Planning Board

Town of Princeton, MA Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 8, 2021
Town Hall Annex and GoToMeeting

Committee Members Present in-person at Town Hall Annex: Ian Catlow (IC), Rud Mason (RM), John Mirick (JM), Ann Neuburg (AN), Tom Sullivan (TS), Alternate Corey Burnham-Howard (CBH), Alternate Lisa Drexhage (LD)

Public Attendees present via remote and in-person (those who participated in meeting discussion are named in the minutes).

Call to order: 7:34pm

Board began by addressing administrative matters:

Review and Approve Regular Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2021

• MOTION to approve minutes as drafted.

Motion: TS; 2d: AN; Vote: 4-0 (RM abstaining because absent from December 1 meeting)

Discussion of Marijuana Cultivation proposal resident-drafted bylaw and requests from Selectboard

Planning Board members discussed the history and procedures related to draft marijuana cultivation bylaw(s).

JM opened the meeting by addressing the public attendees, sharing with them information on the history of a marijuana cultivation bylaw now before the Planning Board, including the resident drafted by-law submitted to the Selectboard and a revised version of that draft bylaw that had been informally shared, as well as a Planning Board-drafted bylaw with a first draft from JM.

JM also explained procedural matters including how Planning Board meetings are typically conducted as relates to public comment/participation at Planning Board meetings and with regard to any public hearing process for a proposed zoning bylaw.

CBH inquired as to the status of the resident-drafted bylaw—whether it had been withdrawn or whether the unofficial second draft had been officially submitted to the Selectboard. JM understood that the first draft had not been withdrawn and the unofficial second draft had not been officially submitted.

TS inquired whether the same public hearing could include both a resident-drafted bylaw and a Planning Board-drafted bylaw. JM answered yes with proper notice, and with drafts of each bylaw on file at Town Hall.

CBH suggested that the Planning Board consider soliciting feedback on draft marijuana cultivation bylaw from various stakeholders: Agricultural Commission; Board of Health; Residents. Other members also suggested the Advisory Committee, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Police Department. CBH stressed that informing residents of the draft bylaw(s) and ensuring resident feedback opportunities were critical for success of adoption at Town Meeting.

Planning Board members focused discussion on the draft marijuana bylaw proposed by JM (see attached to Meeting Minutes).

TS thought the language of proposed Section III (R) looked straightforward.

CBH suggested that the Planning Board might also draft definitions for the terms discussed in the proposed bylaw—such as “commercial cultivation” or “processing”. JM responded that he preferred not to include definitions and that the definitions of those terms in the Cannabis Cultivation Commission (CCC) regulations would suffice. CBH suggested that the draft bylaw then include reference to the CCC regulations, but JM and RM voiced that they did not want a bylaw to specifically refer to the CCC definitions because of how the regulations might be parsed.

IC suggested “manufacturing” be included as a prohibited use in Section III (R) and other board members agreed.

JM asked the public in attendance at the meeting for their feedback.

Public attendee Kathy Downing voiced that she would like to see commercial cultivation of marijuana also prohibited in Business and Business/Industrial Zones in town given the residential nature of those zones. JM noted that his draft bylaw would require a special permit for commercial marijuana cultivation in a Business or Business/Industrial zone, and would limit cultivation to 5,000 square feet of canopy on any lot.

IC expressed concern that JM’s draft bylaw appeared not to limit the overall marijuana canopy and number of permits allowed. JM responded that the draft bylaw proposed limits for each lot. IC also asked if a special permit would be required for marijuana cultivation and JM responded that per the proposed bylaw a special permit would be required for marijuana cultivation in both Business and Business/Industrial zones.

With regard to JM’s proposed bylaw and its list of prohibited nuisances that could be caused by marijuana cultivation, processing or cultivation, CBH suggested “light” be included.

The board members discussed whether the draft bylaw should limit commercial cultivation to indoor only. CBH expressed her preference to limit it to indoors because of the ability to control odors with best available filter technology. Public attendee Phil Gott noted that he understood that charcoal filters and negative pressure ventilation systems were effective at odor control for indoor cultivation operations.

Public attendee Tim Canfield asked if the proposed 5,000 square foot canopy limit would apply for vertical grow operations as well, and JM answered yes, that would be the total canopy limit.

RM opined that there would be an odor with marijuana cultivation—whether indoor or outdoor operations. He referenced odors related to an indoor grow operation in Sterling and that sometimes at that facility there would be no odor and sometimes there would be significant odor that would then lower with regard to complaints and enforcement. He also opined that the proposed 5,000 square foot limit was too small for any realistic commercial venture and that the bylaws should either allow a sizeable grow operation or disallow it altogether. He suggested that if the bylaw pinches it down so much that the use can’t be done anyway, then why not just prohibit it. 

TS asked for more information regarding odor and odor mitigation options. Public attendee Steve Jones explained that odor is most pungent when the cannabis plant flowers, that most cultivators can now get 2 to 3 outdoor crops per season—at 3 weeks per crop, and that he understood that there were 2 to 3 companies nationwide that managed related odors. Public attendee Phil Gott noted that the CCC indicated that because of hybrid breeding, cannabis plants could have continuous flowering from May to November.

RM inquired as to what the benefits were of allowing cannabis cultivation in town. JM answered tax revenues and being business friendly.

TS noted that prior public feedback had been clear that many residents in town did not want to impede marijuana business and supported marijuana-related tax revenue. Public attendee Kathy Downing opined that the Town Master Plan was not “pro-business.” RM expressed that although he was generally “pro-business” he saw more costs than benefits associated with marijuana cultivation.

Public attendee Peter Sullivan noted that his research revealed that after five years of outdoor marijuana cultivation, other communities have had to lower their valuation of homes within 1 mile of cultivation operations which means a long-term loss in revenue for municipalities. He also asked that if indoor cultivation is allowed, consideration be given to requiring maintenance of odor control system and penalties for odor control failures.

CBH noted appreciation for both RM and TS comments and reiterated her concern that any final draft bylaw should be drafted such that it would gain resident support at Town Meeting.

JM synthesized that thus far in the discussion it seemed Planning Board members agreed that outdoor marijuana cultivation odor cannot be controlled; that indoor marijuana cultivation would require monitoring and enforcement with an agreed maximum 5,000 square foot canopy. He noted that it seemed the Planning Board was still considering whether to allow marijuana operations in Business/Business-Industrial zones.

LD opined that if the goal of supporting marijuana business was increased revenue then it was important to consider all of the associated costs. She expressed that she was concerned about the energy infrastructure and an increased tax rate to support that. Public attendee Phil Gott (a PMLD Light Commissioner) noted that any service agreement with PMLD requires the ratepayer to be responsible for any power upgrade. JM asked PG—and PG confirmed—that therefore in a Business or Business/Industrial zone if an upgrade was needed to have sufficient electricity for a marijuana operation then any upgrades would be borne by the applicant/marijuana business operator.

TS expressed concerns about the Town’s inability to administer and monitor/enforce conditions related to marijuana businesses in Town. IC noted that other municipalities had formed odor/smell panels to investigate odor complaints. JM noted that a Host Community Agreement (HCA) could require what might be needed to address impacts such as paying for periodic inspections and enforcement. IC cautioned that HCAs sunset after five years and suggested that conditions might best be placed in a Development Agreement. CBH noted that the Fitchburg-Westminster Landfill has had a third-party that responds to and investigates odor complaints. CBH also suggested that a marijuana business should be addressed as the Planning Board might address any other business that might be proposed in the Business/Industrial zones in town, but RM opined this is not like any other business and that he saw no upside to allowing marijuana cultivation in town. Public attendee Steve Jones emphasized his opinion that the liability associated with this type of use is enormous, including water consumption and noxious odor. He noted that those communities that have allowed marijuana cultivation operations are now trying to get out of allowing them. He suggested that liabilities with such use outweigh assets.

Public attendee Tim Canfield inquired as to the source of revenue to the Town from such a marijuana cultivation use. JM responded: improvements to property are taxed, plus an impact fee that sunsets in five years. Tim noted that the impact fees only cover costs spent and opined that the potential costs associated with marijuana cultivation were too great.

Public attendee Peter Sullivan expressed concern about water pollution exposure with outdoor marijuana cultivation, and that any indoor marijuana cultivation would need to discharge to a leach field with a filtration system.

Public attendee Alfred Pearson expressed concern about whether lots could be subdivided such that, under the proposed bylaw, there could be greater than 5,000 square feet of canopy. JM noted that current zoning requires 2 acres per lot but acknowledged there could be multiple adjacent grow operations over multiple lots at 5,000 square feet of canopy each per the proposed bylaw.

The Planning Board then began focused discussion on marijuana manufacturing.

JM noted that under the existing zoning bylaw, light manufacturing is allowed in Business zones and manufacturing is allowed in Business/Industrial zones. He proffered whether the Planning Board should consider addressing only allowing a marijuana manufacturing facility—and prohibiting cultivation in all zones. He suggested this would eliminate odor concerns, involve less electricity (which was also an expressed concern), but he noted that there still might be remaining issues of wastewater and hazardous chemical use.

Public attendee Alfred Pearson suggested that odor might still be a concern with manufacturing because the manufacturer would be bringing in cannabis plant buds.

RM noted that the existing zoning bylaw governance of “manufacturing” already addresses nuisances like “odor”.

RM asked for more information related to the marijuana manufacturing process. Public attendee Steve Jones and IC explained that such manufacturing involves solvents to pull the THC out of the plant—including ethanol, butane and/or carbon dioxide, but they were unsure of the amount of fuel needed. They did not know what the byproducts of the manufacturing process were. IC expressed concern about fire risks.

Acknowledging that the existing zoning bylaw already deals with the manufacturing of products, JM inquired as to how the Planning Board members felt about the manufacturing of marijuana. RM wanted first to know more about the potential downsides.

Public attendee Phil Gott (PG) emphasized negative impacts related to water usage and the impact of water usage on private wells with regard to marijuana operations. He opined that water quantity and quality must be addressed before any marijuana manufacturing use is allowed. He opined his preference not to allow marijuana cultivation at all because of the huge potential to create havoc quickly. PG cited an HCA that the Town of Bolton had executed and it was noted that PG has analyzed 50 of the 245 HCAs in the state. PG also noted that the Town of Ashburnham requires Environmental Impact Statements for HCA applicants. PG cautioned that it was important to think about all the things that might need to be addressed in an HCA, which might be beyond the knowledge of those making decisions. IC noted that based on his conversations with other towns’ planners, there is an overlap with HCA and Special Permits such that if a use is allowed by zoning then policy and procedure needs to be carefully developed so that the Selectboard’s criteria and conditions are similar to Special Permit and Site Plan Review conditions.

JM synthesized that it seemed Planning Board members thus far were in agreement that marijuana cultivation, processing, and manufacturing should be prohibited in Residential/Agricultural zones, that cultivation and processing should be prohibited in Business and Business/Industrial zones, but that the Planning Board was still considering whether to allow manufacturing in Business/Industrial zones through a draft marijuana bylaw or that perhaps existing zoning language sufficed to control such manufacturing through special permit requirements.

TS reiterated that he would like more resident input as well as input from other Town committee/board/department stakeholders before finalizing a Planning Board-proposed marijuana zoning bylaw. RM suggested public outreach with regard to informing on this issue and on the opportunity for public attendance at Planning Board meetings. Public attendee Steve Jones offered that citizen group compilation of information on marijuana cultivation is available for Planning Board members or the public to educate themselves more on these issues. Public attendee Alfred Pearson noted that 350 people have signed a Citizen Petition to get on a Town Meeting warrant a resident-proposed bylaw that would prohibit marijuana cultivation, processing, and manufacturing in Residential/Agriculture zones but would allow it in Business/Industrial zones. Public attendee Kathy Downing noted that the resident-drafted bylaw had allowed such use in Business/Industrial zones based on an understanding from Planning Board advice that it might be easier to pass at Town Meeting.

Public attendee Larry DuBois cautioned the Planning Board to prohibit marijuana operations in all zones, noting the difficulty for the Town to manage and enforce conditions. TS reiterated his concerns about the Town’s ability to manage and enforce conditions. CBH cautioned that if a marijuana manufacturing use was going to be prohibited based on the Town’s inability to manage and enforce associated conditions then the Planning Board might as well prohibit all manufacturing uses in town.

The Planning Board then addressed the procedures and timeline for moving forward.

JM noted that the timeline for Planning Board review of the resident-drafted marijuana zoning bylaw might include a written recommendation from the Planning Board in January; he suggested that recommendation could recommend either a need for more time, to adopt the proposed bylaw, or to adopt the proposed bylaw with suggested changes, or not to adopt the proposed bylaw. JM explained that while a resident-proposed bylaw could not be edited by the Planning Board after a public hearing, a Planning Board-drafted bylaw could be edited/changed after a public hearing, with the Planning Board able to make changes to the language of a Planning Board-proposed bylaw up to the time of warrant article submission for Town Meeting.

RM asked if the resident-proposed bylaw could be withdrawn, and, if so, by whom. JM responded that it could be withdrawn, and by whom would depend on the organization of the citizen group.

JM explained that the current future timeline included: a December 15 Planning Board meeting at which the Planning Board would likely vote on final draft Planning Board-proposed marijuana bylaw; then on January 5 there would be a public hearing on the Planning Board-proposed marijuana bylaw and the resident-proposed marijuana bylaw (requiring notice published 14 days in advance and again in next successive week, plus notice to Agricultural Commission and other stakeholders identified in MGL c. 40A, sec. 5), after which the Planning Board would have 21 days to provide a written recommendation (if any) as to the resident-proposed marijuana bylaw and after which the Planning Board could make changes to the Planning Board-proposed marijuana bylaw.

Public attendee Tim Canfield asked if there was no pressure in the timeline for the Planning Board to review the resident-proposed bylaw, what timeframe would there likely be for a public hearing on a Planning Board-proposed bylaw, and JM responded that in such case a public hearing would likely then be held in February.

There was a brief discussion on when a Special Town Meeting might be called, with CBH noting that if the residents withdrew their proposal and only the Planning Board proposed-bylaw was left for consideration, then the Selectboard could choose to hold a Special Town Meeting or not, or must hold one if 200+ citizen petition signatures for one, or could include the proposed zoning bylaw on the Annual Town Meeting warrant with warrant articles for same due in early April.  Board members discussed that as per MGL c. 40A, sec. 6, the first publication of notice of the public hearing on the proposed zoning bylaw is the timeline for which the bylaw might apply to proposed marijuana uses.

Continue discussion of long-term goals/projects, including senior housing and noise by-law

JM referenced the recent planning grant the Town received to update the Town Master Plan. A Master Plan Steering Committee will be appointed by the Selectboard to work with the Planning Board and the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission. JM had previously shared with Planning Board members for future Planning Board discussion-- copies of a draft Master Plan Steering Committee Charge and Overview as well as the Project Scope and Budget. JM noted that the Selectboard is seeking from the Planning Board suggestions on committee appointments and guidance/recommendations on what sections might be best to focus updates. That topic will be tabled for future discussion.

AN noted that the Housing Production Planning Committee’s first meeting was successful.

JM noted that CBH had pulled together various examples of Noise Bylaw provisions for Planning Board review—either to possibly adopt as Zoning Bylaw or to refer for General Bylaw adoption.

Upcoming meetings December 15, 2021 (See town website calendar for updates/potential changes.)

Next Agenda Items

• Administrative Business
  • Review and approve regular meeting minutes of December 8, 2021
  • Review any mail
• Consider any ANR plans
• Consider proposed Cannabis Cultivation Zoning Bylaw(s)—resident and/or Planning Board drafted
• Consider Long-Term Planning Projects:
  • Town Master Plan update
  • Noise Bylaw
  • Housing Production Planning

Meeting adjourned at 9:25p.m.

MOTION to adjourn.

• Motion: RM; 2d: TS; Vote: 5-0.

Respectfully submitted,

Corey Burnham-Howard

12/6/21 draft Possible marijuana by-law draft

Section III (R)

Notwithstanding any other provisions in these by-laws, commercial cultivation or processing of marijuana is not a permitted use in a Residential-Agricultural District.

Section IV (J)(c)

Commercial cultivation of marijuana and related processing and/or manufacturing of marijuana grown on the property, provided that the total canopy on any lot does not exceed 5,000 square feet, and that the cultivation and related processing and/or manufacturing will not be offensive, injurious, or noxious because of noise, vibration, smoke, fumes, dust, odors, danger of explosion,  or other characteristics detrimental to a dominantly residential town..