Vote No on Article 10 at Wrentham Town Meeting

In my mind, there’s no debating the underlying motivation for Article 10 on the upcoming Town Meeting Warrant. Both the community and the “farmers” will benefit from economically viable farm operations. Likewise, I appreciate the efforts of the people who proposed it and their supporters. Thank you for your time and talent to make a better Wrentham.

For me the question is not whether to permit the uses suggested by the new definition but whether Article 10 is the right vehicle to accomplish the goal.

The devil is in the language. Without language that spells out in detail the uses and requirements described in the new definition, the terms described therein rest at the precipice of a very slipper slope.

It’s not a stretch to worry that this zoning amendment creates a temptation to add accessory uses that may eventually pave the way for businesses that are farms in name only. So instead of preserving the farms we may actually pave the way for their eventual demise.

Further, the various agricultural uses go beyond growing crops for sale. And they are permitted by right in all of our residential neighborhoods.

Such a permissive zoning amendment creates a further temptation for other property owners to declare agriculture as their land's primary use and then, by right, add any number of the loosely described accessory uses--all with no recourse available to abutters or the town except a civil suit.

It's been suggested that M.G.L. 40A §3 safeguards the community from such abuses but not really. Again, the devil is in the language. The Commonwealth prescribes income derived from non-farming activity as follows. During June through September or the harvest season of the agricultural product grown on the land, owners or lessees must make 25% of their revenue from products grown on the land.

That means during the growing season the other 75% of their operational income can come from any of the vaguely defined accessory uses described in Article 10. For the rest of the year, "farmers" can make 100% of their income from anything else permissible under local zoning.

Trusting our farming families is not the issue. Indeed, I know personally or through respected mutual acquaintances the owners and operators of Wrentham’s large-scale farms.  They are nice people and good neighbors and valuable members of our community. I trust them.

But property owners’ and aubtters’ needs don’t always fit hand in glove. And given that we make decisions about where we live based on the zoning of the moment, we need  an impartial permitting process to insure a fair and transparent conversation about adding new uses.

Agricultural use property owners, including our farmers, should not be exempt from the requirement to apply for zoning variances or to the Planning Board to add or change uses just because we trust this particular group of farmers or because we hope to preserve the last vestiges of our agricultural heritage.

Therefore, I urge people to vote no on Article 10.

Bob Cohen
#itsabobworld
bobjcohen.com

P.S., As a former Selectman and Planning Board member I have some experience in this area and would be happy to work with Article 10 supporters to craft farmer friendly zoning or some other alternative that promotes farming while giving reasonable protections to their neighbors and the rest of the community.