Planning Board

Town of Princeton, MA Planning Board
Meeting Minutes December 1, 2021
Town Hall Annex and GoToMeeting

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

Committee Members Absent: Rud Mason (RM)

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

Call to order: 7:32pm

JM opened the meeting by addressing the public attendees, sharing with them information on procedural matters including as relates to public comment/participation at Planning Board meetings and with regard to any public hearing process for a proposed zoning bylaw.

Review and Approve Regular Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2021

• MOTION to approve minutes as drafted.

Motion: AN; 2d: IC; Vote: 4-0 (LD voting as Alternate; abstaining- TS and CBH who were not present at November 18 meeting)

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

The discussion started with questions and information on procedure:

JM noted that residents have proposed a new version of a cannabis cultivation bylaw which has been submitted to the Selectboard and “unofficially” shared with the Planning Board. JM suggested that the residents might consider withdrawing their original bylaw proposal and formally submitting the new version to re-start the review process.

JM also noted that the proponents of the proposed Beaman Rd. cannabis cultivation facility have decided not to go forward with the proposal. Late afternoon on December 1, 2021, the Town shared official notice of the proponents notice to withdraw their Host Community Agreements. JM noted that the withdrawal may allow for moving forward with more steady deliberation with regard to proposed cannabis cultivation bylaws. JM’s “unofficial reading” of Mass. Gen. L. c. 40A, sec. 6 is that a bylaw would apply to uses lawfully begun after the first publication of notice of the public hearing on such bylaw.

IC asked the Planning Board members to engage in a discussion on the revised resident-proposed cannabis cultivation bylaw, and JM opened the topic for discussion, noting that Planning Board members might discuss whether or not there should be any restriction on cannabis cultivation, language of a proposed bylaw, what is the best interest for the town, and any other considerations.

Public attendee Tim Canfield inquired about the process of Selectboard referral and Planning Board review of resident proposed bylaws. JM explained the statutory process (Mass. Gen. L. c. 40a, sec. 5) that ultimately could result in a Planning Board written recommendation on the proposed bylaws, and that such a recommendation could encompass any of a spectrum of possible Planning Board positions on the proposed bylaw.

Public attendee Tim Canfield asked if the Planning Board could modify the resident-proposed bylaw, and JM answered “no.”

Public attendee Tim Canfield inquired as to whether the Selectboard would be required to call a Special Town Meeting. Answer is that they may call a Special Town Meeting, and must call one if they receive a petition for same with 200 signatures.

Public attendee Tim Canfield asked if there was an option for the Planning Board to draft a proposed cannabis cultivation bylaw, and JM answered yes.

Planning Board members began discussion as to consideration of a proposed cannabis cultivation bylaw:

AN explained that she did not expect outdoor cultivation proposals in Princeton, and thinks that with that possibility the Planning Board should act. CBH said that she thinks the Planning Board should act to regulate cannabis cultivation.

TS noted that Town Counsel had previously advised that if a use was banned in town, there should be both a general and zoning bylaw. IC understood that the Selectboard had asked the Town Counsel to draft a general bylaw that would exclude cannabis cultivation. CBH noted that a general bylaw and a zoning bylaw would need to be consistent with each other. JM mused whether a general bylaw would pass muster and rather would need to be a zoning bylaw.

TS raised the issue of whether a ban of a use would be permitted throughout town or whether, such as with adult entertainment uses, it must be allowed somewhere. CBH noted that adult entertainment uses could not wholly be banned because of First Amendment issues, and that would not apply here. CBH and JM opined that cannabis cultivation could be banned throughout town.

TS also raised the issue of marijuana as agriculture, and the members discussed the fact that marijuana was exempt from Mass. Gen. L. c. 40a, sec. 3 agricultural exemptions from zoning and therefore could be regulated.

JM synthesized that it seemed Planning Board members supported restricting cannabis cultivation, and discussion then began as to options for restrictions, including in what zoning districts and potential other restrictions—such as canopy limit and outdoor vs indoor facilities.

Public attendee Tim Canfield commented on how the original resident-proposed bylaw had been revised—primarily with revised definitions, and Planning Board began an analysis of statutory, bylaw, and court definitions of marijuana, hemp, cultivation, processing, light manufacturing, and manufacturing. JM raised the issue of whether processing/manufacturing restrictions would apply to marijuana retail establishments. Public attendee Jennifer Oswitt noted the definition of marijuana retailer and read that retailers could repackage but not package product.

IC explained why he thinks zoning bylaw regulation of cannabis cultivation is warranted, noting the environmental impacts of the industry (water quality and quantity; odor nuisance; traffic). IC noted the intense energy use related to indoor cultivation and his understanding that indoor cultivation still had odor nuisance issues despite best technology. CBH noted that odor considerations and electric use demands were elements of other manufacturing operations in town that may not be prohibited under the current zoning bylaw, and wondered if indoor cultivation exhaust filters might adequately address potential odor issues.

Planning Board members focused discussion on where cannabis cultivation might be prohibited and where it might be permitted, looking at Business District vs. Business/Industrial District differences, home occupation considerations, craft marijuana considerations. JM proposed a possible approach of a bylaw addressing where cannabis cultivation might be permitted instead of where it might be prohibited. CBH said her preference was for clarity with a bylaw that both explains prohibitions and permissions. TS noted the size and availability of lots in various zoning districts for possible cannabis cultivation operations. Members discussed the Selectboard’s request that a ban on cannabis cultivation be in all districts since there are residential homes in all districts that could be impacted by a cannabis cultivation operation, but TS and CBH disagreed with that approach since business/industry were permitted in Business and Business/Industrial zones. JM synthesized that it seemed the Planning Board members agreed on the approach of prohibiting commercial cannabis cultivation in the Residential/Agricultural district. TS opined that cannabis cultivation should be allowed in the Business district since light manufacturing was allowed, but CBH questioned whether cannabis cultivation and its accessory uses might exceed “light manufacturing” and best be defined as manufacturing which is only permitted in Business/Industrial zones in town. CBH suggested the option of allowing cannabis cultivation in designated zoning districts by special permit only, and JM thought that might be the best approach to allow for best regulation of—and best address of potential related nuisance issues related to-- cannabis cultivation operations.

Public attendee Perry Chang emphasized that odor was not the only nuisance issue associated with cannabis cultivation, but that the scale of such operations, including the number of employees, traffic, and noise were also issues to consider.

LD suggested that Planning Board members look carefully at nuisance bylaw and related considerations/impacts.

Public attendee Jennifer Oswitt referenced a court case involving the Town of Charlton where intense cannabis cultivation uses were allowed as accessory uses to the primary use, and cautioned that potential accessory uses should be considered when drafting regulations in Princeton. CBH and JM noted the difference in that case where the primary use was an allowed use while a proposed Princeton bylaw might only allow the primary use by special permit, which would allow for greater regulation, including of potential accessory activities.

CBH opined that, thus far in deliberations, she would support allowing indoor cannabis cultivation in Business/Industrial zones by special permit with a limit on canopy size. At JM’s inquiry, CBH explained why she thought cannabis cultivation should be prohibited in Business zones: because of the potential intense associated manufacturing operations and nuisance considerations.  Public attendee Alfred Pearson emphasized the concerns related to scale and urged the Planning Board to consider limitations on total canopy size and/or number of allowed operators. Related to scale concerns: IC noted the potential issue of multiple sublessees on a parcel; and public attendee Jennifer Oswitt noted that most licensed cannabis cultivation operations in Massachusetts were Tier 1 or 2 growers at approximately 5,000 sq. ft of canopy; she urged the Planning Board to consider such sized canopy limits. Public attendee Artur Teymurazyan inquired whether it was possible for the Planning Board to address the potential opportunity of side-by-side operations that would expand total canopy.

Planning Board members briefly discussed whether hemp manufacturing might be regulated, although its cultivation could not be regulated through a zoning bylaw (as it is an agricultural exemption to zoning regulation).

Planning Board members concluded the discussion with a focus on procedure:

Public attendee Tim Canfield suggested the Planning Board draft a zoning bylaw and urged the Planning Board to move forward expeditiously but not imprudently. JM offered his personal opinion that the Planning Board ought to draft a cannabis cultivation bylaw and move forward as expeditiously as possible. JM noted however that moving forward with proper deliberation would likely require a schedule that results in a public hearing later than early January (as originally proposed given the 65-day statutorily required review period from Selectboard referral of the original resident-proposed cannabis cultivation bylaw). Planning Board then agreed to meet on December 8 and December 15.

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 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.

AN noted that the Town also recently received a Housing Production planning grant of $7500, and that a Housing Production Planning Committee had been formed and had held its kick-off meeting.

Upcoming meetings: December 8, 2021 and December 15, 2021 (See town website calendar for updates/potential changes.)

Next Agenda Items

• Administrative Business
  • Review and approve regular meeting minutes of December 1, 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 9:28p.m.

MOTION to adjourn.

• Motion: TS; 2d: AN; Vote: unanimous.

Respectfully submitted,

Corey Burnham-Howard