TEXT: Candidate Alex Carlisle releases candidate statement for Williamstown Planning Board re-election

Here are notes on Planning Board issues on the June Town of Williamstown Town Meeting warrant, as supplied by Alex Carlisle, who is seeking re-election to the Williamstown (Mass.) Planning Board.  Please address questions to Carlisle at 413-884-4503  or maclisle@gmail.com 

Link to voter information and mail-in voting application for Williamstown:
https://williamstownma.gov/2020/04/24/early-voting-applications-available//

Platform commentary:

A week or more ago I noticed a request for the two candidates for the Planning Board to present their platforms. Even though all voters want to know what direction the candidates lean, the position is more about getting the details right than any big political agenda. As I had responded in an earlier post, the ADU bylaw was not just about expanding housing opportunity in town, it was also about who might benefit and how that might effect the neighborhoods and the town over the long term. Some seem to have interpreted my opposition to the way the bylaw was written as an opposition to expanding housing in Williamstown, when In fact I wanted to ensure that the ADU housing expansion was directed to add housing where it was most needed.

Bullet Point Platform

• -I believe that the Planning Board has a primary role in planning for the long term needs and goals for the town.
• -I believe that any form of regulation should be deeply considered before being committed to law. Reactionary bylaws, or those deemed necessary to serve short term needs should be avoided.
• -I believe that getting the details right is far more important than just getting a bylaw passed.
• I believe that we need to carefully thread our way through perceived opportunities for growth to ensure that the town will truly benefit from them in the long-term.
• -I believe that serving the town and townspeople of Williamtown is an honor and I am dedicated to ensure a balanced and complete examination and review of every issue presented to the Planning Board.

The Longer Read:

In lieu of an actual platform, I will offer my general wishes for Williamstown's future.
I would like to strengthen our town center by increasing opportunities for businesses and housing in the Spring Street/ Latham Street/ Meacham Street and Water Street areas. A strong town center would include a hub of walking and biking paths radiating outward, a public space, condominiums and apartments for those who wish to live near shops and restaurants, and a design sensibility in keeping with a small New England college town. Toward that goal I had submitted a proposal to the Planning Board for an architectural planning competition to generate independent concepts for the town center. To request a copy of that proposal please contact the Planning Board at: PLANNINGBOARD@WILLIAMSTOWNMA.GOV

Jobs and employment opportunities continue to be limited in Williamstown and there do not appear to be large businesses or employers seeking to establish themselves in town. On the other hand, we do have current pressure to expand housing for those who would like to move here, as well as for those who already work here in town and are seeking an affordable home. I believe that we should focus on meeting those needs first in hope that a rising population may, in turn, encourage business growth.

Ultimately the value of a candidate should based on the strength of his/her voting record, and I stand by mine. I have already expressed my view on the ADU bylaws at this site, and below are my votes and opinions on the current town warrant articles to be presented at this years town meeting.

ARTICLE A - REFORMING NON CONFORMING 1 & 2 FAMILY STRUCTURES

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in 2011 began interpreting the sections of MGL Ch. 40A-6 more expansively as they relate to nonconforming single and two-family homes. Over the past decade the courts in Massachusetts have continued to uphold this interpretation. In January 2019 a case in Brookline firmly solidified  this more expansive interpretation of MGL Ch. 40A-6 which sets a minimum floor for rights local zoning must extend to non conforming 1 & 2 family properties. This amendment brings our local bylaw into alignment with current case law and extends those minimum rights as the courts have directed.

My vote: "For"
This article brings our local bylaws in sync with state laws governing non-conforming lots by increasing the rights of non-conforming lot owners.

ARTICLE B - REGULATION OF LONG & COMMON DRIVEWAYS

This is a two-part warrant article. Part 1:

In Williamstown, many single family homes are constructed with long driveways. Our emergency responders have become increasingly concerned about their ability to navigate these driveways safely. This proposal responds to this concern. It will not impact driveways less than 500' in length.

Vote: "Against"

This warrant does regulate driveways longer than 100' by requiring less than 12% grade and a "surface adequate for emergency vehicles". Driveways over 500' will require a review by the ZBA to provide additional oversight. The description of "many single family homes" is an enlargement of the current annual addition of a few homes (2-4) with long driveways as a recent construction trend. These are the only properties being addressed by this article. Existing properties and driveways are not affected.

Our existing zoning and building codes already require a series of reviews by the Planning Board, Community Development Office, building, electrical, gas and plumbing inspectors and a review by the Fire Department. These reviews provide a degree of oversight to building construction and driveway engineering and allow for recommendations by the Fire Chief for road access. In addition, these properties also need access to heavy construction equipment, fuel oil or propane, construction vehicles, service vehicles, FedX and UPS trucks. Insurance companies charge a premium for homes with limited access and long distances from a fire hydrant. In other words there are already existing pressures on the home builder to provide reasonable access.

This bylaw is aimed squarely at second home owners to solve a very limited problem. It does nothing to improve emergency access to the many homes in town whose driveways may be shorter, but may also have difficult access due to steep roadways, tight turns, or low hanging tree branches. What it does do is make home and long driveway construction increasingly expensive for those with more limited budgets, and how this might affect someone putting up a summer camp on a jeep road is unclear.

One of the reasons I voted against this section of the warrant article is that a pull-off requirement was not included. A pull-off every 250' feet is a low cost means to allow vehicles, including emergency vehicles, to pass and to prevent someone having to back down the entire length of a long driveway when confronted with a vehicle going in the opposite direction. This option would be especially advantageous during emergencies when a number of vehicles can be expected to be involved.

Alternative Solutions:

Williamstown already has a number of existing municipal positions charged with specific tasks such as Fence Viewer, Tree Warden, and Town Constable. Perhaps a position of driveway inspector to fairly and equally ensure access for emergency vehicles on private driveways would answer all of these questions. The inspector would hand out non-binding recommendations to property owners and note potentially hazardous conditions for the fire department and emergency vehicle files.

Part 2:

It also clarifies the legality of common driveways in our community. This type of long rural driveways can service two or more homes and have been allowed for decades as "customarily accessory" to single family homes.

My vote: "For"

This bylaw will add legal clarity to the responsibilities for owners sharing a single driveway and is long overdue.

ARTICLE C - MARIJUANA REGULATION REFORM

The Planning Board proposed and Town Meeting passed regulations governing marjiuana related land uses in 2017 to respond to the passage of a 2016 ballot initiative legalizing recreational marijuana products. These were passed prior to the formation of the Commonwealth's Cannabis Control Commission and the promulgation of that Commission's regulations. This proposal aligns our bylaw with those regulations and provides applicants with additional requirements for setbacks, screening, lot area, performance for growing facilities. These standards will help our Zoning Board of Appeals evaluate proposals. This proposal will also ban the commercial growing of all recreational and medical marijuana outdoors in Williamstown.

My vote: "Against"

This warrant article is largely a reaction to a failed attempt by a commercial grower to begin an operation at the base of Blair Road. This would have been a legal business in keeping with the existing bylaws, but a group of neighbors brought a legal challenge to the grower and effectively scared him off. That incident was a clear reason to review and tighten those existing bylaws.

Once again, it is the details that truly matter. Although I do support tighter regulations and oversight for cannabis cultivation in town, I feel that the board has got this backward by choosing to close the door to outdoor growing while leaving it open to indoor operations. This choice would eliminate the option for local farmers who might finally have a "cash" crop to support their operations. Considering the benefits of the open land surrounding Williamstown that we owe to local farmers, it seems odd that we would prefer to give the option to outside interests instead.
It is worth noting that indoor grow operations are far more capital intensive and are usually funded by a new breed of corporate cannabis investors. In spite of public comments made to the contrary, it is largely these indoor grow operations that have been cited as the source of smell, pollution, and environmental impact. These operations run 24/7 year round producing flowering plants, the source of the odor, as opposed to the once a year outdoor crop. These industrial indoor grow operations would be allowed in the town Planned Business (i.e. Colonial Plaza) or Limited Industrial (i.e. near Steinerfilm) zones. There is currently no means to scientifically specify limits to odor emissions and therefore no accurate means to regulate these emissions. The changes discussed on outdoor cultivation would have limited legal locations to a very small number of areas on the outskirts of town 500' from the nearest residence, and would have limited the maximum size of such a cultivation site to just over one acre.

To sort through the many issues raised by the outdoor growing opposition, I made a point to visit the only legal outdoor cannabis grow operation in the Berkshires in Sheffield, twice. Once in the mid summer, and second during harvest. I wanted to see first hand how much the operation looked like a razor ringed penal colony (not at all) and how much the odor was a problem during the harvest season (it wasn't). Although Dante Birch of the Planning Board joined me on the second visit, the other PB members could not attend ( all were invited). Of all of those opposed to outdoor growing, it seems Dante and I were the only ones to physically visit a cannabis farm. Personally, from that experience I would welcome small outdoor cannabis farms in Williamstown, especially if it would aid our struggling farmers.

Here are some additional bullet points to consider:

• The odor issue has been repeatedly raised, especially in states that allow much larger operations than those allowed in Massachusetts. However, like any crop that can be hybridized or selectively bred, the odor issue is likely to addressed quickly and should not be a long-term deterrent to outdoor grow operations. There are low odor varieties currently available.
  
• It remains legal to grow Industrial hemp as an agricultural crop in Massachusetts and that use is not effected by this bylaw. Industrial hemp currently has the same odor issues as recreational or medicinal cannabis and can be grown in much larger operations.
  
• Industrial indoor cannabis operations are contained, but they also produce far more concentrated odors. The heat generated by grow lights requires industrial ventilation of these grow spaces in concentrated air streams. Although there are systems that can be used to reduce odor output, such as charcoal filters and ozone treatment, the odor limits will still be difficult to regulate without specific limitations.
  
• The single highest cost for indoor grow operations, aside from legal expenses, is electric power used for lights and ventilation. Williamstown is an expensive place to buy electricity, and it is very likely that these operations will only be temporary as the industry grows and moves to states and locations with looser regulations and cheaper electricity, leaving abandoned operations along the way.

Here is the link to voter information and mail-in voting application for Williamstown:
 https://williamstownma.gov/2020/04/24/early-voting-applications-available/