Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 5/10/2022
HATFIELD – “How do we know we won’t have box trucks leaving Hatfield at 3 a.m.?” Robert Wykoff asked the Planning Board. “How do we know … we won’t become a throughway for black market marijuana?”
Security is an issue for Wykoff and other town residents who oppose a marijuana cultivation facility proposed for 140a North Hatfield Rd. The applicant for the permit to grow cannabis is Rajeev Shrinaf, a resident of eastern Massachusetts. Shrinaf is being assisted by Bernie Smiarowski and Jared Glansburg. Glansburg and Smiarowski, local farmers of cannabis and potatoes respectively, have a signed purchase agreement to co-own the land itself.
Wykoff read California headlines to the Planning Board that described violent robberies at cannabis farms and dispensaries. The board determined that more input from the police department was warranted.
The morality of growing cannabis, however, is also a concern for locals, and prompted Chris Omasta, a Molloy Avenue resident, to address Smiarowski directly.
“This project here is going to be drugging Americans,” said Omasta. “These are not tobacco leaves, or potatoes or strawberries. They’re drugs … It’s almost embarrassing that we’re gonna grow drugs on these farm fields.”
Other Hatfield residents called local cannabis an attractive option. Mackae Freeland, cofounder of Treeworks of Mass., a local cannabis business, said he would love to have the option to shop cannabis locally.
“This has been put together the right way, with the proper research,” Freeland said. “It would be great to shop locally, and have access to sungrown cannabis in the valley.”
The farm will not be able to sell cannabis directly to consumers.
Another resident of North Hatfield Road, Kim Baker, pointed to a likely increase in tax revenues as a sufficient benefit for the town. Though they are not the permit applicant – Shrinav will lease one of several fields on the property – Baker trusts the future owners of the land and facility.
“I just feel that Bernie [Smiarowski] has been incredibly transparent with any concerns I’ve had, and if anyone took the time to ask him, I think they would be relieved as well,” Baker said. “The 3 percent impact fee, I think that is going to be very beneficial.”
Several North Hatfield Road residents complained about the smell of cannabis. Matt Marshand lives close to a cannabis grow operation. He told the board complaints about the smell of cannabis are overblown.
“It has not been an issue for us at all,” Marshand said. “We’re supporting a local farmer and bringing in tax receipts…This is just another crop in a right to farm community. Everything has odors to it.”
“I don’t want to hear this is not going to cause odor pollution for residents. That’s ridiculous,” Wykoff said. “Everyone who drives in this community is going to smell this marijuana farm.”
The pros and cons offered by residents was preceded by a description of the facility by Christopher Chamberland, the engineer of record on the project. He used visual aids to show the initial application by Shrinath calls for three greenhouses, one each for storage of supplies and tools, trimming and drying, and processing.
“An issue that always comes up on these projects is odor. As we’ve pointed out,” Chamberland said, “this is primarily an outdoor grow facility … In the outdoor [grow] the air cannot be captured and scrubbed, as it can be in the greenhouse.”
Chamberland pointed out the North Hatfield Road operation will not be a product manufacturer, cannot legally process cannabis into cigarettes, vape cartridges or concentrates. The engineer described the security fencing that will hide crops from the view of passersby, eight feet high, with plastic privacy shields and heat-sensing cameras.
The security director for the operation, Howard Haberman, a policeman with 27 years on the beat, spoke about the preference for cannabis over alcohol, at least in the eyes of street cops.
“You guys are allowing alcohol in your city. How many times has your [Police Department] been on call because people have gotten drunk and started fighting?” Haberman asked. “People who smoke pot are extremely mellow. They’re not people who are fighting.”
Residents Wanda Molesky and Gary Buzinski spoke to issues of water drainage and the long-lasting danger of pollution.
“Within five miles of that field, 20 people have cancer,” Molesky said. “What did we do? We all built on tobacco land. Tnemec, the chemical sprayed on that land, now you’re gonna grow pot and gonna put it in people’s lungs. Wow.”
James Tarr, vice chair of the Planning Board, asked, “Has tobacco ever been grown on that property?”
Smairowski was quick to assure the board the Cannabis Control Commission requires soil testing and sees the results. He also said the land had never been under tobacco cultivation, to his knowledge. Glansburg also previously mentioned that growers are not allowed to put anything more potent than “salad dressing” on cannabis plants.
Buzinski, the abutter to the north, stated a clear concern about changes to the drainage system in the area, created by a grid of ditches. The intention to tile those ditches, to enhance drainage, was floated at a previous public meeting. Buzinski noted the impacts may exceed the immediate footprint.
“I have the ditches and the changes to water flow coming off the property,” Buzinski said. “The ditch network is very expensive. Altering that is a concern to me … and what the hydrology means for the neighborhood.”
Board member Robert Wagner asked, “Is this something you and the applicant can work on? The ditches?”
The hearing was closed after two hours and 20 minutes. The board reached a consensus that more information was needed on security and drainage, and that abutters and those with concerns should discuss them with the local principals.