Mattapoisett Planning Board Chairman Tom Tucker made no attempt on October 7 to disguise his distaste in having amendments to the current Marijuana Zoning Bylaws be heard in a public meeting. As the petitioner, Stuart Bronstein, explained why the amendments were being put before the public, Tucker maintained a controlled but clearly displeased countenance.

            Before the hearing was underway, Tucker asked Bronstein if he was back because “you didn’t get what you wanted at the last town meeting.” Bronstein responded in the affirmative.

            Bronstein, flanked by marijuana industry consultants Jason Dick and James Sullivan, said that allowing him to grow recreational cannabis alongside his medical plants in his facility would make the plan, simply put, economically feasible.

            Bronstein said that the investment requires a state-of-the-art marijuana growing facility that would not be cost justifiable for just medical use.

            “We need the recreational piece,” said Bronstein. “[It’s] the only way to make it a worthy investment, and in order to get financing we need recreational cultivation.”

            Bronstein said that the town would benefit by receiving 3 percent of the profits and that “good- paying” full-time and part-time jobs with convenient hours for parents, and could employ anywhere between 75 to 100 people.

            When public participation was called, Breck Eagle, a Bay Club resident who had submitted a multi-page letter against the amendments, claimed that his brother in Santa Barbara, California experienced first-hand the odor he finds offensive created by marijuana cultivation, “Especially when the plant is flowering,” said Eagle.

            Bronstein said facilities like those use systems designed for flower cultivation, not for odor mitigation. He said that his 140,000-square-foot Industrial Drive warehouse would be fitted with state-of-the-art air quality and filtration systems. According to Bronstein, the designs and plans he first forwarded when the medical marijuana zoning bylaws were adopted have not changed, except that now, if these new amendments are granted, more growing could take place.

            Dick added his voice, saying, “The market in Massachusetts for recreational marijuana is huge.”

He said that although pricing for marijuana had softened on the medical side, demand was growing on the recreational side. Dick said the inclusion of recreational cannabis would result in a substantial financial gain for the town, but he hesitated to put a number on what the town’s portion could be in terms of dollars.

            That sentiment was echoed by Bronstein, who said that the town’s portion of what he described as upwards of $100 million in sales could help pay for new schools, the fire station bond, and other large public works projects.

            “It would be a shame for the town to not take advantage of this opportunity,” Bronstein said.

            Tucker’s reaction was, “We’ve heard it all before.”

            Resident Christine Cowles was concerned that the bylaw did not include input from the community and questioned why the community had not been involved in the crafting of marijuana bylaws. But there have been public hearings, said Planning Board member Janice Robins, and an exhaustive amount of work had gone into writing the bylaw currently in place, she said. But Cowles maintained that the current bylaw and the proposed amendments are weak and conform to the industry’s interests. “The devil’s in the details,” said Cowles, details she believes are lacking.

            Robins assured Cowles that the Planning Board could write rules and regulations governing the operation of the grow facility.

            Tucker said that the Planning Board was not there that night to take any vote on the article, and that the board was simply the vehicle by which zoning bylaw changes are publicly vetted. “We are not voting on anything tonight.”

            Tucker’s statement, however, proved incorrect.

            While the Planning Board could have opted to make no recommendation, Planning Board Administrator Mary Crain said a vote was needed.

            The ensuing vote resembled what the board members had voted during the previous spring: three votes to recommend, one vote opposed. In the spring vote it was 3-2 with member Karen Field and Tucker opposed. On this night, Tucker stood alone.

            Crain explained in a follow-up that planning boards have a duty to express their support or to make no comment, but generally an ‘up or down’ vote is the rule. In the case of the amendments coming before the voters, she said that because the Planning Board majority voted to recommend the article last spring, further amendments could be sought now. Had the Planning Board voted to oppose the article last spring, then a two-year cooling off period would have prevented Bronstein’s petition at this time, according to Crain.

            The Special Town Meeting scheduled for November 4 will feature a very short warrant. Town Administrator Michael Gagne confirmed that the only articles voters will be asked to consider are amendments to the Zoning Bylaw for the cultivation of both recreational and medical marijuana in the industrial zone.

            This November 4 Special Town Meeting is in addition to the October 21 Special Town Meeting.

            In other business, Tree Warden Roland Cote received permission to remove a locust tree located at 6 Prospect Road due to root damage on private property.

            MA Homes LLC, 56 Church Street, received acceptance for a Form A: Approval Not Required.

            Another filing for an ANR sought by the Town of Mattapoisett for property located on Reservation Road was continued due to a lack of representation.

            An ANR filed by Scott Snow for property located at 6 and 8 Prospect Road, Eldridge Estates, was accepted.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for October 29 at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

            Superintendent Doug White told the Rochester School Committee on October 3 that a potential roof-mounted solar project at Rochester Memorial School is still in the negotiation process between the Town of Rochester and the solar developer.

            In September, the Rochester Board of Selectmen postponed taking any further action toward approving an agreement with Select Energy to allow town counsel more time to work with the developer.

            “We’re in the process of having the contract looked at,” White said, adding that he has since then met with the town administrator and town counsel who are still studying the language of the contract leading up to a signed agreement.

            “Until that happens, we’re on hold,” White said, until the committee receives further direction from the town.

            Back in September, Matt Shortsleeve of Select Energy gave a presentation on placing roof-mounted solar energy panels at RMS that could save the district around $600,000 throughout the 20-year life of the contract.

            The school district and the Board of Selectmen would contract directly with Select Energy, which will then design, engineer, permit, procure the equipment, install, and maintain the equipment. The district and the board must first enter into an agreement with Select Energy, and sign a lease granting Select Energy access to the location. A payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement with the Town of Rochester would then follow.

            Shortsleeve cautioned, however, that the parties should decide on moving forward sooner rather than later since tax incentives will decrease as time passes, which means contracted electricity rates would rise.

            “The sooner we go, the better chance that you’ll get a better rate,” said Shortsleeve back on September 5. “It will creep up on you if you wait.”

            Shortsleeve gave a rate estimate of $0.049 per kilowatt-hour if the deal goes through before 2020, a savings of roughly $30,000 a year in electricity costs to the school. In 2020, the offered rate could increase to $0.059, Shortsleeve said.

            Still, if this project does not come to fruition, White said RMS, like Old Rochester Regional High School, could look to parking lot solar canopies for generating solar energy. But like the roof-mounted solar project, time is of the essence in order to lock-in the lowest rates for a higher incentive.

            In other energy-related matters, Facilities Director Gene Jones had been looking into performing an energy assessment of the school with Mass Save to finds ways to decrease energy consumption, especially through LED light replacements.

            “And we have in other buildings across the other districts the opportunity to put LED lighting in,” said White. However, RMS will have to hold off on any energy assessments with Mass Save as the Town of Rochester performs its own requirements in its quest for Green Community designation. White said he did not want a school district-led energy assessment to interfere with the town’s own efforts.

            “We are constantly looking for ways to save energy, including the possibility of getting the lighting in this building addressed as well,” said White. “We’re hoping that that will happen through the Green Community grant application that the town is doing.”

            “I think it’s great opportunity for us to work hand-in-hand with the town as well,” said committee member Tina Rood.

            The next meeting of the Rochester School Committee is scheduled for November 7 at 6:30 pm at Rochester Memorial School.

Rochester School Committee

By Jean Perry