image description — The Planning Board voted to recommend passage of the new bylaw after a sparsely attended public hearing on Monday night.

Adams Planning Board Recommends Marijuana Bylaw

By Jack GuerinoiBerkshires Staff
03:58AM / Tuesday, December 19, 2017Print Story | Email Story

ADAMS, Mass. — After a sparsely attended public hearing Monday, the Planning Board approved a newly crafted marijuana establishment bylaw.

"I have no questions ... I reviewed all of the changes and I am in agreement with them," Planner Sandra Moderski said. "I think it is a good draft."

The board made some final changes to the bylaw late last month and agreed that retailers can only locate in the downtown, or B-2 district, if they receive a special permit from the Planning Board. They can't be located closer than 250 feet from schools, day-care centers or other areas where minors commonly congregate and are the population primarily served by the facility.

An establishment can locate in the industrial park by right and unless it is an independent marijuana testing lab. In that case, it would need a special permit.

Interim Town Administrator Donna Cesan said the bylaw amendment would add a new section to the town's zoning bylaws.

"There are several bylaw sections that address location criteria, operation standards and the information necessary for the review by the Planning Board," she said.

When the board opened up the floor to the public the small crowd was silent.

Police Chief Richard Tarsa, who had strong opinions about the bylaw and where establishments should be located, was the only one to speak.

"I just want to compliment everyone involved ... this has been going on for several months leading up to tonight and there has been a lot of positive input and a lot of give and take on both sides," he said. "I think what is being presented this evening is a well-worded document."

Cesan said the amendment will still have to go before town meeting and that the Board of Selectmen plans to hold a special town meeting in late winter.

"I know there are some other outstanding minor things that would be good to get out of the way in February or March instead of waiting until June for the annual town meeting," she said.

Proposed Marijuana Bylaw for Town of Adams, Mass. by iBerkshires.com on Scribd

Tags: commercial zoning, marijuana,

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Breathing Room

0% APY for 12 months balance transfer offer. Apply today! Click to learn more. Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Adams Planning Board Cited for Open Meeting Law Violation

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
05:12AM / Wednesday, November 11, 2026

ADAMS, Mass. — The state Attorney General's Office has determined that the Planning Board violated Open Meeting Law by continuing to deliberate on a matter after adjournment.

According to the determination, the violation occurred after adjourning the Jan. 27, 2025, meeting when three board members stayed to discuss permitting concerns for Aisling Mountain Farm, a 22-acre equestrian facility on West Road owned by Kathryn Foley.

The board was ordered to amend its meeting minutes within the next 30 days, to include a summary of the discussion that occurred after the meeting was adjourned, to certify to to the AG's Office that it has done so, and to comply with the Open Meeting Law going forward.

The ruling stems from a complaint filed by Catherine Foster on Aug. 22, 2025, alleging that the board violated the Open Meeting Law during and after its Jan. 27 meeting.

Although filed nearly seven months after the January meeting, the Attorney General's Office said it met the 30-day filing deadline because Foster did not become aware of the situation until it was raised at a July 23 Select Board meeting.

"The Open Meeting Law requires that complaints be filed within 30 days of the alleged violation, or if the alleged violation could not reasonably have been known at the time it occurred, then within 30 days of the date it should reasonably have been discovered," Assistant Attorney General Matthew Lindberg said in the determination.

"The complainant could not reasonably have discovered that the Board deliberated after adjournment of the January 27 meeting until the issue was raised during public comment at the July 23 Select Board meeting. Because the complaint was filed within 30 days of the July 23 Select Board meeting, the complaint was filed timely as to this allegation"

View Full Story