A chart prepared by Chair Stephanie Boyd compares the current 'state of play' under a 2017 zoning bylaw and the rules that would be in effect if August's town meeting passes a bylaw on the warrant via citizens petition.
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Planning Board on Wednesday voted to recommend town meeting pass a bylaw amendment that will allow outdoor production of marijuana in the town's rural residence districts.
Although the board itself has a draft bylaw amendment on the annual town meeting warrant that prohibits outdoor production for commercial purposes, the panel by a vote of 3-2 recommended passage of a bylaw on the warrant via citizens petition.
And although the vote was just 3-2 to recommend the citizens petition, the discussion among the planners indicated that some of the objection was due to technical deficiencies in the citizens petition draft that makes it incongruous with the regulations on indoor pot production, testing and manufacture of marijuana products in the Planning Board's own bylaw.
Subsequent to the split decision on recommending residents OK outdoor pot growth, the planners voted 5-0 to include in their report to town meeting a recommendation that the citizens petition drafted by the town's Agricultural Commission be amended on the floor of the meeting to bring it in line with the indoor regs.
The majority of the board seemed persuaded by testimony from members of the Ag Commission and their allies during nearly two hours of a public hearing that led up to the votes.
Although the board heard from both proponents and opponents of outdoor production during the hearing, it was clear that the winning argument came from the farmers: Marijuana is a legal cash crop that can potentially make their operations more economically viable.
Many of the opponents who testified in Wednesday night's virtual hearing were familiar voices at town hall over the last two years. They successfully beat back an effort from a Colorado-based company to build a new indoor/outdoor pot growing complex on Blair Road in 2019. This year, many of those same residents from the Blair Road area convinced the Planning Board to draft a bylaw that allowed only indoor production with strict air filtration controls to prevent smells that are nuisances and, some studies say, unhealthy.
Before voting in favor of the citizens petition, Planning Board Chair Stephanie Boyd explained her reason for advising the town take a step the board was not willing to take in March.
"Unfortunately, the whole year, we never had anyone speak in favor of outdoor growing," Boyd said. "That influenced where I was. Given the way our community was, it seemed indoor was the more acceptable way to go. I strongly believe we're a farming community, and it's been great to have the farmers come and speak to us at this meeting and other meetings. … That [argument] speaks to me.
"If growing marijuana or hosting a wedding helps a grower grow food, we should support them in that."
Earlier in the hearing, the Planning Board unanimously recommended town meeting adopt a separate bylaw amendment drafted by the Ag Commission which increases the number of permissible on-farm events (weddings, parties, etc.) from six per year to 10 per year.
Boyd was joined in voting yes by Chris Winters and Peter Beck.
Dante Birch and Susan Puddester both voted against recommending passage of the citizen's petition, though the reason they emphasized was that the citizens petition draft lacked some of the language regulating indoor marijuana operations.
The inconsistency was noted late in the hearing by Anne Hogeland, who suggested that the Ag Commission did not mean to leave out that language but had simply "copied and pasted" language from an earlier version of the Planning Board's draft bylaw.
Hogeland argued that the omission made the citizens petition "not ready for prime time" and showed why bylaw amendments should be drafted by the board itself.
Birch seemed to agree, arguing that the solution would be for town meeting to take no action on the citizens petition — rather than rejecting it, which would mean the same issue could not come back for two years — and allow the Planning Board to come back with its own outdoor growing bylaw, either in a special town meeting or the 2021 annual town meeting.
"Who doesn't want to support local farmers?" Birch said. "I want to do that. I don't feel like this, as it stands, I can support. It hasn't gone through the proper channels, in my mind.
"I think we can continue to refine it, the outdoor portion. I don't see how we can support the citizens petition. It worries me making bylaws on the floor of town meeting. I don't think that's the best place to do it. I think it would make sense to recommend [town meeting members] do not vote on this but table it so we can work on it next year."
Boyd and Best argued that the Planning Board should make an advisory vote that said the board "recommends the passage of the article with amendments," or words to that effect. But Winters and Birch both argued that a "clean" up or down vote was preferable.
After twice hearing from Town Planner Andrew Groff that there was nothing to prevent the board from including additional language in its report to town meeting, the board went forward with the second vote to recommend an amendment to the citizens petition. Winters noted that, ideally, the original drafters of the amendment will be the ones to propose the amendment on the floor of town meeting since the board — and Hogeland — said the missing language on indoor facilities was an unintentional oversight.
As for the substance of the citizens petition, the lengthy testimony on Wednesday reiterated many of the arguments the Planning Board — and before it, the Zoning Board — heard in the past about the potential negative impact on residents from having outdoor marijuana production next door to their homes.
Proponents of the the citizens petition did not contest the point that pot plants can be malodorous but they argued that the potential impact was being overstated and the setbacks in the bill — at least 500 feet from the marijuana canopy to any residence not owned by the grower — was sufficient protection.
Advocates for outdoor growth said that the period when marijuana plants give off offensive odors is brief, that conifers produce more of the odor-causing chemicals known as terpenes and that all farming activity causes the occasional unpleasant smell.
"Talk to Jay Galusha about how many complaints he gets about spreading manure," said Averill Cook, a member of the Ag Commission. "It is horrific. I get screams. But it goes away."
All zoning bylaw amendments need a two-thirds majority vote for passage at town meeting.
If the citizens petition-generated warrant article allowing outdoor pot production passes, growers would need a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals in addition to a license from the state in order to grow commercially.
If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.
Your Comments
iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.
No Comments
Letter: Vote No on 'Jungle' Primaries
Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
They don't call them "jungle primaries" for nothing.
Question 3 on the November ballot would trash two-party primary elections and replace them with California-style, chaotic — and extraordinarily costly — "jungle" primaries that would destroy the very political parties that have kept America stable since Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison created them in the 1790s.
Jungle primaries put all candidates, regardless of party, on one ballot with the top two vote-getters facing off in the general election — even if they're from the same party. That would create chaos, but the real issue is money: Jungle primaries give a distinct advantage to candidates backed by corporate money and the super wealthy. In short, jungle primaries move our primaries from the ballot box to big donor meetings long before campaigning even begins.
When something this radical is proposed, you have to look at who's behind it, who's funding it, and ask "why" they are doing it.
Their philosophical guru is Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor who ran for governor in 2022 but couldn't get 15 percent of the Democratic Convention vote to win the party's endorsement.
The money behind this extreme attack on small "d" democratic politics tells us more. With over $5 million in the bank as of Aug. 28, this is a very well-funded campaign — the lion's share of which came from wealthy Boston-area private equity individuals.
Twenty-two private equity executives gave $3.99 million, or 77 percent of all the money from individuals. Current and former Bain Capital executives contributed $1.92 million, and Berkshire Partners executives put up $1.32 million. In short, 22 rich people put up nearly $4 million to change how five million of us vote. Yes, it seems the ultra-wealthy want to destroy the two-party system that has kept our politics stable for 200 years.
The community-based non-profit organizations that operate local access cable TV channels in the Berkshires have been expanding their roles and strengthening their ties to their communities to adapt to the volatile era of "new media."
click for more
Unlike two weeks ago more people turned out Monday to urge the board to accept the plan to hang the Hometown Hero banners on utility poles around town between Memorial Day and Veterans Day starting in the spring of 2027. click for more
The Cooperative Hoosac Valley football program will resume football related activities on Monday, Sept. 28, after being on “pause” for the past nine days. click for more
The festivities, scheduled for 1 to 5 p.m., will feature a demonstration by a professional skateboarder, food and music to celebrate the long-sought publicly/privately funded facility. click for more