Leger, chief of environmental health and response for Worcester County for the Central Mass. Regional Health Alliance, gave his cautious approval of the planned dispensary, noting that such issues as heavy metals testing of the product and state licensing fees remained uncertain. He also suggested the possibility of getting funding for town expenses in lieu of licensing fees. Dundas said that the building would be leased rather than purchased and assured the hearing that the business is to be operated as a not- for-profit corporation as the state requires.
Crepeau offered his qualified support but noted that the proposed site was “problematic” from the law enforcement viewpoint. He agreed that the absence of signage was a good idea but cautioned that applicable Drug Enforcement Agency information should be distributed to all town officials.
Selectman Jennifer Thomas moved that the board grant Milford Medicinals a letter of non-opposition, to which Selectman Dennis Flynn disagreed. He said he was disappointed that the board had not discussed this matter further before a vote and that he wanted to continue the discussion. He noted that in the 1960s he saw what marijuana had done to damage kids and their schools and that he has worked with families that were having severe problems with drugs.
“It’s a gateway drug,” he asserted. He urged the Board to not approve a dispensary in the proposed location, but rather in an industrial location instead.
The board voted to support the letter, 4-1, with Flynn dissenting.
http://www.communityadvocate.com/2015/11/20/grafton-selectmen-will-not-oppose-medical-marijuana-dispensary/
Marijuana grower seeks approval for dispensary in MA
http://www.communityadvocate.com/2015/08/27/marijuana-grower-seeks-approval-for-dispensary-in-shrewsbury/
I am surprised you do not hold responsible for any of this Mr. Turrini, who has fled, incommunicado, to South America, or any other BOD members. Why is that?
Marijuana grower seeks approval for dispensary in Shrewsbury, MA
Shrewsbury – One year ago, in August 2014, the Shrewsbury Board of Selectmen were approached by John Glowik, who was seeking support for a proposed 41,000 square foot medical marijuana growing facility to be located at 28 Bowditch Drive. That discussion continued at the board’s Aug. 25 meeting.
In response to his request, selectmen issued a letter of non-opposition to the state Department of Public Health (DPH) but also made clear that they would not look favorably upon a subsequent request by Glowik to open a medical marijuana dispensary in Shrewsbury. Subsequently, no growing facility has opened in Shrewsbury.
In 2013, Glowik pitched a growing facility to the Grafton Board of Health. To date, nothing more has happened with that request.
Glowik is the president of Prime Wellness Centers, a medical marijuana dispensary based in South Windsor, Conn. He has recently been approved by DPH for Phase I and filed for Phase 2 on Aug. 20. For the final Phase 3, Glowik needs site approval at 235 Hartford Turnpike/Route 20 from the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Selectmen.
Glowik emphasized that most of the patients coming to his proposed dispensary would be middle-aged and elderly people with a doctor’s prescription for marijuana to treat severe chronic pain. He said the proposed location was good for serving people in the Shrewsbury-Grafton-Millbury-Auburn area. So far, there is no such dispensary in Worcester County. He said that he hopes to have a growing facility in Sterling up and running by the beginning of 2016, and with Shrewsbury selectmen’s approval, would have the dispensary open in mid-2016. He further explained that a dispensary would be operated as several separate companies, one for profit and one nonprofit.
Glowik already operates six dispensaries in Colorado, a location he describes as “unregulated and recreational.” He prefers, he said, the regulated environment east of the Mississippi, into which Massachusetts’ recent legalization of marijuana falls. He told selectmen that if the dispensary is approved in Shrewsbury, one of his experienced managers in Colorado will come here to run it.
He, along with his security manager, who is a retired Massachusetts state policeman, described at some length the security measures planned for a Shrewsbury dispensary. The Shrewsbury facility would include bank-like security and would accept cash only. His advisory staff includes several members of the late Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s staff as well as two pharmaceutical physicians from the Columbia University School of Medicine.
Selectman John Lebeaux had several questions regarding if the rules regulating Massachusetts marijuana use had changed since 2013, and how the delivery of and dispensing of marijuana would be handled securely.
Selectmen Maurice DePalo and Henry Fitzgerald voiced general concern over the idea of legalized marijuana and specifically over the idea of having such a dispensary in town.
Selectman James Kane admitted that regarding marijuana use, he “felt like a Neanderthal” in his gut opposition to the idea, but also felt he was coming around to accept the concept of its medical use after hearing about it favorably for the past two years.
Fitzgerald also admitted an initial personal uneasiness with the idea, especially as it might affect Shrewsbury. However, he noted, that after having watched a friend suffer in unrelieved pain over the length of an extended illness, he had come around to accepting the idea of pain relief through marijuana as perhaps a good thing.
Chairwoman Moira Miller then added that she had voted for the change in the law and was more ready to accept a dispensary in town as long as it was safe and operated properly.
Glowik also answered in the affirmative if the Shrewsbury chief of police and fire chief would be involved. He stated that their input and cooperation will be integral to both the planning and ongoing operation of the dispensary.
The board ended the meeting without taking any action on the request, but the members indicated that they were now more favorably disposed to the idea of a medical marijuana dispensary in town.
www.communityadvocate.com
Marijuana grower seeks approval for dispensary in Shrewsbury, MA
Shrewsbury – One year ago, in August 2014, the Shrewsbury Board of Selectmen were approached by John Glowik, who was seeking support for a proposed 41,000 square foot medical marijuana growing facility to be located at 28 Bowditch Drive. That discussion continued at the board’s Aug. 25 meeting.
In response to his request, selectmen issued a letter of non-opposition to the state Department of Public Health (DPH) but also made clear that they would not look favorably upon a subsequent request by Glowik to open a medical marijuana dispensary in Shrewsbury. Subsequently, no growing facility has opened in Shrewsbury.
In 2013, Glowik pitched a growing facility to the Grafton Board of Health. To date, nothing more has happened with that request.
Glowik is the president of Prime Wellness Centers, a medical marijuana dispensary based in South Windsor, Conn. He has recently been approved by DPH for Phase I and filed for Phase 2 on Aug. 20. For the final Phase 3, Glowik needs site approval at 235 Hartford Turnpike/Route 20 from the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Selectmen.
Glowik emphasized that most of the patients coming to his proposed dispensary would be middle-aged and elderly people with a doctor’s prescription for marijuana to treat severe chronic pain. He said the proposed location was good for serving people in the Shrewsbury-Grafton-Millbury-Auburn area. So far, there is no such dispensary in Worcester County. He said that he hopes to have a growing facility in Sterling up and running by the beginning of 2016, and with Shrewsbury selectmen’s approval, would have the dispensary open in mid-2016. He further explained that a dispensary would be operated as several separate companies, one for profit and one nonprofit.
Glowik already operates six dispensaries in Colorado, a location he describes as “unregulated and recreational.” He prefers, he said, the regulated environment east of the Mississippi, into which Massachusetts’ recent legalization of marijuana falls. He told selectmen that if the dispensary is approved in Shrewsbury, one of his experienced managers in Colorado will come here to run it.
He, along with his security manager, who is a retired Massachusetts state policeman, described at some length the security measures planned for a Shrewsbury dispensary. The Shrewsbury facility would include bank-like security and would accept cash only. His advisory staff includes several members of the late Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s staff as well as two pharmaceutical physicians from the Columbia University School of Medicine.
Selectman John Lebeaux had several questions regarding if the rules regulating Massachusetts marijuana use had changed since 2013, and how the delivery of and dispensing of marijuana would be handled securely.
Selectmen Maurice DePalo and Henry Fitzgerald voiced general concern over the idea of legalized marijuana and specifically over the idea of having such a dispensary in town.
Selectman James Kane admitted that regarding marijuana use, he “felt like a Neanderthal” in his gut opposition to the idea, but also felt he was coming around to accept the concept of its medical use after hearing about it favorably for the past two years.
Fitzgerald also admitted an initial personal uneasiness with the idea, especially as it might affect Shrewsbury. However, he noted, that after having watched a friend suffer in unrelieved pain over the length of an extended illness, he had come around to accepting the idea of pain relief through marijuana as perhaps a good thing.
Chairwoman Moira Miller then added that she had voted for the change in the law and was more ready to accept a dispensary in town as long as it was safe and operated properly.
Glowik also answered in the affirmative if the Shrewsbury chief of police and fire chief would be involved. He stated that their input and cooperation will be integral to both the planning and ongoing operation of the dispensary.
The board ended the meeting without taking any action on the request, but the members indicated that they were now more favorably disposed to the idea of a medical marijuana dispensary in town.
>>I would think that since TM claimed, and won, in court the fact that they were not infringing, Its a free for all on CLYW's 923 and TM can't say a word about it! Receiver isn't saying anything either. But as it stands, we are all still in limbo!! Go figure!
>>My question remains, what is the Judge that ordered the Receiver on this case saying???
Nothing.
>>How long has it been now???
Depends upon when you started counting. I started buying in 2004. Judge ordered receivership over two years ago. Receiver remains silent.
I wouldn't suspect the judge of any misdoing. I would -- based upon his own quantifiable legal history -- suspect Daic of bottom-dealing. Google him and his many business interests. I spoke with the receiver. He's not a happy man, having spent billable hours on CLYW and getting nothing in return. He doubted he'll even be paid for his time and OOP. That's really CLYW in a nutshell. We longs ride the waves for 5 or 8 or 10 years and finally get thrown up on the rocks. The Turinnis suddenly move back to Lower Wretchnia and disappear into some other industry after years of promising all the stockholders that they are just about to announce wild riches for all. One in 50 penny stocks ever pay off, and we all know it, but THIS one has to!
I'd suggest to the receiver that he pursue deals with other comm companies, but that's up to him, esp. if he ever wishes to get paid. He's an experienced lawyer in such receiverships and he got taken for a ride, too.
Let's all meet at the intersection of Hope and Greed Streets and have a beer.
That Daic gave-up a potential nine figure payoff never made sense. There is more going on here than we know.
Generally speaking, there is a three year time limit on filing a tort (case for a civil wrong, as opposed to a criminal wrong). That is quickly approaching.
Please add me to your distribution. I am one of the stockholders who talked to Turrini several times before he suddenly relocated to Paraguay.
One notes that the time limit on filing a civil suit is usually three years.
And Daic, who stood to make nine figures, has disappeared. How interesting.
Why would Google buy a patent ruled by the court as being unenforcable?
Two years ago the judge ordered the receiver (who volunteered for the job) to roll-up the company after ensuring that shareholders got the most $ for their ownership. To the best of my knowledge, nothing has been done for owners.
Can someone refresh my memory? Several years ago BFLS settled a lawsuit with someone to whom they owed money. I believe the amount was several million dollars.
Thanks.
mdmdmd
Membership Type [Give this person a gift subscription]
Followed By 0
Posts 1
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/20/2015 12:42:44 PM
No. A check with Harris County reveals no such action has been recorded. I notice you became a member of this forum the day you posted, once. What are you trying to do?
Really? Why is there no reference to this anywhere on the Web?