--------- We're going to call the meeting to order. And this is a formal meeting of the Aliano Elderly and Disabled Tax Fund Committee. Uh it is December 11th.
Yes, it is December 11th and this is a public meeting that is being also recorded on Zoom. You may record this meeting, but I would hope that anybody who is doing so would uh notify me. >> They must notify you.
>> They must notify. Okay. They must not besides which you can always see us on YouTube because that's how I how I figure out our next month's agenda. All right. Um so I'll call the meeting to order. The first order of business is minutes. Do we have minutes?
>> Call of members. Oh, okay. >> You want this room? >> Yeah. Um, all right. So, present at the meeting today is the full complement of the committee, including uh Mandy uh Whit Whitten.
>> Full call must be used because she's online. So, we have to actually stay with >> Oh, okay. So, uh, would the people who are here please identify themselves? Starting with our Zoom member, >> Mandy Whitten,
>> Patty Williams here, >> Jim Gisman here, Midn >> and David Rollston as chair here. >> Okay. And do we have minutes to review?
the minutes were in my schooly my I had to get a new phone my laptop died and so I don't have access to reading my emails and stuff right now still setting all that up
>> um I think I should be able to buy tonight if not tomorrow >> okay what is that phone >> that is a Motorola it's a Motorola film >> it's I like how All right. So, we will forego the
minutes and we will continue with our discussion. Uh we're we're now at the at the point as as indicated in the agenda of trying to discuss um the fundraising efforts to get uh monies set up for the
uh committee. So, >> let's uh I thought I outlined where we were fairly well in the agenda itself. >> Little point of information. >> Yeah. >> So, the donation made by the uh housing
for hope street is has been accepted. It is legal. It is now in our in our possession. And that's $480 something dollars mandate. >> $482.36. and I did get the account opened um and it is at Greenfield Cooperative
Bank. >> So the question was sort of official. >> Um so I know you were instrumental making that happen. So was the check made to the city of Greenfield or to
like this committee specific? housing. >> No, the housing for your check was made to the city of Greenfield. However, it was considered a donation. >> Correct. >> And when one does a donation to the city of Greenfield, one can designate where it goes.
>> Okay. >> So, since I was there with the check in my hand, I designated with Mandy and she made sure it was legal. And so, now we've been blessed. >> Good. So, Mandy, what I'm I'm trying to figure out like as we proceed and get
donations and people are being like, "Okay, I want to write a check." What What is the process? So they >> um they can write it to the city of Greenfield elderly and disabled um tax fund
>> or they can just do city of Greenfield but >> they need to obviously make sure specify what it's for um because the account is set up as city of Greenfield elderly and disabled tax fund committee account. So
it would be simpler if we if we are soliciting funds to them to make it out specifically to the committee because we are officially in business. Okay. >> Yeah. But we're not going to be picky if they make it payable to the city of
Greenfield either and they that's where they want it to go. >> I'm sure you don't turn down many checks. >> No. All right. So any any other uh
progress information like that? >> Yes. Okay. One more thing. Go ahead. >> Um so Al uh gave us a whole lot of information regarding vacant and foreclosing properties in terms of excess equity.
>> Right. >> And um I have I am going to take that information and I'm going to craft an ordinance. and it will go before the plan is for it to go before
appointments and ordinances committee of the council in January. >> That's the plan. Hopefully that will happen. Um so >> it looks from my reading and I read through everything he sent. >> God bless you.
>> Well, well, you know, it's really a very brilliant idea. Yeah. um on his part. I give him full credit for this. >> The uh idea of it is it goes I mean the the the language goes on and on and on
because obviously there was a whole deal around equity stealing, >> right? >> And we got that corrected finally and that's been corrected. So now the language talks about how long the money can sit, where it has to sit for how long, how much notification has to be
sent out in terms of in search of heirs, etc. and so on. When it comes down to like a I can't remember if I think it's 18 months. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Comes down to 18th months. In the 19th month, the city can say it's mine.
So if the city can say it's mine then we there should be a way it can be designated. >> So therefore that's what the ordinance will say. When it comes down to the city saying it's ours we are saying really but it's in this pile. >> Yeah.
to designate those funds legally >> to the to exactly >> that's what the ordinance will say >> and I assume like any ordinance it'll have to go through uh city >> all the lawyer >> all of it yes and it's it's really going
to be um back to whatever the mass general laws yes that he signed >> exactly per the >> exactly I'm going to write it up just like Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So you don't have to repeat a lot of this, >> right? >> That's great.
>> Exactly. >> That is I mean I wonder you know do we have any concept of how much I mean that sounds like a potentially large source. >> My understanding is I might be wrong. I've been I was recently told that there is such a property in Greenfield
>> that there is no one claiming. >> Oh >> there's one property in Greenfield that no one is claiming as of yet. But, you know, down the road, I mean, h I don't understand how this could even happen, but it can happen. Apparently, people
just walk away. No one's claiming it. No one wants anything to do with it. >> These are dilapidated building. >> Exactly. Exactly. But in terms of it being >> foreclosed upon, etc., sold however it
gets handled on the market >> minus what is owed in taxes there's excess equity right there. >> Yeah. If >> if there is excess equity and if anyone's claiming it that's one thing but if no one claims it you know after
18 months at the 19th month >> it has changed to this. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> Exactly. This is really good because I've been trying to work out something like that. Yeah. >> At the council for a while and it's mostly just been like >> I love how you've made this into a with
a collaboration without you've made this into a formal thing where I've just been like hey Genie can you promise you won't legally use the money but I think this is the best way because Genie won't stay here in fertility. You'll have different mayors. >> Yes. >> You know you might have different priorities
>> right? So this kind of this kind of you know on occasion we can seal a deal. >> Yes. >> These days it's not so hard because things get uh the law as you know gets skewed a lot these days. But in terms of
this I think we can get this done. I think a headache >> great for the perception of of as a general average civilian when you look at okay what are the ways in which my city helps me right
>> if in the process of taking someone's excess equity or taking their equity right they know that hey okay the city is not in it for themselves even if that doesn't happen generally but with this legalization and this form like putting
it into a formal law. >> You can then just in ordinance. >> Yeah. >> Got it. >> Just average public can be like, okay, the city is on my side. The city is helping people. It's in the business of making their material commissions better.
>> Exactly. >> I think we'll have we'll see how it goes. >> Good time at the council. >> Oh, no. I think the council >> I think the council is >> they're going to love it. And Ain't always going to love it. I'm sure I've already kind of we had a little discussion. So
>> that's really >> engine respond to medical alarm. >> Okay. So I'm going to uh some agenda item is >> establishment of goals for finding. We do need to figure that out. Do we
need to figure that out now or was it is that >> No, we had said at the last meeting >> that we wanted an initial fund of $20,000. >> Yeah. >> What we have not said that we need to say at some point is
>> what does that mean in terms of number of recipients? Mhm. >> Do we have to I think have a amount >> you mean a top amount that we be we'd be giving out? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Not to exceed. >> Not to exceed. >> Not to exceed
>> like 500 bucks. >> Something like that. >> I was thinking like a thousand, but I'm just I'm pulling something out of a >> even potentially faith bottom amount. You know, we don't want to be we don't want to have let's say >> No, we don't need a bottom because what
the it's going to be what they're owing in taxes. >> So, if you owe $150 in taxes, we're going to we're going to do $150 in your name >> to the treasury. See what I'm saying? >> Yeah. >> Well, it's an example. It's
>> an example, but a lot of the people that owe money owe a lot of money. much, you know, much more than I think we're going to be able to come up with. >> Right. >> So, I just >> Right. I also heard a story of somebody
losing a house for a lot less. >> I knew I knew. >> So, I I this is an unknown. You you you know more than I do about what people >> I know. I don't really
>> She does. But >> do you have an idea, man, of what are topical grand? >> What are top that people owe right now, right? Like of people that owe like a lot of money and are at risk of, you
know, losing their house. >> What is what is it that you would say is like a top >> like a,0025? You mean the the the maximum line of use in tax title
>> for the city of Greenfield historically generally speak? >> Well, I think that doesn't fair. You know, you you gave me a list and there were there was one that was like 14 years old that was like 60,000. >> Yeah. I mean, there's there's some that
are 60,000. Um they're very old and they're in land court. Um, and then there's some that are a couple thousand. >> Yeah, I think there were a dozen that were 2500 or less.
>> Yeah, I would say chased down. >> I don't have my computer with me today, so um I can't look right now. >> Remind me. I believe that the way we've structured it is they apply and it gets applied to that particular taxable year.
Is that right, >> Grant? We don't specify that, but >> we don't we didn't specify, but I would think that it would go um so whenever someone comes in and pays their taxes, it typically goes to the oldest taxes
unless they specify that they want it to go to a to their current. >> So, how do we make, you know, >> I mean, obviously, we want to help as many people as possible. Um, >> I mean, if they're in tax title, obviously we would be applying it
against their tax title because that's the whole point. We don't want to take their house, >> right? >> Right. >> So, how do we how do we set a ceiling maximum because I can't imagine we're going to
be able to make $60,000 to one person? >> No. And that wouldn't be one of our top priorities because right now that one's even in land court. So, >> I mean, I don't even think anybody for that prop piece of property would apply
for it because I don't even know that there's anyone around for it. Yeah, you you gave me a list and I I did some some work on that and u there were eight eight people that owed less than a,000
bucks and 12 between a,000 and 2500. >> 2500 >> all of them were the are deceits and the oldest one goes back to like 2017.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, if we set it at like three or four, >> so you know, I think I think the point is that when somebody's dead and they're in tax title, >> good luck. >> They can't apply. >> No. >> No. >> And if they do, we should be highly
suspicious. So if we if we set if we set a max of $1,000, let's say from what you just said, there's eight people who owe less than a grand. >> There's 12 people who owe 2500 and under
or between 1,000. >> Yes. >> So that's a total of 20 people right there >> that a,000 bucks >> would >> would give them a leg up for sure. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. I mean, if I 2500, someone gave me a thousand, I'd be pretty goddamn happy.
Yeah. And, you know, doable. Can I get how do I >> I would love if we could be like okay let's >> from the north you guys >> if it was something like three or four where you could just be like this has
just taken >> you know up until now I mean what happens in the future we don't know but it just seems a little wrong for me to be like putting someone in limbo
because obviously they are at a economic financial position in which they're you know trying to go around you know splashing around like a fish trying to >> come up with something yeah >> we as a committee are able to help them
right so if we stick to a thousand limit my concern would be like if there's a substantive amount of people who are let's say 14,500 under 2,000 where yes it is very nice that we will give them a thousand but then they still have to worry about they still have that sword
hanging over their neck where they're like oh my god I'm still having to do this whereas if it's at I don't know like three for example or four where they could be like okay this is a breath of fresh air this committee this via the
city has been able to truly free me from this thing that I've been trying to do. >> I think you have to take a look at how they got into their situation. And you know, I'm I'm dealing with a
case now of a person whom uh she's $4,000 or 3,400. Remember, it was a it was um a woman that that you and I talked about. It was like >> Yeah. >> 3,400 bucks for the first
bills and uh you know looking at her financials she has free cash of maybe 200 bucks a month. So I've I've been searching for some way to either permanently defer
this that's an 18 temporary deferment for three years or three fiscal years 18a she's only going to get in trouble again. >> Yes. >> And and once she gets in trouble there's no way out of it. I'm just saying that
there there going to be people like this and you're not going to be able I don't think you're going to be able to solve their long-term problem. You know, you can put a band-aid on it and that'll get that that'll get them over maybe this tax bill, >> but
they're dead. It seems like that in that situation >> the city's not re collecting funds in which it otherwise could be through this committee, right? that person who's on 200 bucks a month or something like that >> isn't going to be able to come up with
the leftover 2,000 right after we cover their 10,000 right >> and so that's not going to be paid to the city that's not going into the city coffers >> but you're you're not solving that problem either >> if if we had a thousand limit you know >> you know I I don't care what the number
is there will always be a number >> for somebody who got into trouble >> and will be unable to get out of trouble. Yeah. >> And and if you we I I don't think we can prevent people from getting into trouble
in the future. >> Oh, absolutely not. >> So, all we can all we can do >> I also think about >> pressure off >> the city's budget like this is this is a way in perhaps a minuscule way but for the city to be able to recoup funds in a
way that otherwise it would not be a >> right. Well, it whatever funds we raise from outside entities for >> because we're assuming and I think it's a accurate assumption is that the people that we are helping to pay off their taxes they would not other like they
would probably end up homeless or they would you know whatever what do whatever it happens but regardless it's not going to be paid mean meaning that the city is not getting these the city is at a deficit >> on that account. >> Yeah. Well, then now now you're shifting
the focus from we're trying to help people to multip >> well I mean it certainly does multiple things but I I think you have to recognize that we're not going to be able to help people out of their
situation and the best we can do is give them a leg up and the the the sort of the byproduct of that you had to sit against a couple of thousand that they wouldn't have otherwise gotten
but that isn't you which I'm fine with but other what is our role I I don't think we can ever keep people out of trouble >> right and and >> we're not social workers >> no that's true >> that's not our role
>> or I mean in terms of judgmental stuff as well people make decisions about where they spend their money and where they don't spend their money. That's a whole other movie we don't have to watch. >> Yeah. >> That's why we created the criteria, >> right? >> And that's what we go by.
>> And and in in that term, given that we can't um you know, help people who have made bad decisions or have had bad stuff. I I see no reason why we can't have it
at a,000 bucks because they're going to get in trouble anyway. >> And a thousand can't help. I mean, you don't know that their that their old boyfriend who may feel guilty about their breakup from 10 years ago might be willing to kick in the other 1500 or
whatever. >> I wish I had one of them. 1500. >> My what was his name? Paul. One of my concerns is that we partially help someone,
>> right? To the point where yes, it helps them, >> right? >> Does not change their economic situation. This is not giving them a thousand. This is just taking,000 out of they they don't actually have a thousand. This is just And so then in the next fiscal cycle,
they're back at us again. >> Well, >> well, they do. I mean that that we we're you know clearly we're going to try to service as many people as we can and somebody else comes to the well
you know a second time you know we we evaluate that but of course we take into account that they've already collected >> already got a bucket of water right >> exactly >> so are we ready to have a formal motion in
there's two two issues one is the uh fundraising target which we haven't talked about >> right >> um and the second one is um which is what is our maximum grant going to be
which is what we haven't been talking >> so we need to have a formal motion if we're going to set a maximum grant amount you let me suggest something I I think we should have a standard maxim
And the reason I say that is I I was just um reading uh Steve Nbercow's uh memo from uh the um the orders that had to do with the Hero Act.
>> Okay. and and and in that he said we're not going to do 18 18A because it puts the assessors in in in a a position where they could be uh nonuniform
>> and yet right and and therefore having the maximum you know we can drive it right into the maximum and that may be our uniform stance or we'll have reasons for going below that Right. So I think I
I think there's a good reason to have a maximum. And now the issue is should it be a thousand bucks, couple of thousand? Um I I think we have to be careful if we set it too high. There won't there'll be some people who
may not deserve that for for whatever reason and we've got to be very clear on >> but then we can they there's a list of criteria right and if we see okay this person has a history of not doing this right and they have available cash in
which they can pay right because we can see their assets we can see a bunch of other things right and we can just deny that person >> precisely Okay. >> You know, rather what I >> my concern is us limiting ourselves so
much to the point where we then forgo the whole point of this, which is to truly actually legitimately help someone who's in a dire situation of need >> in which we're like, "Okay, yeah, we kind of helped you, but just kidding.
you still have this like substantive amount that you have to >> come up. That's not saying, hey, they won't come back again in a year or two. >> So, >> so >> there's a standard >> from the numbers that I've seen where
there's like 1,800 or two or >> like there there seems to be a significant amount of people who >> my eyes are closing. >> Come on, V. So, >> so point of information here,
>> yeah, >> there's something called fair and equitable treatment, >> right? >> You see it in every union contract. That's why there are union contracts so folks get fair and equitable treatment. I would like to see the same standard for this committee. >> So, setting a maximum amount does that.
>> Yes. >> You know, with the right so some paperwork comes across the desk. Oh, and that's my aunt Satie. Of course, I want to give her more >> because she that's my aunt Satie, right? versus you know that's my ex not a dime I agree that absolutely
>> so the so the >> max he's dead anyway >> so yeah maximum grand >> I didn't do it >> that's right and you have the right to remain self thankful
All right. So, I'd like to propose a maximum grant amount of $1,000. >> Yeah. Is there a second? >> I would like to propose two >> from from that vote on my >> proposal first. >> Do you have a second?
>> Is there I I I second. I think we need a maximum and I think it's a judgment call. You called first 30. >> Is there further discussion about the
motion for a $1,000 maximum uh grant? Um I think I've kind of said already but I do think that yes I agree with this that a maximum should be set so that there is a standard so that there's no you know space or room for
you know discrimination or bias or any of those things. My only concern with a thousand given the information that you've just said, >> yeah, >> is that it will not for a substantial amount of folks, it will not make a
major difference in their day-to-day life, which is I don't know if that's like too hopeful for me, but that's the whole reason I brought this committee in into existence is that we could even if it's
5, you know, and so I think for that I'm not saying that how dare you have a thous you know what I mean is just if we could do like 2,000 given just the numbers that you told us about >> I think that would
>> could help people in a much more substantive way. Um, now if someone that doesn't mean every single person gets 2,000, right? If someone if we think given their criteria and their assets and their previous behavior and history, >> if we think that they can be fine with
500, we can do 500. >> I'd like to throw out my proposal. >> I'm actually agreeing with him. And the reason why part of it is the the senior this the senior work off is 2.
>> So maybe that it does make sense. >> How about this? >> I I I second um wahab. >> Okay. >> I think thousand's too low. >> Let's make Are you withdrawing your motion? >> Yes, I am. You want to just
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> We pay one of the tax bills in total. >> So if somebody has a tax bill and you know maybe a couple are behind, we pay one of them. And you know given the
nature of people who are likely to get in trouble their tax bill will not be very large one of so it may be 2500 bucks but if we state it as one of the tax bills I mean
that to me is something it it isn't like we're we're giving you money we're paying one of your tax bills and even if the amount is the same it just sounds and looks better as we're paying one of the tax bills. >> When you're talking about one of the tax
bills, you're talking about an annual tax bill. >> Oh, no, no, no. There are four quarterly tax. I'm talking about >> you are describing a a >> I'm not saying it's illegitimate, but beside describing a very different
approach than >> the the specific dollar amount. >> I agree. Okay. But um >> there's a proposal on >> Yeah. >> that's been second to vote. >> Yes. So
the you know if if you want to pursue your view that we pay one quarterly tax bill >> that may be legitimate um but you have to vote against this motion. So >> well you know I'd like to have that that
discussion about whether I mean that's an alternative. I I really, you know, frankly, I don't care whether if it's $2,000 or one tax bill. To me, the optics of one tax bill is a is a little better than $2,000.
But, uh, you know, I'll I'll I'm >> right. >> Let the record ship >> up to a >> up to but that that that's the only reason I'm suggesting that alternative, but I am fine with $10,000 if if
everybody else is. >> Okay. Cool. Thanks. Question. >> Yes. Uh Mandy, did you want to add anything? >> No. >> Okay. So, the the motion before is that the limit for any particular grant being
$2,000. And all those in favor say I. >> I. >> We have to do a roll call. You do a roll call vote. >> Okay. We'll do a roll call vote. Andy, what's your what's your vote? >> I am for it.
and >> I >> Okay, >> I Okay, >> it passes. >> Do I have to vote on a roll call vote or is as chairperson of my >> Yes, you all sir. >> Okay, I I agree. I agree. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> All right. So, we've set a particular limit to any grant. Um, do we now want to turn our attention to trying to set a fundraising goal? And the number $20,000
has been tossed around. >> I think I think you do need a goal because I and goals are nice. Well, I I think just when you're doing fundraising, you have to have a goal. You have to have a goal both for
yourself and for the donors. it it can't be and I think I think the goal has to be appear realistic enough so that if a donor put in money it wouldn't be like
um plugging the dyke you know what I mean you know that this has a good this this uh project has a good chance of succeeding at all I think you know I think that that speaks to something that's lesson
ambitious than the 50,000 that Al was talking about and 20,000 seems reasonable. It could be a little higher, doesn't it? >> We also understand that this is going to be an annualized thing. >> Yeah. >> And you know, let's see. 20,000 seems
like a substantial amount of money, but a reasonable amount of money >> initially. Yes. >> Yeah, I think so. Yeah. And I mean, if we use it up, good. And if we can then say look at how the all these people you know there was a woman whose husband abandoned her you know in the middle of
winter and her two small children >> not a cracker be covered I know >> you know >> yeah I I agree with that point I mean I was talking to other community members who were like oh my god 20 might be too
low and I was like I don't think I don't think that's possible for us but also I don't think our goal is to be like, "Oh my god, 20,000 and $1, we're not taking it." I don't think we're going to do that. We're going to be like, "Oh, happily, absolutely. If we reach 30, God
bless." That would be amazing. >> Well, and I think the other is just don't tell people where you are, >> right? >> Yes. Absolutely. >> And if fundraising is going well, >> last time we checked, um, the United Fund
doesn't stop collecting money, >> no matter where they are. Yeah, same thing. >> And I do think 20 is something that is doable but also big enough where it can have an impact which is what we're
trying. So I I I like round numbers. So I mean 20 is a round number but 25 I think is >> you know a round number. I mean people you know 100,000 50,000 25
>> 25. So I would I I I would propose 25,000 being fundraising goal. >> Motion. >> Yes. >> Is that a motion? >> Yes, that is. And I move that fundraising goal be 25,000.
>> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Yeah. >> Is there any further discussion? Okay. All those in Do we have to do roll call? >> All right. Okay. Uh, Mandy, do you feel like 25,000 on the motion of $25,000?
Are you for or against it? >> For I >> I is I Bob is I >> Jim is I and I am I am I >> It passes unanimous. Okay. So, uh having
trouble reading. What is our next line item on the fundraising stuff? The identification of potential donors. The outline of materials for fun everything. We need to back up dear. >> Yep. >> Now, let me try to understand this.
>> The final documents of the criteria and the application are with who? You or you? Who has the final? >> I I have the final copy because I did the editing. >> Um and then I did send it to Jonathan,
the communications director. um the mayor's office and he has posted it on our website as well. >> Oh, it is posted on the website. >> Correct. >> Does Al know that? >> I believe he does because I I want to
say in one of his emails he had asked but then he followed up with that he saw it online. >> Where is it on on the city website? >> Yeah. >> Um >> you mean in which department?
>> I don't know. it it's under accessors, but I don't know if he um made a page for our committee or if he's going to I can check with him on that, but it is under the accessorories page. >> I don't think so. >> Huh? >> I I don't think so. I think
>> you don't think so. That's where he was said he was going to put it. Um let me see if I can find it. >> Well, let's see. We're we're a committee, so it should be under that, right? That's the department. I >> Well, this this this would be under
maybe treasurer, collector or assessor. Let me check. collector >> tax >> not there and uh I'll check the assessor site and I don't remember it being there
either and I I've been you know because of this uh woman trying to help out I've been okay so we have nothing nothing about the elderly and disabled tax funding
>> if perhaps right now I'm on >> Oh, I'm sorry. Wait a minute. There there is under assessor research. >> Okay. >> See what it says. Okay. Purpose of the fund applications. >> Yeah, it's all there.
>> I'm sorry. Is that under exemptions or what is that? >> No. Um if if you go to the left there related pages >> here. Here's here's some assessor sign. >> I I just hit that top link.
>> Oh okay. Yes. Oh there. Perfect. Perfect. >> So it is it >> it is under accessories. Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. Under the submen if you're doing it from your phone. >> Well, yeah, but but the the issue is
it's on the related pages, not >> not on the main assessor page. >> If there was Right. If you go to the assessors >> Yeah. >> Right. And then you see all these blanks. Potentially we could have an additional link that says elderly
disabled taxation fund and it goes to >> and it goes to the elder disabled tax fun >> instead of going to a submen and then a related page >> instead of going to the lefty assessor going to Yeah.
>> Okay. So so those are online in terms of fundraising materials. Jim has finished up the perspectus. >> Okay. >> And I just I just did the editing. We have set initial goal of fundraising of $25,000.
And I want to take out the rest of that sentence so we can make a difference to 500 neighbors because we don't know how many >> you're talking about. So we have set an initial goal of raising $25,000. >> Period. >> Period. And that's the only editing I
see on you. Did you get a coffee at Blizzard? And I did print this out. >> Now, one when we're having an ask some I I think it it is very likely to
say, "Oh, what's the $25,000 going to do? Oh, it'll help people. How many people?" So, I mean, we we have to be able to respond to that, right? You know, we can say a maximum of $2,000 per person and given an average of let's say
>> 20 people who would be in this situation, we could help up to x amount of people with the 20,000. >> So 20,000 >> 25 >> 25 >> 452 that's 24,000.
>> Yeah, that's Yeah. So we've had a dozen people. >> Yes. Exactly. So we could help around like 10 or so. >> And that's our initial. >> That's our initial. >> So yes, >> and the more we can get the more >> and this is why I want to make sure and I'm going to say this a lot. So you're
going to have to put up with me. I want to make very I you know I understand that Mitch and Joe have already gone to the Greenfield Cooperative Bank and had a discussion about this. Who authorized that? No one authorized that. They thought
representing the city. But I will say this before this committee had even globalized. >> Yeah. >> This was a central part of my campaign when I was >> we had talked with uh representatives
from different banks businesses because that's just my circle and we had proposed such an idea to them and we were like okay these are one of the things that I'm running. I would like to form this committee, right? Is this something that you could
potentially want to donate to? And what is it two years now ago, those people had said a willingness to be like, okay, yes, we would. >> And so, I think that is a continuation of that rather than them just flying off and doing, >> okay, that was not clear.
>> Yes. >> But that's that's a lot different than going and soliciting that. >> Yes. And and we want to make sure that the solicitations if outsiders other than us are involved, one of us is involved.
>> Exactly. Oh yeah. >> Exactly. >> So I I I don't know about Joe and Mitch and my most recent contact. >> But I would just like to say without Mitch and Joe, this would have not even existed. >> No, I have great respect for what they
>> because when I was running my campaign >> Yeah. and we were brainstorming ways in which we could materially benefit the citizenry. This was one of the things that they brought up. Okay. >> And which I looked into and then I was like, okay, this is legit. I've never heard of this before.
>> In which the next process of the next step of that process was okay, while I'm campaigning and I'm talking to a business leader, whatever, we propose it to them to see, hey, is this even a viable idea? in which we saw a good response >> right
>> and we were like okay cool >> so and those relationships have existed those people still come to my gas station those people still talk to mission do and they have been asking us hey when is this become thing so that we can >> it's a very different >> yes >> and also and I think that wasn't
>> no clarify >> no all Al wrote is Joe I'm like when did that happen although >> well additionally we can't prevent anybody any project citizen from making suggestions to somebody else. You know,
>> but they can't solicit in our name. >> No, not in our name. Not in our name. But they they I mean I can go to my neighbors and say, you know, the United Way does a lot of good things. You know, you should think about giving to them. If citizens, and it's not just miss, but
anyone >> wants to volunteer their time and effort in order to make some connections and bring up our name to a potential funer, God bless. >> Well, yes, >> absolutely. >> Yeah. But >> but then we made the initial, >> but then the ask has to be us. >> It has to.
>> So, in terms of the ask, we've got the, you know, we've got the the black and white perspectives. Yeah. >> We do need it dressed up for handing out. >> Yes. How is that going to happen? >> Well, Jim, who wrote it basically, I wrote some of it, but he wrote a lot of
it. >> You You started it. >> Okay. So, then I >> will go back in and edit what needs to be edited. I will then send it to Mandy who will then send it to Jonathan to make it pretty. It has to go on city
stationary. Correct. It has to be >> Yeah. So, I talked to Jonathan and he said that um he could definitely um work on designing that for us. >> Um he did have questions and he said
that there there may be more questions once he starts working on it. He can't until he sees what he's signing up for. He can't 100% commit, but he he said as long as he has everything, he could work
on that for us. Great. >> And what is that? >> He works for the city, right? >> Thank you. >> Yes. But what is it that he could do? >> It it needs to go on the city stationary. >> Yeah. City
>> um the city stationary. Um he had questioned um does he want do we want it on social media? Do we want him to do a flyer? um pamphlets. Um
>> my my anticipation was yes to all of the above. >> Yes. >> Yeah. You know, I I would like him to at least put forth for forth a prototypes to say, "Okay, if you want flyers and
you want social media coverage, um handouts, here's what we're going to get." >> Yeah. Can do you think that's reasonable for a month from now or whenever we're next meeting? >> Um he he did say that he can work on it
and have it ready um potentially for our next meeting. So I'll just need it as soon as possible so he can work on that. >> He was going to try to attend the meeting today, but he had already um had prior commitments. So >> So Mandy, you got the perspectus from
Jim, right? Like we all did, >> correct? Yep. >> You sent it to Mandy. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, if you find that >> Yeah. >> you just have to change the 20,000 to 25,000 and get rid of sentence and it's
done. >> Okay. >> Just have Oh, because of my lack of connectivity to my emails, I was not able to see this. Oh, the only thing I would say, I think this is perfect. This is amazing. The only thing I would say
is if we could float it up to make it more palatable and more more attractive for a potential funer in which we could just say a sentence or two about after where we say the tax funds money comes from voluntary donations from
individuals organizations. We could talk about how in the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and community, we believe that people and uh organizations and people who donate to this cause
uh would be appreciated and would contribute to the welfare of our community. Something that makes >> Yes. kind of something where they're like, "Oh, okay. If I do this, I'm being I'm being seen. I'm being thanked. I'm being appreciated.
>> I I'm I'm I'm just thinking about what uh my my wife um was working on the library project and one of the big things there was the naming. There was naming and sort of the wall of fame or whatever it is or it lists all the major
donors that we're basically talking about a similar thing. In other words, in in promoting the uh fund, we'll be recognizing the charter donors. >> Yes.
>> And the ongoing donors and then maybe at some point we'll do silver, bronze, gold, diamond, you know, all that other stuff for tears. That is a great idea because we we could potentially with the um section that we have on the city
website, we could put in here in this document that a potential funer could see. Oh, okay. My name can be listed on the city website for that fiscal year's donations. >> I I I don't
know. three respond to aircraft stand at street organizations. >> I don't know whether that can be done. That's just a question in mind department. There's a bunch of different things that happen like events and if
there's a private entity or even like a nonprofit but I don't think it's on the website. That's >> it's not on the website. >> I don't think so. But I think that's a that's a Jonathan question. >> Okay. >> I mean can we get visibility on the city
website or the visibility will be on whatever handout material >> social media pamphlet etc etc. >> Okay. So to move the discussion along you'll be giving the protocol >> respect
>> perspectus to Jonathan. He will put it into social media format, a pamphlet and an announcement, a handout. Is that what we said?
>> In fact, this is this is a product of luch. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And and I think what we need I agree Jonathan needs to do all those things, but I think what we we need to think of it as part of a launch, >> right? you know, and and there'll be an
initial shot that talks about, well, we're we're ready to do this. We're just uh beginning our fundraising, and then here's the prospectus and the people that we contact sort of thing. Does that make sense? >> What I'm trying to move forward is
separating out the printed materials to the other fundraising effort, if you follow what I'm saying. Let's have Jonathan put together the the materials. Everybody agrees with that. Yes. >> And then >> we So,
>> should we have Jonathan come to our next meeting with the materials that he's developed? Randy, would that make sense? I think that makes sense, doesn't it? >> Where did Randy Where did you go? >> Disappeared. >> We're looking at ourselves for some
strange reason. And we're actually looking at day that he's sent it to >> as well. It should be. >> Mandy, are you there? >> Could be. She has moved. I >> think she shut herself off.
>> I don't know what happened. >> Well, in any case, you're right that we can have him work on this. Yes. And in the con the context of reviewing the materials, we talk about how this thing gets launched, >> right? >> And and help and he helps us do that.
So, let's I can extend an invite to him for our next meeting >> and um and you know, I'll I'll send him an email probably tomorrow saying, you
know, Mandy has the uh prospectus. We understand you're going to be putting it into three different formats and we'd like to have you come to our next meeting. That's the question. >> So, why are we doing three different formats? I can I understand the social media piece,
>> right? >> And the a brochure, >> right? >> If we have a brochure, that's what we're going to be giving people when we walk into an office. >> I'm thinking about the third one as a notice to the public for potential recipients.
There should be something of that nature for people who might be applicants to our fund. mean soliciting applicants, >> but we haven't got we haven't got that prepared yet. >> No, no, >> no. I think well soliciting
>> soliciting applicants is we're not there yet. >> No, >> but but I mean you're right at some point because publicly say we're operational. >> Yeah. and and people, you know, we can reach out to >> people will come to your your office or
the assessor's office and go, I understand there's this fund and you can hear, you know, here it is. Here's the here's the sty, you know, what we're talking about. One application fine, here's something that explains it for the potential people that are going to need it.
>> All right. >> So, let's take a step back for a minute on the perspectus. We just said that there should be a recognition piece in >> I'm crafting it. >> You're crafting it right now. Good. All right. >> But you don't have access to email so
you can pass it on to >> We're going to have to go the uh centuries old route. >> No, I mean if you want to >> I I can
Oh, there you are. back. >> Lost your >> phone died. >> Um, so yes, I can check with um Jonathan to see if he can attend our next meeting. I don't know if what his schedule looks like. Um, if not, I'll
have everything that he has. I hopefully maybe we can have it before then so you guys can see it >> and I I'll send him an email tomorrow that just basically says He would like to invite you to our next meeting because >> which is January 29th.
>> Okay. >> Is that what it is? >> The fourth Thursday, right? >> No, that's the fifth. >> That's the fifth Thursday. >> That's the fifth Thursday. >> Oh, you're right. >> It's the 22nd. >> Yeah. >> January 22nd.
>> Also, February and March. >> I'm trying to look at my >> I will be out of truth. >> Good for you. >> Will you be able to get that? That's that is actually a legitimate problem. >> Yes, it is a legitimate >> not because of the US. >> Is that a guided lawyer?
>> I have I have an American citizenship. Not because of the American because of the government in which I'm traveling to. >> It's a full dictatorship. So I'm trying to make preparations to be like if I get lost and you guys don't hear me, please. >> Where are they going?
>> I'm going to Pakistan, which is where we're from. >> Yeah. And uh three years ago there was a coup of a democratically elected government and there's been a military dictatorship since. >> That's true. >> And like I've had fan members who have been arrested.
>> And it's it's bad. It's really bad. So, I'm trying to make preparations with US authorities to be like, hey, um, if I get lost, which people that has happened to so many American citizens in with the administration right now where they're
just like, >> who cares? You're being in a foreign country. I'm thinking of these people that just sort of disappear. We grab them and >> Yep. So, I did cramp a little thing if you guys want to. You can critique it
all you want. I'm I have no >> Why don't you just hand it to her? >> Yeah, if you could read my chicken scratch. I mean, you could attempt at really collaboration mutually is essential. The vibrant community and all our donors are a fundamental part of
community service and the material service. >> Okay. You want me to just read it out? >> All material aid for those most vulnerable. All entities that contribute
to the fund will be recognized through the city to appreciate. >> It leaves it open enough where it's not like oh my god, >> but it's like right here. >> Yeah. Okay. >> See the star?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Sure. that. >> All right. So, how >> how is this revised um perspectus >> because we have made revisions to it too. >> Do we want to vote on that or is this
just like a drafting doc? I think it's >> Yeah, I think this is a draft. We'll approve that next meeting. Oh, can we? No, we probably should have >> so that we can send it over.
>> So we can send it over to J. Then it's the amendment amending it that we're talking. >> We've Okay. So agreed on the amended. So the question is we've agreed to a certain amendment of the document which is the recognition piece, >> right? Yes.
>> Okay. So I >> sure >> Okay. So is there any >> I am making a proposal that we accept the amendment to the document >> and then call it the document. >> Okay.
>> Document with a recognition piece. >> Exactly. >> I second. >> All right. So it's been motioned and second. >> Okay. Mandy, are you in favor of that? >> I >> I You're here. >> Two.
>> All right. It passes. Okay. Um All right. Where are we next? >> January 28th was our next meeting. >> No, 22nd. >> 22nd. >> The fourth Thursday. >> And then there was another subtitle and I can't read it.
The agenda. What is it? >> Identification of potential voters and discussion. Who should approach them? >> Yeah. Okay. >> It's like they should they should someone some member of the community of the committee should be.
>> Yes. And the actual >> the solicitation. >> Yes. But here's the thing. Because of the history you have laid out this evening, which I had no knowledge of and I don't know if anybody else had any knowledge of, it seems like that there's already some soft targets.
>> Not yet. Okay. So, if you could for the next meeting have a list of those soft targets. >> Yes. >> For us and that way we can divide up that labor. >> Y >> and you know and you and Al whoever wants to I mean obviously you are part
of the committee. >> But if if one of them wishes to attend >> one of those meetings with one of us, we can get that organized. >> You know how I'll listed all the folks. >> Yes. I think those are just like people who we could potentially
>> wish list >> and then there's a list that I and me and Jump have who we've all to >> that's the list we want the soft list >> that's what we start >> okay >> happy people
>> so do we just do we just start with a list for no and our next meeting we go okay you're going to take so and so and so and so and so and so you're going to There sounds. >> Okay. So, next we have a list
and we will how we I suggest that we publish that amongst ourselves >> before the next meeting. >> This Oh, okay. >> But that potential list, but there's a different list that Mahab is going to
create. >> Yeah. >> That's the soft gifts. that we will go over at the next meeting and we can get that rolling. >> Okay. >> And then the next meeting will have the finalization of at least the initial
solicitation entities that and people that are being solicited. >> We'll have a perspective. >> Yes. >> Then we will um then divide up responsibilities amongst ourselves as to who's going to contact >> you. Yes.
>> Okay. All right. >> Okay. >> Good. >> Now, when did you leave? >> I am. >> You just have a quorum left. Don't get sick. Get sick. But you're going when?
>> I'm leaving February 18th. >> And I'll be gone till like March 28th. >> Um, >> I might be able to attend via Zoom. >> Yeah. That would be actually that might be good because then you could have a check
to see if I'm alive or dumped. >> Let's hope you know >> what is what's the time difference between >> um so it's 2 hours back. So right now it's what >> before in the afternoon.
>> Right now it's 6:41. It is 4:41 in >> Okay. And you want you want to participate at 3:30 and 3:30? >> I doubt I'm going to sleep very much. It's we're attending what?
>> That's right. >> Um, >> when are you leaving? So, I'm going well I'm going to um the guide dog school at the end of dece end of December until the 1st of April, but I'll I'll participate by Zoom. I just have to give
up I have to give up the the chair responsibilities. >> Okay. So, that means for the next meeting I'm going to have to chair. >> I get that. Yeah. Okay. And I I I'll either do I need to do anything formal to give up the chairmanship at all?
Paul >> and circumstances. >> So just tell me when you get the uh when you get when you send in the uh agenda to be posted. >> Jesus our father to God. >> Yeah.
I must have won face. >> Do you really think >> I hope not. >> It would be entertaining. So, uh, end of December, April 1st. So, who do you send the agenda to?
>> Uh, Jonathan. >> Okay. >> Jonathan. And you know, it has to be 48 hours in advance at a minimum. I almost missed the minimum. What was the problem with my Mandy? What was the problem with my proposed agenda?
Um, I didn't I didn't um ask him, but they have like specific guidelines. Um, Patty, I can send it to you. I did send it to you, David, um, for because
the this clerk's office is not going to be reviewing them anymore. So, it's up to us to make sure that they're correct. Um, >> so I did send you the guidelines of what they are looking for. Patty, I'll send it to you so you're aware, too.
>> Thank you. Could you shoot it over to me? Sure. For other purposes. >> I I just want to know what's going on. >> What Karen has to go through? I hate being corrected. >> Yeah, me too.
>> Happens to the best of us. You ain't being corrected. Why are you here? >> Yeah, that's true. That's true. Why Why do I volunteer for this or any other public function? >> Truly. Okay. >> All right. >> Okay.
>> I think that goes through every >> agenda. I think so. >> Well, good. I will send Jonathan the uh email tomorrow that basically says uh you've got the prospectus and we'd like to see you on the 22nd of January at
5:30. All right. Is that it? Is there any more business? Is there any public comment? Where's Al said he couldn't make it. He sent us a 18page memo. God bless him.
He works hard. >> He works hard. >> Really hard. He works really hard. >> Thing is has to be made. Please don't work for me. >> I have all Don't worry. >> That's not the cat, right? >> Yes.
>> What do we get to deliver? >> You are the cat's servant. >> Oh, and and the dog. I'm pet's place. See, I got the t-shirt and everything. You're trained. >> All right. Are we ready to adjourn?
Second. All those in favor say I. >> Have a have a nice holiday, folks. >> Thank you, too. >> See you later, Mandy. Hope and hope the dog >> merry solstice. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah, there will be light. Part: 2
Welcome to the city of Greenfield, Massachusetts uh monthly meeting, regular meeting of the zoning board of appeals. We are at city hall 14 Port Square, Greenfield, Mass. And today's date is December 11th, 2025.
I'm going to read a statement before I officially uh call the meeting to order. Uh this meeting is being recorded by the zoning board of appe appeals. If any other persons present are doing the same, you must notify the chairperson at this time. In accordance with Mass
General Law Chapter 38, section 20G, quote, "No person shall address a meeting of a public body without permission of the chair, and all persons shall at the request of the chair be silent. No person shall disrupt the proceedings of a meeting of a public body. If after
clear warning from the chair, a person continues to disrupt the proceedings, the chair may order the person to withdraw from the meeting. And if the person does not withdraw, the chair may authorize a constable or other officer to remove the person from the meeting. Public comments. Public comment may be
allowed at the discretion of the chair. If you want to be considered for making a comment, please alert the chair by raising your hand. Comments may be given by email, comment during the meeting, online, uh I guess electronically. It says here by phone, but electronically
online. Um, so roll call of the members present. >> Charles Roberts, Peter Wak, James Win, Harris Green, >> Debbie J, >> David Singer. >> So before we get to the first public hearing, I would just like to say something. Um, sadly uh our our city uh
and and we lost uh a former chair and member of the ZBA and a former member of the city council. His name is uh was Tom Mlen. Um, I just wanted to mention him so that his name will be in the record so that you can let his family know that
we remembered him. Uh, I served on the city council with Tom for many years. Also served on the ZBA. My first stint with him. He later became chair. Um, he contributed a lot to our community. He was a thoughtful man, a strong man. He
and I did not always agree on things which actually made it more fun I think for both of us. Um, but like what happens in a small town or a small city, everybody on these boards are our neighbor and that's what really counts. And so he and I I felt like we were
friends and uh I was very sad to see that he died. But for his family's sake, I want him to be remembered in the minutes uh and know that we will all remember his service uh to the ZBA. Thank you. Okay, first public hearing.
Okay. So, um application of Evan Juice for property located at 260 Silver Street, Assessor's Map 111, lot 12, which is located in the urban residential RA zoning district for special permit pursuant to sections
200-5.3E and 20-8.3 of the zoning ordinance in order to allow a 20% reduction of the required setbacks of Bristol. On the panel are Peter Rose, Jim Win, Eric Green,
>> Debbie Sh, David Ser. Okay. Is the applicant here or is the applicant here online? You're the applicant. >> I'm >> Are you representing the applicant? >> Yes, I am. >> Would you please step forward? Sit down, please, and tell us your name and your address and your association
with the app. >> Uh my name is Eric Fehee. Uh 214 Wisdom Way in Fairfield. Um I am a neighbor and a friend of his. >> And so he has asked you to come and represent correct interest and the applicant's name is uh
>> Kevin sorry Kevin Evans Ku it's pronounced. >> Okay. >> So you did pretty good. Yeah. >> Okay. Good. All right. So what do what do you have to tell us? >> Um >> you need anything to look at to do that? >> No. So Evans is um
wanting to separate the lot. It was an oversized lot. He has a three family there now. And his intent is to put a two family or a three family on the second lot once it's once the first lot is approved.
>> Okay. That's okay. So what I need to know is that zoning that he's looking for. >> He's looking You mean for the reduction? >> Yeah. Be specific of what? >> Sure. Absolutely. So what does that mean what you're not confused?
>> Okay. Sure. So he is asking for a reduction in the lot size because of the remaining lots size. Um would be difficult with the setback to put a structure on it. Um, so we're requesting
the 20% reduction, which makes it an 8-ft sideyard um for all of the existing building to the adjacent lot. It's also reducing the back lot to 24 ft, 30 ft just so that
there's like a parking area or like a space um in the back area of it. Um the way the building is located now, most of the activity is to the east side of the
existing building and on the west side of the building that faces Bur Street, there's actually a slope in the topography. So there's not much use for that space on that side of the building. Um,
>> so in essence, there's three reductions. Four reductions. >> Four reductions. >> Eight the 10 to 8 ft on the side, the westerly side. >> Mhm. >> And then the rear yard reductions. >> Correct. >> Each of them 20%. Correct. >> The reason is because we have another
plan that shows that their intention is to try to get as much space out of this lot as possible. >> Correct. So by dividing it, they want to make sure ahead of time that they'll get they'll get four feet out of the sideline. They'll get two feet out of this sideline and then two feet out of this sideline. Right. >> Correct. If Yeah.
>> If they come, but right now in order to protect themselves, they're looking to make sure that they can get the most room they can out of this lot. >> Correct. Yeah. We we were in the plan of designing something for that lot, but the space was really tight and I thought
that it would make it more complicated to try to submit both at the same time. So, this works then we know what we have to work with and we'll start trying to figure out a structure that'll fit on that spot. >> And the applicant understands that if we
whatever decision we make here, that's it's a the application is really on lot one. >> Correct. and has nothing to do with two. Correct. Even though we see what some of the >> the proposed >> Okay. >> Correct. >> All right. >> Any questions from any >> Thank you for clarifying that. >> Yeah. >> Any questions from any members of the
board? >> Not to be repetitive. It's 8 ft here all the way around here is what you're asking for the the reduction in dimensions. >> Correct. Right. >> No, no, no. You're on the wrong. The plan you want to look at, Peter, is the other thing.
>> A plan that I wanted to make sure that it's done, right? It's the plan entitled the >> no they're there seems to be lot one >> shows the house that exists on lot one so it's called plan of land in
greenfield surveyed for Evans and Rose LLC it's not the site >> so you want to ask questions so this this year is being the setback is being changed to be something >> correct I just want to be clear >> correct if I this is in place Right.
We're just looking to change these setbacks to be able to get the best path. >> If I could elaborate a little bit. It's it's not specifically for that purpose. It's it's that that space the it's kind
of a tight setback um from Bird Street from the front yard setback and the size of the unit would be really restricted. So because we have the option of a 20% reduction, we figured we would exercise
it. So it's not um yes in in in essence it is the intent to build something on that but because of the topography on that side of the building it's really not going to make a difference anyway. >> You mean topography over here?
>> The topography just adjacent to uh the existing structure. It slopes down in that area right there. >> This is so skinny you couldn't be very difficult to build anything here anyway. >> Well, yes. It's there's just there's
just about enough room for um you know, his intent is to build sort of affordable um a multi-unit affordable and it's we're planning on modular building and so modulars are restricted in the length of the size that they use
and in the width of them. So it, you know, it just seemed like the smartest thing would be to just let's see if we can get this lot reduced and then we can kind of cross that bridge when we get there once we know what we have to work with. >> But this proposed lot here also shows
reduced setbacks. >> Correct. >> It's not before us. >> Right. Exactly. So what I'm getting to, Right. Absolutely. But what I'm getting so what I'm getting to is that is that down the road if you come back to us with something with the plan for lot two you're going to be asking for uh the 20%
reduction for lot two probably as well. Um, but it still depends on it still really depends on the ultimate design. And so we're doing the we're crunching the numbers too to determine whether if we just leave it to a two family, we'll have plenty of space to move everything
adj down on the lot away from Silver Street >> to here >> to that area. Correct. >> And you'll get parking for >> parking would be up in this area up in here. And there'll be still plenty of Yeah, there'll be still plenty of area to use for whatever tenants are there. Well, you haven't made up your mind
whether you're going to put a two family or three family there. Correct. One year. >> Correct. And we'll be bringing that back just depending on uh depending on what the final design is. >> You have a lot area for a three family. >> Say again. >> You have a lot area for a three.
>> We do. >> Well, two family is allowed. So, you still need to certain square footage. >> We have it because it was >> unit. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's 12. >> It's 12,000 square ft. >> That's That's the size of your lot, right? 11,523.
>> That uh when I spoke with the surveyor, that number is actually incorrect. Well, but the original the original lot was 25,000 square ft and or the existing lot is
25,000 square ft. So when you with the separation, it actually makes it by 79 square ft >> in the correct. >> So you'll come back with a corrected survey. >> Correct. >> If we if this appeal gets approved and they give these setbacks, can they come
back and want to change it in the future once we grant it? For some reason, this doesn't work. >> Uh I believe so. >> Okay. So they even though we grant it now, they could come back and say, do you forget that we want to go back to what it was before? I mean from Oh, go ahead.
>> So, it's really a three-step project for the applicant. The first step is going before you with special permit for a 20% reduction of all setback requirements, not area or anything else. It's just setbacks on lot one. If you as a board approve that step two is for the
application to go before the planning board for ANR plan endorsement. planning board would endorse the plan because you gave permission for reduced uh setbacks and then phase three would be to come back with the approved ANR plan before you for a further reduction
for lap two. >> Very well correct >> and then we'll have the at that time we'll have a building location on it um so that you can you'll see exactly where the structure would be on that lot. No, I understand. Hi, Jim. Anything? You
good? >> Just one quick question again. Somebody pointed out that there's an error in the area on the actual survey plan. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> It's 23,908. >> It's bigger. >> It's bigger than 523. >> Correct.
>> Usually, usually we don't see errors by stamped plans by the president lander. So condition approval would have to be a revised plan. >> Remind us remind us when we do the and you you feel comfortable lot one is an accurate square footage.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Cuz that's the lot before us. >> Both both will be double checked but I'm I'm pretty confident of that when the what ended up happening was we went back and forth and there was some confusion in some of the setbacks.
So the plans were actually done three times and then at the final plan that Ed had submitted to me. Eric and I were reviewing it included that there is less square footage than should
be. So somehow there was some confusion on his end and we didn't have time to redo them and get them to you. >> Okay. >> So I apologize. >> The representation is that when it's redone lot two will actually have more square footage stated than less. Correct. Okay. And Jen, just to uh
clarify, it would be suitable for a two family and not a and not a three family, but we we we believe we have enough square footage. >> Okay. I I just want some clarification because earlier you said that there was enough square footage on lot two for a three family that had made it by 79
square ft. Now you're saying you have enough square footage for two families. >> Well, two two family would be we we we have enough room for two family. Correct. >> Okay. Cuz I I was one of the things I was writing down. We'll refer to this later. The revised plan showing the
correct square footage of both glasses support a three family on that street. >> Yeah. >> Uh I'm sorry. >> Or how do you want me to word that? >> Yeah. I would strike the word three family or anything about what's going to >> No, I I mean, >> yes, that's >> I want to be careful. The applicant is
not before us on lot two. >> Lot one only. I I just want to make >> it helps us understand what their intentions are, but we don't we don't have it, >> right? But I would just want to be clear in the wording here, however it a corrected site plan that says it's
10,000 square feet. >> I guess what Eric is saying is that lot two on a corrected plan will show the actual square footage of lot two instead of the area that's shown on our copies because it's been stated that that's not correct. But >> what I'm saying also, Mr. chairman is
that um for this approval for lot one the board should have a condition approval that's so the file is correct this plan submitted is corrected so that >> so that and then this number would be >> that number would be the true number of land surveyor >> and it would go into related to lot one
>> let's give this a name submitted >> okay we'll call this the submitted >> so so lot one's actually going to get a little bit smaller once you get these areas correct Right. Lot under question is going to be smaller. Is this is this a single family or a three family?
>> The existing house is a three family. >> Yeah. >> And so you need what's the square footage the conventional requirements for a three family. It's >> need 75 ft of road frontage and uh 12,000 ft of land area. >> Right. So, I mean, and that's my that's part of what I was trying to interact is
what if we what if we say X and then the plan comes in and it shows that lot one doesn't qualify for the the building that's harmful. I just I just was just trying to >> No, I want you to I want you to hold that thought just because Eric says
something. So, >> again, I didn't get the impression that lot one's area was going to change if lot two's area is going to change. Is that what you just said that if lot one's area goes up, lot two's lot lot two's area goes up on the 35's accurate plan,
his square footage is going to go down? >> No. No, because the total square footage was 25,000 square feet. I don't know if we have an ability to see that original plan or the existing and I really do apologize for this confusion. I would have >> here's the representation I need. First
performance. Is this lot one an accurate representation of this performance? So Debbie, go ahead. Uh, Eric, are you done? >> Yes. Yes. I just want to make sure we got I will I'm going to address it in a second. Go ahead. >> All right. Just to clear up my confusion
here, is is the area that's given for lot one with the reduction in sideyard and backyard or is it going to become smaller after if we approve?
We bought the smaller >> the the the square footage on this plan for lot number one is correct. That's and I had reviewed that and then we added it up when Eric and I had met
and concluded that it was I don't remember exact number but it was almost 1,000 square ft off for the second lot. And so, um, and I really do apologize cuz I would have had Ed clarify that and brought another document, an updated document, which I can do in very short
order if that would be helpful. I know there's a second process. So, I could ask him to >> Yeah, I think I Eric is advising us that it's not necessary for this decision, >> correct? >> But it's necessary for our file that it come within the next 30 days so that the
file is accurate. >> Great. >> Okay. Right. But I'm I'm I'm so sorry, David. >> No, keep going until you understand. >> But I'm not sure if if we've answered Eric's question, which is is the 12,385 square feet before or after the setback? >> It is.
>> One thing doesn't have to do with the other. >> It's after the setback. It's the It's the adjusted square footage for that lot after the reduced after the reduced size. Correct. >> You mean the reduced size on this side? No, you're not reducing when if you're reducing this this this
>> the lot from this point to this point to this point is 12,385 ft. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> As a result of drawing these lines on the ground. >> Mhm. >> Suddenly you find yourself with 8 ft of sideyard on three locations and 24 ft of rear
yard in the rear location which happens to be a 20% reduction. And you wouldn't you're not going to draw this line for sure unless we allow you to do it as a zoning special permit. Correct. >> Correct. >> So if we allow your special permit request, the lot Eric will look like
you're seeing it with the 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft and 24 ft. >> And the square footage is correct for lot number one. >> But when they come in now, I I think you by telling everybody that you're going to do a three family or family or whatever. Right now it doesn't you
you're going to have to figure out what you're going to put on here based on what you really have here for square footage. >> Correct. >> And how everybody in the departments uh respond to whatever it is you're proposing. >> Mhm. >> And then it sounds like, you know, so that's for another day. I think if I if
I understand what you're doing, you're being smart about the zoning and you're taking the sequence that Eric defined, which is we know that we want to build on this lot and we know that in order to divide this, we might as well take advantage of the 20% reduction. Now, we make this lot as big as possible. What
we do on this lot remains to be determined. >> Correct. And we may have requ and and we may have requests of use zoning board where we come in with this lot if we ever do that you again give us 20% reduction but we are not sure but we
showed you a demonstration of what it might look like so that we understand why you're doing the 8 ft on this side. >> Correct. >> Okay. So the the lot two is a demonstration of why they're doing it because they're being smart about using bylaw. But what they're asking for is we
can't make this lot a real lot, just a real lot. Forget what they build on it without an 8 foot reduction. If we don't give them the 8 ft, then they'll go out and they'll do 10 ft and then this lot will be smaller. Then they'll have to deal with it then. But they didn't want to do it in that order. They wanted the permission so that they could logically
plan what to do on lot two, which may or may never happen. That's all. So the question is are are we we're not going to deliberate but if you have any further questions first are we okay with them making the reduction as a kind of a
a hedge on the future for themselves because they're dividing the land which is a real event once that lands. Now, to answer your question, Peter, since they own both parcels, they never have to record this plan and then they could, you know, they could reunite these these lots and that
lot would be a lot again or the neighbor could come along and buy this portion of the lot and they'll ask, you know, I mean, there there's no until they start building on this lot, I don't think there's a crisis on this being permanently set at the way that >> is this is this 75 ft from Silver Street
to the front of this 75 ft from that's a three fan, right? >> Correct. Is this from Silver to the front of the house? Is that 75 ft? >> No, the frontage would be on Birch Street.
>> No, he's asking what's the front? You're looking for the frontage. Yeah, it's 85. >> It's 85 ft. >> So he Sorry. I think this is a conforming lot in every respect except for the setbacks because they're pinching they're they're pinching the land along the boundary of the building. That is correct.
>> What about this little dog leg here? Is that count as a as advanced Eric? Is it is this a rear yard or a sideyard setback or right here? This little eight this little dog leg. >> Yeah. So, um just to summarize the existing lot before anything is done is a corner lot, two front yard setbacks,
two sideyard setbacks. This proposed line now makes the existing lot no longer a corner lot. The new proposed lot to would be a corner lot, >> right? >> With two front yard setbacks. >> No, if
dog leg right here mirror or sideyard. >> This little guy right here. >> Side. >> It's a sideyard. >> If if this becomes the new I understand why you square feet. this becomes a
non-conforming three story. >> Not not if we grant the relief that they're asking for. >> Okay. We're we're giving them a setback. We're we're reducing by doing this. We're reducing the amount of square feet, >> right? But it's still more than is
necessary for three family. >> What's 12,000 for three three family and over 12,000? >> As far as I know, there are no other zoning problems with lot one being created except for the setbacks. >> Correct. >> That's that's right. Any other questions?
All right. Now, uh do you have anything? I think you you feel comfortable that you've that you've uh given us anything that you want. Well, I'll come back to you at the end if so might be questions from people. >> I believe so. Yeah. And and I will if you know if necessary, I can get you a
corrected plan as soon as possible. >> You you're going to have to >> if you want to go before the planning board, you're going to have to do. >> Okay. So, I should get that. I'll order that. Let's wait and see what happens. We haven't decided yet, but if we do decide yes, that will be a condition, right? >> So now I'm going to go out to the
audience. >> We have I know you here. So about this about this message, please stand up and state your name and your address at 115 B Street. >> And you're on the plan?
>> Yes, I'm on the >> I guess this is what a little confusing. I'm not sure. I've got I've got basically four basic basic concerns that I have about this. I'm also hearing that only about this lot one about lot two.
>> No, but it affects it affects lot it affects lot two. So you can speak to >> say kind of what my my thoughts so I want and kind of go from there too. Yeah. But first of all, I'm concerned number one more issue I'm concerned about. I'll put this writing too if you
want to, but concerned about the um potential safety issues that are at bay here. If we if they go with if you if you go 20% closer together than they're supposed to be these two units, I'm concerned about u increased danger of
fire between them and then to me because I'm that much closer by giving us 20% closer to two huge large buildings housing. That's I'm concerned about I thought that's I don't be mean. I thought that's why people had the setback. So to keep it for fire safety.
>> Yeah. The other point I want to point I don't I don't know if you know is that my house was built in 1948. At the time um the line for the house the the borderline thing is only it's less than 6 ft from um the neighboring is less
than 6 ft from from uh here to my house is less than six feet to the line. >> It's supposed to be 10 ft but it's less than 5T. And so my concern is if they end up having to set back a further two more feet I'm already four feet closer than I should be anyways and two more
feet would be six feet. I'd actually be only 14 feet away from the structure when it really should be 20 feet. So that's fine. Just thinking ahead of time. Um and then my other thing my other concern is this area right here. This whole area if you and wishing it's all
under snow now to be looked at. This is this is a very much a wet area. Every spring it's a pond >> and then every after every every heavy rainfall in the winter in the summertime gets all filled up too. And it fills up my my my wall my my um um
>> retaining >> my retain my my cellar is right there too. And I have a lot of foundation right there. It's constantly water fills up >> the uh the down cellar down there. So, I've got a couple years ago, put a sun pump in and it goes constantly in that
in the in the springtime from anywhere from March until April and May. I really I don't know what we must have some bottles of water there because it must just somewhere uh because I guess what there is my understanding I hope you know too but I'm I' I've been told that a tributary of the cherry cherry rum
brook goes underneath there and that's why it fills up both those times in spring so it's constantly kind of filled up and and right now it's the the my sump pump is constantly in the fall in the spring in the spring and the after rains anyways I can't just think I'm
just having a hard time imagining taking up a lot of that space uh the land that would absorb it. It would make it even more pressure on mines. That's that's that's my concern about the runoff. So the question would be to how to you know I' I'd like to know you know how they
would um you know no matter how no matter how big the structure would be I'd still like to kind of know what the grading plan would be and what the pro how how we could mitigate the problem uh before time before ahead of time and is is there any zoning issue to take into
account of the amount of land needed on a property to obsane to absorb rainwater I don't know if that's a zoning issue or not too so I wanted to >> yeah I don't Well, I could >> there's you're not you're you're not supposed to drain storm water onto adjacent property. So, all storm water
should be handled on your property without draining onto an adjacent >> I wouldn't drain on my property, but because it's next because I'm only 5 ft away, all the water's there and my my seller's there just comes right in and flows in. So, I'm concerned about that. >> Yes, I think.
>> Thank you. >> So, just then my other thing is privacy. just, you know, it's my own personal thing, but I'm just concerned about 20% variance. I would have my houses when my house was built, obviously 1948. Before those houses were built was all farmland. So when I put that that that
house in there, that was the first one on the street, I guess, the two across and the one across from me 1948. It was set up the two bedrooms are facing that field, too. And so I'm concerned that that would be the be that much closer. In the end, it'd be like 14 ft from my
windows uh from the from the bedroom. So, I'm just saying if this variance was granted, which obviously I I oppose, but I'd ask that no lighting would face my property, that the windows would not be built, that windows would not be built facing my house, and that the owner
would erect a fence or a plant, the bushes 6 ft tall along the property line if we had to go through this. So, I I understand the um owners willing to, you know, need to desire to maximize their their uh the use of their land. Um it's
just that I'm concerned about the resulting fire safety, water mitigation, and privacy issues that that I'm going to face at 115 Bird Street. So, you know, I' I'd be happy to to work with the land owner about what we can do to
address some of these mitigation things, but this these really these points really stood up to me like kind of warning lights going out that I'm kind of concerned about. >> Thank you for sharing that. >> Um, you want to say something to David? >> Uh, if I could,
>> please. Uh so as far as um there's a 40% um coverage of your property to so the building could not be any bigger. There needs to be a remaining 40% of open area if I'm not mistaken. >> Correct.
>> Right. So and I do very much appreciate you being here. We did not know about the wetland issue. So clearly that has to be addressed both for whatever building that gets put on the property and certainly for yours. So, um, and one of the reasons why we requested
the 24 reduction was just to be able to move the building further away from that area and and to create more space. So, I totally am with you in regard to the proximity to both buildings. And my concern also is with the 8 foot sideyard
setback that we're our intent is not to have those two buildings only 16 ft apart. So, so that's why we tried to make this lot no lot number one as small as possible. So, it gave our options, but all your concerns are heard and
we'll definitely address them as as we move forward. Because I think about if I'm right that the way it is now though would be like it would be if it was all granted and the best case scenar I just want to show you something just for
>> so this is this being a corner lot there are no rear setbacks so this the most so this would either be 10 or eight so we're talking two feet. That would be >> I'm talking about two feet here. Just so you know, it's not it's not 30 feet or 20 feet. It's it's it's 10. So,
>> it's either 8 feet or 10 ft. And you're right. It's right on top of just so you know. Just I can't do I can't do anything with the house being 5t closer than So, it just makes it okay. >> Just for the record, we have no intention of building this close to this line. The intention is to leave this as
a actual drive area. So the building will be as far over uh as from this from this line as possible. Even though it would be very convenient to just use this big area here, right? >> Um it it it's not anything that we're really considering at this point. We
would actually put a two family before we would crush these two because then this area would just be a parking area or a grass area in the back. So >> So I guess I in here too. So, you're thinking of putting a a something on Bird Street as opposed to Silver Street.
We don't going up there yet. I mean, >> instead of instead of having this more detailed conversation, which is important for you two to have, but it's not relevant to us >> necessarily. It's re your comments are relevant >> and your general response is relevant, but how you work this out is not.
>> So, you could have that conversation >> after this meeting. Uh, that would be great. My concern still is the whole that it's still the the community thing. If we go closer there, everything's closer. And I just, you know, I'm a rule guy. I don't there's probably a reason why it's not why it's 10 ft, not 8 ft.
And so I want and want to make sure that they're as good as they can. There are building code required fire separation distances um between um of the a wall exterior wall of a building and the property line that that governs the fire rating of the wall and the percentage of
glazing you can have on that wall based on the distance of the building to the property line. So that's something that that the building inspector would actually weigh in on. >> Is there a dimension that you came up with? >> I'm looking for it right now. I don't have it off the top of my head. I mean I would take me a minute to find it but that's okay. So, I just want to say that
that's that's my concern. I don't know how this works, but my concern is I'm concerned if if let this go that then it'll all goes and so I'm just concerned about want to make my point about this before we go any further. >> Yes, that is relevant. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Anybody on online uh that would like to speak to this uh application >> correspondence chief? >> Yeah, there's correspondence. Okay. All right. So you've got you have all the correspondents.
>> Um yeah, do you just have the comments from the >> Yeah. And then well we have the fire department and uh >> right I'm so you have no um >> we have no correspondence from >> Yes, you can if you email that to us email your thoughts to Eric that'll be
great. >> And I didn't fire department just to ask and didn't hear back. Do they >> they did they they they did they commented. Well, you'll hear those shortly >> and it's public record, so I'm happy to share that. >> Okay.
>> All right. Um, from the engineering superintendent in regards to the application on two, uh, 260 Silver Street, they have no comment or issues with the proposed project. The board of health also has no comment or issues with the proposed project. Um, a memo
from Eric Forb to the zoning board of appeals dated November 25th, 2025. Um, in reference to 260 Silver Street, assessor's map 111, lot 12. The above reference parcel is located within the urban residential RA zoning district.
Properties to the north, southeast, and west are also zoned RA. In regards to special permit requests, the applicant is proposing to divide parcel 111-12 into two building lots for residential development. The applicant receiving a 20% reduction of the setback
requirements for the creation of a slot. There is an existing three family home at 260 Silver Street. The applicant indicated that the intent of the second lot is to build an is to build either a two family or three family homes on the submitted site plan. Um, the submitted
site plan shows a potential building envelope showing a 20% reduction of the setback requirements. The applicant is not seeking a reduction of the setback requirements for lot 2. At this time, if the board is inclined to approve the 20% reduction of the setback requirement for
lot one, the applicant would then need to obtain an approval not required ANR plan endorsement from the planning board prior to pulling a building permit for this construction of the home. From Alex Pulley
um from the Greenville Fire Department uh in an email dated December 9th, 2025. Um, Eric, the fire department has the following comments regarding the special permit application for 260 Silver Street. One, we need assurance that the
reduction in setbacks will not impede fire department access to emergency escape and rescue openings in either of the existing or proposed structures. Two, we must confirm that the setbacks do not exceed the required fire separation distance for the exterior wall ratings of either the existing or
proposed structures. Please let me know if you have any additional uh information if you require any additional information. Um Alex and then from Mark Snow, the building commissioner um in a memo dated December 9th, 2025 to the zoning board of
appeals. This memo outlines the inspection department's comments regarding special permit application for 260 Silver Street. The applicant is seeking a 20% reduction of the required setbacks of this location. Below are the comments potential conditions for the board's consideration. One, the board
may wish to impose a condition requiring a registered land surveyor to set the pins for the proposed structure placement to ensure compliance with the reduced minimum setback distances. Number two, the board may wish to impose a condition regarding the registered land surveyor to prepare and submit an
asbuilt site plan to the department of planning and development and the instructions department. Number three, applicants should be informed that the permits are required for the inspections department to construct or erect structures in accordance with 780 CMR Massachusetts
state building code and Greenfield zoning orient ordinance. Number four, the applicant must obtain a new street address for lot 2 during the permit the building permit process. Street addresses are assigned by the inspections department and the DPW engineering division of time request.
Number five, if the board members grant a special permit, any conditions imposed by the board should be clear and enforceable. Mark >> Okay. You have anything else you want to say? >> Uh, nope. >> Okay. So, this uh so what we do is we're
going to hear uh another application. >> Mhm. And then after we hear both applications, we'll deliberate on the applications in the order that we heard them. So then we'll deliberate on this and we'll deliberate on the other one. So if you want to stick around, then you'll be able to hear what we have to say. >> Great.
>> Thank you very much. >> We'll deliver. We will vote to do something. I promise you, I don't mean to be mysterious, but the procedure is that either we vote to approve it, we vote to reject it, or we
vote to continue. We have those three options. So, I don't know what the rest of the board is going to do, so I can't state what will happen, but there will be a vote. And if you want to stick around and listen to the deliberation, be welcome to do that.
Orman here. Okay. Um, can you please read the next application? >> Yep. Application of Edward Snow Jr. for property located >> No, no, no. It's the fix. >> Oh, I
>> All right. Application of Julia Shaw for property located at 158 Penny Plane Road, Assessor's Map R2, lot 22, which is located in the urban residential RA building district for special permit pursuant to sections 200-4.4
C17, 200-8.3, and 200-8.4 of the zoning ordinance in order to allow a dog training and boarding facility at this location. >> Okay. So, is anyone here is anyone here
online or here representing uh the Shaw in person meeting? Okay, hearing nothing, I would like to read into the record then. Um uh the the board received an email from Julia Shaw on Tuesday, December 9th to
whom it may concern. I would like to withdraw my application without prejudice that I submitted for my business proposal for a dog board and training program. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, J Star. Now I guess in the spirit of fairness is there anybody here from the audience any of the
abutters that um would like to comment on the withdrawal and if just the procedural withdrawal not the substance of the matter but the procedure withdrawal >> um could Mr. Chair please say your name I represent Mr. viceman director of butter.
>> Yeah. >> Um he's going to subversely object, but um he's going to withdraw. That's good news for my client. And um I understand that the board traditionally will allow somebody to withdraw without prejudice.
So I don't think it's worth fighting that issue. But um we would have put up a fight. That's all I can say. >> Put up a fight if the special permit came back again. >> Yes. >> Okay. Duly noted. Um, all set. >> I need a motion to uh allow the
applicant to withdraw her application uh without prejudice. >> I'll make a motion that the applicant Julie T. Shaw be allowed to withdraw her application without prejudice. Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor say I. I.
Opposed that the record show was unanimous. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Yeah. >> All righty. So now, application of Edward Snow Jr. property located at 221 Leiden Roads, assessor's map R23, lots
38, 38B, and 38C, which is located in the rural residential RC zoning district for special permit pursuant to sections 200-6.1C, 200-8.3, and 200-8.4 of the zoning ordinance in order to
allow the construction of a 60x 80 dry storage space with a clear span cover at this location. >> Okay. And sitting on the panel are Peter Rosen, PM, Eric Fine, >> David Jones, >> David Singer, and the applicant at Snow. Is he here? >> Would you like to come up and talk to
us? >> How are you? >> Good. How are you guys? >> Good. That's what it is. A storage unit. >> Well, okay. So, for the record, >> yes, >> you're coming here for zoning relief. >> Yes. We do visually see from your
submitts that you want to place a unit on your land in the in the rear somewhere there off of L Road, right? >> But can you articulate why you're here
for zoning relief? Why why aren't you just getting why didn't you just go and get a building permit? Why do you need to come before us? >> Well, we did. We went to Mark first >> and Mark sent me to Eric. >> So, here we are. >> Okay. Can I help you? >> Yep.
>> So, it's my understanding that the reason that uh the applicant is here in is here for a special permit is because the zone that the property is located RB is not currently allowed commercial use. However, the commercial use precedes the
zoning change that forbade it. So there's currently a business use there both snows landscaping and um under section 6.1 C which we became familiar with with the last application
snow is asking us to allow them to take their nonconformity and expand it because their business is growing or it's necessary for their business. uh expanded to put this structure on their properties if it's a commercial use structure to help
enlighten us. Eric sent us a prior ruling of the Sony board when Snow's landscaping came to our board in 2013. Maybe Jim was just before you were on
the board and asked to build two sheds to then also expand the non-conforming use. So, let's say they had nine sheds. They wanted to have a 10 and 11 sheds and they wanted to put those sheds on by asking for an expansion. And as it turns
out, only one shed was built. The the the zoning board allowed the special permit, which you saw, and only one shed was built. So instead of looking at it as are we is that special permit still in play, I
think what the what we're trying to do for the applicant is say this is a this is another independent request to now take let's say there were 10 and that was 11 to build the building 12 even you let us already do 11 and 12. We never built 12. Can we please build 12 again,
but can we put it in a different spot? And it's maybe a different little bit of a different size and a different shape, but it's the same principle. We had a smaller number of units when zoning changed. We're now asking for you to allow this nonconformity to be expanded. And there's a test of what we would have
to do. But the the the test is that it couldn't be detrimental. It couldn't really change the character of the neighborhood. And again we I think we all became familiar with that section uh the stone farm lane by course.
Uh yeah it's on page 63 if you're for those looking at the book on page 63. So if I Eric have I have I explained that is there anything else that could be explained?
>> Oh you explained it very well. Okay. And is there anything else that you think you want to and and just so we know it's in the back >> the snows is showing us lots of maps and I think those are property maps to show that land not one big survey parcel it's
many parcels and so they're representing to us that where it's located is one of the several parcels that are uh that are located there. Um, I guess what you could tell us though is why I obviously you needed to store equipment, but what
has happened with your business that number one, you didn't build the shed that was permitted, shed number 12 that will fall it in the first place, and why now are you coming back to ask us to do it? What's going on with you and business that you need?
>> I think in 2014 it was more of a money issue that we could talk to. You didn't want to spend the money. Exactly. >> So now here we are that many years later with this much equipment still not in storage. >> We've needed to do it the entire time.
But yes, >> it is the structure pretty much the same size as the one you asked for before. >> I think exactly the same. >> And could you just show me where like if you were to have built the other structure where it would have been located as compared to this structure?
Is it is it close proximity? >> Yep. Well, if Leon Road is here, >> this is quite a bit off Leiden Road here, but the other one's down here. So, it's it's >> So, you would have built the two over here >> and now you're closer to Leiden Road. >> Yep. >> Okay. And this is a residence. So, let's see if people are
>> These are all my houses. >> These are all your properties. >> Residents are all our houses. Yep. >> So, you're not going to complain? >> No. >> Um, any questions from the board? >> This will be building number 12. Yeah, they started with 10 and they asked for
11 and 12. They only they built 11. They did not build 12, but they the nonconformity was 10. So now there's we're expanding their non-conformity. >> Okay. Um Yes. Go ahead. >> Um so I I drove through your property
today. Um is so in in correlation of where the existing building that's like this is, where is this one planned to go? >> Further south. So you drove right down to the back building. >> Yeah. I I I I I was rude. I drove all
the way through and lived right. >> Yep. So you went by it, but it would have been on your south side. So we we own 50 acres there. >> Mhm. >> About 57 acres. And that's on the south side of that building and probably
150 yards west of it. >> Okay. >> Closer to Len Road. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And um so the structures that that are here like especially this main building that's kind of like there just before you get down to that 60 by 80 was
that when was that built? >> Okay. >> Yes. This this kind of shows >> tell me on there where these pictures on what I saw today then. >> Okay. Where's the where was the first one built in? This is where you want to build the second one. Where's the first
one's down here somewhere? It's one of these buildings down here. Yeah. Uh further down here. Yeah. >> Oh, it's closer to line road. The one you actually got permission for in 2013 is here. And this is the one you want to build now, which is further from line road. >> Yes. >> Okay.
Uh all right. Anybody from the public? >> Yes. Please state your name and your address. >> Yes. This this shows this shows it more close
up. This shows it in relation to light and road. That helps you. So 207 light and road and 197 lighting road here. I >> think right here is where you guys would be. >> I don't know if I can give you any more
help with the map the map that I have. I can show you what it looks like. Have you seen that? Is this what it's supposed to look like? >> Can I ask a question? >> Sure. >> So, what are we permitting this building as exactly
>> as an accessory? Uh as an accessory use access well accessory structures can accessory structures could mean >> you're you're looking at the accessory structures location. This is the use of
the the accessory. Let's say he did the accessory structure for >> cars at his house. Then we'd have to strip, right? >> But he's asking for accessory use expanding his current use >> which is the red barn is right.
>> If it helps you um >> the decision from 2013 um it was approved in order to allow the expansion of illegal non-conforming use. That's the verbiage that was used in that decision. So in other words, like I said, he had a
business with 10 buildings. Now he wants >> he wanted 11 and 12. He built 11 back out for 12 in a different location. So we have to decide whether we're okay with expanding that use a second again or or in sort of a famili in a similar
manner at a different location but is an independent application as long as it um does not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use. So will this expand will this new will this wealth structure
have that impact on the neighborhood? >> Right? So if we think it does then we would have we we would have to talk about it and if we think it doesn't then he could say that it's okay but he couldn't do this as a matter of right >> right
>> and he won't and if Snow wants to expand again and again that that they're locked into this not >> is there an existing gravel driveway to get to where you're going to put >> yes good question any other questions from the
And sir, you're okay. Uh, >> yeah, I think I >> Do you have anything to say for the record about you're in a butter? Do you have anything to say or you just want to see it? And >> I just wanted to see where the place was and it appears as though it's going to be actually considerably farther away, right?
>> And where the other other one was allowed. So, it's being so the other one will not be built. It's >> on the other side of that. >> Anybody else here for this? Chairman correspondence.
>> Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Goodies. >> The fire department has some concerns, but it'll be subject. If we approve it, it'll be subject to their concern. >> I do have this one. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> All right. So, um, from the engineering superintendent, they had no comment or
issues with it. Um, from Eric Forbes, the zoning board of appeals, December 8th, 2025. Um, in regards to 221 Leiden Road, um, the suburban residential district, uh, the above reference parcels located
within the suburban residential RB zoning district. Properties are to the north, south, east, and west are also zoned RB. The board issued a special permit on March 14th, 2020. It's uh, 2013, or was it 2023? 13 2013
>> 2013 um to allow the expansion of illegal non-confirming uh of illegal non-conforming use and suns and landscaping business at 221 Leiden Road by allowing the construction of two 60
foot by 80 foot storage buildings. This special permit was acted on by the construction of one of these storage buildings. The second storage building was never constructed. The current special permit request is to allow the construction of a second storage building at a new location.
All right. So from Alex Pulley, um Captain Fire Department, City of Greenfield, um dated December 8th, 2025. Um, hi. The fire department has the following comments regarding the special permit application
um for 221 Leiden Road. One storage contents and fire code requirements 527 CMR1-00 requirements under 527 CMR1- vary significantly based on the materials being stored. The fire
department requires that the applicant should provide a detailed list of the contents that will be stored within the structure. Depending on the contents, the applicant should anticipate additional fire code requirements for permits, fire protection systems, and other mandates. We draw your attention
to basic requirements for storage under 527 CMR 1.00, 00 including but not limited to 10.16.1.1 amendment requires a permit from the head of the fire department for the storage of more than 25 thou 2500 cubic
feet gross volume of combustible packing materials higher build cotton rubber pork or similarly combustible material uh 10.16.2 2 amendment. Combustible or flammable material storage must be confined to approved storage areas.
10.16.3 amendment inside storage must be orderly not within 2 ft of the ceiling and must not obstruct egress. 20.5 uh 20.15 storage occupancies compliance with section 20.15 and codes
reference chapter 2 is required including provisions for permits 20.15.2 2 door opening inspection 20.15.3.1 and testing of integrated fire protection systems 20.15.3.2
20.15.4 amendment storage arrangement protection and quantities of hazardous commodities must be in accordance with the applicable provisions of NSPA 13 30B 400 and 1124.
Number two, fire department access 18.2 2. The applicant must also comply with the standards for fire department access. Specific requirements include 18.2.2 access to structures or areas access roads must be approved by the AHJ
capable of supporting fire apparatus loads and provided with an all weather driving surface. 18.2.3.1.1 2.3.1.1 Approved fire apparatus of access roads are required for every new or relocated
facility/b building. 18.2.3.2 Access to building and facilities. Access roads must extend within 50 ft of victim's one exterior door for entry. Where a new building is located behind an existing one, the access road must extend within 15 to 25 ft. Excuse me.
H.2.3.2.2 2 diagram. Any portion of the facility for the first story exterior wall must be within 150 ft of a fire apparatus access road 18.2.3.5.1 dimensions. Unobstructed width must not
be less than 20 ft 18.2.3.5.1.1 amendment and vertical clearance must not be less than 13t 6 in 18.2.3.1.2 18.2.3 2.3.5 3.1 amendment part of the fire department. The minimum
in size current radius is 25 ft off >> but the AHJ may increase this to accommodate local apparatus >> 18.2.5 18.2.3.4 dead end dead end roads over 150 ft long
require approved provisions for turnaround 18.2.3.6 Six gradient gradient shall not exceed 10% 18.2.3.6.1 amendment and the angle of approach departure shall not exceed 1 ft drop in
20 ft. 18.2.3.2.2 with an asterisk. Not sure why but still on there. Okay, last page. Mark Snow memo dated December 9th, 2025. The memorandum provides comments and
potential conditions for the board's consideration regarding the special permit application to allow the construction of a 6 foot by 80 foot dry storage space with a clear cover road. Comments and potential conditions. The board should inquire about the types and amounts of materials and products that
will be stored in the structure. The board may wish to establish whether the international shipping includes the clear span structure attached to are included in the structures 39 umt 5 in by 23t 4 in by 79 umt 11 in dimensions
or if the shipping containers add additional square footage to structure. The applicant should be made aware that permits are required in accordance with 780 CMR Massachusetts state building code and Greenfield zoning ordinance for any alteration/change of use,
construction or erection of structures from the instructions department. The applicant should be made aware that stamp and signed engineered plans for the structured are required in accordance to the 780 CMRMS state building code as part of the build ping permit process. If a special permit is
granted, any conditions imposed by the board should be clear and enforceable. Mark stopped. >> Yes, I need some water. >> Yes, but okay. >> So, Ed, um, what types and amounts of
materials and products are you going to put in there? You know, >> it's mostly equipment. Um, but for the business. >> Yes. >> So, we're going to make it. It's going to have to be for the business. >> Yes. Okay. >> And I mean, I'll obviously go see the fire department. I I had a good
conversation with Mark about what we were going to put in, how we were going to use it. It's dry storage, no heat, no water. It's it's it's pavement underneath it. Um, >> you got power in a building, right? >> No power. >> No power. >> No power. Uh, so pretty straightforward.
It's under 5,000 square feet, so it's doesn't require any fire sprinkler systems no matter what's in it. Uh I don't know what that was. I have no idea what all that was. See from the fire department, but I'll gladly go talk to them and and get a better feel.
Obviously, they see this what we were proposing. So, I don't know where he would be. Farmers have these all the time everywhere. So, it's it's kind of an unusual request to to go too crazy with the the fire thing, but we our trusses are designed for heavy snow
load, which we shouldn't have a problem with that type of building. And as far as fire goes, I can't imagine. As far as access goes, they have easy access to it. Uh, as far as I don't know. >> So, if we were to limit the use of dry
storage related to the business, that would not that be okay. >> Totally. >> Okay. Uh I guess the question is so I noticed that the uh each of the each of the structures in the 2013 request were 4,800 ft. This is 3160
square ft except for these. Are you do you intend to have these two things as part of it? >> They're not they're on the outside of it. I mean they're they're actually brand new 40 foot containers. So, they're not what you see as shipping containers all beat up and they're and they're they're the side door containers, which I think there's a
picture of it in a second, >> but is that part of the structure? >> Uh, the the square footage on the inside is actually the 4,800 ft. So, the the 60 by 80 is the >> includes includes So, okay.
>> 60 by 80 includes these little shipping containers. Was that the case in the first instance as well or >> Well, those are wood instructions from the first. >> That's Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. >> One of the things in the document from the fire department and and Mark Snow
saying it's needs to be enforcable. I think we can say dry storage, but we need to say whether it's combustible, dry storage or non-combustible or whatever whatever that all that means. >> I figured there was probably a deeper definition. We >> can't I don't think we should just say dry storage. Do you want to ask some
questions of Ed to see what >> I I think it's up to him to define what that is to submit to the fire department. >> Oh, okay. But do you think we should if if we were to say dry storage, would that limit it enough for you in terms of what Mark Snow is asking us to do or would that be kind of superfluous? It wouldn't really
>> Well, I mean, I think we just need to say as Mark wants, you know, what is it that we what is it that the fire department needs to know? And if it's purely non-combustible material, it's just all to say that. Right. But if there is materials that are combustible, you should list that there is five
gallons or whatever it is. So when when when the when that gets submitted for a permit, it's clear to the fire department at Mark Snow. So if he can enforce that criteria. >> Okay. Can I say something? Well, just so I mean we could either say you can't put
non-combustible you can't put combustible stuff in there then becomes a condition or we could say we'll approve the structure >> and you you have your own conversation with the other city officials to decide whether you want to put it in there because
>> maybe combustible is what he needs like a vehicle. I don't know if that's combustible. I I I think the fire department is trying to make a point that if we go to that scene and there's combustible material in it and it's got a high flash point, whatever, firefighter isn't going in there not knowing what the material is that may be
ignited by. Well, >> so that that that'll get figured out with the building permit because it's a it's a it's a storage building. There's all different kinds of storage buildings dep um depending on what's stored inside that building. So, it'll be an S1 or an S2, a high hazard storage or a low hazard storage. That'll all be part of
the building permit process, I think. And so, and so the building permit process will define what actually is stored in this building. And all we I think what we have to do is is just to is just to say that the building has to conform to uh conform to the the the
state building code um uh uh as as determined by Mark Snow. >> Right. But we are in a residential neighborhood. So if and we're giving permission to expand a use. So the question is is and we could do this when we deliberate. The question I would have is do we want to limit what's in there?
I'm just so dry storage means doesn't mean necessar is is there going to be anything in there that's combustible? >> Of course. Um all my equipment all my equipment has gas engines in them. >> Okay. >> But that can't >> but they know my entire property is that way. They know that they we have
underground fuel tanks. They they visit you relationship with the fire department. >> I get it. Well, it's not only that. It's just where do we stop and they pick out, you know what I mean? We we have jurisdiction to make narrower make conditions. Okay. Any other qu good
point. Any other >> Okay. So, we'll make our decision tonight. Do you have anything else you want to say? Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. Do we need the you know what break or should we go right to
go right to it? Yeah. Okay. All right. So, I'm gonna I'm gonna So, for the application on on Silver Street, um so my general thought is it should be
continued. We should vote to continue it. We shouldn't dismiss it because I think there's some merit to what they're doing. And I generally feel like these kinds of cases we generally do give permission for, but I don't like the
other side. I don't like the fact that we don't know what's going on the other lot. I in the beginning I thought that it was a benign situation, but the fact that the that the square footage isn't right, that there's, you know, there's there's where's the update?
It it's no offense to the project. I think that I think your idea is a good idea. I mean, I don't want to say I don't want to mean anything against that, but I think that while you're being forced to go through steps because you have to divide it and you have to know the you have to know the sideyard in order to divide it and
you have to go to the planning board and come back to us. I think by the time you come back to us, there may be conditions out there that we can't we can't limit. And it sounds like the Abutter needs some something for we need to do
something for the Abutter to protect this Tim from the second lot. I don't know exactly what, but um and I don't know what if we if we actually will, but I think there's enough out there that I would like to know about the wetlands back there. I'd like to know about um
I'd like them I'd like the plan to be accurate so we look at an accurate plan. >> Accurate square footages. Uh but that that so I I I mean there might be other reasons that people want to bring up about why but I think we should continue it. So that's that's my that's my sense. Go ahead. >> I'd like clarification on the fire
separation distance and and and what's required um whether 10 whether it's 8 ft or 10 ft and and whether um the existing building is going to be a conforming structure with that reduced setback. >> Okay. That's very important. There's a
lot of questions, right? There's that question. There's Yeah. >> Water question. Yes. And I found it concerning that the applicant representative didn't know about the water situation there at all. That that is very concerning especially for the uh
about its own. Okay. So we're going to continue it with and and and if you want us to take it up. So what are the things we want the applicant to do over the next to for the next meeting? We want what would you
Let's make a list. >> An accurate map. >> Yeah, >> accurate map. We know that. >> Yeah. >> Now, the fire department has already told us what they need. So, the question is, are we going to ask the applicant to go deeper into their project to show us what they're going to do there, or is
that really on them to overcome the fire department's concerns? >> Well, the fire department specifically uh stated the fire separation distance sort of as as an issue to to uh to address. And so I think that I think demonstrating that the existing building
with the current configuration of windows all construction is within is going to meet the requirements of an 8ft fire separation to the property line. >> Well, we're only dealing with lot one on this. We're only dealing with lot one and so really it doesn't pertain to us
until we get to that. >> Right. Well, I I think we can at least take the position that we can anticipate that lot one being shrunk to 8 ft is so that in the best case scenario, they'll shrink lot 2 to 8 ft. So, at the end of the day, the minimum the the narrowest it
will be by our by the zone under the zoning orders will be 18 uh 16 ft. So, the question is if there's 16 ft there on its face, is that is that okay? Right. >> Well, it's to the property line. It's it it's it's the distance from the building to the property line, not the distance
between buildings on two separate pieces of property, >> right? But the closest they could get based on their next request will be will allow them to get within 8 ft. So the fire So I would like to know I guess the answer I'm I'm sharing the same I'm not seeing it exactly but I'd like to know from the fire department if it ends up
that there's a building on the lot 8 feet on the other lot and there's a building there now 8 feet that exists. Is that 16 feet okay? And if it isn't okay, then then we have to start to think about conditioning our our uh if we're going to allow this, we
have to place conditions on what happens on the second lot. Right. >> Right. >> Well, I'm going to go back to comment Chuck made by, you know, there's a whole approval process by the building department, the fire department, and I read I heard that whole list of things that need to get done. And then the
person who has the right to enforce it is either the building inspector or the fire department. But there's also a statement in there, make it enforceable. Well, in fact, they're the ones who make it enforceable. So, you know, I mean, I I think we need to have them come back, whoever, with a plan that is enforcable
by the building officials. So, >> you would like to see something on lot two at this point. >> Well, and not only lot two, but you know, we we commented to Snow's about being, you know, enforceable. Well, he Mr. Snow indicated that he works with the town. All these issues that were
brought up, they've already dealt with. So if we issue it, we issue with the fact that it has to be built or and implemented in an enforcable way by the various bodies of jurisdiction. Okay. You know, because I think it'd be dangerous for us to say something that
Mark Snow or the fire department may be in disagreement with. Well, if I understand you, Ken, it would seem to me that we can't it it wouldn't be in anybody's best interest to allow this to happen without us knowing what's
going to be on lot two. >> Yeah. >> And where it's going to be located. >> And that has to come with >> so that so that the wetlands issue, the wet the the wetness issue can be dealt with, the fire issue can be dealt with. But but but law 2 will come to us as a
separate project that we can evaluate on its own merits independent of of this. >> Right. But if if if they come back if they decide not to do not to request the 20% reduction on lot two and we have no
jurisdiction over lot two. We don't have we have jurisdiction over lot two now because we can condition what happens to lot two on our allowing the 20% reduction. If we give an open uh special permit on lot one that they get the
eight feet, then they're free to do anything they want on lot two and you know and and it could be that the building is really close. Even 10 ft is too close and even and it and it's going to disrupt the the the water
situation. So is my question is do we need to know like do we need to draw dots on lot two and say if this is your building in order for you to get this now they could also say the heck with you and divide lot two with 10 ft and 30
whatever and we have no jurisdiction but then that other lot's really tiny and maybe it's maybe then it becomes almost impossible to build so it's kind of a compromise but I'm feeling like I guess The question to everybody
should we now begin to think about a condition of this ex of this um this some sort of participation what happens on lot two that's my question and that could be answered next meeting that's one of the reason my inclination would
be that look at the merits of lot one as lot one would and and go on the assumption that lot two whatever they put there does not require any special permits would And then they they will now if if they and going about it that way they need to understand that there's
a risk that they might not get a special permit for part for a per for lot two. I mean because we because they want to break because I understand totally what they're doing. It makes logical sense. But the risk of doing it this way is that you may not they may not get what
they want at that point. But I don't feel it's our place to guide them through their entire process to help them decide what's going to happen on lot two. >> But the special permit standard is how does it impact the neighborhood? >> Yep. >> So instead of this being a clear in
front of us how this special permit will affect the neighborhood. the effect on the neighborhood is something that could happen in the future based on their decision which is then out of our control because we had a moment in time when we could say these are conditions that we want to see implemented in order
to grant this special relief or we could say your your relief is for HP fine you do what you need to do here if you need relief from us again go for it I think I I would like to continue it so that how have I put it this way I'd like to continue it so that we all think about
how we're going answer that question. I >> I totally agree. We can pick into this information we don't have. I'm just saying for what exactly what we were just talking about that when we look at the impact of the neighborhood, we look at the impact of the neighborhood as if there is no special permit going to half
of our lot too because that's all we can work with. That's that's where I would concur with Debian 100%. Okay. I think we're saying >> yes. I think we're Yeah, but I I would like information about Okay. If it is an 8 foot set back from the property line,
you know, what about the separation? Is that area of that area? Is it a wetlandish? You know, not necessarily classified as wetlands, but it's a known problem. How how is that going to impact the neighbor
by what we're doing here on one? >> Okay. So, I hear a motion to continue. >> I'll make a motion to continue. >> Any discussion? All right. to continue to next meeting. >> Right. >> All in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Let the record show it was
unanimous. >> See one of our options, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Any comments? >> Uh, well, >> it's in regard to the concern that we just brought up that we did not discuss earlier that I feel I should at least
address. >> Okay. Well, here's here's I I want you to address them, but addressing them now isn't going to be helpful because we discontinued it. So, we're really think for your benefit. We we talk very in a
lot of detail and the information that we talked about is for you to take back to I mean, if you're a partner, then you get it as a partner and take it back to the applicant and understand what you have to talk about at the next meeting. It's the next meeting that you need to
do all your talking. Doing it now has no re it doesn't help anything because we're not deliberating anymore. >> Okay. >> I didn't mean I don't mean to be rude about it, but it's not it's not going it's it's I just >> I understand I'm a little I'm a little frustrated because I feel that um we
were not here to discuss what was happening with number two. And we're here to discuss number one. And we're talking about two feet on the side of the yard. And now we're delaying the process for the for my friend for another couple of months.
>> No, it's 30 days. >> And and by the way, >> by the way, you're asking for a special permit. Once you enter the world of special permit, then we have jurisdiction over all the questions that we ask. So I I'm sorry you feel frustrated. >> Well, can I ask one more question? Do I need >> one more question?
>> Okay. Um, will I be able to ask you before the next meeting, do you need me to have a wetland statement for the water issues that are on the property? What what can you give me a list of specifically what you're requiring me to do for the next meeting? And and you
know, in all fairness to my friend, he has no immediate intention of doing anything with lot. This is really about just separating the two lots. So, I would just like that know exactly what you would like from me so I can be prepared for that. >> No, we do not need a we do not need you
to spend money to get a a wetlands determination. But now that the issue's been raised, it puts us in a position of understanding that there are conditions out there that are uh deeper than just dividing the lie.
So that makes us need to think about. So that's that's I'll leave you with that >> and and again, you know, I you come next meeting, do do your best and uh we're we're open to listening, but you're hearing what our concerns are. >> Accurate map.
>> Well, accurate map was going to happen anyway. All right. Okay. Thank you. Um next, uh can I hear a motion to approve the application of Ed? Snow. Uh subject to conditions. I'll make a motion to
approve the application from Mr. Snow. >> All right. Can you read it into the record from the um please from the >> I make a motion to approve the application of Eden Snow Jr. for property located at 221 road assessor's
map R23 lot 38 33B through 38B and 38C which is located in the rural residential RC zoning district for a special permit to sections 2 pursuant to sections 200-6.1C 200-8.3
and 200-8.4 four of the zoning ordinance in order to allow the construction of a 60 foot by 80 foot dry storage space with clear span cover at this location >> subject to the following >> following conditions. I hear a >> second. >> Second.
>> Okay. So, what conditions do we want to oppose? >> Per building inspector's memo and per the fire inspector's memo. >> Is there anything was Eric Eric? Uh >> Eric was just clarifying what it was that they were asking about and just
letting us know that they'd come before the board. Like there's no >> Okay, let's >> recommendations. >> Let's look at the building inspector is asking us to go deeper. We're not if we just use the building inspector's memo, we're kind we're not helping the building inspector.
>> So number one, they want to talk about the types and amounts of materials and products that will be stored in the structure. >> So number one, it has to be related to the business snow and sun landscaping. And then the question I I can't answer, so I need help, is should we limit should we do as he asked and and
describe the types of materials that'll be in there or do we leave it that it's a storage? We're we're accepting the storage unit and it's up to Ed and his group to go through the regulations. >> Going back to what? >> Yeah, last last question just now. Do you have an inventory with the fire
department now of what's listed in your buildings? >> Well, they're going to require that. You don't have that. So required intensity. >> Well, item one was pro prepared a list
of materials that will be stored in the in the facility >> and and provide it to the fire department. >> Yeah. To provide it to the fire department. >> And that answer you feel like that's sufficient to answer. >> That would be sufficient to answer. >> Okay. Um on number two,
well provide a list of equipment and um materials being stored to the fire department. Okay. And now what Ed was saying was that if you add in these storage contain the shipping containers then the dimensions
are bigger than what than the dimensions that are shown here for the for the structure but they're no bigger than the other special permit. So, do we we want to state something about the because the size he's asking for is size 39 width
time by 79 length, but it seems like you're asking for these two to be considered also as part of the structure, the the containers. >> The containers are the anchor of the spin. So, >> okay. So, they're going to have to be
there as part of the structure. Well, they are asking for 60 by 80 and the dimensions listed here are only 40 by 80. So I think I'm sorry they are asking the extra mile is in the width of the works. It works. >> So so we can answer yes that it is the overall structure is 60 by 80.
>> So no condition >> no condition. uh you know generally speaking uh we incorporate by reference the application and it has to you know we're allowing the special permit based on the the representations made in the application.
Uh I don't think there's anything else I think >> um >> there's a lot about fire access fire fire truck access. >> Yeah I think we're just on marks one though right now. Oh, sorry. I hope you
don't believe Mark. >> The rest of those are just information really. >> Informational. Yes, I will agree. Go ahead, Chuck. >> Well, I'll wait till we're done. Sorry. >> We just were going. You had all the pictures. >> So, the fire the fire department had a number of issues, right, about length of
road, structure of the road. >> So, we'll incorporate we'll incorporate the fire department's uh members of the board. >> Yeah. Okay. Good. >> Yeah. I mean, because this this whole memo just says what the codes are, >> and I think he's I I feel he meant this
to beformational um to the applicant so that he was aware of making sure he meets all these conditions. >> I think we can just refer to the memo. >> Refer to the memo. At least we that means that that the applicant was noticed of these things.
I'll do the last to meet them on site >> of course. >> Yeah. Between the fire department. >> Yeah, I'm sure you can. >> Yeah. All right. Anything else, Chuck or anybody? >> No. >> Okay. hearing hearing that there's no
further discussion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Let the record show it's unanimous. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We're done with uh the zoning meeting.
Uh yeah. Yeah. double or 11. >> Thank you. We have minutes and accepted our Okay, before we do that,
let's introduce Ella to the four remaining people online. Why don't you send it to you? You're not going to be here.
>> Send it to me. My email still for that. Thank you very much. >> So, you have meeting next is it every >> It's the second third. It's the second Thursday of each month at 6:30. Okay. >> Here. And if you look on the screenfield calendar for the second Thursday, you'll
see ZBA and you click on it, you should be able to see that this will be on the agenda. Okay? >> And what time it'll be on the agenda. >> This will bring more stuff. Anything I can bring. I should bring you can zoom in or come in person. I will let you also welcome to email anything you have,
email anything you have to discuss. >> And you're also welcome to speak with >> Can I do too much? My concern was health. >> No, not at all. No. >> Excellent presentation. >> All right. Have a good night. >> So, I'd like to introduce to the board
and members of the public, Ella Wise, who is the new planning director for the city of Greenfield. >> Uh, as the board knows, my last meeting is a week from tomorrow. And so, this is my last zoning board appeals meeting. Um, so I just want to say for myself, it's been a pleasure with working with
this board over the years. I'm going to miss you all and uh I'll let Ella introduce herself and give a little background of our history. Great. >> Great. Hi everyone. >> Hi. >> I'm honored to work here um and with all of you. Look forward to it. Um, I just
want to say thank you so much to Eric, the current director, um, for his many years of service. And so, obviously, he's been, um, steering the ship with great integrity, um, and
discipline. And I've had a overlap now of about two and a half weeks. Um, and he's been so generous with his time, coaching me through this transition. So, thank you, Eric. Um, yeah, really excited to be here. I currently live in Boston with my two kids and my husband
and we've been um looking to move to Western Mass and I've been looking I worked for the city of Boston as a um I work on development review and um or I did up until 3 weeks ago and um have been wanting to move and work on in a
smaller jurisdiction, a smaller city and from a small town and uh that's where I've wanted I have 10 years of more than 10 years of experience but I've wanted to focus on um a smaller city and Greenfield has so much going for it. Um
thanks a lot in part to the work of the city staff and um very engaged citizenry like all of you. So I'm happy to contribute to that. >> Welcome. >> We're going to miss you. Uh there's one other thing
recogniz >> recognize the service of Jim Win. Go on to present to Jim certificate of recognition for years of service on the ZBA signed by the mayor. >> Well, thank you so much. >> Thank you.
>> You're going to be missed. Jim, >> anybody want to say I I would like to say Jim, it's been a pleasure. We've been on other boards. It's always a pleasure to serve on a puzzle with you. >> We don't agree all the time, but we get along >> when we don't agree. That's our favorite thing. Um uh you know, you're uh you're a solid
guy and you you're levelheaded, you're reasonable, you brought a lot of uh good stuff to this board. >> I'm going to miss going out, meeting the people, looking at what they're doing. That was always the best part. >> Yeah. You're you've got good common sense. >> I used to meet you all the time. I was
leaving you be driving in. >> Jim was the one who enticed me. Oh yeah. Uh oh. He's still speaking to me, too. >> 10 years later, you're still speaking. >> He's the one to blame now. >> All right. So, uh before everybody goes,
um we have something for Eric. You're not going to get away with without being honored by the board that you worked so hard with. a pain in the ass. Scarman. >> This is awesome. You want me to open this now? >> Well, I just want to say Yeah. Just, you know,
>> speak first. >> We don't want to put it underneath the creek. Open it now. >> This is to honor you and all the work you've done for us. And uh like I said here, it seems like a broken record. You and I didn't always disagree either.
Don't worry. And uh but yet you know I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and uh we always got the job done and I learned a lot from you and I I want to thank you for all the time you gave to this city and uh you've done a lot of
good things there. I hope you leave feeling good about yourself and what you've done for Greenfield. That's that's the most important thing >> and I do I you know I feel honored to have worked for the city and that's how me great many things accomplished great city. No, I totally agree with you >> and thank you for making a a smooth
transition. That's that's very menchy and uh so yes, now you can >> first. How about the card? You missed your brother, right? >> Yes. >> Oh, I like the the card already. >> That's nice. Yeah, it's
>> the icon of Greenfield. >> Dear Eric, thank you for your many years of guidance and your hard work for the city of Greenfield. The ZBA is very grateful to you for your years of service. Wish you the very best in your retirement as you navigate the obstacles
of what do I do with my free time. Thank you very much. Young and old. the most fun you'll ever have on Earth. >> It's take back the tape. >> I am never shy with tape.
>> Oh man. all the places you got to visit. Now, >> this is awesome. I can't even >> all the national parks. You know, I was I was going to go on the internet and actually go search for something like this because I have already like done 20 of them and I need to mark them off. >> You got my brain.
>> In that little package are little green trees that you can go ahead and you can put in the ones you've already visited. >> That's sweet. >> And then it's you can either hang it on the wall or that's a stand there for you to put it. >> Awesome. Awesome. Now I got more to visit now. Now that I see him,
>> now you know where you're going. >> It's a nice solution, right? You know, no websites involved. Just >> easy pegboard, right? >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Eric. >> Okay, the family.
We still have to do uh >> meeting all the minutes. >> Approve the October minutes. Say the date specifically, please. >> October 9th, 2025. Minutes. >> Thank you. Uh, I hear a second. >> I will second that. >> Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Let the record show as
unanimous. I'll make the motion to approve the November 13, 2025 minutes of CPA meeting. >> I'll second it. >> Any discussion? >> No. >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any oppose? Let the record show it was unanimous.
Um, next meeting is Janu Oh, January 8th is January 8th and um I hear >> make a motion. We can be a journey. >> You make a motion. You can even second it if you want.
>> All in favor. Merry Christmas. Happy holiday.