GREENFIELD — Nearly 100 residents turned out for a public hearing Tuesday night related to a petition seeking a moratorium on outdoor marijuana cultivation approvals until property line setbacks are established.
Comments made at the public hearing, held jointly by the Economic Development Committee and the Planning Board, largely centered, instead, on the potential development of three Tier 11 cultivation sites at 446 Country Club Road that triggered the petitioners’ request for a moratorium.
At-Large Councilor Philip Elmer, who chaired the remote meeting, told participants that since the potential project came on his radar, “he’s moved a bit” in terms of where he stands on it.
“My first reaction to a letter from a constituent concerned about cannabis cultivation on Country Club Road was supportive of the growers,” he said. “As far as I was concerned, marijuana was a cash crop … and Greenfield is an agricultural community.”
All the same, he thought there were valid concerns expressed by neighbors, in particular the need for property line setbacks outlined in zoning ordinances, and for further review of the economic impact such a development might have on the community.
“I came around to thinking a moratorium would probably be a good idea,” he said.
Elmer added that his communication with the prospective Country Club Road growers is what ultimately “tipped the balance.”
“The lawyer representing them told me … that they wanted to be good neighbors,” Elmer said. “That’s not what I’ve seen. At every turn, the growers seem to have pushed their efforts right to the edge of the law.”
What’s been proposed on Country Club Road, he explained, is effectively a “Tier 33” cultivation site, made up of three Tier 11 sites at 100,000 square feet each — the largest size allowed under state law. He noted that the cultivators — Country Club Ventures, Fibonacci Farms and Greenfield Farma, all of whom have signed host community agreements — share a lawyer, a business address and a corporation start date. Former Mayor William Martin has been acting as a consultant to the three limited liability companies.
“It’s hard to see that as anything but a maneuver to get around the limits of Tier 11 cultivation,” he said.
Elmer also expressed concern with the submission of an “approval not required” (ANR) plan just a week after the city posted notice of a public hearing regarding a potential moratorium on approvals for outdoor cultivation sites. The ANR, which was endorsed by the Planning Board last week, insulates the land from zoning changes that occur in the next three years.
“According to Greenfield’s legal counsel … the City Council has no legal power to override (the ANR),” Elmer said.
The city can, however, review existing ordinances and propose changes that would affect future proposals, according to the lawyer’s response.
Still, the majority of comments offered at the nearly two-hour public hearing pertained to the proposed cultivation sites on Country Club Road. Concerns raised included the odor during the growing season, the aesthetics of the required security fencing, and the potential impact three cultivation sites would have on neighboring properties.
“No farmer I know of is installing an 8-foot-high fence with razor wire,” said resident Brian Hoffman. “So we can’t really authentically compare a pot-growing enterprise to a corn-growing enterprise.”
Hoffman added that people who claim that property values increase with marijuana establishments nearby are “blurring the lines” between dispensaries, where area property values have been shown to increase, to data around farms, where there is less research.
Resident Nancy McIver relayed data she collected on Tier 10 and Tier 11 outdoor grow sites in Massachusetts, the majority of which she found were in areas where there were fewer than 10 homes. The Country Club Road neighborhood, by comparison, has about 135 homes. The neighborhood is zoned rural residential.
Resident Trouble Mandeson said while she is “totally in support of cannabis,” she objects to the proposals for marijuana cultivation on Country Club Road.
“Nobody has spoken in support of cannabis,” said Mandeson, who added she has smoked marijuana for the last 50 years. “I’m fully in support of it, but I too feel it has to be done in a responsible way.”
Mandeson was among a few residents, including Carissa Clifford, who also felt the proposal was a done deal before there was any opportunity for input from the community.
“The city entered into an agreement with developers of the pot farm before people in the neighborhoods were even aware of the possibility that something like this was being proposed,” Clifford said. “We need a heads-up before.”
Clifford was referring to the fact that host community agreements for each of the three entities were signed on Jan. 18, preceding the community outreach meetings on Feb. 17.
“There’s a certain point where the deal is already done, and we’re sitting here making comments … and I’m really realizing the public actually has no power,” she said. “We’re looking to you, please, to find a better way that our voices can be heard before the deal is already done.”
Before closing the public hearing, Elmer told residents they’ve given councilors and Planning Board members “a lot to think about.”
He said the moratorium on future outdoor cultivation site proposals will be discussed further by the Economic Development Committee. The Planning Board will take up the discussion as well, according to Chair Charles Roberts.
“This proposal that triggered the moratorium next goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals,” Elmer said, referring to the Country Club Road project. “As I say, the growers haven’t been great neighbors, and they’ll have another chance to hear from you. The Zoning Board of Appeals may very well take some of your suggestions to heart. I can’t speak for them but … they should hear from you, too.”
Reporter Mary Byrne can be reached at mbyrne@recorder.com or 413-930-4429. Twitter: @MaryEByrne.