CONWAY — Residents Susan and Gary Fentin have proposed amendments to the town’s zoning bylaws governing adult use recreational marijuana establishments, which were discussed at a Planning Board public hearing last week.
The amendments to the bylaw include the addition of “cultivation areas” to setback requirements adjacent to schools, public parks, residences and other places where children may congregate; increasing the setback requirements of outdoor cultivation areas from building and parking areas by 300 feet; and increasing the general setback for outdoor cultivation from all properties other than schools, parks and residences from 25 feet to 100 feet.
The amendments also require developers to include organic pesticides or fertilizers in their list of potentially hazardous materials; put more responsibility on the developer to provide upfront evidence of adverse effects a marijuana establishment may have on Conway due to noise, lighting or odor, among other things; and establish limits on the size of a cultivation farm in the first five years of establishment.
And finally, there are amendments that provide means for residents to report concerns of noncompliance with a special permit to the town, and ask the town to take into consideration the “residential character” of a neighborhood where a proposed marijuana establishment would be located.
Residents have through April to submit written comment to the Planning Board, before the proposed amendments are voted on at the June 8 Annual Town Meeting. Comments can be sent to planningboard@townofconway.com.
Susan and Gary Fentin explained their citizen’s petition to amend the existing marijuana bylaw during last week’s public hearing.
“This is something we wanted to do for the town,” Susan Fentin explained. “We spent so much time looking at the bylaws … and friends said, ‘Well, you’ve gone this far, you really ought to just continue and do an amendment for the good of the town.’ That’s why we’re here.”
They both noted they are not opposed to farming nor marijuana, but rather wish to provide more protection to residents when a marijuana establishment comes to town.
Planning Board members questioned whether the proposed amendments would harm small farmers, or discourage them from coming to Conway.
“I can’t see the logic in having a 200-foot separation between two small farms,” said Co-Chair Joe Strzegowski. “Twenty-five (feet) seems adequate to put in a screening fence.”
The Fentins emphasized, however, that marijuana establishments aren’t often “small farms,” but rather multi-million dollar establishments.
“When you say small farmers … this isn’t a small farm we’re talking about,” Gary Fentin said. “This is a huge manufacturing facility. We’re talking about billions of dollars a year. Having them go back a couple a feet off the road doesn’t sound like a hardship to me.”
Planning Board Chair Beth Girshman expressed concern for the precedent the amendments might set if the distinction isn’t made between agriculture and marijuana.
“I think one of my concerns here is that people are going to say that marijuana cultivation isn’t agriculture,” Girshman said. “My concern is if you start applying this like that … like, the need to eliminate all odors — which seems like a big reach … — the application of that to other things that are currently happening in all rural towns is a concern to me.”
Selectboard member Bob Armstrong echoed her concerns, comparing the bylaw amendments to a hypothetical in which the town restricted farmers to how much hay or corn they could farm, or if they asked farmers to eliminate the smell that cows produce.
“I understand that the state may be saying this is not agriculture, but it feels like agriculture,” he said.
He also objected to language describing potential marijuana establishments as having “multi-million dollar street value” as a risk to the neighbors’ safety.
“Talking about, ‘This is a scary place’ because it has a million dollars’ worth of marijuana in it feels like a red herring to me,” Armstrong said, noting potential jewelry shops in town could be worth just as much.
Peter Jeswald, a Conway resident, countered Armstrong.
“I think it is kind of a red herring to compare a half-acre of corn to marijuana, a regulated substance,” Jeswald said. “To me, it’s a little bit like saying, ‘I don’t want to control assault rifles because you’re going to take my shotgun away that I use to hunt.’ It’s a very targeted set of regulations for an industry that is illegal in most of the country.”
In a meeting prior to the hearing, Planning Board members discussed whether one hearing, particularly one conducted through virtual means, as was the case last week, was sufficient for collecting public comment.
Planning Board member Mary McClintock noted that although Thursday was the board’s only planned hearing, written comment will be accepted through April. Girshman echoed McClintock, saying that extending the public comment period beyond the hearing “(levels) the playing field.”
To view the proposed zoning amendments, visit bit.ly/2VGUfdz. Comments can be emailed to planningboard@townofconway.com through April 30.