Their work to set rules for possible marijuana shops in town is far from done, but Planning Board members resolved last week to attempt two things in the meantime.

After listening to public comment both for and against such stores for better than an hour, board members agreed to buy themselves some time by assigning town Planner James Hartnett to work with the town attorney to come up with wording that might extend the current six-month moratorium on marijuana stores for another six months.

They also asked him to come up with a draft bylaw that could cap the number of such shops to 20 percent of the number of package stores in town. Since Westport now has 10 liquor store licenses, that would limit the number of marijuana stores to two.

Planning Board Chairman James Whitin opened the session by saying that the timeline to develop zoning rules to guide the sale of recreational marijuana “is very short” and needs to be wrapped up in four to six months.

But “we are kind of going blind since state rules are not yet finalized” and probably won’t be until March.

Several said they are concerned that someone might apply for a license before Westport has rules set and approved by voters.

Board of Selectmen member R. Michael Sullivan was one of those to ask what might happen if someone did make such an application — “They would sort of have a foot in the door,” wouldn’t they, he asked attorney Brian Riley who was on hand to answer questions about the process.

Perhaps, Mr. Riley replied, although he agreed that town voters appear to have bought themselves some protection last year with a moratorium that expires at the end of June.

“I would like to push the state to give us some guidance,” on the timeline, Mr. Sullivan said. “It is not acceptable for us to be left in the lurch” about something so critical.

Although some towns are working to outlaw the stores entirely, Mr. Riley said that is a challenging process in towns like Westport where residents voted in favor of recreational marijuana. An outright ban would need approval both at town meeting and in a town-wide ballot vote. If the town attempted a ban and lost, it could find itself without rules to regulate anyone who attempts to set up shop here.

Current guidelines indicate that both town meeting and ballot vote approval are required if towns want to limit the number of marijuana store licenses to less than 20 percent of the number of liquor store licenses, Mr. Riley said. When asked, he said that suggests that a town could set a 20 percent (or above) limit without going to town-wide ballot vote.

Since the state, not the town as in the case of liquor, will actually issue licenses, the town’s powers are somewhat limited, Mr. Whitin said. If it decides to allow such stores with special permits, it can set rules limiting where such stores may be located and some regulations on how they operate.

He listed questions and issues that might need to be considered, “things that are coming into play now that might not have been considered before” …

• Could such stores “deliver it like pizza?”

• What about “craft cultivation,” small growers working from home?

• Will customers be able to sample marijuana in stores; will there be limits to people lining up outside?

• Will there be costs to the town?

• Will there be an impact on neighbors?

• Where will they be located?

• Could marijuana be sold and served at private clubs, farms or at functions such as weddings?

Mr. Riley said that, while state rules are not yet clear on all these matters, he believes the state will frown on sales at weddings, farms and other such locations since it seems to be talking only about retail stores.

And he said craft growing seems unlikely since rules governing the growing of medicinal pot are quite rigid.

Opinions divided

A number of audience members spoke and opinions were split.

As he has at every previous discussion, resident Wayne Sunderland said he is “totally against it in any manner, shape or form. I see nothing that it is going to do to improve any community … I realize it passed and we have to live with it but … “ He added that the closest he would like to see such a shop is “the moon.”

“I don’t see that it has to be that complicated,” countered Conrad Feininger. “You regulate alcohol … When I was a child my father had to drive to Rhode Island to buy any alcohol.” Now it can be purchased “all over the place and the world has not ended.”

Constance Gee said she thinks much of the opposition is driven by fear. “Regulating the adult use of marijuana in Colorado has not been associated with any significant adverse effects on public safety,” she said, adding that they have actually seen a decrease in driving under the influence arrests.

Such stores, she said, should logically be located in business zones, such as along Route 6, Route 177 and in the Central Village, and in visible, well lit, clean and safe places.

“Let’s not pit one area of town against another.”

Chris Riley said towns that have legalized marijuana have actually seen a 25 percent decrease in opioides — “that’s huge.”

Walter Barnes said “I have seen too much tragedy from substance abuse in my life as a physician.”

He challenged others’ remarks about Colorado said that he has found statistics showing an increase in crime and driving fatalities since marijuana was legalized.

“I feel that the (Massachusetts) marijuana decision wasn’t based on facts” but was driven by a “slick promotional presentation by the marijuana lobby.”

Selectman Brian Valcourt questioned the source and details of Mr. Barnes’ Colorado statistics and also the need for a special study commission.

“We have a planning board, we don’t need a cannabis study board.”

Marijuana, he added, has too long been “demonized and held in low esteem because that is what certain people in power wanted you to believe … We have now voted as an enlightened society to no longer prohibit it.”

Mr. Sullivan urged selectmen to let them know their feelings.

“The state has given us a legal means by which to consider whether we want it or not … We have a right to say no,” but if there is not a lot of feedback, “we won’t spend a lot of time on it.”

“We do know where these stores will go. It won’t be at the harbor, it won’t be in my neighborhood. It will be in places where there is a lot of commercial traffic and, quite frankly, where people don’t get out and vote.”

The Planning Board will take the matter up again at its next meeting.