##VIDEO ID:ZrXHIoaZueI## I am going to call this meeting to [Music] order at 6:02 p.m. this meeting is being recorded by the economic development committee if any person's present are doing the same you must notify the chairperson at this time um oh there's a new notice on here okay I'm going to do a roll call of attendance councelor Garrett I'm here councelor Gordon here councelor Healey here councelor minhas here and I am here um I we need uh to approve the minutes from December 10th 2024 so moved second thank you um wait I have to do I think I have to do a roll call vote all in favor so I will do councelor Garrett yes councelor Gordon I abstained because I wasn't here he councelor Healey yes councelor minous yes okay okay and um I will take public comment so if um anyone is online hold on I see people in the waiting room okay I will take public comment um if anyone online would like to speak you can put your name and address in the chat and I will call you U but I'll call Joan Marie Jackson good evening even Happy New Year to everyone um my name is Joe Marie Jackson and I live at T Chestnut Hill I attended the state public hearing last Friday January 10th on draft regulations for adus I say at the outset that I do not comprehend why the city council is reviewing Greenfield zoning ordinance changes now when the state of Massachusetts has not even published its final version of Adu regulations I heard a number of people at that hearing complained that the draft regulation should be changed to make it clear that only single family homes can add an Adu not homes that are already two or three family dwellings Jeff Lacy a Conway land use consultant testified that the draff regulations appear to be a misguided response to what he called quote years of frustration with local ordinances and bylaws that restricted many residential areas of of municip alties solely to single family dwellings often on larger Lots than appeared necessary we don't do that in Greenfield our residential zones like the ra Zone I live in allows a single family two family and three family dwellings by right same as the Suburban residential RB Zone the semi-residential SR and we even allow two and three family dwellings in our health services District our limited commercial district and our General commercial District we allow multif family houses in all our residential districts by special permit we do not have exclusionary zoning like the woman from pelum who said her town has a minimum two acres for a lot in her town I am troubled by our City's draft regulations which say in section D2 two on Adu standards that only one Adu may be created within a single family or two family house or house lot the two family house should be deleted Greenfield should only allow one Adu on a single family lot note also that our new single definition of an Adu means that if I add a second self-contained housing unit inside a principal dwelling with sleeping cooking and sanitary facilities at a separate entrance and a separate entrance through the principal dwelling that's an Adu it's not a duplex or a two family home it's a principal dwelling with an interior Adu and I should not be allowed to add a second Adu on that lot the state law says it applies to the use of land or structures for a single accessor accessory dwelling unit our proposed ordinance has no definition of what a dwelling unit is but the draft State reg say a dwelling unit is a house is a housing unit for one or more persons what's the occupancy limit for a 900 foot Adu shouldn't we State shouldn't we State the building code limit in our ordinance so we don't discover s or eight people crammed into a home inflicting a one-size fits-all mandate that supersedes the constitutional right of our cities towns villages to Zone and enact comprehensive planning is ill considered let us develop in a way that is compatible with each community's water quality resources transportation and infrastructure needs uh and I also ask if um you table this until the state regs come out in February thank you thank you we have a couple I do just want to so folks know uh in case I don't know you have something better to do tonight um we do not have the Adu um regulations on this agenda what we do have on this agenda is the citizens petition for the Adu um which uh we have to move forward tonight because it's running up against the deadline uh for the process for zoning that we have to follow so we do have to make a recommendation on that but we do not have um the Adu changes as written by our planning department on our agenda for tonight just so everyone knows that uh that is anticipated to be on February's agenda so um I will go to Stephanie du clost online Stephanie you have three minutes you're ready sorry I had a I have a different phone my phone is all messed up um Stephanie Duos 166 champman Street um I'm speaking actually I was also sitting in on and did give public comment and written form to um the public hearing that that um Joe Marie Jackson was just talking about um as Al was there as well and so was Mitch and uh at least I think Susan might have been there maybe another couple people from Greenfield um I did want to say that um I urge you to vote um no on the medical clinic um REM you know making that by right uh I believe that is on this agenda tonight uh I also support the comment um regarding the Adu and um the fact that uh the Milton case did support that the Attorney General uh can um uphold you know her Authority it however said that until those regulations are promulgated uh properly it the ACT is not enforceable um that's actually in the um the written uh text case text of the um of Milton also wanted to support um bringing back the resolution wab um has put forth it's it's incredibly important that everybody understands uh what was voted on and you know what the rationale possibly was behind some of the that um I know that it was a really convoluted convers during the uh last City meeting and it was really hard to follow on what exactly after all the amendments were proposed and what exactly was voted on and I know that a few of you guys were um you know super tired or coming from illness and congratulations Garrett on your uh new addition and I know you're probably not getting very much sleep either so I just wanted to again uh reiterate that um you know you do not consider medical clinics uh by use um by right thank you thank you Stephanie um Mitch speed go shoulding good evening Mitch Spade my I live at two Chestnut Hill I testified last Friday at the state's Adu Reg ation hearing I heard citizens from the cape to the berkers criticizing the vague language and overreach of the housing and livable communities Adu language that goes beyond statutory language one form of planning board member have to leave it open because it's one there are also dangers that implementing regulations can straight into legislative Creep by trying to insert substance with legislature left it out Massachusetts is a home rule state where the zoning Powers reside at the city and town level any narrowing of this Authority is a serious matter especially if accomplished by regulation rather than by direct action of the legislator itself several citizens said that for the purposes of these regulations the words principal dwelling should be defined to mean a single family dwelling only two family three family dwellings and multif family dwellings apartment buildings and even commercial buildings with an internal apartment goes Way Beyond the legislative intent to provide an alternative to exclusively single family zoning District instead of implementing the new state law what housing and liable communities has done is unlawfully extended what the legislator established I said at the hearing that the use of the words reasonable and unreasonable throughout these regulations are arbitrary and capricious because they are unmeasurable and therefore subject to vary interpret varying interpretations from municipality to municipality or court to court is the state going to open office of unreasonable regulations to handle City appeals I am also concerned that our draft ordinance eliminates the requirement for a site planned review for a lot that that will now have two dwellings on it instead of one our site plan review ordinance requires design features which will inte integrate the proposed development into the existing landscape maintain neighborhood character enhance aesthetic assets and Screen objectional features from Neighbors and roadways our site plan review ofal RS evaluate the provisional provision of open spaces and protection of historic features and design which does not detract from properties in the area I do not want neighbors to see us lose these protections State ad Adu law allows cities to include reasonable regulations including but not limited to site plan review I urge the city council to back go back to the September 26 2024 version of our Adu ordinance to require a site plan review for any detached Adu again this is a blatant attack by the governor to and single family zoning As We Know It This is a this is a debacle not only governmentally but politically wrongheaded thank you and Al Norman good evening for the record my name is Al Norman I live on grenell Street 105 voters in Greenfield filed the zoning Amendment designed to limit the density of small lots and prevent the overcrowding of structures our zoning ordinance defines open space as quote ground space other than that occupied by structures one of the purposes of our zoning is to facilitate the adequate provision of open space unquote that doesn't just refer to a vast Open Meadow or Parcels of five acres or more open space is part of all of our properties we ask the city to consider setting a threshold floor for a small lot of half an acre that's a parcel with 27,000 excuse me 21,780 Square ft or larger we propose that half of that minimum lot or 10,890 ft would be open space for a pollinator Garden a child's play area or just a natural landscape that leaves roughly 10,000 square ft² for primary dwelling footprint and a 900 sqt Adu and an impervious driveway for cars if half an acre is too high for you a threshold come up with your own definition of what a small small parcel is a quarter of an acre we have the right to impose dimensional limits on land use such issues as minimum lot size and open space are a legitimate part of Greenfield zoning as legitimate as setbacks Frontage and height we should have the design control to say which lots are too small for a second dwelling if you add a second home we believe open space should go from 50 40 to 50% to stress the importance of preserving open space close to neighbors Greenfield zoning has moved Way Beyond single family residential enclaves my neighborhood has many historic homes a century or older that uh that once was nearly a single family uh District exclusively today it's a mix zone of two three and multif family homes condo clusters a nine-story highrise and social service group homes like the one right next to me Massachusetts courts have said that home rule gives cities the rights to quote regulate the use of land buildings and structures to the full extent of their independent Constitutional Powers the state is now taking away the power to limit the use of land and giving themselves the power to protect land uses like solar battery solar battery storage accessory dwelling units from local zoning so don't dismiss the ideas in citizen petitions work with your constituents to prevent the state from painting us into a dense Urban corner and the reason I'm urging you to table this motion is that the regs aren't final and I will I will I would like uh Madame chair the record to show that that I was uh objected to the fact that uh city council has apparently stated uh that the citizens petition does not meet the statute uh and that we don't have an opportunity to rebut that so that document has not been made public and for it to be used as a weapon against us is simply unfair and I will state that in a separate letter to the the full Council that I don't want to be told that uh we have a ruling or a decision from the uh the City attorney that has not been made public that's not how we should be doing things in Greenfield really I mean put it put the table out don't don't make me go to a public records request to find out what this lawyer is recommending I have I have reasons to rebut the fact that the dimensional limits like the ones we're proposing are in fact uh legitimate and and reasonable and not unreasonable to impose on on a lot that has become a two home lot instead of a oneome lot so I don't want I you know I I want to you know protest that that you are kind enough to tell me that that's something that you've received but I want protest that that should not be part of this hearing unless it's been made public for us to rebut thanks thank you okay we do not have any is there I just want to make sure no one else online would like to see Public public okay um we do not have any public hearings tonight so um I'm going to read order number FY 25-38 and um this is the city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield Economic Development Committee take from the table order number FY 25-0 24.2 amend the zoning ordinance chapter 200 section 200- 48 mixed residential business uses by striking subsection a in its entirety and placing it with replacing it with language in bold as follows in attached exhibit a amend section 200- 48 mixed residential business uses of the zoning ordinance to allow first floor dwellings in mixed use Lots by amending section A so that reads as followed um striking all dwelling unit shall be above the first floor level the street level which faces the street with the highest traffic use and adding first floor dwelling unit shall not be allowed along the street side with the highest traffic use and further amends the table of contents and index of the code and further that non-substantive changes to the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield which was tabled at the December 10th 2024 economic development meeting so second thank you um and I think now we have to all vote to take this from the table um so if you are in favor of taking this from the table please say yes if not say no counselor Garrett yes sorry yes counselor Gordon yes counselor Healey no okay councelor minhas no okay I'm a yes um so this the motion is now on the table um I do not have to read it again I checked that before I came um so this motion we have to do something with um we have to move the process forward to follow the zoning ordinance procedure um which our deadline is February 5th uh so we have to make a recommendation in this meeting uh I don't yeah I don't know what we would do if we didn't vote to take it from the table would not know what to do so um I we did receive a recommendation from the planning board on this which was at its November 7th meeting the planning board uh after deliberation take took a vote and it was 5 to Z to forward a positive recommendation to the city council to amend section 200 -4 48 um I'm going to give everyone a chance to talk I will say um I did a lot of research between last month um when we tabled this and this month um I have a number of amendments I would like to make to this which I think are substantive so my and I I'll share those those amendments that um just for the sake of people knowing like what I'm probably going to present next month but um I read through like Bill R Northampton conquered Lexington uh a few others and um there was some really good things in there and I think past pass ing this forwarding a positive recommendation or passing this as it is is not doing diligence to what we need in the central commercial District um some of the other things that were covered were like safety lighting parking sound um one ordinance had a specific line that like the only thing that could be built on first floor was handicap accessible units could be granted not Main Street facing um there's also was like like floor area ratio which I don't understand that unit of measure but like we could have a square footage ratio to say like this percentage must remain commercial on the Main Street facing area Northampton also breaks up their downtown in an interesting way that we could think about writing into like which areas of Main Street and federal um things like secure entrance sharing common walls um maximum and minimum commercial area so uh I am going to vote against this so that we start this process over and can amend it to um more properly reflect I think what downtown needs to maintain businesses anyone else would like to speak on it yeah I'm gonna say so I know you guys have heard my thoughts about this before and I think we can come to a compromise I like the idea coun book that you proposed of like percentage type scenario where you have either like a 6040 type thing or it can be um on square footage of how much commercial activity needs to be there I just want there to be a priority for the commercial District to be a commercial um and so that it can support our our local businesses and the opportunity for new local business to be able to go in um other than that yeah I think if if we can work together on this and come up with something better other than just a complete cart launch um we can go forward with that great um so I am also inclined to vote this down in the form it stands not because I think this is a car launch I don't I actually think this is a major net Improvement to what currently exists so in the central commercial District right now you're allowed to have a building that's entirely residential you're allowed to have a building that's mixed use you can't combine them so I fully stand behind this and you know because it would allow a compromise effectively and because the this committee has an interest in making it better better is better than just an improvement and so I will also be voting no on this as far as you know a positive recommendation because I think if we take the time to you know take some of the improvements that councelor Bullock mentioned what you just said councelor minov um you know especially we work with the planning board who way back in December and again you know Stephanie mentioned in a very sleep deprived State I sent the planning board an email asking like after our discussion at EDC hey could you discuss this further no votes not a formal process and so this Thursday they're actually going to be talking about this and so since they meet after us and since we have to talk about the adus later anyway it makes a ton of sense to me to kind of do them both at the same time and continue this work so I I really appreciate what you said there counciling Minos about trying to find a compromise without compromising the you know goal of this which is accessible housing on the first floor I really love the idea of you know potentially restricting it or maybe like a density bonus or something yeah like some sort of reward for building accessible housing yeah you know one of the things that was mentioned last month was the idea like well what if oh this isn't a planning board meeting but what if the owner of a business just wants to live there I think that would be great too but privileging the accessibility I think also makes a ton of sense yeah and so like thinking about the cluster development ordinance if there's a way to give people an incentive to do so um but yeah there was language like that in some of them so we can discuss yeah next month now I think we could have a really productive discussion about how to improve this yeah and so I'm fully in support of letting this version of it die on the assumption that everybody is acting in good faith which they are so that's fabulous oh yeah I before I just lose this train of thought I know people want to speak um I definitely do support specifying it for accessible housing you know because that was one of the reasons why and I think it just kind of assuming the market would do that I think no I mean maybe I think you said you can't assume the Market's going to build sucessful units basically his sorry you broke up a little bit there coun m yeah yeah councilor Garrett summarized great councelor hey did you have something yes please um yeah so I also agree with this I'm gonna vote no I think more thought should go into it I do like talking about the ratio like a 6040 ratio um I think that's very feasible um and I also like the idea of restricting it to uh accessible housing in that area I I think that's something we need in Greenfield and I think that would be a good compromise um I I also would suggest and councelor Garett mentioned it housing is allowed by right in that District I think we should maybe go back and look at that and kind of do the same thing and say you know mixed use by right with a 6040 split on the first floor but I really don't think we should be allowing new housing to be built uh in the central commercial commercial District at all um it should be maintained for the city to you know have a robust Business Center and um that's my belief on it um and we'll leave it at that I think we should just strike this down and kind of get together collectively and try to come up with some sort of agreement that makes sense and doesn't feel rushed thank you great there's someone in the waiting room I actually don't know how to do it popping up here that's what I thought oh okay okay uh councelor Gordon did you have anything that you wanted to say um yeah I think you know I'm very swayed by what's been said and happy to agree on you know not recommending that this go forward in this form so um you know thank you everyone for the the work that you've done and the research that you did on this you know I I definitely was ready to come in and and vote Yes to recommend it I certainly compelled that the planning board you know gave us a five gave us a unanimous recommendation to do this I'm definitely compelled by the argument that we need as much housing as possible especially accessible housing um and to my knowledge we don't have a lack of commercial space available in Greenfield right now so uh from kind of hearing watching the recording of the meeting last month and and hearing what people are saying I'm not terribly compelled by the argument that we need to prioritize that over accessible housing but it sounds like we're actually all in agreement about that and just strengthening this so that we can hopefully get the best of both worlds so yeah I'm good with that great okay so I'm going to move us to a votee on order number FY 25- 024.0 um and this we need a majority vote for so um this is in favor you're a in favor of this you're a yes uh you're not in favor you're a no uh councelor Garrett no councelor Gordon no councelor hey no councelor minhas nope I am also a no so we have five on negative recommendations you just voted on know yep I it was the one that I read at the beginning it's order number FY 25024 point2 which we took from the table it's on page 14 the pack and it was to amend section 200- 48 mixed residential business uses of the zoning ordinance to allow first floor dwellings and mixed use Lots by amending section A so that it reads and it was striking all dwelling units shall be above the first floor level the the street level which faces the street with the highest used traffic which is what our current zoning law is and adding first floor dwelling unit shall not be allowed along the street side with the highest traffic use so we all voted not to make that change to section 200- 48 uh and to give a negative recommendation to the council for that zoning to change that's perfect what you just said is what should happen every time you V thank you okay so now we are going to move to order number FY 25-39 the city council move that it be ordered that the that the Greenfield city council take from the table order number FY 25- 025 amend the zoning ordinance chapter 200 section 200-1 14 Central commercial District by adding language and bold and by deleting language and strike through as followed in the attached exhibit a and further amends the table of contents and index of the code and further that non-substantial changes to the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in compliance with the ding format of the code of conduct or sorry the code of the city of Greenfield which was tabled at the December 10th 2024 economic development committee meeting this is a majority vote required um and for folks to know it strikes through um number seven under uses for special permit medical center clinic including accessory research uh and removes it from the uses by special permit and then renumbers all the other things that do need a special permit um so this is a vote to take this from the table so just to be clear I don't have to reread the motion before we vote again because I read it to take it from the table I will second the motion thank you um and if you are in favor of taking this from the table councelor Garrett can I just ask a quick so if we don't take it from the table because the public hearing date already happens wouldn't it just die automatically it does die but then this is where we should read this thing like if it dies can it not be brought back in a few years yeah unless there's a recommendation for the planning board which in this case there wasn't right there it was a negative recommendation right so in this case we could depending on how you feel about this issue you could vote to not take it from the table if we don't have a majority vote to take it from the table it would die um this one didn't need a majority I thought it just needed 2/3 but it says majority so maity to take it from the table but it needs two3 to pass yeah okay so we need a majority vote to take it from the table if we don't take it from the table it dies and cannot be brought back for two years I believe uh if we take it from the table we then make a positive or NE negative recommendation and it could be brought back in another form okay so counselor Garrett would you like to take this from the table I'm gonna so I'm sorry just time if we don't take it from the table it can come back right is that what you just said if we don't take it from the table I believe it cannot come back and I will vote no you do not want to take this I do not okay counselor Gordon would you like to take this okay counselor Healey no councelor minhas no okay so we do not have a majority vote so we are not taking this from the table and that brings us to uh page 22 okay this brings us to order number FY 25- 026 the city council move that it be ordered that the city council of Greenfield amend the zoning ordinance chapter 200 section 200- 7.18 accessory dwelling unit subsection C applicability paragraph 1 by adding the following language in bold 200 - 7.18 accessory dwelling units amended by the city council on May 20th 2020 see applicability 1 an accessory accessory dwelling unit within and an accessory dwelling unit attached shall require a site plan review by the planning board prior to construction as part of the site plan review the planning board shall determine that the total land area of the parcel submitted for the addition of the accessory dwelling unit shall not be less than 1 12.5 of an acre the net acreage of total land in a parcel minus all dwellings included in the proposed accessory dwelling units internal roads or driveways or other buildings or developments shall be considered open space and shall comprise at least 50% of the parcel all accessory dwelling unit shall meet the minimum setback requirements for the district in which it is located adus shall not be used for short-term rentals and further amends the table of contents and index of the code and that further non-substantive changes to to the numbering of the the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield majority vote required second thank you this is the citizen petition that was brought to us um for um the public and um I guess my fellow counselors who might not have checked their email today um we do have um we received a legal opinion that the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance for adus that were proposed by the citizens would violate a section of the affordable homes act that takes effect in February um and the opinion recommends that a review We review our current ordinance um to ensure that it complies with the act because it also currently does not um so this in my view this discussion is a mute point if we were to pass this we would be in violation um of the state law which we are supposed to be complying with by February 2nd we will not comply with it by February 2nd because we have withdrawn the last Adu ordinance that was proposed and we'll have a new one reintroduced for February after the state regs come down and we have a full picture um so I would advise my fellow counselors uh I'm going to vote against this because it is not in compliance with state law and we do have a duty to make sure that we are following the law counselor Minas Point clar clarification yes sorry if you I actually am not supposed to take public comment outside of public comment I'm sorry I will happy to talk to you after the meeting it's a process question not about what happens if you table it um it does and that and then what um can you brought back can you amend it can you make changes I believe if it dies then we cannot bring back something similar for two years so and there might be something that like supersedes that with state law but I don't know unless the planning board recommended it which they didn't they yeah I think what happens since it's a citizen POS petition if we table it and it dies then it moves on to the next step which requires more signatures oh right I think that's it's written yep it automatically moves on to the next step right and the bottom line with this is that we [Music] cannot we cannot can we cannot propose things that conflict directly with state law so I just want to make that clear to my fellow counselors um counselor minhas I'm sorry for no worri I just have a question so what happens if we do what are the ramifications of that if we if we do pass it yeah I mean I don't know I'm not a lawyer I think AG could sue us if something you know like that's what happened to Milton right you when they didn't pass the abta communities stuff they're still in a lawsuit right yeah no it was decided by the SJC oh it was in favor of the state right right yeah um yeah so either way the state does not have regulations out um yet that's why we withdrew the ordinance that was proposed uh to reintroduce something that was more appropriate yeah I mean I think I'd just like to talk a little bit about why I would support this um and what specific things I like about it I mean one of the things that I think is really important is to preserve the natural landscape and the environment that we have but also I think it's important for someone whether they're living in an Adu or a regular dwelling is that they have all the rights and they have all the space that somebody who would be living in a regular unit would have and I think this addresses that um I think the fact that we would be out of compliance would kind of confuses things a little bit uh obviously don't want to do that but I just wanted to voice that those are things that I like about this and perhaps maybe we can bring this back uh with a version that does comply with the state's uh regulations yes we have to bring it back with a version that complies with the state's regulation councelor Healey did you have something I did yeah so I will say I I think this citizens petition was very well organized well put together the language was very clear I like the fact that the language was clear on what should be expected um but I will also stand on I'm going to vote no against this for the following reason one most of the emails I've received about this you know are asking us to wait till the state regulations come out to make any decisions so I think it would be kind of prudent of us to wait and kind of say okay let's wait and see what the state says and and if there is some leeway that gives us the capabilities to enact some of this language to still protect that um the landscape and the open space of the properties let's work together to make sure we're doing the right thing for Greenfield right so um I'm a no on this for now but I definitely want to see the state regs and see what we can do to protect Greenfield that's it thank you um yeah I'm I also a no I mean we obviously have to be comply with state law so that's number one um getting a legal opinion is you know a key aspect of our consideration here um I also think that the petition well I agree I think it was very well organized and I I totally hear that a lot of people have concerns about adus and open space and all of those things um I think that we can address a lot of those concerns and the bigger package of of Adu and uh zoning regulations that we're probably talking about next month um I do think this petition you know the the problem the issue that I have with it is that it uh the threshold is so high and I think that this is what the legal where the legal opinion comes from the threshold is so high that almost no one in Greenfield would be able to build adus yeah um right and I I I actually think that we need some ad we need housing of all kinds um you know if a few adus are built in Greenfield because it probably wouldn't be more than that uh that contributes something to the you know availability of housing um so I I do want us to make it possible somehow um and I do think that we can work together to to you know find some common ground on regulation also think there are a lot of things that people can do on their property right now that we don't regulate at all so it's interesting to me that we're like so focused on getting really specific about what adus can and can't be and what kind of properties they can and can't be on um when I think it's just like a piece of a much bigger puzzle when we're talking about land use and and housing um so that's where I am um I'm going to vote now on this for now and I look forward to the conversation next month um about the bigger picture of adus right I mean I'm also gonna vote no on this the part that I have the hardest time about this petition uh is the element where it kind of discounts the existing dimensional requirements setbacks open space requirements because those and it's similar with you know ultimately the uh motion to Recons about the multif family dwelling unit liment we have restrictions on what can be built on properties and they're different per District so we have a 40% open space requirement that is true in every District you know so just rewinding a little bit the first thing you know as far as Adu zoning changes with me putting you know forward with Eric just a simple change that would change from special permit to BU right and then the state passed their law and we have to comply with the state's law going from special permit to BU right would have made it easier to build these things they're not going to be many of them because they are expensive as some of the folks in this room have noted many times but I genuinely don't understand and this is the part where I hope some of the citizens who signed this petition can help me why they don't believe that 40% open space is going to be maintained regardless and to so to me I'm a little suspicious of this especially you know I again I heard Mr Norman talking about you know being open to different Anchorage requirements to me that's it's not necessary because we already have requirements for what can be built you can build a garage that's an accessory unit that's housing for cars we had 18% rise in homelessness last year why do we are allowing housing for automobiles with no PR no blinking and not allow some housing for people you know the other thing is like you can have have a duplex you'd have a Triplex by right you can have a single family home and an Adu that's two housing units in the same lot and again the open space is going to be the same so if open space is the concern then we have you know it's it already exists we have the open space regulation we have setback regulations I've heard somebody in this room say they're going to creep up to the lines of properties they cannot because the regulations don't allow them to so there's been a tremendous amount of misinformation about about this and you know I'm I I view this as a shadow ban and an example of malicious compliance or an attempt at malicious compliance I don't truly believe that the folks who initiated this and I don't think that's true of everyone who signed I think there's good reasons to be fearful of your neighborhood being changed and being overcrowded Etc but this petition as it stands right now I don't think has any goal of solving the affordable housing crisis I think it has the goal of keeping adus from being built and that's going to be true if it's a quarter acre half acre whatever it is in my by my lights we should stick with a conversation that's clear what do we want our neighborhoods to look like how far should the setbacks be what should the dimensions allowed how much open space should be allowed and then everybody can be clear mudding The Waters by talking about like destroying people's Gardens because somebody built an Adu on the house next door and that lady who keeps showing up and talking about how she's afraid in Adu is going to be built on her lot like it's you know I don't I I hope we can have a clear conversation as we go forward and so I look forward to that as well that will be next month there something to look forward to yeah see see you there um so if you are in favor of order number FY 25-26 which I read at the beginning of this um you would vote Yes um if you are not in favor you would vote no [Music] um counselor Garrett no counselor Gordon no counselor Hy no no counselor minhas I'll abstain okay great that we have a negative recommendation okay and now can I say you cannot Al I'm sorry I'm sorry Al you can't it's not public comment and you're not a member of this committee I'm sorry Al I give you a lot of time but it's not tonight then don't talk about conversations with us if you can't we are gonna move on to zoning uh you can't have a conversation no I can't have a conversation conversation with us that's I can't have a conversation during a public meeting this is part of the problem this exactly what's wrong with go change the way that public meetings work in agree with you more but don't Don't lecture us about it wait till the end of the meeting yeah I told you I'm happy to talk with you after this meeting have at the end of the meeting you could talk to us all right we're moving on to order number FY 25-28 the city council moved that it be ordered that the city council of Greenfield amend the zoning ordinance chapter 200 zoning by adding the following RB Suburban residential and and ra a urban residential would have no allowance for Roosters no matter the Acres limited chickens would be allowed 10 Rd rural residential would allow chickens and limited Roosters on land 5 acres in size and further amends the table of contents and index of the code and further that non-s substantiative changes to the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield this is a majority vote required second okay um so this is also a citizen petition that we received so we we actually don't necessarily have to move on this this month we have until March I believe for this one um but this one also is not in compliance um and would violate a section of our current um law and statutes regarding Right to Farm um I did reach out to the lead partitioner on this to see if he was willing to withdraw or if he had sought resolution through the process um that's laid out in the right to farm language um but I did not hear back um unless I missed that email somehow but I don't think I did um so I am going to vote no on this uh because I did not seek a legal opinion but I did read the language many times and I I believe that it is not in compliance and would violate a current statute anyone else um yeah I I have a lot of Sympathy for the petitioner um the lead petitioner on this especially um and he's someone in my in my precinct we've talked about this issue um but I similarly you know we're not in compliance with state law if we pass so that is clearly a problem um and I think that bigger picture um what this brings up to me is uh something that has been kind of thrown around a lot uh which is some kind of noise ordinance or enforcable regulation that actually gets at the bigger issue here like I don't love the idea of city council regulating you know roosters and like this dog and that yeah whatever right like I think that the the bigger issue at play here is uh noise and people being able to sleep in peace you know live their lives in relative peace while living in a city um but you know with with respect to their neighbors and um you know not being woken up at 4 in the morning and and no one wants to be woken up 4 in the morning so I I completely understand that um and I hope that we can find a a more holistic and compliant way to ensure that I'm going to vote no on this anyone else opinions roosters yeah I really felt for David when he was talking about it but I just I like people have a right to farm and it's little dising if they can't come to some sort of a compromise of like hey this is disturbing me with my personal life can you please you know make some changes and the person just doesn't want to perhaps I don't like what council Gordon was just saying perhaps the city council isn't the proper Avenue for this maybe something like the health department can be involved um or some other department um but yeah this is just one of those sticky situations so I'll probably vote no so I everything that councelor benas and councelor Gordon said makes sense to me and I I feel so bad for him too it's just an awful situation I wonder if you know I don't think this particular zoning change could be something that we do based off the legal you know issues with Farm law Right to Farm law but I wonder if we could regulate setbacks or something like that like the chicken cop must be at least whatever the noise of a roost car is away from another residence or something like that I you know chickens are mobile right yeah that's true but like you know the truth like I think there is language in there about like where the cou can be yeah but it's not very far from the property line yeah I might be I mean I looked at other towns I might be messing it up but I'm pretty sure there is language but it's not I mean I hear roosters that are definitely multiple houses away from yeah so yeah no it's um you know and the noise ordinance you know issue like there's the Department of Environmental Protection regulations about noise so it does exist the problem is enforcement you know it's got to be somebody you know the police right probably don't want to do it because they don't want to be showing up for every rooster you know like and they have better things to do obviously you know but who's going to do it is it the health department showing up and being with a noise meter yeah is it the fire department like or animal like is Animal Control going to go chase this rooster down that lives on the railroad tracks but I think councelor Gordon's broader point about noise in general has been something that we've heard Even in our brief you know term on the city council a lot and it's legitimate yeah you know if your peace and quiet is being disturbed like that's not something that you can get over easily because it's your piece of quiet is Disturbed so yeah I don't have a solution but I definitely agree that it's some that's work the council needs to consider and continue considering so yeah similar to the noise I hear about it with um Jake breaks like going up and down Mountain Road U people complain about that a lot is a jake break down that's on big tractor trailers yeah so when they come up like Mountain Road to avoid the bridges on Hope Street and monu City they'll come up mountain and down Maple yeah yeah yeah that's true that's true so I've had I've had a number of complaints about that and a noise ordinance would potentially impact use of Jake break in yeah at the very least a enabling mechanism for the state regulations right which is effecting those or right but we have to have the police enforce it which like someone right it's a conversation maybe with a mayor too yeah okay anyone else or do we feel ready to vote on this okay a yes would uh be a positive recommendation and a no would be a negative uh counselor Garrett no councelor Gordon no councelor Hy no councelor minhas no okay so unanimous okay we have nothing under discussion um our next meeting will be February 11th 2025 at 6 PM city hall meeting room second floor and on Zoom hybrid as well I will take a motion to adjourn Mo second uh roll call counselor Garrett yes with bells are councelor Gordon yes councelor hilly yes councelor Minas yes yes okay uh meeting is adjourned at 7M on the DOT [Music]