Planning Board votes to keep piggery language 'by right' after Aberdeen Lane residents raise well and deed concerns

The New Marlborough Planning Board voted Feb. 24 to retain draft protective-bylaw language that treats piggeries as a by-right agricultural use, saying the wording should be consistent with the town's Right to Farm bylaw.

The decision followed a public hearing at which Aberdeen Lane residents expressed concern that recoding "piggeries" as a by-right use would leave neighboring property owners with no local oversight if pigs are kept on adjoining parcels. Jennifer Nacht read a statement on behalf of residents, saying they were attending "not based on neighbor hostility but a concern about commercial piggeries." Chair Bob Hartt said the term "piggery has now become a flash point" and explained the board's intent to align definitions across bylaws.

Why it matters: under the town's Right to Farm language, "swine" are listed as an agricultural use; PB members said treating piggeries differently from other farm animals would create inconsistency. Residents countered that deed restrictions or local health risks—particularly private-well contamination from runoff and nuisance odors—warrant more explicit local remedies.

Residents told the board their four homes on Aberdeen Lane are downhill from the parcel where pigs are being kept and share private wells. One resident asked whether the Board of Health oversees private-well concerns; the chair advised residents to contact the Board of Health and suggested bringing the matter to the Select Board for potential resolution. The chair also noted that a deed restriction could limit use on a particular parcel if such a restriction exists for that lot.

During the hearing, participants debated technical questions raised by residents, including how many animals constitute a commercial piggery and minimum space requirements. Tom Brazie, identified in the meeting materials as associated with a local farm, told the board that "current state laws allow between 10-32 sq feet for each pig." Some attendees called for an environmental impact assessment; others pushed back, noting other farm animals can also transmit disease to humans.

Tara White, a member of the Select Board attending the hearing, referenced Mass. Gen. Law 40A.3 during discussion, saying state law treats raising swine as an agricultural activity that local zoning should not unduly restrict. After discussion, the Planning Board voted to keep the draft protective-bylaw language as presented. The board recorded the outcome as three votes in favor, zero opposed; Jordan Archey recused herself from the vote. The board's action maintains the draft alignment with the Right to Farm bylaw and moves the recodified text forward as the PB prepares warrant articles for Annual Town Meeting.

The chair recommended Aberdeen Lane residents pursue the deed-restriction question with town offices and pursue any water-quality concerns with the Board of Health. He also suggested the Select Board could review the parcel and, if needed, appoint a committee to seek a local solution. The Planning Board listed next steps in its recodification process: PB review of public comments, potential edits, placement of warrant articles, and a vote at Annual Town Meeting.

The Planning Board flagged no immediate change to enforcement or permitting in response to the hearing; any local limits on piggeries would require further action by town boards or a change adopted at Town Meeting. The board closed the hearing and reviewed other recodification items before adjourning. Next meeting: March 10 at 6:30 p.m.; Jon James will chair.