2019 Lawyers of the Year: Michael D. Rosen, Ruberto, Israel & Weiner.

Byline: Kris Olson

Michael D. Rosen has been experiencing a bit of dj vu from his work on behalf of developers hoping to convert a former apple orchard in Charlton into a state-of-the-art, 1-million-square-foot indoor cannabis cultivation facility.

The wariness toward the new industry reminds him of the chilly welcome given to cell towers after passage of the Telecommunications Act, Rosen says.

Fast forward a decade or two, and local residents are now far more concerned with their cellphone coverage than any health effects of the towers that make that reception possible, he notes.

Rosen figures marijuana's day of near-universal acceptance will eventually arrive, too. But in the meantime, he is proud that, with support from colleagues Bradley L. Croft and Michael J. Duffy, he has been able to make new law and help ensure the fledgling industry has a fair opportunity to get its footing.

[divider]

"At some point we have to embrace the fact that we adopted this set of laws and recognize that [cannabis] is here to stay."

[divider]

They did so by getting Land Court Judge Robert B. Foster to agree that a Charlton Town Meeting vote purporting to pass a general bylaw to thwart their client, Valley Green Grow, was an improper attempt to exercise the town's zoning power.

Last August, Foster also agreed that Valley Green Grow's proposal constitutes a type of use a greenhouse allowed by right under the Charlton zoning bylaw. Moreover, because VGG proposes to process only the marijuana plants it grows on the property, its processing activities are also permissible accessory uses.

Those favorable decisions have not only brought VGG's vision closer to reality but have provided a helpful blueprint for other cannabis businesses to follow.

***

Q. NIMBY, or "Not in My Backyard," is a term that gets thrown around a lot in the zoning context. In what ways was this like other cases in which neighbors get upset, and in what ways was it different?

A. This reminds me a lot of the federal Telecommunications Act. When that first came out, nobody wanted a cell tower built near them because there was a lot of fear of potential dangers.

Whenever you have new laws, there's not a lot of case history that you can base your arguments on. What I see in cannabis is this concept we argued in the telecommunication cases, which was effective prohibition.

Q. What would have been the implications if what Charlton tried to do by passing a general bylaw had worked?

A. One of the...