Planning Board

Town of Princeton, MA Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 15, 2021
Town Hall Annex and GoToMeeting

Board Members present in-person at Town Hall Annex: Ian Catlow (IC), Rud Mason (RM), John Mirick (JM), Alternate Corey Burnham-Howard (CBH), Alternate Lisa Drexhage (LD)

Board Members present via remote: Ann Neuburg (AN), Tom Sullivan (TS)

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

Call to order: 7:33pm

Board began by addressing administrative matters:

Review and Approve Regular Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2021

• MOTION to accept minutes as drafted.

Motion: AN; 2d: RM; Vote: 5-0

Discussion of Planning Board-proposed Marijuana Cultivation Bylaw

Planning Board (PB) members focused discussion on the 12/13 draft marijuana bylaw proposed by JM (see attached to Meeting Minutes).

PB members first addressed best approach to a proposed bylaw—a new, separate section addressing marijuana, or amendments to existing provisions of the zoning bylaw—namely the sections addressing uses in various zoning districts.

JM advocated that the PB consider adopting a separate marijuana section as a Zoning Bylaw amendment (as opposed to amending each of the sections of the bylaws addressing various zoning districts). JM also voiced his personal opinion that marijuana cultivation, processing, and manufacturing should be prohibited in a Residential/Agricultural District.  CBH also advocated for a separate marijuana section, noting that might be most understandable for presentation and successful adoption at Town Meeting.

RM suggested that if the PB decided to prohibit marijuana cultivation in all districts, then it might be best to propose a bylaw that amends the individual zoning district sections (as opposed to proposing a separate marijuana section). IC voiced that he favored a separate section approach because it provides clarity to potential applicants/marijuana establishments.

JM pointed to draft language addressing a required bond, noting that it would make enforcement easier. IC inquired if there was a cap on bonds under municipal law. JM responded that an application fee has to resemble the Town cost to process and can’t be punitive. JM explained various scenarios of potential fees. JM reiterated that the purpose of the bond was for someone not to violate the law. IC commented that he liked the idea of requiring a bond.

JM reminded the PB members that a PB-drafted marijuana bylaw could be amended after a public hearing based on feedback/public sentiment, while the PB could not make changes to a resident-proposed bylaw but could only give recommendations.

AN voiced that she saw more flexibility with an entire new marijuana section and liked that for achieving the goal of passing the proposed bylaw at Town Meeting.

TS asked if the PB recommended prohibiting marijuana business in its proposal, could the PB later change that after public hearing to allow marijuana business. He agreed with AN that JM’s new section proposal allowed for greater flexibility. JM cited notice requirements and noted that what’s proposed for public hearing has public notice and could be retreated on (i.e., could propose allowing use and then retreat to prohibit) while if only a prohibition was proposed, PB may not be able to go beyond that proposal (i.e., could not propose prohibiting and then after public hearing allow use (without going through new public hearing)).

RM advocated that whatever is presented at Public Hearing be what the PB supports—and sought a poll of PB opinions on favored language. JM suggested that the letter from the PB accompanying the public hearing notice could include PB recommendations and say that feedback will impact the final proposed bylaw)

IC asked if the Town can collect a fee in escrow for scientific, legal, expert review of an application—or does it need to be in the bylaw in order to do so. JM said fee can be collected for specific purpose and should be in bylaw language as is the case with subdivision provision. IC suggested such language be included in a proposed marijuana bylaw. IC noted that some HCAs require impact reports and IC would want evaluations of such reports. JM and IC discussed whether project proponents are typically required to fund independent Town-hired expert review. IC advocated the need for a third-party qualified professional to render an opinion in the Town’s interest—especially given that busy volunteers with other time commitments and an understandable lack of expertise on relevant scientific/legal issues are addressing these matters for the Town. JM wondered what the objective standard would be for when such a fee to pay for expert review would be required by applicants in Town. Public attendee Tim Canfield also advocated for a fee to fund expert review, noting that marijuana business is complex in a quickly evolving industry and that town volunteers are not necessarily prepared to review the various complexities and considerations. At JM’s inquiry as to what an expert for the Town would review, Tim Canfield suggested issues such as sound, odor, water consumption—with the expert helping the town to understand what the applicant has proposed and whether state-of-the-art technology and maintenance would be achieved. IC gave a specific example of the various odor scrubber technologies that might be considered. TS concurred that it is very common for an applicant to pay for outside engineering review. TS noted that the bylaws provide for this with regard to subdivisions. TS wondered if best to require such a fee for review across the bylaws or only specifically for marijuana business applicants. JM, RM preferred the latter. JM suggested such draft language could be provided in another paragraph (with language similar to that in the Subdivision Control Bylaw)- e.g.: “As part of the Special Permit process, the applicant shall advance a sum of money reasonably determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals for expert review and analysis of the applicant’s proposal.” Public attendee Phil Gott noted there is precedence in other towns for such fees and provided example that the Town of Sheffield’s marijuana bylaw says the Town will hire an expert consultant and the applicant will pay the bill.

PB members then focused discussion on whether the proposed bylaw should allow or prohibit indoor marijuana cultivation in Business or Business/Industrial Districts

RM read Section 1 of the Zoning Bylaws—highlighting the purpose of the bylaws. He opined that he does not see marijuana business as beneficial in any way to the town and therefore does not think it should be allowed, and emphasized that especially was the case since what was proposed to be allowed (in JM’s draft bylaw) was so shrunken in square footage that it did not seem to allow for a good business plan. CBH asked why the PB should address indoor marijuana cultivation, processing, or manufacturing differently than it does other manufacturing industries that may come to town and are an allowed use under the bylaw for Business/Industrial zones. RM highlighted nuisance issues associated with marijuana cultivation including water issues and odor, and noted those issues are larger given that there are lots of residences in the Business/Industrial zones, and he said that the PB does regulate out some industries. IC offered that he could agree with RM and also noted that the Business/Industrial zone does border residential areas. RM also hypothesized that given the money in marijuana cultivation, it may be more economically feasible for a small cultivation operation in Princeton and thus be attractive to such business while Princeton may not be attractive to other types of manufacturing. TS noted that Business and Business/Industrial zones in town are primarily occupied by residences and so agreed that a marijuana use just does not fit in town.

Public attendee Peter Sullivan expressed concern about plants being brought in to a marijuana facility in town and a potential constant odor faced by residences in those area. JM noted that the language of the proposed bylaw would only allow for the processing and manufacturing of marijuana grown on the site; it could not be brought in. Peter Sullivan appreciated that but still remained concerned about odor issues.

PB members discussed best approach to proposed bylaw

TS inquired if PB wrote a bylaw that banned marijuana business use in all three zoning districts in town, what happens if that bylaw was not adopted at Town Meeting. JM said that would mean it would be allowed in town. RM suggested three separate warrant article sections for each zoning district allowing for the possibility that some pass with Town Meeting vote while others do not.

AN expressed that she is willing to be guided by feedback from the Public Hearing. TS wondered if the PB could put alternative options into a letter with the public hearing notice.

JM opined that if the PH allows marijuana business in the Business/Industrial zone then the PB should proffer a detailed separate section. He suggested that if the bylaw proposed for public hearing offers three warrant article proposals to prohibit marijuana business in each zoning district, and if feedback from the public is to allow it in the Business/Industrial zone, then the PB could draft another proposed bylaw and hold another public hearing.

IC commented that both approaches satisfy his thinking. He expects resident support for prohibiting marijuana business in Residential/Agricultural and Business zones, but is uncertain what resident feedback will be on Business/Industrial zones. IC still preferred proposing a stand-alone separate marijuana section and possibly breaking that into multiple warrant articles. CBH concurred. RM preferred separate amendments to existing bylaw sections addressing uses in districts, seeing it as a cleaner approach. LD noted her understanding that initially residents in town had supported cannabis but now she is hearing the opposite. She agreed with RM that it was cleaner to present three prohibitions in each of the three zoning districts.

MOTION: To prohibit cultivation, processing, and manufacturing in all three zoning districts, and for JM to draft a proposed bylaw to that effect for public notice and public hearing.

Motion: RM; 2d: IC; Vote: 5-0.

JM will get draft prepared and work with Nate Boudreau and Kolette Carleton to get the public notice out for the public hearing on 1/5 at 7:30p.

CBH suggested that after the Town Clerk issued the notice, a PB member post the notice of the public hearing on Nextdoor Princeton and Discussing Princeton, MA Facebook page. JM appointed CBH to do so.

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

Housing:

AN noted that the Housing Production Planning (HPP) Committee is meeting weekly. At the last meeting they reviewed the previous town survey on housing and are determining how to distribute a new survey.  JM noted a call he had from Deb Cary about condominiums and alerted AN that inquiry might come to the HPP committee.

Master Plan

JM reminded the PB members of the recent planning grant the Town received to update the Town Master Plan and that the Selectboard is looking to appoint a Master Plan Steering Committee to work with the Planning Board and the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission. JM noted that the Selectboard is seeking from the Planning Board suggestions on committee appointments (including those with time, useful comments, and new to town volunteering—so as to get a representative group with as broad a set of ideas as possible) and guidance/recommendations on what sections might be best to focus updates. LD inquired as to timeline, and JM understood the Selectboard hoped to get the committee underway in January.

Noise Bylaw

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. (See examples attached.) He suggested this compilation allowed the PB to go through and see what provisions they found useful or not useful in Princeton—and that addressing what might be best for a zoning vs general bylaw could come later.

JM commented that he liked the provisions allowing for exceptions and saw the examples provided as things we should not regulate except perhaps hours. JM wondered if best to say anything not allowed is prohibited or the other way around.

JM commented that he appreciated the decibel level tables and objective approach they offered to regulation of noise. PB members agreed it would be important to focus on what are the most appropriate decibel level limits, noting the exponential noise increase with increased decibels and the exponential decrease of noise with distance. Generally, PB members thought the examples looked good as a starting point.

Upcoming meetings January 5, 2021- Public Hearing, possibly followed by Planning Board Public Meeting (See town website calendar for updates/potential changes.)

Next Agenda Items

Public Hearing

• Public Hearing on PB-proposed marijuana bylaw and on resident-proposed marijuana bylaw

Public Meeting

• Administrative Business
  • Review and approve regular meeting minutes of December 15, 2021
  • Review any mail
• Consider any ANR plans
• Consider public feedback and possible revisions to PB-proposed marijuana bylaw
• Consider Recommendations with regard to resident-proposed marijuana bylaw
• Consider Long-Term Planning Projects:
  • Town Master Plan update
  • Noise Bylaw
  • Housing Production Planning

Meeting adjourned at 9:05p.m.

MOTION to adjourn.

• Motion: IC; 2d: RM; Vote: 5-0.

Respectfully submitted,

Corey Burnham-Howard

12/13/21 draft rev. 1

Possible marijuana by-law drafts

Possible amendments to Permitted uses

Prohibition in Residential-Agricultural District

Section III (R)

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

Prohibition in Business District

Section IV (R)

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

Alternative:  By Special Permit in Business District

Section IV (J)(c)

Indoor commercial cultivation of marijuana and related processing and/or manufacturing of marijuana grown on the property, provided that the total canopy on the property 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.  Outdoor cultivation shall not be allowed.

By Special Permit in Business-Industrial District

Section V.1 (D)

Subject to permission by the Board of Appeals, as provided in Section VIII of this by-law, indoor commercial cultivation of marijuana and related processing and/or manufacturing of marijuana grown on the property is allowed, provided that the total canopy on the property 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.  Outdoor cultivation shall not be allowed.

Possible separate marijuana section

Section XXIII - Cultivation, Processing, and Manufacturing of Marijuana

1. Purpose.  The cultivation, processing, and manufacturing of marijuana in Massachusetts is licensed by the Cannabis Control Commission.  This by-law regulates the size and location of those activities in Princeton and is intended to strike a balance between encouraging small businesses and controlling the potential impact on residences in a dominantly residential town.  Notwithstanding any other provisions in these by-laws, no lot shall be used and no structure shall be erected maintained, altered or used for the commercial cultivation, processing and/or manufacturing of marijuana except as provided in this Section XXIII.

1. Retail Sales.  This Section XXIII does not apply to retail sales of marijuana in a Business or Business-Industrial District pursuant to a license from the Cannabis Control Commission.

1. Outdoor cultivation.  There shall be no outdoor commercial cultivation of marijuana in any zoning district.

1. Residential-Agricultural Districts.  There shall be no commercial cultivation, processing, and/or manufacturing of marijuana in a Residential-Agricultural District.

1. Business Districts.  Subject to permission by the Board of Appeals as provided in Section VIII of this by-law, indoor commercial cultivation of marijuana and related processing and/or manufacturing of marijuana grown on the property is allowed, provided that the total canopy on the property 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. 

1. Business-Industrial Districts.  Subject to permission by the Board of Appeals as provided in Section VIII of this by-law, indoor commercial cultivation of marijuana and related processing and/or manufacturing of marijuana grown on the property is allowed, provided that the total canopy on the property 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. 

1. Bond.  Any special permit for the commercial cultivation and related processing and/or manufacturing of marijuana shall include a provision for posting a bond in the amount of not less than $10,000 to be applied to the reasonable costs that the Town may incur in connection with the enforcement of any conditions that may be set forth in the special permit.  The bond shall be replenished as necessary.

EXAMPLES of Noise Bylaw provisions for consideration—based on ordinances/bylaws from other towns-with reference provided:

1. Findings.

The Town of Princeton finds that excessive or unwarranted noise jeopardizes the health, safety, and welfare and degrades the quality of life of its citizens.

[Lexington, Sec. 80-1]

2. Purpose and applicability.

A.

The purpose of this bylaw is to protect the citizens of Princeton from excessive or unwarranted noise.

[Lexington, Sec. 80-2(A)- partial]

[See also Belmont 60-600]

B. This bylaw shall apply to the control of all sound originating within the limits of the Town of Princeton and shall be consistent in scope and application with the relevant state and federal statutes and regulations.

[Lexington, Sec. 80-2(B)]

C. Provisions in this bylaw shall not apply to any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law.

[Lexington, Sec. 80-2(E)] [Dartmouth 250-5(A)(13)] [Belmont 60-630(F)]?]

3. Definitions.

[Belmont 60-605]

[Dartmouth 250-2

Background Sound Level - The sound level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources excluding the alleged offensive noise, at the location and approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made. [Belmont 60-605]

Sound Level - The instantaneous A-weighted sound-pressure level, in decibels, as measured with a sound-level meter set to the "A" weighting scale, slow response. [Belmont 60-605]

Sound Level Meter - An instrument meeting American National Standard Institute's Standard S1.4-1983 for Type 1 or Type 2 sound-level meters or an instrument and the associated recording and analyzing equipment which will provide equivalent data. [Belmont 60-605]

Continuous Noise - Noise which has no noticeable dominant frequency and which does not vary in sound level enough to be defined as sporadic or impulsive noise. [AYER 39(E)]

Dominant Tone Noise - Noise which has a single dominant frequency which, in the opinion of the enforcing authority, is more objectionable than a continuous noise of the same sound level. [AYER 39(E)]

Impulsive Noise - Noise of repetitive character which varies more than five (5) decibels more frequently than sporadic noise. [AYER 39(E)]

Sporadic Noise - Noise which persists one (1) minute or less and occurs less than five (5) times in any fifteen-minute period and less than ten (10) times in any one-hour period. [AYER 39(E)]

4. Exceptions. This bylaw shall not apply to the following:

1. Agricultural Activities. Noise caused by agricultural, farm-related, or forestry-related activities as defined by M.G.L. c. 128, sec. 1A, including but not limited to the operation of farm equipment, sawmills, harvesting equipment, and noises from farm animals. [Lanesborough, 15(D)]
2. Authorized Public Address Systems. Noise produced from public address systems used at public events in a manner approved by any Town board, department or official having authority over said use. [Dartmouth 250-5(A)(4)]
3. Construction Activities. Noise produced by construction equipment and/or construction vehicles operated [?under a valid permit] between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. provided that all motorized equipment used in such activity is equipped with functioning mufflers and/or noise-suppression devices required for legal operation by the laws of the Commonwealth. [Ayer 39(A)(2)(c)] [Ayer 39(A)(2)(g)] [Lanesborough 15(D)(1)(b)] [(See decibel-based regulation at Belmont 60-620)]
4. Emergency Alarms. Noise produced by any fire or burglar alarm or other emergency signaling device, provided that such device is arranged to shut off automatically after not more than thirty (30) minutes of operation. [Ayer 39(A)(2)(f)] [ALERNATE- shorter duration, especially for automobile security devices- see, e.g., Dartmouth 250-3(E)]
5. Emergency Repair. Noise associated with emergency repair due to flood, fire or other catastrophe may be carried out prior to a special permit being issued if such work is necessary for the general welfare or to avoid further catastrophe. Such work must cease, however, upon demand of the enforcing authority. [Ayer 39(B)(2)]
6. Emergency Vehicles. Noise from any emergency response vehicle in the performance of public safety duties. [Dartmouth 250-5(A)(1)(2)(3)]
7. Highway and Utility Maintenance and Construction. Noise produced by the excavation or repairs of [public roadway, stormwater, and utility infrastructure, or any such infrastructure] installation by or on behalf of the Town, or any public utility or any agency of the State of Massachusetts [?between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. or for emergency repair?]. [Lanesborough 15(D)(1)(e)]
8. Maintenance and Repair. Any noise produced between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. by equipment used at a residence or business exclusively in the maintenance or repair of buildings or grounds, provided that such equipment is rated at not more than fifteen (15) horsepower. [Ayer 39(A)(2)(b)]  [(see decibel-based regulation option at Belmont 60-625)] [See Domestic Power Tool exception at Dartmouth 250-4(C)]
9. Motor Vehicles. Any noise produced by a registered motor vehicle, provided that such vehicle is equipped with all noise-suppression devices required for legal operation under such registration by the laws of the Commonwealth. [Ayer 39(A)(2)(c)] [ALTERNATE- prima facie violation of bylaw if motor vehicle heard 150 feet distance – Dartmouth 250-3(B)]
10. Public Emergency Devices. Noise produced from safety signals, warning devices, emergency pressure relief valves and similar devices during and in relation to public emergencies. [Dartmouth 250-5(A)(5)]
11. Religious Bells, Chimes or Carillons. The noise produced by bells, chimes or carillons or their amplified, recorded, or other electronic substitution while being used in conjunction with religious services or to denote time intervals between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. [Dartmouth 250-5(A)(7)]
12. Snow Removal. Noise produced from snow removal activities from public or private parking lots, roads, driveways, sidewalks and other surfaces traveled by vehicles or pedestrians—[?provided motorized equipment has a functioning muffler and/or  noise-suppression device as may be required for legal operation by the laws of the Commonwealth]. [Dartmouth 250-5(A)(8)] [Belmont 60-630(E)]
13. Trash and Dumpster Collection. Noise related to trash and dumpster collection between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

?Firearm discharge- at gun club or private property or in act of hunting– between hours of ?

?Religious services? [Ayer 39(A)(i)]

?School sanctioned events [Dartmouth 250-5(A)(15)]?

?Parades, fairs, outdoor events with Town approval – but this already under special permit [Dartmouth 250-5(A)(6) [Belmont 60-630(D)]]

?Snow or recreation vehicles?

?Boats?

?Permit deemed necessary by Building Inspector? [Ayer 39(B)(1)]

5. Special Permits. Exceptions to this bylaw may be made by special permit as herein provided.

The Selectboard, or its designee(s), may issue a special permit for any activity otherwise forbidden by the provisions of this bylaw, in response to receipt of written application to the Selectboard or its designee seeking such a permit.

[Lexington, Sec. 80-9(A)]

6. Prohibitions.

[For the purposes of this bylaw, all noises shall be measured using a sound level meter with readings taken at the property boundary line or street line] using the fast-response setting of the meter, except that, when the fluctuations are so rapid as to make reading difficult, the slow-response setting may be used, and with the measured sound level being the average readings for fluctuations less than six (6) decibels and, for fluctuations greater than six (6) decibels, three (3) decibels less than the maximum. [AYER 39 (C)(1, 2, 3)]

[?Define property or street line?- see Ayer 39(D)]

1. Continuous Noise. [Except as excepted in this bylaw or as may be preempted by federal or state law,] it shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the Town to create any continuous noise, or for any person to allow the creation of any continuous noise on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the sound level to exceed the greater of:

1. The maximum allowable sound level outlined in Table 1; or
2. Five [?10?] dB over the background sound level, [if it can be determined].

[Belmont 60-615(A)]

? Differ by zoning district? [Ayer 39 (C)(5)] [Belmont 60-615(A)(2)]

Table 1, Maximum Allowable Sound Level for Continuous Noise

[Suggesting levels higher than other towns based on CDC average sound levels- such as fact that air conditioner is 60 dba… and that sounds 60 dba or lower do not typically cause any hearing damage per CDC)

[See lower dba levels at Belmont 60-615 ]

[(See lower dba levels at Ayer 39(C)(5))]

[(See differing hours, and exceptions for day to be same as night on Sundays and legal holiday- at Ayer 39(C)(5)].

?Exceptions for permitted business or manufacturing?

1. Noise Other Than Continuous [Except as excepted in this bylaw or as may be preempted by federal or state law,] it shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the Town to create any non-continuous noise, or for any person to allow the creation of any non-continuous noise on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the sound level to exceed the greater of:

Table 1, Maximum Allowable Sound Level for Non-Continuous Noise

[Ayer 39 (C)(6)]

7. Enforcement and Penalties.

This bylaw shall be enforced by the Building Inspector, Police Department, and the Board of Health. [Ayer 39(G)]

Any measured noise exceeding the sound-level standards as specified herein shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this bylaw. [Belmont 60-640]

The Building Commissioner shall take such action as may be necessary to enforce full compliance with the provisions of the Bylaw, and of permits and special permits issued hereunder, including notification of noncompliance, and request for legal action through the Selectmen to the Town Counsel. Any person violating any provision of this Bylaw, any of the conditions under which a permit is issued or any decision rendered by the Board of Appeals, may be fined not less than Two Hundred dollars ($200.00) and not more than Three Hundred dollars ($300.00) for each offense. Each day that such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. [Ayer 39(H)]

[See Belmont with different amounts for 1^st, 2d, 3d offense- [Belmont 60-640]; same with Lanesborough 15(F)]

[Dartmouth 250-6]

[Belmont 60-640 and 645]

[?Specify that person subject to enforcement and penalty is person creating noise with default to property owner if noise violator cannot be located – Belmont 60-645(B)]