Letter: Vote Yes on 33, No on 34

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

If you can do so safely, please attend Williamstown's annual town meeting Tuesday at 7 p.m. (in person only) and stay to vote on proposed marijuana bylaws Article 33 (Limited Indoor) and Article 34 (Widespread Outdoor). The only sensible path forward is YES on 33 and NO (or postpone) 34.

We should not agree to postpone Article 33 until next year's town meeting. We'll need Article 33's insurance in the meantime against the intense development pressures we've already seen big cannabis bring to town.

Tabling Article 33 means we'd automatically revert to our woefully deficient 2017 bylaw with virtually no local zoning control (except ZBA general principles). Applicants can build intrusive 100,000 square-foot operations on 5-acre lots throughout our RR2 neighborhoods, with minimal setbacks. These will change the landscape and quality of life for years.

Since 100 percent of the cannabis for medical and recreational pot sold in Massachusetts must be grown in-state (no crossing of state lines), this is a very high-stakes issue. With annual revenues for growers projected at $2-$5 million per 50,000 square-foot canopy, outside investors are motivated to develop rural Massachusetts communities in ways benefiting few.

The expansive fields near Mount Greylock Regional School are prime spots for big cannabis. Making matters worse, the Mass Cannabis Control Commission recently proposed changing how the 500-foot school buffer zone will be measured, from the school building entrance rather than property line.


For Mount Greylock, this means a cannabis operation's required setback from the property line would be eliminated. Skirting that boundary are the school's renowned cross-country trails, used extensively in the fall (prime pot harvest/odor season) by schools and colleges throughout New England.

Any permits granted while new bylaws are being crafted will confer permanent and transferable rights to develop large scale commercial cannabis – including security fencing, processing facilities, generators, trucks, and odors - in our rural and residential neighborhoods.

Let's not take this risk. Let's keep a pause on outdoor until we can develop a thoughtful bylaw allowing small scale operations appropriate to Williamstown. Let's explore craft cooperatives and microbusinesses (5,000 square feet), rather than leaping into large scale (50-100,000 square feet) commercial cannabis.

We should reject Article 34, since it allows big pot (50,000 square feet) and spreads commercial development into our sensitive and pristine Upland Conservation District, where virtually nothing else can be built, not even a cabin.

Thank you!

Anne Hogeland
Williamstown, Mass.

 

 

 

 

 


Tags: marijuana,   town meeting 2020,   

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

Williamstown Charter Review Panel OKs Fix to Address 'Separation of Powers' Concern

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Charter Review Committee on Wednesday voted unanimously to endorse an amended version of the compliance provision it drafted to be added to the Town Charter.
 
The committee accepted language designed to meet concerns raised by the Planning Board about separation of powers under the charter.
 
The committee's original compliance language — Article 32 on the annual town meeting warrant — would have made the Select Board responsible for determining a remedy if any other town board or committee violated the charter.
 
The Planning Board objected to that notion, pointing out that it would give one elected body in town some authority over another.
 
On Wednesday, Charter Review Committee co-Chairs Andrew Hogeland and Jeffrey Johnson, both members of the Select Board, brought their colleagues amended language that, in essence, gives authority to enforce charter compliance by a board to its appointing authority.
 
For example, the Select Board would have authority to determine a remedy if, say, the Community Preservation Committee somehow violated the charter. And the voters, who elect the Planning Board, would have ultimate say if that body violates the charter.
 
In reality, the charter says very little about what town boards and committees — other than the Select Board — can or cannot do, and the powers of bodies like the Planning Board are regulated by state law.
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories