--------- This is a hybrid meeting. Should any technical interruption to the meeting occur and the Zoom portion of the meeting is suddenly ended, it will not be resumed and all items will be automatically continued to the next scheduled meeting date. This meeting is being recorded by the Conservation Commission. If any other persons present are doing the same, you must notify the
chairperson at this time. I will call to order this meeting in the Greenfield Conservation Commission at 6:30 p.m. on October 14th, 2025. Um, commissioners present include Kristen Mcdana on Zoom, Travis Drury,
Erica Leform, Emily Boss, myself, Elizabeth Garafalo, and agent Jessica Seagull. Um, and the first item on the agenda is to approve the meeting minutes from the September 23rd, 2025 meeting. Do we have
any questions or concerns around the minutes? >> Make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> Okay. Um then we'll take a vote starting with Kristen to approve the minutes from September 23rd. >> I
Travis >> I. >> Erica >> I. >> Emily >> I >> I'm also an I. The meeting minutes should be available online uh 24 hours from this meeting. Next up on our agenda this evening is a
public meeting request for determination of applicability. Installation of a groundmounted solar canopy at 73 Orchard Street, map 65, lot 2A. Installation of a groundmounted solar canopy within 100 ft of boarding vegetative wetland buffer zone. No excavation or concrete will be
required for the array foundation. The array will be secured by approximately 24 2 and 1/2 in schedule 40 ground screws with minimal disruption to soil. A shallow trench will be excavated to transmit electricity to the existing home. Approximately 45 ft of this trench will fall within the buffer zone.
Erosion controls can be included as required. >> Okay. Um so I'll bring up this RDA. We uh received we did a site visit. We met up with >> you're sharing it. >> Okay. We met up with Tristan Kalen from
PV Squared on um last week and um checked out the site. This is a residential parcel uh that they're putting up the array in their
backyard to supply power to their home. And Tristan is on the call tonight to discuss more about it. Uh so but real quick um here are the plans. This is the the backyard uh or the parcel itself.
You can see the house is to the left front of the parcel and then there's a pool in the center of the backyard and the um solar array will be just north of the pool in between the pool and the edge of their parcel. Uh there is um
wetland delineation shown on this. It's a little hard to kind of decipher but um real quick I'll kind of run down what you're seeing to the right of the screen is the GIS layer like the state layer
but they had the wetland delineated and that is this this light green line over here. So that's BBW. And then this dotted green line is the 100 foot buffer zone. So the solar array
will fall kind of smack in between the edge of the 100 foot buffer zone and the edge of the bordering vegetative wetlands. Um and I don't know, should we allow Tristan to speak first or do we do photos? Probably Tristan. Okay, Tristan,
you want to jump on the mic and and I can uh stop sharing if you want to share your screen or I can share my screen whenever. >> I think that's that's great. Um so yeah, I think um that that was an excellent summary of um what we're looking to do. Um we had originally designed this
project based on the state wetlands um delineation. Um and then when we got to the permitting phase, um we discovered that a um an additional survey had been done that was on file with the concom. Um so that that brings us to where we are now. Um as I I mentioned in the
narrative, um there's not like a foundation here. There's no concrete or excavation. Um it'll be installed with ground screws. So um minimizing um disturbances to the earth. There will be about a 45 ft of trench within the buffer zone. Um that's a a shallow
trench about and a half wide and 2 ft deep. Um it'll be opened and then closed um within 48 hours. Typically our process would be to open it in the morning. Um lay the conduit, have a um inspection sometime around lunch and then close it the same day. The only thing that would slow us up there um
would be if uh we need an extra day to get the inspector out there um but typically it's closed same day or the next day. Um and yeah, happy to answer any questions that y'all have. Here, here are the drawings of the um the
arrays that are being put up. So, you can see as Tristan was referring to, it's not foundation. They're screwed in. So, here's the poles with the uh coil screw at the base. Um so, it sounds like uh way less
disturbance >> with this style. I guess one question is um I know these are going to be elevated what like 10 feet or something like that above the ground. Is it just going to be um lawn underneath or what what survives in the
shade under there? >> Correct. So, yep. They'll be um 10 feet at the highest point. Um yeah, I think the the customer's uh intention is to keep it as as lawn under there. Um you know, I can't I'm not a landscaper so I can't speak to how their grass will do
but um I wouldn't necessarily consider it to be that different from a you know a ground mount that you have in an agricultural field and I know that they you know you can have both grazing animals and plants and ground mounted solar all in the same field. So, um I'm not anticipating it's going to kill off
all the grass or anything, but his intention, so far as understand it, is just to have a basically a shade canopy um out by the pool um as a as a respit spot when they're out enjoying their yard. >> I can speak very briefly to the um lack
of impact of the solar panels on the vegetation underneath. As long as you're not trying to grow any like anything that requires quantities of sunlight, the grass won't be killed off. I know uh Department of Energy and UMass have done some extensive studies looking at exactly like this as Tristan mentioned
within agricultural settings and so the vegetative survival is good. >> Great. I'm going to quickly bring up um the the wetland delineation um that we received previously
because I I think it just kind of shows the the resource areas better. Um Okay. So, so there is Graves Brook all the way to
the east. Um however the 200t riverfront area ends within the bordering vegetative wetland. So you can see that the blue dotted line um or hashed line is the end of the 200t
riverfront area and then the green kind of polka dots is the BVW boundary and then the green hash line is the 100 foot buffer zone. So, um, just to give you an idea of >> kind of a clearer image,
>> right? So, this does fall within the Greenfield city ordinance of the 100 foot buffer zone. >> Yeah, the wetlands protection and the ordinance 100 foot buffer zone, but no other resource areas. >> Okay. >> Um, I had I had a question about the
decommissioning plan. Um I I'm not familiar with the city of Greenfield's solar bylaw, if we even have one. Um but is there a decommissioning plan? And c if there is, can you walk us through
that? Like will the buffer zone be restored in, you know, at some later date to preconstruction existing conditions? Uh what is the decommissioning plan if anything? Um, so, um, I mean, as a solar array,
it's built to last. The, um, the foundation of the the racking is steel and is constructed to last. The panels, um, we anticipate to exist for at least 25 years. Um, so there's not necessarily a formal plan for removal. If the client at some point were to have the um the
system taken down, um I guess they would they would unscrew the the racking from the um the earth, but it wouldn't be anything particularly more um than the installation process in terms of um any impact on the um on the land there.
Um, but yeah, it's um a long-term project without any necessarily um short-term plans for decommissioning or anything like that. I guess what I'm I'm asking is is there a long-term decommissioning plan for when this is
decommissioned that the system one has the financial capacity to pull it out of the buffer zone and not just abandon it and
two restore any temporary impacts to the buffer zone. to pre construction conditions. >> Um there there is not a formalized plan, but if that would be a requirement of the commission, that's certainly
something that we could um bring to the client and have them agree to whatever, you know, if there's a signed document or or however um the commission would require that. Um, you know, just speaking from experience, typically if the the solar system reaches the end of its life, it's more likely that the
customer would want new panels installed on it rather than just remove the whole thing. and and given, you know, the direction that we're heading in terms of home electrification and and energy usage, um I don't necessarily foresee um the decommissioning of the system being
an issue. But if there is, you know, the the agreement needs to be put in place that the system is removed if it if it goes out of operation, that's certainly something we can um include. >> Kristen, I can share my photos now, too, if you want to see. Um yeah,
>> so a lot of the buffer zone um is currently lawn. Um actually pretty much like all the buffer zone where they want the panels is lawn. So um right now um
it's a little hard to see but there there's flagging where the um array is going to extend to. So this is the kind of that ups slope edge and if you can see my cursor that's the down slope edge
and then it goes over this way and then one more and then comes back up the up the slope. Um the I I believe that the edge of the um let's see the north
west edge of the um BVW it is basically the edge of the lawn right here. There was some flagging right here and behind the shed. So it like cuts across right along this tree line and then it dips into into the woods. Um, so anyway,
that's one of the lawn photos. So here's the what was cut off. So that's the upper uphill edge of the solar array like boundary. Um, and then here's just more pictures.
So it's it's basically Modelon. And then again, so this is looking uphill. There's the top edge right here. And I'm at the bottom edge or bottom corner. And so it goes like straight in front of
the shed here. And then here, see here's the pink flagging. So it's the edge of the um BVW. And I'm like kind of behind the shed. So see here's the shed on the left. So I'm just like looking left and
then right. And it goes in there. Let's see. Um, I did think that that was maybe black locust. So, here is the wetland marker. Again, I'm behind the shed.
Okay. So now I'm kind of by more by the pool looking north. Um, so there's the bottom edge of the solar array plot and then that's looking back up the hill towards the
house. >> Okay. >> The pool's not in buffer zone, is it? >> The pool Yeah, it is in buffer zone. Is it in local riverfront? >> No. No. None of the none of this none of
this yard is in riverfront. I could bring up just real quick the um the delineation again. Um so see the riverfront is this blue hatch line. So it it's well into the woods.
The riverfront. >> Yep. And then that's the yard. >> So the entire ingground pool is in buffer zone. >> Yeah. >> Was that permitted?
Uh, I don't know about that, but I I did know that um with with uses accessory to single family homes, pools that are 50 ft from buffer from BVW and greater are
considered minor, but that wasn't brought to the conservation commission's attention to approve. And it doesn't look like the entire structure is within 50 ft. So, it wasn't approved. It wasn't considered a 10.02 minor buffer zone
activity. It wasn't approved. >> I'm not sure if that was approved or not. It was before my time in >> I would say that that pool has been there easily for 10 years if not if not longer. >> But that doesn't predate the ordinance. >> No, but I I guess I'm saying it would be it might be take some time to dig up
whether or not it did come before the commission. It might have because because they came before when they were going to do that. Remember that white outline was? >> Yeah, the the white Yeah, that was a garden. Um >> they that's when they had it delineated, right?
>> Yeah, that's when they had they had it delineated because they were going to do something with the shed that's in the woods. And so they were asking questions about that and I said they had to get it delineated. Um, so they didn't then I think they dropped that plan completely
and then they wanted to put in a garden and that's about the garden area and I said that that was a minor project and and that to me looks like it's over 50 ft from the BBW. >> Well, I'm just thinking if they if they
came before us for that they would probably >> Yeah. >> Yeah. asking about a garden. I mean, it could be from previous owners, too. The pool. I don't know. >> Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. >> Could you I'm sorry. I'm just Could you help me understand um your concern
relative with the pool relative to the panel? like I'm not sure um I guess I'm just not sure what the the connection or the the ramifications on the current project are as it relates to um the
concerns around the pool. If if you could help me understand that, that would be great. Um we we have no concerns about the the pool's location um close to the I mean it's not especially close to the array but be plenty of room for our crews to work.
There's not like a a concern about the panels getting you know obviously they're intended to be outdoors rained on get get wet and everything. Um the the transmission line will be dug at the north end of the arrays. So it'll be away from um you know septic or or
anything um related to pool construction. So from from a solar perspective, we have no concerns about the location of the pool relative to the ground mounted array. >> Thank you, Tristan. >> Also, I can just add that um looking online, the last sale date for this
property was 2021 and I looked at 2019 aerial imagery and the pool was there at that point. I'm not sure how far back it was there, but it was a previous owner who did the pool. So me personally, I don't see any issue
with the solar array, but I am concerned about a decommissioning plan. I would want to see a decommissioning plan attached to the order of conditions, and I am concerned about that pool um if that wasn't lawfully permitted.
Uh, I would like to see some kind of corrective plan of action. >> It looks like the pool was installed. I was looking at aerial imagery. It wasn't in the 2011 to 2012 imagery, but it was in the 2013 to 2014. So, somewhere
around 2012 to 2013 is when it was installed. I also just want to commend the applicant for actually getting a wetland delineation because it really bothers me when people just use the mass DP wetland
layer as an actual wetland delineation and it's not. So, yay on the applicant for actually doing a delineation. Thank you. So I I feel like the pool is a a separate concern, Kristen. Is that a
fair statement? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um and so as it relates specifically to the solar array and Travis, my understanding is that this would be a positive determination because it does fall within the jurisdictional area. Is that a correct
statement? >> Oh gosh. Uh >> I know I have to look it up too get mixed up but it be negative something negative read through the the choices positive is >> positive means they have to do a notice of intent
>> but the if I think if it was within the wetland area it would have to be a positive if it was in a wetland but I think in buffer zone we could do a negative determination with conditions and say that it will not impact the wetland if these conditions are
That's generally how we would do projects like this. >> Positive means they have to do an NOI, I thought. >> Yeah. Okay. So, with a negative, uh, the work is within an area subject to jurisdiction under the act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter.
Therefore, no NOI. >> Well, there's different choices. What are the other choices? Because next one down is work is within buffer zone but will not remove dredge, fill or alter the area subject to jurisdiction under the act. Noi conditions.
>> That one that's the one. >> But there is dredge. Well, there is like >> there is going to be a >> but not within not within the wetland area. >> No, but buffer zone. This is for buffer zone. >> So the next one the next one, >> right? Uh the next one reads work is not
in an area. Oops. Nope. That's not what we want. Um so number five area is subject to jurisdiction under the act the work meets the following exemption. Um then that would be area work is not
subject to additional review and approval by the commission under the local ordinance. It might meet the minor buffer zone activity exemption which is I think 10.02 too. But let me let me look it up.
>> So I think it would be negative determination type three. uh negative determination that the work described in the request is within the buffer zone as defined by the regulations but will not alter an area subject to protection under the act because I think that
that's saying it's not altering a wetland which is the area subject to protection. It's only altering the buffer zone and therefore said work does not require the filing of notice of intent subject to the following conditions. I think that makes sense, too. As long
like as I mean Yeah, I think that makes sense, too. As long as it's not in a local ordinance jurisdiction. I think that does make sense. >> Yeah. And Kristen, I did look up um in the
city code what it has for ground mounted uh photovalttaic uh non-commercial. >> Yeah. Um, it doesn't have anything about decommissioning plans being required. Just just so you know, the solar part of the city code doesn't have anything like
that in it. >> Some towns and cities do under the planning board bylaws. Um, and they require, you know, money in escrow, but that's more for like commercial. I don't know about residential, but I would like to just put something in our orders just
stating that the applicant is required to be responsible for restoring the buffer zone to preconstruction conditions. Even if they sell the property, whoever inherits that will
then inherit that responsibility. Does that make sense? So there isn't going to be a huge, you know, ground disturbance, but I guess my preference would be that it's not just as technology evolves, just
abandoned. >> Absolutely. >> Yep. >> Are there any other conditions that the commission would like to add? You talked a little bit about um erosion control, right? Just
>> Oh, yeah. I don't know if uh I can hear you on the microphone. >> Yeah. So, they the the applicant did mention willingness to implement erosion controls, which we would also like to see as that 45 foot trench is dug to put in um the wiring piece. Um I think
standard straw waddles and no um cacheting of material, >> right? >> No stockpile. >> No stockpiling. Yep. >> Check the weather. No, nothing, >> right? Yeah. No, we have we have our standard boiler plate around like, you
know, rain events and so on and so forth. And I'm sure nobody's going to be laying electrical in the rain anyway. >> Fun times. Are they gonna um I mean it's lawn now so I assume they're going to like keep mowing it or whatever or
>> correct and the um the homeowner is actually required by the fire department to maintain vegetation at a certain level and he'll sign a document for the fire department to that effect >> as long as they're not I mean they shouldn't be up until now but also I mean going forward like dumping in the
wetland dumping any of the mowings and Oh, >> right. >> That's a really good point. I was thinking the exact same thing, Erica. There's a wetland that crosses through the existing maintained lawn. I would like to see that landowner,
you know, voluntarily participating in a naturalization of that and also a commitment to no longer dumping yard waste in the actual wetland. >> Yeah, I didn't I didn't really see anything. Yeah, I didn't see any. >> I scanned the woods look, you know,
looking for that, but it doesn't mean they weren't. I mean, but I didn't really see anything. >> I didn't see any either. I mean, it does cut dramatically like east and we were
really up here. Um, so there I didn't see any in this zone. I did not walk over here, but this is also considered buffer zone over here. Um, >> I don't know what they do with their yard, but >> just to reiterate, maybe
>> no dumping of yard waste in the in the wetland. >> Continue to appropriately remove yard from site. >> Yeah. Yard just just so you know, Tristan, um, composting yard waste in a
wetland is frown fun. So can you reiterate that to the land owner? That would be very beneficial. And again, you know, a portion of the actual jurisdictional wetland area does intersect with where they're currently
considering their their yard, their lawn, and that is jurisdictional wetland. So, um, and also, you know, again, just to go back to the pool, I I don't know off the top of my head if that was lawfully
permitted, but, um, I do recommend the agent look into that. >> Okay, I'd look into it. I don't know if this is part of our standard order of conditions, but I think it would be helpful to make it clear that
we do not want any sort of mulching under the array. So like it should be which is seems like what they're planning but to make it clear that we also require them to maintain it as vegetated not as stone or mulch or other other landscape covering underneath of
that space. And I don't know if that's something the fire department would or would not have any commentary on. I know you just mentioned they have to keep the vegetation low but um >> I mean from the fire department's perspective they'd probably be happy if we put concrete on everything. >> So we would not like that.
>> Yeah, understandable. Um, so my understanding is that none of that is intended, but I'm happy to um to go over all this with the homeowner and and make sure it's reiterated with them as well. >> And then of course any reeding that might need to be done um which sounds like probably not much, but any receding that needed to be done would we would
like to see that with a native um grass mix >> rather than um non-native native to the county. >> Verify with our landscapers that that's uh part of our plan. any points we've missed?
>> I guess the only thing I'm wondering um just you know you were just saying that we don't want it to be mulching. I'm wondering if you know the the area under the solar array that's not going to be touched, you know, it's just going to be maintained as lawn. um if we really have
a say in how that like because you can use lawn, you know, like you can convert lawn to other uses in buffer zone, you know, if it's already lawn. >> Um >> we could you could turn it into >> is more that it not become impermeable
surface. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> We don't want it to become a patio, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Right. Precisely. Because it's altering the >> Right. Yeah. Yeah, >> the buffer zone >> that yeah, that would be a that would be a a separate um filing
with us to convert lawn into an impervious surface in buffer zone. >> And again, this goes back to 310 CMR 10.02 uh to
B for activities within buffer zone. So, it's that's a long section. Um, so that and again that refers to lawfully permitted lawns and I'm not entirely, you know what I mean? I I
would want to make sure that we're advising the applicant that that would be true if this was a lawfully permitted lawn. So, for example, the conversion of lawn to use as accessory to residential structures such as decks, sheds, patios, pools, replacement of a basement
bulkhead, and the installation of a ramp for compliance with accessibility requirements, provided that the activity, including material staging and stockpiling, is located more than 50 ft from the mean annual high water line of riverfront, bank, from bordering vegetated wetland, whichever is farther,
and erosion and sediment controls are implemented during construction. The conversion of such accessory uses to the existing single family use houses of lawn is also allowed. So there are caveats to what you're saying, Travis.
>> Yes. >> So that really we're just saying that they have to go through a process if they want to convert it to another use, >> but that's what they would have to do anyway. So >> yeah, I mean I think we could just say
we're simply approving >> Yeah. >> You know, this structure with m with maintained lawn underneath and any further >> alterations >> alterations, you know, they should consult the conservation commission.
>> Yeah. Yeah, it falls under the minor buffer zone activity. And there there's a bunch of different um examples under 10.02. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. Uh do we have any further conditions that we would like to um aside from the decommissioning plan? Kristen, do you have specific language or uh do you want
to see Tristan submit that to us in addition to the the order of conditions that we will be issuing? I honestly think that it's just something that I've seen over the last I don't know like 15 plus years since solar kind of took
off that there's just no no offense to Tristan I just like there are a lot of fly by night solar companies that tend to just like have LLC's and they just sort of blank out and I just want to make sure the landowner is protected and
that the conservation commission is protecting our our own resource areas and jurisdictional areas just to make sure that there is something that you know however the landowner wants to work that
out with their contracting company um it's up to them but I think that it would cover ourselves if we just put that in our order of conditions just stating that there should be some kind of decommissioning plan can be administratively approved by the agent but I don't know if the whole commission needs to review and approve but I just
want to see something to cover so that the solar company doesn't just like ghost out and never go back and pull out the equipment in buffer zone. Does that make sense? >> Absolutely.
>> So before construction begins or before they can get their >> Yes. Before construction begins, a decommission plan submitted to the agent. Lights are going out. Sorry about
submitted to the agent. Uh including things such as upgrades or complete removal and how that would uh what that would look like as >> Yeah, I think if it's part of the order of conditions, then the applicant cannot
get a certificate of compliance if that's not completed. Um, and that's up to I mean if it were a commercial plan, we would want to have like money in escrow so that the company would like be responsible for that financially. The landowner, you know, this is just a
residential solar, so they're probably not going to want to do that, but that might just create enough incentive for the landowner to think about that and know that they're personally on the hook or if they sell the house, whoever they sell the house to is on the hook for that. So, they might be more aware of
that negotiation. you know, on a business level. >> Uh Kristen, this project would not need a certificate of compliance because it's not a notice of intent. >> Oh, they you're right. >> Yeah. I I was thinking the language
Kristen that you said earlier which was just having a condition saying that the land owner is responsible for um converting the area back to lawn
if and when uh if and when the solar array is removed or something like that you know. >> Yeah, that works. I guess that's all we can do. Thank you for pointing that out, Travis. I forgot. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's a lot less uh you know, a
lot less we could hold people to when there's no when it's not an NOI, when there's no certificate of compliance. >> Yep. Absolutely. Good point. >> I think I think what you started to say was pre pre Yeah. Not not just lawn because I mean
it is still kind of worn under it but >> if if the no the panels in the lawn are working then we want them removed and >> disposed of appropriately. Yes. >> Yeah. Dispos Yeah, that's exactly Yeah, that's what I was thinking. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Any further conditions, questions, concerns? Um, I'll just go ahead and make a motion uh for a negative determination type three um for
the request for determination of applicability at 73 Orchard Street, map 65, lot 2A. Uh this is a motion for negative determination that the work described in the request is within the buffer zone as defined by the regulations but will not
alter an area subject to protection under the act. Therefore said work does not require the filing of a notice of intent subject to the following conditions. >> Second. >> Second. Well, you beat me to it, Erica. >> All right. Uh so we will vote on the
negative determination starting with Kristen. I >> Travis >> I >> Erica >> I >> Emily >> I >> I am also an I. >> All right. >> Thank you Tristan. >> Thank you Tristan. >> Wonderful. Thank you all for your time. I hope you have a great evening.
>> You too. >> Byebye. >> Okay. >> Up next, new business. The mayor has authorized the department of planning and development to proceed with the surplus property distribution process for parcel 9-3-031
Cheapside Street with the intention of selling it to a developer. The commission will discuss if the property is needed for any city purpose, if any special conditions should be attached to the sale, and any additional information which may be appropriate and useful for determination. >> Okay. So, um this this is cheap side,
right? >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, is everybody familiar with where that is? I can bring it up on a map. >> Cheap side in general. >> I know. Yeah. Not sure specific.
>> I'll just bring it up on the map. >> Okay. Share my screen. Okay. Yep. >> Just so everyone knows, I did measure and it is within 200 foot riverfront area, the front part of this parcel. Oh gosh.
>> For [Laughter] >> sorry Kristen, what did you say? >> I said for the state >> uh it's from the river from the field. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So Protection Act and ordinance.
>> So here we are. The red dot. Um that's at the very southern part of Greenfield there along the Green River or sorry Dearfield River. Um, >> so that town,
>> uh, Hope Street kind of winds and >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, that's okay. >> So, it's on the uphill side of Cheap Side Street. >> Uh, and Oh, wait. Gosh,
>> do we know if that's in bordering land subject to flood? >> Yes. Sorry, >> it is. >> Um, yes, we know. So it's not >> it just because I think there's such a drop off um on the other side of the
road going towards the Deerfield River. So it just kind of and the BLSF ends on the far side of the road and then the pink parcel outlined is the parcel in question. Um so it is in riverfront area
but it's not in any of the it's like barely not in the um priority and estimated habitats. Um >> is there a structure on it? It looks like there's a house. >> There's a house on it. The railroad tracks are right behind it. Um, so if we go to
the house is, you know, kind of boarded up. Um, underneath underneath the, um, these plants is like a stone wall. You can see it in the distance and it kind of comes
>> Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. So, and then >> Zumac really >> and then there's like yeah part of I think there's like a garage piece here. When I brought up the property card that it looked way nicer
and then I looked at this I was like oh. >> Um yeah. So that's that's that. Do you do you want is there anything else I can show you? Um, how much of it is is in um riverfront?
About half of it. >> Um, >> I'm trying to one, two, three, four. Yeah, I think it's in um so the riverfront goes from this solid blue line which is
about the edge of the bank there, >> but it's it's in the outer 100 ft for sure of the riverfront and >> but that part of the house is >> Yeah. And then like here, let's just close that out. So, I was just trying to get a feel for even
what's on the other side of the street. Let's see. Yeah, it's woods. >> Yeah, then it drops right off. >> Yeah, there is a house over there. And yeah, it's developed on on this side of the street.
>> Is there any contiguous public access protected open space? No, not >> not there. Yeah, it's the train tracks. >> And um if we like zoomed out a little
bit, there's stuff over like here like that's parks and wreck, but this is all like residential. >> Yeah. Okay. I mean, it seems like the main concern is that anybody who does do anything with that is going to have to come to us
>> for um any demolition andor reconstruction. >> Yeah. >> Um and there's hazardous materials in the old house, >> right? Or old structure. I don't know if it was a house. >> Yeah.
And it is zoned residential strictly or that space gets a little tricky in terms in my mind in terms of zoning because it feels like there's also >> commercial. >> I don't know what the zoning is. >> I could probably bring it up. we could
if you're >> I guess my my question is um trying to get at what uses it would be put to moving forward given >> even though it's not within certain resource areas. It's still close enough that um I would like
to not see anything uh of an industrial nature go there. I I wonder >> I bet it wouldn't be too industrial if it's sandwiched between two houses right there. >> Yeah. And the train track. >> Yeah. Zoning is RA. So I think that's
>> res. >> Yeah. So look, this is the this is the um >> Oh, I see what it >> I don't know if you can see, but >> RA is urban residential.
>> Doesn't it look nice in the photo? >> It's got potential. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, you're looking for the commission to determine if there would be any special conditions we would want to attach to the sale or what do you what are we looking? >> Yes. So, the goal is let's go back to
the agenda. What is >> uh if there it's needed for any city purpose if any special conditions should be attached and any additional information which may be appropriate and useful for a determination. So, do we have to like vote on this or
anything? >> Um, you don't need you just it's a you goal is to send a recommendation to um city council whether or not to like move forward with the sale and if if not why
which >> you know and also if there should be any special conditions. So, it's kind of like what we did with that >> school property. Yeah. Just kind of understanding that their goal is to sell
it and do we see any problems with that or do we want there to be like conditions with it? >> Okay. I I guess my perspective is is that I think that this is an appropriate property for the city to sell and that
that whoever does any project on it will by the nature of the delineation be required to come visit us at that time. >> Right. That's kind of what >> so so whoever potential purchaser should know that they will have to come before the commission with any project. >> Right. I mean the school is not within any of our jurisdiction but
>> Right. Right. >> But this this actually is. So I don't know if we need to attach anything because they're going to have to see. >> Yeah. We'll just we can just say like it is it's part it's in jurisdictional resource area. So >> just point that out. >> Didn't pay attention to the fact that it is. >> Right. Okay.
>> Kristen, does that sound fair? >> Yeah, that makes Yeah, that's >> all right. >> Okay. So, right. Now, let's talk about seven. >> Next one. Right. Uh so our next new business, the mayor has authorized the department of planning and development
to proceed with the surplus property distribution process for parcel 32-8-07 River Street with the intention of selling it to a developer. The commission will discuss if the property is needed for any city purpose, if any special conditions should be attached to the sale, and any additional information
which may be appropriate and useful for a determination. Tiny little. >> Okay. So, Seven River Street is kind of by the Mill River or the what is it called? The Mil Street Bridge. What is it?
>> Yeah, it is Mil Street. Mil Street. >> Okay. It just turns into River Street. >> Um, so if you see Wisdom Way comes down and intersects River Street and there's this kind of corner parcel. Um, that's
the one we're talking about. So, I'll just go to the Ark map. >> I'm pretty sure that's Empire HAB. Oh, it's not. >> Yeah, it's just barely not. And um it's,
you know, it it shows it in pink as this kind of square rectangle, but I believe it's this whole diamond kind of thing. Um >> I was going to say I don't think there's anything in there. >> And we'll do street view. Just
did I get there? Let's see. Okay, >> there you go. >> Here we go. So it's like this bad boy. So, >> I think this little like park uh driveway >> parking lot and a structure that looks unused or is it used?
>> It looks pretty boarded up. >> I imagine it's unused cuz they probably Right. They probably wouldn't sell it if if >> So, given that there's parking lot, this obviously was commercial. >> Yeah. At one time. >> Yeah. So, maybe we can uh let's see.
Oops. um right next to another house on Mass Mapper. It looks like that little building is nine river street and seven river street is between that building and the edge of the road. >> So the little triangle like you were
talking >> just the little triangle parking lot area. >> Oh yeah. So >> lots should be marked, shouldn't they? Oh mass but maybe not on Google Earth. Okay. >> Yeah, maybe on Google. >> Yeah. So nine is the the house. Eight is the strange building. There you go.
>> Yes. So that but that's See, it shows the house. >> Oh yeah. >> Um and then this shows the other house. I think the lot lines are just a little wonky. I'm I'm pretty sure that it >> See, look. And then this corner thing is
this weird. >> Um >> so it is not the corner piece. It's the next one up. >> I think it's part of the corner piece. I think it's just the lot lines are weird for both the parcels. So if they have
the same deed number, then you'll know it's the same. >> There you go. >> Oh, that's right. Because we're looking at Oh, >> it says zoning is GC. >> No, the deed. >> What does GC stand for? >> GC is general commercial.
>> Okay. >> Not G. I don't what is GC >> general commercial. >> General I will just say that um you know where
that area gets closer to the river um there is priority habitat there and that I know for a fact like so for on the left of that photograph um >> yeah so like right right there that's
the river in the woods there. I've actually seen a rare species cross the street right there at that tree line. >> And and what does it fall inside of again? Like I go back. >> Okay. So again, I I I believe it is this
what we're the pink plus this little appendage area. Um, and yeah, the like Kristen was saying, the priority and estimated is like literally right on the, you know, it even
encompasses the notion. >> I think that's green and yellow that are just like merged and that means it's estimated and priority. >> And um, >> the gray is like the the BLSF. Um and
then this is riverfront which you know it it is partially within riverfront I think no matter how you slice it. >> Yeah. >> So this is altered riverfront because that's the parking lot area mostly right. >> It's >> it might even intersect the building
because this isn't like exact >> exact. So from our perspective, purely speaking, from a conservation perspective, it'd be great if this wasn't a commercial property anymore and it was like brought back to a natural
state or had was a small pocket park or something along those lines. >> No pocket park. >> I don't have any idea that that's what will happen. >> Sure. >> But that that would be the the highest and best use of this from our perspective. Well, in the other is is this an official delineation or does
this property have an official delineation? >> No. >> Okay. So, I think that that probably be would be one of the things that I would like to see would to be very certain what does or does not fall within that way. And the other thing too is like taking into account the slope of this
land, anything that does potentially get done there will have to have mitigation measures on it. So, >> well, what a delineation would show would be
how far Riverfront intersects it. There's like no other. It's the state layers. There's no NHSP stuff like that's concrete, right? Those boundaries are the boundaries. >> Okay. >> There's definitely not the LSF. >> Okay. And
yeah, so it really is how much riverfront is there or not. But >> I think this could be just like the last one we did where >> we say there seem there appears to be riverfront area
>> and if it gets developed, they'll have to come to come for us. >> I mean, we could Yeah, cuz it is so close. The other one was really close to rare and endangered, too. That was a buffer though. This is resource area. >> Yeah, I like the p I like the idea of a
pocket park, but that's probably not bringing in tax. I'm sure it's not. I I just wanted to purely look at it through the lens of what's the land, what's the best use, what what's what's a better use for this given the circumstances. Well, I will
say the city did an awful lot of really nice work on that uphill slope, installing um walkways slashbicycle ways and um impervious surfaces and um trees and really did a beautiful job
regreening that uphill slope up to the fairgrounds. Um >> I don't think that was a city. >> Was it the fairgrounds? There's a new new ownership. Yeah, >> I don't think it was the fairgrounds. I think it was a state pro project somehow. Um I remember when that came
before us, but >> I thought it was the fairgrounds that got got state assistance. >> I thought that was a different project. Anyway, I don't think it was the city. >> Okay. I I so so I I ask because given the the location of this particular
parcel and the highly limited use that this parcel might experience that it might make sense to somehow incorporate it into that um removal of impervious surface and you
know pocket park idea is really great but something of that nature where it becomes a little bit more natural a little bit more um amanable to the wildlife that is immediately next door to it that Kristen has pointed out is in
fact endangered. >> Yeah, it's so tiny. >> I guess some of that would fall under the riverfront, you know, requirements. Um I mean it's I think it's mostly all degraded, I would say. >> Exactly. Right. So
>> yeah, >> great. >> But it would be nice to see more um like flood storage compensation, >> uh groundwater recharge. I know that we have two dams immediately to the left of this photograph. So, I mean it's sort of
like splitting hairs, but yeah, you know, I think kind of similar to the last item on the agenda, just saying whoever would want to be interested in that would have to come before the commission and we would have something to say. >> One other thing to keep in mind is we have seen um we had a uh the person who
owns the the heritage museum there, the uh the tap and die. >> Oh, yeah. um and the erosion problems that that stretch of river specifically is experiencing. That should also be taken into consideration with any um future use of this space, which
>> your your comment about storm water etc. um made me think of that because this is definitely a an area that um will be impacted severely by the increase in extreme rain events. >> Absolutely. So any you know mismanaged
uh storm water management or increase in impervious surface area or increase in you know subsurface basement um square footage that would displace flood storage capacity like all of that
just definitely goes into that. So I agree with you Elizabeth. Also, uh just not to blame this parcel for too much. Um the assessment the assessment says total acreage is 04 acres. So
>> it's not very much. >> I don't think there could be a whole lot of flood storage. >> 040. Oh no, that's so small. >> Sounds like a pocket park. >> Rew it. I'm not sure how much power we
wield, but I do >> No, that's fair. >> But as as Emily once pointed out, we could at least make the request. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, I think we should say it would be great as a pocket park, but if it is sold, uh there appears to be riverfront
area and they would need to come >> and that could just be a recommendation. >> Yeah. >> And estimated habitat. >> And estimated habitat. Yep. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Adjacent or is the estimated habitat overlapping it. I thought it was
>> I will say that the natural heritage and endangered species program is coming out with new mapping next year. So >> they could unmap that. I don't know. Um but as currently mapped, it's in priority priority and estimated habitat
like peripherally. So yeah. >> Okay. Um next [Music] [Laughter] discuss the upcoming ending of terms for commission members Kristen Mcdana and Erica Leform, their decisions to renew or not, and the future search for a new
member of the commission. So, um, I'll jump in. Um, after much hemming and hawing and much confliction, I've decided to resign at the end of my
term, which expires in December of this year. Uh, I am willing to discuss coming up with like a hard date if we don't have anyone to fill that void. Say maybe like, you know, the end of February or something. And then just
like renewing my term just until we can fill so we don't have a vacancy if if that's what the commission prefers. But I just have so much going on in my personal life right now. This is just a really challenging chapter. I will join the commission again at some
point in the future, but this is just a tough chapter. I just need to focus on my family and till my parents are settled and memory care and that kind of stuff. So, yeah, that's where I'm at. I totally
hear your need to prioritize and we definitely um will suffer for the lack of your expertise on this commission. Um, I appreciate your offer to set a hard date at the end of February and I would absolutely personally love to take
you up on that because I'm looking at the very short four months between here and the end of February and wondering where we're going to >> find somebody to um on board and you know get at least somewhat up to speed to um
>> because it took us a long time to get you guys >> after Fletcher left and Yeah, >> we have a dream team. Our commission is so fantastic right now. I love our commission. >> Um, I really had a hard time making this
choice. I really thought about this all summer and >> I Yeah, this is not what I want. This is just what I have to do. I have to just relocate my parents and figure out what they're going to be doing. So until that until that h until they're safely like tucked away in
an old folks home, I just need to focus on them. >> Yeah, absolutely. Totally totally makes sense. I I was going to say that. Um uh well, I mean, first of all, thanks Kristen for everything that you do and thanks for being the like one to ask the
hard questions and the you know, like I don't know. You're the more >> fiery uh you know, everyone hates. >> Yeah, >> it's not true. >> No, no, no. Um, but I was going to say, um, I I feel
like it might be easier, you know, for you to just end at the end of the term and, um, cuz like over the winter, there's usually not a whole lot to do anyway. So, I don't know if it makes sense to go through the whole process of like getting re, you know, reappointed
and swearing in again, >> doing all that just for like a couple months when there's probably not going to be many projects going on. So, not that I'm trying to kick you off any earlier than you need to be, but uh you know, just you know, make it easy for you, too. Um >> I just wanted to throw that out as a
possibility if that's something that the commission as a whole needs. It's not again something that I'm looking for, but um you know >> if we don't have any takers and we don't if we're just if there's just a vacancy and we have a lot of commissioners with
you know time off and you know quum issues that's something that I'm just offering. >> I guess maybe we should hear from Erica first. >> Yeah. >> To see how many commission forever. You can't leave. What?
>> She hasn't said she's leaving yet. Um, yeah. No, I also did think about it a lot and mentioned to Jessica, as long as we don't mind that I'm in Florida for a good part of the time and zooming in, >> um, I would continue to surf.
>> That's great. >> And I have sent them my little thingy that yes, I'll continue. Um, but yeah, long as it's okay that I'm not here a lot of the time, >> it's worked out fine. You know, those of us who are here can do the site reviews
and you can participate on. >> Well, Ben, >> so I don't know if that makes it easier on Kristen. >> Um, well, I'm thrilled that you're you're going to stay on um Thank you. We appreciate your your expertise as well.
Um, >> our longest serving member. >> Yeah, you're our memory. You know, everything that we've done for the last How long have you been a commissioner, Erica? Like 20 years. [Laughter] 2016 or something.
>> That's a long time. That's a long time. >> 10. >> So then, uh, given Travis's point about the, um, logistical concerns, um, Kristen, I I guess it does make more sense for the end of December,
uh, which would be, uh, we won't even have What do we have scheduled for December? I don't think we have very many, do we? >> Yeah. So, that kind of segus into our next thing, but um we we did uh the the
second meeting in December is Christmas week and it's the 23rd. Uh so, another item on our agenda is discussing whether >> we'd have a quorum or vacation or do we
cancel. So it would if we cancelled Kristen that would mean um the first meeting in December would be your last. >> Okay. >> Last for now. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I like I said I did speak with
the mayor's office um about this. So uh so that would be what what the 9th. >> Let me just put a reminder on my calendar. put any pressure on Kristen. But I was going to say the other option could be like Travis just taking a leave of
absence for a little while. I mean renewing [Music] >> Yeah, that's just >> Yeah. No, that's that's an option, too. Um but I I obviously would leave that to Kristen to decide. Um
>> I definitely understand how nothing's stolen. Can't >> you can't plan >> plan parents and stuff? >> No. No, for sure. >> Well, so how would we go about like putting feelers out?
>> Um, so last time we Oh, man. We ended up like we had I think we had like the the mayor's office like on the city Facebook page like posted that we're looking for people looking for someone and
>> we were everybody just asked people >> networking and like we were trying to contact like you know land trusts or like you know all these different organizations. >> Yeah. So I got like a friend of a friend. >> Yeah. Yeah, looked me in
>> like green and green field lift serve and you know all >> what about like AMWS and MACC? I know it's not a paid position, but um like Massachusetts for associate Massachusetts association for concom
MACC, you know, if there's a vacancy, wouldn't that be something that maybe like residents? I don't know. >> They do send out emails for like job openings and I think that >> a volunteer would be >> Yeah, I feel like that's in their
like mission, right? The only the only problem I see with that is I think anyone who would be subscribed to their newsletter is probably already a conservation commissioner. >> Yeah, you're right. Greenfield >> and if they're sending it to the whole state like we only need people in Greenfield. Maybe maybe um Mark Stinson
might know >> anybody uh like consultant wise. Um >> do we have like a position description on file that we could just sort of blast out to all of these various places? There must be I feel like I saw
something that was >> I don't know >> some sort of written >> I can't remember what I got. I think what I remember getting like the letter about the process, you know, how you join, like who you contact and things like that, >> but I just remember sort of an informal invitation when when Fletcher reached
out to me, I think. >> What about our website? >> Yeah, >> I have a coworker I've been needling for about a year. Um, she's she's young, but um she has a master's degree. Um, she's
knowledgeable in wetland and wildlife science and I keep needling her. I don't know. She doesn't seem to be nibbling on the line, but um, >> and she lives in Greenfield. >> She lives in Greenfield. Yeah. >> Well,
>> well, we should certainly send invitations to our colleagues. That's that we think. So, please invite that person to consider. >> Yeah. and maybe um Scott Jackson who's um he's involved in the concomley
he has a lot of students he's a professor EMass so he might have students who live in Greenfield trying to think of other professors who are involved in concom um I know there is a graduate student in Stockbridge who wound up joining the
conservation commission in her town that I could maybe reach out to her and see if she'd be willing to share with um other grad students in the area or if she knows anybody on the grad commission that is in Greenfield.
Um but I I guess if if we had if we could is there a way that you can see if we've got something that just gives people a breakdown like this big. >> Okay. >> And that way we can just >> there's so many >> so many >> so many dark corners of our files. Our
Google Drive has more layers than any other drive and I am a layer >> for sure. Um yeah, that would be that would be good. And that way we can really we've got something like tangible to say, "Hey, can you come join us?"
>> Um I have an email that I sent out back in 2023. Greenfield Conservation Commission seeking new members. >> Oh, there you go. Great. Well, that's a great start. Nothing else to me. >> Scott Jackson involved in that. Did you copy him? Because I think we talked about this before. We were looking for
Fletcher's replacement. Maybe >> I This email did not go out to them. It was I was sending it to different um >> Okay. >> That that the one that I just found was to Oh, one was to Furkhog, one was to um
the Connecticut River Conservancy. How did we find you, Emily? >> I think I got an email from Fletcher because I >> So maybe like >> I'd come before the Conservation Commission for a a restriction >> and so he maybe had my contact
information already. >> So maybe we could reach out to land trusts too. >> Yeah. >> And and our other city boards and >> commissions as well. >> Yeah. Yeah, like I said.
>> Okay. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to dig for like >> some sort of job descriptiony kind of um post >> in our files and archives. And then I'm
going to go through this meeting and write down all the different ideas. >> And >> I think we could start now, right? This is like >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No time like the present. >> Yeah, absolutely. I think when I first joined, I joined in like I want to say
December, but I didn't become a full member for a few months. And I actually inherited a different commissioner's term when they resigned early, >> right? >> So, >> yeah, you became you were uh what do we call it? Associate member or something.
>> Yeah, I was just sort of like >> voting member. >> Yeah, I was a non- voting member. I was just like, I want to become a commissioner and there was no vacancy available. So, I was just waiting and it was only like a month before a vacancy opened up. >> Yeah. >> And then I inherited their term. So, that's that was like why I have a
five-year term instead of like two threeear terms. Um >> I found that so useful to be an associate because I been on the conservation commission but in G in Planefield which has 700 people in it.
>> Yeah. on a good day. >> So, so it sounds like the goal is to get a a position description put together um get it out to our various list serves, etc., etc., um and have a non- voting member on board
in a perfect world before the 9th in order to have somebody get some experience before Kristen is done. Um, for the time being, >> it can take a little while to get take brought on too, >> especially since we're gonna have >> when I when I emailed them and said,
"Yes, I do." She said, "Well, I can can't do anything till the next meeting like 21st or something like that." >> Yeah. It has to go up or something down or whatever. But even if we got an interested party, like there's you could
still have the commission function with four, >> right? So they technically could be like associate. >> Yeah, we had three people for a while for quite a while. So, um, but yeah, and the the associate member thing is we
just like vote and say like you're an associate member and then they're an associate member >> and then go through the other stuff >> and they get to like participate in the discussion but they don't get to vote. >> That's what that is. >> Okay. >> That's really nice. >> And they they don't count towards a quorum. >> Yeah. >> Right.
>> So, >> okay. >> And I'll be back. >> All right. >> I'll be back. just uh >> we can uh you can be an associate member when you come back and then we'll kick someone off so you can >> Yeah, I just a this is just just a tough
chapter. I'll I'll be back in a year or two or three. >> Absolutely. >> Definitely hear you. >> I won't be at the next session meeting. >> Oh, that's our next uh our next item. >> Okay. Yeah, let's close out this item. >> Yeah. So the next next uh new business
is discuss the dates of the remaining conservation commission meetings in 2025 and any scheduling conflicts that could impact having a quorum. >> Okay. So I I um >> Did you put that up there? >> Yeah, I brought I my gosh like my brain
is not working today. I provided the deadline skating schedule for the rest of the year. We already have cancelled November 11th. That is >> that's Veterans Day.
>> Um >> and so also on the chopping block potentially is December 23rd because I will not be here. Um, >> may I'll be in Florida, but >> So, can we can we go through the can we
go through the consecutive dates >> just because I know there's two kind of back to back. >> The next one, >> the 28th >> after Yeah. After today is the 28th >> and that one >> and
>> I will not be here. >> Okay. >> I will be >> Who else won't be here? Okay. >> You'll be remote. So, that's Do you have any conflicts with the 20th? >> I'm good. >> I can be here. >> Okay. >> Okay.
Why is the 11th canled again? >> It's Veterans Day. >> On the Monday. >> I don't get that day as a holiday, so I forgot. >> It's just always the 11th. >> Yeah. >> No, I don't get that one either, but I still >> You're a veteran, aren't you?
>> Yes. >> You should get that day off. Yeah. >> Um and then so yeah that's so the 28th and then the 11th is cancelled and then it is the 25th of November >> which I will also not be here for.
>> Okay. >> I will >> you will be here. >> I can be >> what >> I can be here. >> Okay. So everybody except for Elizabeth. Okay. >> Uh and then that following meeting is December 9th
>> will be Kristen's last. questions last and any conflicts? >> Nope, >> not for me. >> No, >> not for me. >> Okay. And then um and then it's December 23rd,
>> which is canled. >> I that's that's one of the topics. >> Oh, >> I'll be in Ohio. So, >> yeah. And Jessica will not be >> I won't be here. my first meeting that I've will miss. Yeah. Which is pretty good every year. >> Yeah.
>> Also, I feel like in the past, I think we've canceled the one near Christmas almost every year. So, >> would not imagine there's >> unusual. >> Yeah. If if we have business, I'm just taking a station. So I I mean if there's
like really critical business, but I I feel like it's the day before a holiday and it's a week where there's very little business getting done >> in the US. So >> right, >> I think it would be terrible to cancel that. >> I think it's legitimate.
>> I think it's a good idea to not do it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Consensus >> and all right. It's canled. And just just a reminder that we can always call a special meeting anytime we need to. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's true.
>> Either either the chair or a quorum of the members I think can call a special >> meeting. So if there was something urgent, we could like have a meeting on the 16th or something, you know, the week before just to get it over with. >> Thank you for bringing that up. That's a
really good point. >> Or we could do it the day after the last meeting. We could do it on the 10th. Remember the Stone Ridge Lane? We had like >> four meetings within a week, I think. >> Yeah, we had them on a Friday night or something. >> Okay. Um, so that's it for new business.
Uh we've got the community preservation act application discussion >> permission to discuss the positive results from the pre-application submission and discuss next steps to complete the full application and next steps in obtaining letters of support.
>> Yes. So um that our project is moving forward the CPA funds into the Greenfield Conservation Fund. Um and I have started working on the application and I I thought maybe I
would have a draft by before this meeting, but I don't. So maybe before next meeting I'll send it and we can all review it and like talk about the language and stuff. Um, but the other thing is, uh, the CPC really likes to see letters of support and from like diverse
areas too. Um, so I think we should start reaching out like immediately um to get any letters of support from anyone who might want to support this. Um, >> would it be helpful to get um, land trust emails because I could definitely
reach out and get those. Yeah, I mean I off the top of my head I was thinking land trust and then like other city boards like the SGIC, >> agricultural commission, >> um the open space task force could
submit something if they wanted to, which would make sense. It's right within their purview. Um and >> follow up on the land trust the the task force. >> Yeah. And um and Jonah's on SGIC, so I can have Jonah um bring that to them if
you'd like. >> Sure. And then I mean I could send an email to like the green and green field list serve if I'm sure people from there would want to. Yeah. Tree committee. Um I mean any anyone who might think it's a
good idea for us to have money to do conservation stuff. Um, >> I'll I'll put together an email and then I can send this to a bunch of those groups because I'm on the tree committee as well. >> Yeah. >> So, I think I mean I think that's probably the most urgent thing. I mean, this isn't >> Nancy all the time since she's your
neighbor. So, you can talk to her. >> Yeah, you can talk to Nancy. >> When is it due? >> Um, the application is due November 14th or something like that. We have like a month. >> Um, so >> yeah, as long as we can attach them. I
mean, technically, we could send them along after that. Um, you know, oh, we got this one in late. Here you go. But it'd be good to submit as many as possible with the application. Um, but yeah, other than that, I I'm just going to work on I mean, unless anyone else
wants to, I'm going to keep working on the uh actual application and um yeah, and then and then we'll go from there. I do know that um when this came up at the
last CPC meeting um someone on the uh committee said well this is obviously this is paraphrasing this is obviously allowable but I think there might be a lot of questions about
whether we like vote vote for this in the end but that's for a later discussion so there could be a little push back I guess but Um >> cuz they just don't want to fork over like >> I don't know >> money for something they don't even >> Yeah. Cuz there's not cuz one of the
things that we've the CPC's done in the past is like one of the waiting things is like is this urgent and you know you could say this isn't urgent because we don't even know what we would spend it on. But I think we can make the case that it is urgent because if we have the
money on hand if something comes available, we can do it like that and have it done urgently. >> And we're starting at zero and we can't like we have to build it. >> So we should have been started a while ago. So it feels urgent. >> Yep. >> And um that's another thing. So I
submitted a public records request just because I've had so much difficulty in like getting information about like our accounts and stuff. I was like, I'll just submit a public records request. And I asked for all of the money going into and out of this fund as far as
there were digital records going back. And they sent me back. It was like only from 2015 to 2022, nothing newer than that. And it but it was showing that there was like $4,000
in it as of 2022. And then they said that was the record of digital files. >> So I don't there has to be something since 2022. >> Yeah, that's at zero now, right? >> I don't I don't know that for sure. >> Eric said that because I got all the
numbers from him. The we're talking the conservation fund. Yeah, >> that's at zero. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So that $4,000 went somewhere. I don't know. >> I guess it might be good to find out. There when when we at some point we were
paying Sarah an extra hour a week. >> Yeah, that might have been >> out of I think >> that might have come out of the I thought that came out of the wetlands fund, >> but I'm not. >> Yeah, I think that wetland for like staff and
>> yeah, >> but maybe it did come out maybe some came out of the wetlands fund and some came out of the conservation fund. I don't I don't remember specifically but >> anyway >> does anybody have um contact regularly with people in the agricial agricultural
commission >> I think I Kyle Boston is the on the >> if I make a like a template and send it to you would you mind sending it to him okay >> I believe that's true >> but yes that be wonderful
>> so that's That's basically what I have right now. And then like I said, next time I'll um you know give you the uh the application before the meeting and we can all review it and then you know go over any feedback um at that point of
you know language or whatever and then I can revise it and you know we can submit it. >> So that's the plan right now. Yeah. I just have to focus. Tomorrow is my last day of my parental
leave at work. So I'm like it's gonna be full time >> collective sympathy. >> Yeah. Yeah. So >> anyway, >> um actually so in the process of this conversation I was reminded of
the larger scope of Kristen's leaving um and as her role as uh vice chair is now going to be unfilled >> as well. >> Um sorry to loop back around to previous but >> uh how
do we tackle that? Is there anybody here who wants to be vice chair? >> I mean, technically, we don't have to vote on a new vice chair until the position is open, but >> it might be good to know. >> The thought. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um just things to think about. All right. Uh that looks it. Yes. any other >> um I have one update for the project monitoring because last time we were
talking about 225 to 245 Mohawk Trail. That's the big why. >> Uh so I had time to dig into that more to familiarize myself. Um that was they wanted to trim back plants for more
visibility for their signs and they submitted this whole plan um where they were planting like hazel hazelnut and some native >> berry. Yeah. And um one of the so I did reach back out to
the guy my like new contact that hasn't gotten back to me since and um still nothing but I went to the site and I took pictures and it is just loaded with invasives and one of the like conditions in the order of
conditions was that they would be like on top of the invasives and so basically we're in a situation where I'm trying to get this guy to get back to me to close out his order conditions, but they wouldn't even pass. Like they >> they haven't done >> cuz they Yeah. They haven't like adhered
to that condition. And so it's just one of those things where it's like I don't think he's going to be like, "Oh, sure. Let me like do all this work to close." I don't know. I just think it's it's like I can keep emailing him, but he could
submit it and then it'd be like, "Oh, you have to do all this work, right?" >> And >> yeah, >> just realistically, I doubt >> Well, and that's all like notweed, right? >> It's all Yeah, it's a lot of notweed. There's probably other things, but that's the main thing. >> They couldn't plant hazelnut or aroma.
>> They definitely planted a few years ago. >> Okay. >> And then I think it all grew back, >> right? So like really they just closed it out. they probably wouldn't have had any problem, but they haven't maintained it the way they were supposed to according to the conditions because that
was like an in perpetuity >> y >> uh condition and um so they wouldn't be able I don't think you guys would >> close them >> give them a certificate of compliance >> because they have not >> and so that means that he not only would
have to get back to me fill out all the paperwork but then they would have to like hire people to do that needed to be done and >> y >> I don't see him I mean he already he's not using you back >> right >> so that's the update on that
>> I mean that's >> go ahead >> that that that has has ramifications on if they apply for another something else they can't so that's >> um they've already come this is was the what third project I think they
>> oh this is >> um because they Yeah, you can't have an open order of conditions and a new NOI on the same parcel. So, they'll have to close out that order of conditions and apply for a certificate of compliance if they ever want to apply for a new NOI.
And any invasive species management would need to be implemented by a licensed herbicide applicator if it's within a wetland or riverfront area, which is a resource area under the ordinance. So, um you know, they would
have to pay for that. So >> yeah. So really we're just >> like it's almost just kind of like making sure it's flagged so that if they apply for anything that they >> they have it on >> Yeah. because that probably is the only
angle that's going to make get any like actual >> Yeah. And I would I would also say like if they do try to get a certificate of compliance, it almost seems like they should take care of the invasives and then do it for
a while before we you know like >> I mean and also you know we can have that as a condition in perpetuity on the certificate of compliance too that they need to keep doing it. >> Yeah. Um after we >> do we also have a condition I can't
remember Jessica saying that we require like a like an annual report if there is herbicide applications like a pre-application not notice to the agent and also like an
annual summary report. I'm not sure if that exists because I I thought that particular project they weren't doing pesticide stuff. I thought they were >> just herbicides. >> Manual or herbicide? I thought it was manual.
>> But um >> yeah, I recall too. I think it was just a manual removal. >> Yeah. >> How do you manually remove knotweed though? Because you just spread it if you break it. You just keep cutting it over and over for 10 years.
>> Completely starve the root system. >> It's so it's so intest. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But that's what I recall from >> when when the project came before us. >> First approving >> Yeah. I don't remember approving herbicides at all.
>> Okay. Gotcha. >> Okay. >> So now we wait. >> That's all I got. Right. >> Uh I just noticed there's also another one coming up. Uh 105 Newton Street expires November 22nd, 2025. So yeah,
>> just a heads up. >> I actually did I've been emailing him. >> Which one is >> that's the old the rug manufacturing that got torn down and >> also now it's a storage unit. >> Now it's a storage unit. >> Yeah, he they should >> he's
his timeline isn't as urgent as my timeline. But we are in communication. He is writing me back and he just confirmed he has asbuilt plans. >> Um one of my emails I was like your expiration dates coming up you know
>> and he's like thank you and I was right. >> Uh okay. Seems like everything. Do we have any further comments, questions, concerns? Um, this isn't a further question,
comment, or concern, but um, uh, I heard that Eric is retiring. >> Yes, >> Eric's retiring. >> Just thought I'd point that out because he's been like such a resource like for us. >> Oh, yeah.
>> Especially when we haven't had an agent and he's like filled in and >> so >> yeah, he'll I think his last day is the 19th of December. Have they >> Oh, wow. >> Are they searching? Have they hired someone? >> They posted the job last week.
>> I read through it. I wasn't going to apply, but I did read. I was just curious. >> Yeah. >> Oh, well, congratulations. >> I know. It's great for him for >> everybody else. >> Uh, okay. So, then at this point, uh, we
will state that. Oh, let me get to my proper calendar here. Our next meeting will be October 28th, 2025. Um, and
I do believe, could I get a motion to close? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All right. So, we'll vote starting with Kristen. >> I. >> Travis. >> I. >> Erica. >> I. >> Emily.
>> I. I'm also an I. We are adjourned. >> Right. >> Thanks for recording. >> Yeah. Kristen, >> who's gonna make the motions to adjurnn when you're [Music] Part: 2
All right, we are going to get going. It is Tuesday, October 14th, 2025, and this is the economic development meeting being held at 6:30 p.m. We're going to call this meeting to order. This meeting is being recorded by the economic development committee. If any other
persons present are doing the same at time, you must notify the chair. Nobody in the room, nobody online. We are going to move on to a roll call members. Uh, councelor Mashero >> here.
>> Councelor Gordon >> here. >> Councelor Bulock >> here. >> Councelor Minhas. >> I didn't hear hear you. Council, you want to just check your mic? Make sure it's working one more time. >> There we go. >> I am here, sir.
>> Thank you. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. Yep. All members are present. Um, next item on the agenda is approval of minutes from September 9th 9th, 2025. Can I get a motion? >> Motion to approve.
>> Second. Second. And we're going to take a roll call vote. Um, councelor Machero. >> Yeah. Hi, >> Councelor Gordon. Yes, >> councelor Bullock. >> Yes.
>> Councelor Minhas. >> Yes. >> And I am a yes as well. So this is approval minutes. How you doing? >> Hi. Are you going to be doing public comment or because we're about to start and I'll
have you sign in real quick. Um, next item on the list is public comment. And we could start on the board up there. If anybody online, please raise your hand if you want to do public
comment. Okay, go ahead. Uh, Al, >> mic's off. Turn your mic on. >> Turn your mic on, Al. And state your name and address, please. And you'll have everybody will have three minutes
for public comment. Can't hear you. Try to unmute him. You see his mic is off. Can you hear me now? >> Yes, I'm sorry. It's >> all good. >> Go ahead, Al. Name and address, please.
>> Um, councilors, I I wanted to Sorry, Al Norman, uh, Grenell Street. I wanted to just make a a comment about an item on your agenda this evening, which is the tax title taking of two properties. Actually, it's a discussion. Um, I'm at a disadvantage because one of the
properties uh was clearly uh stated in the tax title that it was taken for $1,300. The other one I couldn't it was not stated in any of the materials in your packet how much was owed. But the the product the property at Seven River Street was owned by a family that I that
I am uh familiar with and it's a family that Howard Shepard was an excellent Mason in Greenfield and did work on many people's homes. And um I just was saddened by to to see that house was taken by a former collector. I want to make it clear that it's not the current
collector, but a former tax collector in Greenfield took this property for $1,300 in back taxes. looks like I think in 2014. Why it's 9 years before it's come to you for a discussion is beyond me. But the point I wanted to make was the
system remains broken for home equity if we have properties that are being taken for relatively small amounts of money um and uh not um allowed to come up with a repayment plan with the the owner of the property and uh other other kinds of
help we could find. Maybe the the new elderly and disabled task force could have helped a family like this. But I really think that this this property should not be I don't know where the family is and whether they are paying any attention to this, whether they care, whether they know, but it's just
it's morally wrong in my opinion for a city uh to be taking somebody's home. It's not a home actually. It's a very small building. But to take that, take any building that belongs to somebody that they put equity into, to take it for such a small amount of money without
coming up with a repayment plan makes no sense to me. And and reminds me that our system is still broken in Greenfield. The second property I can't comment on. This is why we need public comment after you make the presentation, not before, but I'll just leave it that I'm disturbed that these two properties are
being discussed at all. Uh the second one, I don't know how much is owed, but the first one shouldn't even be on our agenda. It should have been returned to the family with some kind of repayment plan uh uh possible unless the family doesn't care and doesn't want the property. But none of these things are
apparent. But uh that's just the comment I want to make about my un unhappiness with the the home equity uh tax taking pro uh project rules that we're using in Greenfield. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you all. Just pausing for a second. Somebody's
joining the meeting. Um, uh, go ahead Stephanie. Name and address. >> Um, my name is Stephanie. >> I'm going to go stay online and then I'll bounce to you. There's Stephanie online, too. Stephanie, thank you. Stephanie online. I'll be more clear this time. >> Hi, Stephanie. Dlo, can you hear me?
Okay. >> Yes, we can. Thank you. >> Okay. Yeah. I'd like to echo the same concerns I had um that Al has. Um I I have seen a lot of property taken for very little amount and it especially has occurred in my neighborhood. Um I I have
real concern that this is appearing uh after many many years, nine years I think is what Al had said. Um I question why now? uh and have the people who own the property been notified that they're,
you know, potentially they could be living in another state? They don't know they owe it. They don't know they're being seized. And I can tell you by the fact that I didn't receive a butter's notices when certain construction like trenching happened in my neighborhood. I
don't trust that everybody who's concerned or who has maybe stake in any of this um stuff that's happening in planning and development or seizure of properties have been properly notified. Um so that is an a continuing concern
for me. I brought it up multiple times and definitely the process is broken. Uh to seize to seize property for $1,200 to not have made some sort of you know outreach to them to negotiate making
that current. Um it just seems uh going against what we actually stand for and not taking people's homes or making people homeless for that. Thank you.
Thank you. Um, anybody else online? >> All right, we are going to go to the room. I'm just going to cluster if you >> Yeah. Come on up to the table, Stephanie, and just say your name and address, please.
>> Um, my name is Stephanie and I live at 323 Shelurn Center Road in Shelurn Falls, Massachusetts. and I just wanted to address you guys and first of all say thank you guys so much for volunteering your time and working on all these committees because in the past couple months I've learned a lot and it doesn't seem like it's fun.
So that being said, I do appreciate what you guys are doing. Um, I am here today because I am working to put a veterinary clinic in a vacant space in Greenfield that is currently general commercial and it is prohibited for animal hospitals to
be there and we don't have a definition for animal clinics. And as you guys learned last month, um the animal hospitals are blended with animal kennels because of how they were written in 1989 is a lot different from where vet hospitals are now. Um that hospitals
used to be all rural and mixed animal use and now we have a lot of different models for what can be done. Um I'm hoping that today you guys can um discuss through it and look at the definition for animal clinic. And I know um it seems like the animal hospital
kennel portion isn't being addressed as much right now, which is okay. Um in terms of looking at those different areas, animal hospitals are um and clinics are both quiet areas. They employ a lot of local people, a lot of high schoolers, a lot of um a good range
of different types of employees. They're not high traffic, they're low, they're quiet, and um most vets are good neighbors. So, um, I'm hoping that this can go through today, um, and that we can help bring some more businesses,
non-corporate businesses to Greenfield. >> All right. Thank you so much. >> I'm going to go online one more time to make sure nobody else has any comments before we move on. And I am not seeing anybody, so we're
going to move on. Um there are no public hearings tonight. We will be moving on to motions which is um let me just pull that motion up there. Give me one second to get there. Um to take from the table uh order
number FY26-046. This was previously tabled in the last EDC meeting. This part is about >> and I'll need a motion for somebody to take this off the table. >> Motion to take it from the table. >> This could go on first 45 minutes.
>> Can I get a >> We need a second second. >> We could tape later. >> Al, can you just mute yourself, please? >> Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. >> Second from Mike. We're going to be discussing this with
the planning boards, right? Meeting, right? No. >> And I'll get into that after. Take room table. I'm just trying to take notes, too. FY 646. Get a first
and a second. All right. So, we have to do a roll call vote to take this from the table. So, councelor Meshero. Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bullock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Minhos. >> Can you hear me?
>> Yeah. Yep. >> Would you like to take this? You're kind of breaking up. So, and I'm a yes as well. So, we now have the question off the table. Um, I'm going to re read the order just to refresh everybody's mind and then we can go into why we tabled
this and have some open discussion. Um, so this is order number FY26-046. City council move that be ordered that the economic development committee take from the table. Oh, we already read all that. Um, take from the table order number FY2630 amend the zoning ordinance
chapter 200 article 2 definition section 200-3 by adding language in bold and by deleting language in a strike through as follows and attached exhibit A and further amends that the table of contents and index of the code and further that the non-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 which was tabled at the September 9th meeting to 2025 by the EDC. Um, so we had tabled this because there was some confusion between Ali's law and what we were trying to actually
accomplish here. So, um, the concern that was brought forward was if we if we we were originally striking out animal kennels and I have the old language in front of me here and and hospitals and replacing animal medical centers. The
pro the problem was the thought was that we weren't allowed to have zoning enforcement on animal kennels within Greenfield which after further clarification from the state um we still are allowed to zone where we want animal kennels in Greenfield it. So um it was
just we didn't want to take the risk of having anybody put it in a kennel anywhere they want cuz we fully pulled it out of the zoning. So we decided to table it. After further clarifications we have realized that we can keep the zoning in place. So, this is kind of we're uh Eric and I looked at this as a
minor change because um we're actually not doing as much to the zoning ordinance as we previously were. So, it was a non-substantiative change. Um so, that's kind of where we stand now. So, I'm going to open it up for discussion. >> Any counselors? Uh go ahead, councelor
Minhas. Uh, can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, we can. >> Okay. Uh, yes. I think now I definitely um have a better idea of what this is
about. And I just like to say I appreciate the person for coming. Um, I didn't catch your name because my connection is kind of off right now. But um anyone who's bringing in business to Greenfield, economic activity to Greenfield, especially when it's like they clarified a non-corporate way, we
are very open to that and I just want to kind of say that explicitly. So thank you for choosing Greenfield. I I hope through the whole process that you find everyone to be helpful and uh Greenfield
is yearning for some economic growth and definitely for uh to heal our pets. this would be a service that's much needed around here. So, thank you for that and we will try to do everything that we can um not just to help you but everyone else who's trying to generate some
economic activity uh locally here. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other counselors? >> Yeah, I'm all for this. However, um I'm looking at the table of uses
now the RC it's by special permit right the RB is by special permit suburban residential
in the RA which is urban residential It's a yes if I'm reading this right. My my glasses are uh >> RA it's a no right now. >> RA is a no. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Right. Thank you. So the problem I have with this is if
you were to look at the map, the zoning map, Well Street, the gen the general industry strip and Well Street and Chapman Street.
Directly across the streets from Wells to GI is urban residential directly across the street. And now granted this happened years ago a lot I
consider this spot zoning as uh there's also another area here where they stuck in GI and and Chapman Street. So, I don't know if there's a way that we could amend this where um
you could be in the GI except for certain areas because I just don't think that's fair to those of us that live right across the street from general industry where it's a no in
urban residential. which this is located. >> Sorry. So, you're wanting to make it by special permit in general industry as well. >> Well, it's not special permit in um
it's not special in uh rural residential. It's uh it's a uh it's a no in rural residential. >> So, what do you want to Sorry. What are you wanting to do in general and just in the GI?
>> In the GI along Well Street and Chapman Street, I want to make it a no. >> So, we we are going to have to amend this anyways based on the new language from the planning and zoning department. So, you know, that is something within
our power to do that. Um, do I 100% agree with it? No. But um because again this is an animal medic medical center clinic. This isn't a kennel. This isn't a hospital. It's not dogs outside barking. They're coming in.
They're getting seen. They're leaving. >> Okay. Then why is it a no in a rural residential? >> That's a good question. >> Is there other businesses that are allowed in rural residential? >> Um well I believe Dr. Funk is in rural residential and he's a vet. So if
anything, I would pref propose allowing it in rural residential rather than restricting it. These are noisy businesses. >> I understand that. Um, however, it's that strip is pretty
um of GI is pretty uh dense right now as it is and um it's just an inconvenience for the folks who live there. Um, I I just don't think it's the place
for that. And um, and neither do the neighbors. I mean, we're all pretty fed up of what goes on on Well Street as far as some many of the businesses, not all of them. I mean, there's already a truck depot there now. There's Jim's Tree
Service there now. And I wouldn't want to have a uh a dog hospital next to a uh gym's tree service because that probably wouldn't be very good for the for the pets, but because of this the obnoxious noises out of that place. But so I don't
know if there's a way we can make this work. Maybe by special permit. I mean that would be a compromise. But in the GI you couldn't you cannot you can at this current moment not have automotive
repair and servicing shop you cannot have an animal kennel or hospital but you can have a medical center clinic including accessory research and I think the distinction in language here is
between kennel and clinic. Correct. That's what we why we separated. >> Yeah. So, we we wanted to keep our zoning and there's going to be more work in the future probably on the animal kennel and hospital portion. Um, but we wanted to keep it separate because if we
went with the original approach of this, we were striking out animal kennels in total from our zoning ordinance, which means they could there's there's nothing preventing them anywhere in the city at that point, right? So, you know, my my argument here is, you know, if you look at, you know, the the way rural
residential applies throughout most of this, everything a lot of things are known in rural residential. It's kind of protected >> agriculture land out there anyways. and a lot of um things aren't even allowed there. Whereas, you know, the other residentials, you do have more of a special permit process to do things. The
GI industry, you know, is general industry. Um, I'd be comfortable making it by special permit in that location. You know, making sure that it it meets all the requirements and that the additional traffic isn't going to cause any issues and things like that. It definitely
belongs in in commercial districts, right? So, um I'm open to suggestions. We have to change this either way. So, you know, um can I ask specifically? I don't I
don't want to I didn't know last month and I don't want to make this decision based on an individual business, but is is that the location where the this business is wanting to go? >> Why don't we ask her? >> No, this is at Cherry Brown Plaza in a place that's been vacant for 10 years.
Okay. That's not GI. That's um >> that's general commercial and it's not allowed or family hospitals are not allowed. >> Yeah. >> Even though there's where in my space within one mile as the bird flies, there's two other vet. >> I think that's uh
considered um >> RC. >> I think it's uh yeah, >> isn't it limited limited commercial up through there? Oh, that's uh that's high street. But animal medical center and
clinic is right here is allowed in LC and GC. >> Yeah, but that language isn't in there yet. We're adding this proposal. >> So we're adding this language as part of this is the proposal. Yes. So before we were striking this out, the animal hospital and kennel and adding this to
replace it. Now we're leaving this and just adding this language with this statement in 2003. So that would be the amendment we would have to make to this. So um >> the LC is Cherry Rums in DLC and that's that's perfect. I mean that's a great
place for it. Um >> do you have the um I'll go look at the >> I honestly I honestly knowing that I'm like >> industry friend. Oh Rachel, we haven't heard from you. I see your hands up. Join the discussion. >> Thank you. >> Sometimes we forget about the screen,
right? >> It happens. >> Just shout in next time. >> Yeah. No, I'm I'm patient. I knew you would get to me. Um I first of all really appreciate that this was separated out because there was so much confusion last month. Um I was certainly confused and it I'm really glad that we
went, you know, that we tabled it, went back to the drawing board a little bit and really clarified what decisions applied to what. Um I'm excited about this change. Um I'd be excited to have more uh veterinary access and capacity
in Greenfield. Um, I think this is a great, you know, that particular location is great, even though obviously this decision isn't about this particular project. Um, as far as the the, you know, this question of like the industrial place on Well Street, it
seems to me that like there's a bigger zoning conversation that needs to happen about Well Street, right? And like we're not going to solve that problem by keep by like peace meal keeping out certain types of businesses. Um, obviously it's also a bigger
issue, like it's going to take longer to address it in a holistic way. Um, but I'm I'm hesitant to say, you know, oh, we shouldn't allow animal clinics there because there's all these issues with businesses that are already there. I mean, it also sounds like that wouldn't
be a good location. So, I kind of doubt that a clinic would want to go in there. Um, you know, I think if allowing this by special permit is is what will let us all feel comfortable moving this forward, I'm I'm okay with that. Um, I'm happy with uh the language as currently
proposed. Um, and I'm excited to support this. >> Okay. Yeah, I'll say I'm happy to I understand the issue there on Wall Street because I have gotten letters about Jim's tree service and other
things for years. Um I think the issue actually is the GI section between Wells and Allen and the GI section extends much longer past Allen. Um,
so yeah, I mean I'm happy to have this go in as special permit for that for GI and support the rest of it. Um, with the hope that until this bigger zoning conversation can happen about that area. Um, if anything did want to
go in there would have to go before special permit. >> Okay. I could also support special permit in the GI as well. Um, I think that case, >> again, that's it's a bigger issue. Um,
I I don't know how we fix it, but it's certainly worth talking about down the road. >> Yeah. >> And like you said, it's not going to get fixed tonight, but >> Yep. >> And I just want to stay on what's on the agenda. So, if we want to talk about that, >> um, we could certainly put it in a future meeting. Um, I just don't want to
stray too far from the agenda. >> Right. >> All right. Um, so you know, my recommendation would be, you know, right now I'm going to read the order right now as it's stated, just so you're clear. And then I would recommend that
somebody would make a motion to um amend the motion to get rid of the previously stried out section that said uh that strike out animal kennel and hospital and replaced it with animal medical center and
clinic. and then added under section 200-3 the terms and words animal medical center and clinic has read in our packet. Right? And that will clean this all up. And then we would also want to amend the table of uses to have special permit
under the GI industry for animal medical center and clinic. This is kind of getting kind of messy, but I think it's doable. >> Well, that's only three three items. So again, as it reads now, order number FY26-0-30
um at the city council of Greenfield amend the zoning ordinance chapter 200 article 2 definition section 200 by adding language in bold and deleting language and strike through as follows as attached in exhibit A and further amends at the table context and index of the code and further that non-substantive changes numbering of the
ordinance be permitted in that it be in compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield. So, um, anybody want to try to take a pass at that amendment? >> Can I do it? >> Yeah. >> Motion to end. I'd like to make a motion
to amend. >> Can I get a second on the motion to amend? >> Second. >> Okay. Motion to amend. And I'd like to remove animal kennel and hospital
and clinic and center and add section 200-3 terms and words and amend the table of uses to add medical center and clinic.
>> And you want it by special permit and GI >> and special permit by GI. Yep. SP. >> All right. So, an amendment has been proposed. Now, we could open up discussion on the amendment. Does anybody have discussion on the
amendment? Okay, now we could take a vote on the motion as amended. >> Councelor Mashero, >> yes. Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhas,
>> yes. >> And I'm a yes as well. Um, now we need need to take a uh another vote, I believe, on how the motion is amended. And I have to read this back somehow. So,
um, so the motion has been amended. Let's see that the C. This gets so sloppy. And I called Kathy and talked to her for like 30 minutes how to do this tonight. Um, so order number FY26-030
as amended with the city council of Greenfield amends the zoning ordinance chapter 200 articles 2 definition section section 200 by adding language in bold and deleting language in strikethrough as follows attached in exhibit A which will be amended exhibit A as stated here that
um removes removes a previous strikethrough of animal kennel and hospital adds under section 200-3 animal medical center and clinics to the table of uses and then strike uh requires special
permit in the GI. >> That's it. >> The table reflects that and the table reflects that accordingly. Correct. Okay. Okay. So, now we're going to take a vote, final vote as amended, I guess.
And that's going to be a roll vote roll call vote. So, councelor Mashero, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhas, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes as well. Take a deep
breath, everybody. That wasn't so bad. Ah, it's just messy. It's just um All right. So, next on the agenda and moving on is discussions.
And here we're we have a couple items a couple items here to discuss. Um these are about the surplus property. So, these are only discussions. We're not voting on this tonight. Um we don't vote on authorizing this tonight at all. And if if the mayor doesn't mind, if she
wants to join us at the table because I think she'd be an important part. >> Okay. >> Comfortable chair. >> Thank you. Um >> yeah. So the first item on the agenda here uh mayor is review submit written comments and if any regarding the
surplus property of the potential sale of city own located at seven river street. So let's discuss seven river street first. You just give us a fill in on um that whole process. >> Yes. Um I'm just going to start by telling you that we the reason that both
of these properties are up. We had a property compliance meeting um where I believe that we talked about 28 parcels that are within the city of Greenfield. Um
none of this came from any desire to make any money for the city of Greenfield. Um the properties are situated throughout Greenfield. Um, I met Councelor Bullock as I was um actually
walking around looking at the parcels. They're problems for people in different neighborhoods because of the conditions of the properties. It's um some of them the city owns
uh you know um and some of them some of them property owners own some of them are properties that people are squatting in but they are in terrible disrepair one and a few of them people have just you know walked away from or haven't
paid their taxes on this one the first one seven river road that was taken for non-payment payment of taxes. Um the this was taken for non-payment of taxes. I think the the figure stated was
correct. Um I believe that both people are deceased and um it is definitely in disrepair. It is not a home. There is no intent for
the city to be making money. It is it it is an it is an eyesore for who has ever is the neighbor. Um and it it is to make it look better in
the neighborhood and and uh you know perhaps it would be something that could be back on tax rules. So um that's what I have to say about that. >> Okay. Um I think we'll just go through both of
them and then we'll open up the discussion afterwards once we because it's similar discussion for both. So the other one is uh 31 cheap side street that regarding the surplus property disposition and potential sale by the city. >> So 31 cheap side se uh street looked
like a nicer property actually. >> Yes actually it is. Um that is also if you could try that as well. >> Go buy that today. >> Yeah. Yeah, that would be something that would be um wonderful if it was back on
if someone was there. Um again this >> it's seen better days. It has definitely seen better days and it would be wonderful if if somebody could be there and um you know I am
I think you know I was the person that was a proponent of I'm no proponent of home equity theft >> as you know this is we have like 28 or 30 of them across the city you know
several of them on Deerfield Street many of within certain neighborhoods and it really bring a whole neighborhood down. So, we are walking around seeing what we can do. >> Um I actually I thought we were putting three of them on. There's another one on
Country Club Road. So, we're seeing what we can do and if you folks have any suggestions for what to do, I welcome them. There's one on 425 Country Club Road. I thought that one was coming on at once. We put them out 30 days notice. We put them to any departments if
anybody here has better suggestions, but they've been on for six or seven years. The, you know, the we put them out to the families. I actually looked while I was sitting here, you know, um they go to the estates of um so it appeared to
me the first one I didn't get a chance to to, you know, to review all the family histories. Googling all I was sitting here but I know the first one both people it appeared to me had passed away and it can sit there vacant and looking like that for more time. I have
no desire >> for this. It's not a money maker. It's to make the it's to improve our city. Yeah. >> So if it stays the same way it's okay with me. But we're looking at them. It's a real you know the two that I was looking at where you are. >> Oh yeah. One of them is a real issue.
>> Yeah. It's it's just a travesty in certain neighborhoods. We condemn them and you know still nothing happens. Um so what is the solution uh to that? But sometimes there would be you know each
one has a different story. >> Can I can I ask about 31 chief side >> I'm on that one right now on the registry. >> That's that's unoccupied I'm assuming as far as it should be because it looks condemnable. Well, I mean, it's in
better shape than some, but I mean, it's overgrown uh around and what's the situation with the owners or past owners or uh
do we know? They haven't been there for a long time. I can't tell you the whole I I was sitting here. I had more time to review the first one, but >> I'm not there for a long time. >> So then if with the new and now's gone
with the new home equity because the city owns these any profit made beyond the tax the city retains. Um
whereas like a any new properties that would come before us, any profit that's made the city would then have to give to the the owner >> minus any of the cost follow the law. We
actually at our problem property meeting we had Gordon sit in >> for the whole meeting because each one each property that we are dealing with has all all kinds of issues. So it was almost a two-hour meeting and he sat in
for the whole thing and these two parcels it was okay for us to sell. I think part part of it is because of the length of time. >> Yeah. So um that Yeah. I'll go to Council Minhouse in a minute. I just wanted to ask so um my my concern was
you know like do do we have a a legal opinion on this? Because if you look at it and you have tax title taking because we did it prior to the Supreme Court ruling,
do we still have the obligation to track down the owners of that parcel and to try to somewhat pay the difference or like Maryanne said, since it was previously taken, that's not an obligation anymore. And where who's making that legal determination?
>> Gordon was here for the meetings. I will double triple check, but I believe that both of these were fine to sell. But I'm gonna double check because you asked I >> Yeah, >> I I was surprised that this came up. I was surprised that this was a question tonight. Um,
>> but I will before tomorrow night's meeting, I will check with Gordon again. >> I just know that the the general public's going to ask that question that >> and that's why that's why I came tonight. Well, and more than anything, and I know you know, just like one, this one is in my precinct, and um this one
has had things um come and go from the lot at least >> over I mean, >> 31 >> 31 sheep. Yeah, it's gone things have come and gone from that lot like boats and
>> uh machinery and you know, so I don't know. Someone's >> utilizing it to some degree. So regardless of like what the law says ethically, I feel like the right thing to do is like make sure that the city
has done diligence to re to reach out to the next ofkin or whoever it went into to probate and offer them to pay the back taxes and retain this property before it goes to sale. I understand with River Street it might be that everyone's deceased and the people that
it was in probate and would have gone to didn't want it but um if like once that diligence has been done then okay but for this property like that's a question I have is like has the
next of kin been offered to retain this property for the back taxes and the fees. Um, I I think when the tax title issue came up and I called I think I talked to Somerville and maybe it was
Cambridge about what they were doing before the um Supreme Court came down with with the decision. Um, you know, that's basically what they were doing was they were offering for people next of kin to retain the land.
I want to go to councelor Minhoff real quick. >> So, a couple things just want to piggy back off of many of the things that have been said. >> One, it's a shame that the city would do this. Um, and this did not happen under
your leadership, uh, Mayor Jenny, but under the fact that you can take anyone's property is, you know, I I don't know. I don't want to be idealistic, but I I don't believe in that at all. that's the person's property. But um for a small amount like $1,300, like that's kind of insane. I
don't know what the circumstances were with that person. I mean, were they just belligerent, didn't want to pay and ended up losing $60,000, $50,000 worth of a of a parcel, but sad that that has
happened. But also what's kind of weird to me is what like maybe I don't know the ins and outs but for the per first property we are told that it's around 1320 something dollars that that person
owned or those people owed but what was the amount for the second? Okay. So, I can tell you that for the second. So, I want to but I do want to tell you one thing um that
sometimes what happens is so I'll tell you what it is for a second. But I think what happens sometimes is that like the people got older or died and walked away. You know what I mean? Well, dead people don't walk away, but I think that
that um that it it like many people you it's a taking and then people will pay it back. A taking and then people will pay it back. So for the first for the taking on this one,
um there's two pages on this. Uh so let's see. I'm 31. I'm on the registry of Okay. This was taken several times. Um,
first time it was taken was for $2,000. $2,000 and then they paid it back in 2002. And another time it was taken for
$2,000. Uh, $2,900. They must have paid that one back. Collector of taxes. Um, more recently. That was in 2003. >> Oh.
Oh, maybe. It looks like this one was foreclosed on. It was a sale of a foreclosed property in 2006. >> Then it was owned by Francis Kennedy, >> right? >> 2012 and then >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And that was taken for
$834. >> What year was that? That was 2007 and then 204,37 [Music] I think that is close to the last time
and the final taking I think in 2019. Now, the last one, the very last time, 2019, never paid that back is $3,456. >> And they didn't they never paid that back. >> They didn't pay that back.
>> And that was this Francis Kennedy. >> Yeah. They were the >> last owner life estate and then it went to affidavit of T So, you know, >> so basically for $3,000,
that person wasn't able to retain a property worth over $200,000. >> Well, it looks like he might have died. >> Oh, so this Oh, so this 31 Cheapside Street person has also died. >> The last I'm assuming so because it says
life life estate. Interesting. >> Yeah, it looks like originally the life estate was under Margaret and then Francis bought it from the life estate for $100 and then it was bought again for 115
from Miriam Francis Kennedy. Then it was foreclosed on. Then it was bought back by Francis Kennedy and then it was pretty much taken by the city. So, it's bounced around quite a few times. Um, not that it makes it any different, but I do I do
want to go to Councelor Gordon because I see her hands up there. >> Thanks. Um, >> yeah, I mean I understand and I think we all agree that we don't want the city taking people's property and you know any case where it's not absolutely
necessary. Um, but I do think that there are cases in which I understand the necessity. Like I'm not going to go so far as to say I don't think it should ever happen. Um because you know unfortunately there are folks who just wouldn't ever pay their property taxes if there were if the city had no
leverage to make them do it. Um and and or you know there are cases where folks die, they leave town, there are squatters, you know, properties are in disrepair, which it sounds like is the case with both of these. Um and I think the city has to be able to deal with
that. uh because ultimately the city has a responsibility to you know the neighbors as well as you know the people who who own this property at some point. So you know I'm I'm certainly in favor of us trying everything else first. Um and I'm I'm very much in favor of us
doing due diligence to you know make sure that the heirs of the estate you know or whatever have know that this is happening have the information you know have the opportunity to to do something about it before something else happens with it. But ultimately, I'm glad that
the city is is taking care of this because it sounds like it's a real necessity for the whole neighborhood. blacks. Not not to mention there's several of them in this throughout the city that it depending on whether it's
auctioned off for either of these um or sold um I don't know if there's an option to I mean if it's auctioned off and bought for a song
um the city hunt down heirs and and pay restitution or I mean is that we like going into the weeds? >> I mean this one has heirs. This one as of like September like this Miriam was alive. >> Uhhuh.
>> Um >> yeah. >> So yeah. So, I mean, that's my only I I I agree with Rachel that I think that um there needs to be a a current a new process that can deal with some of
the bladed properties that that are very real that we have that do long a long history of back taxes. But for some of these, like I know for this one, I've seen things come and go off that property over the years. Um, and like a
Google search shows me that people there's heirs to this property or that potentially. And so they should be able to pay the $4,000 and retain and bring it, you know, bring it into compliance in terms of >> Oh, code. Yeah. I I do want to tell you
that I just printed and put on Patty's desk the attorney bill for this month and it was $20,000 and almost all of it was to do with problem properties. Um I call it the problem properties
but they actually call it property compliance which is probably a better way of saying it for those of you who are better wordsmiths than me. Mhm. >> But around these 28 to 30 properties that are really making it absolutely
miserable for neighbors and you know very well what they are. I just solved one of them and I was like hallelujah. >> Yeah. People are very happy about that in my precinct. >> Y very close to another >> and I'm very close to another and you have no idea what it was like. I told
you know one of them I have people who actually they have master's degrees in squatting you know and I have put every all every ounce of my being into this they they they've never paid an ounce of rent
um or anything and they've been living in a house for 10 years >> just last week we got them out and they were making life absolutely miserable for everyone on an entire street >> and so that's why I brought the attorney in. But $20,000 worth of bills. Now, you
could think that the mayor was not a good person for for trying to move something along. It is not that I am trying to make any money at all for the city. It is that we are trying to get something so that it looks like a better so it looks better. And you saw me. I
was walking on a Friday night. Yes. >> Trying to look at a sidewalk that and some mostly it's many times as people are getting a lot older. Um or people died, you know, or their spouse died and this I went up and
knocked on this guy's door, the man that owns those two parcels. We're not Don't Please don't say the streets. >> Yeah. >> Um and you know, he can't afford either one of them. They are just literally falling down. They're hazardous. This one on River Street, I believe, is
hazardous. The city does not have the resources to take care of these. We don't have the DPW staff to keep them up. We own uh two pages worth of these parcels. Um and
we can't keep them up. We should be keeping them nice looking, right? uh be you know as property owners we we should be setting the example first but I am certainly not trying to take things out make money and take them out like oh I want to take a house for $3,000 that is
not me it's not what I want to do it's that we we said okay these ones after the meetings the they were all of us I had the fire chief this is the resources that we put in to one room it was a a two-hour meeting with the fire chief
um the police chief, the health inspector, the building, two people from from building, the attorney, um uh I forget who else was in the room, but all of these folks trying to think what can we do for these um the
assessors were in there, uh the um and the treasurers, everybody find together. But it is not about making money. It's about what can we do? They're to it's a it's a total mess. They're condemned way down and a lot on Deerfield Street. It's terrible. Many in
your precinct and um the sheriff's office was going to come. They offered to because one that we have that's very near something else happening. They offered some guidance on um eviction.
It's really a terrible problem in a very poor city and I so anyway so any help that you have or guidance I would totally appreciate. >> Yeah, I'm going to say something and I'm going to go to councelor Minhas whose
hands up. So I first I think it's this is an important step, right? Because >> you've identified an issue that's been going on within the city for many many many years that has been blatantly probably ignored, right? Because it it was more troublesome than
>> what people wanted to tackle, right? So we know we have this problem. We know we have these properties that somehow we acquired somewhere down the road that are blighted. Um and we need to address that issue and also in a time where you know there
might be developers out there who would buy these properties and you know you see you know there's one developer in Greenfield I I've seen them fix up probably six houses on Conway Street already you know like so there are opportunities now in Greenfield since we need housing that somebody might buy
these properties and put put new housing in. Right. So, um, it's just we want to make sure we're following the right procedures. And it sounds like you collectively, you and your staff have identified the right way to do it. And you've had $20,000 worth of legal opinion. >> One month
>> in one month. So, you have done some your due diligence. It's just I think again, it's one of those things that people are they don't see those meetings because they're probably not public. >> That was a p that is a private meeting and I actually cannot ask it ask folks
to that. I'm not trying to keep that. Um, you know, it's not that I was, it's just >> Yeah. Like, especially with a couple. >> Yeah. So, I think I think, you know, just knowing that you're you're taking those steps. I I think, you know, having
more of a public comment saying the Greenfield realizes we city of Greenfield realizes we have these issues within our city. We're identifying these issues and trying to resolve them in the best legal manner, you know, so people understand that the process is being followed. But I'm going to go to
councelor Minhas because what you're going to get is a lot of people doubted saying it's lack of transparency, right? Because that's what everybody hears. >> So councelor Minhas >> and you're muted. Sorry. Uh my computer's giving me issues. Um, as you might know, this was
kind of one of my essential points to my campaign and when I was running and when I was talking to constituents, um, was the home equity theft stuff. And I we were able to bring about the
elderly and disabled taxation uh, committee for to tackle issues like this. Um and in that research I had remembered that there was a retroactivity period for this. So the Supreme Court has ruled right that up
until 2023 uh anyone whose property as of May 25th, 2023, uh they can claim okay that the city has sold their property and that they are due excess equity
um that the city essentially took. And I see that as a a travesty that cities were doing this. And it's this is not just Greenfield. Many other cities were doing this. Um I think there's two aspects to this. One
is yeah, you can say potentially some properties were before 2023. Therefore, it gives us the legal um authority to sell the property. like yes, we have the legal authority to sell the property, but take all of the profit from that
property and retain that for the city. Legally speaking, we might be able to do that, but that could open us up to some litigation. Let's say that there's some sort of family member or heir who, you
know, is like, okay, that kind of potentially is close to 2023. There have been cases filed in Massachusetts that don't exactly fall on that May 2023 line that have pursued this. So, you know, to save the city money and also I just
think it's the right thing. you know, it's not like take what the city was owed in taxes and then other than that, even if it's like $15,000 or in the second case would be um hundreds of
thousands of dollars, I think it's the obligation of the city as the you know administrative authority to find the heirs and the people who this belongs to. I think it's a it would be a good
gesture for the city. Um necessarily like a hundred a few hundred,000 are kind of like a drop in the bucket for the city. And like the mayor was saying, the city is not involved in the business or I should say now the city is not involved in the business of taking
properties for to make money off of it. some from that's what I've gleaned from what uh Mayor Jenny has said and I think if we want to stick to that we should ensure that hey whatever properties that we're selling let's retain the taxes
that were owed to us and then other than that find to the best of our ability you know we don't live in the stone age there's paper trails and electronic records and all these things and everybody has an ID and an address um find the heirs if the if the if the
property owners have deceased and give them over however much is in excess. I think that would be uh something that's done in good faith and is just the right thing to do. Um yes,
>> thank you. Um any other comments on this discussion item? Um the >> I just wanted to say the the seven river one is commercial, you know, in case anybody wanted to know that.
>> But um again, this had it really was just to make it look it was just to get two of them. >> If if if you all want the city just to hold them, I'm okay with that. I do not
care at all. It was We have like 30 of them. If people want us just to hold them and do nothing, but we can't afford to keep them up, you know. Um like the Green River School with the
roof caving in. Um and then like it's really hard. We have I that's another one I can't talk about because >> Thank you. So >> figure it out. >> But the point my only my only thing I just want to reiterate the point isn't I
think many of the constituents or or people that I come across the point isn't hey the city shouldn't sell them. We should just have them in eternity generating nothing no revenue. The point is we sell them uh
gather what was owed in taxes and then the rest should be given to the appropriate owners. That that's it. Not that the city should have them and let them just rot away. >> We we have one person associated with
one of the problem properties that no one can find for eight years. Nobody. Eight years. >> Yeah. And that that's the problem you're going to have in some situations, right? Um, I I also think that if if you are
going to expect the city's legal department to be doing deed research and finding these owners and and trying to give them reparations that it's only fair that those legal expenses would be deducted from the sale value, right? Um, in return to the city. So, I think we
can all agree, yes, the great thing is to get this back, get these properties off our books because we we were not a property management company at Greenfield. Um and doing the right thing where appropriate
makes sense to circumstances. Um I I will you hold the money in a separate separate account for you know two years and see if anybody comes forward. >> The other part the other part is is you know if if they're auctioned off Yeah. If a propertyy's auctioned off and and
it and it's bought or assault by the time, you know, you prove $20,000 in legal fees to to do this. There may be nothing left to give
anybody, you know. So, you know, you auctioned off a home for, you know, $10,000 and you got, you know, $15,000 worth of expenses. >> There's it there's nothing to give, right?
>> I mean, there's >> there's a very clear the home equity law is very clear about how a city like none of that is a question we have to answer. Thank God. >> Right. Well, I think what we need procedurally in place, and I know tonight's just a discussion, like we
don't have to make any formal decisions here. Um, but I think what I would like to see procedurally is that when something like this comes in front of us that we can clearly see this is the steps that were made to
contact the next of kin or whoever was identified in the probate. This is how many months it's been. so that we can say, "Okay, this person has been we've been trying to get in touch with this person for eight years. It's like it's okay. we can now take
this for title and and auction it and follow the procedure that the home ex home equity um legislation put into place where you're you know there's a formula for how you um figure out what
your what your cost is and it's like anything over $125,000 um whatever. So all I care about is that I can adequately see that the next ofkin or
the property owner has been contacted and given um like first right of refusal to pay the taxes um and retain the property before with an adequate amount of time to respond. That's and maybe that's an internal
procedure if it doesn't exist that's like you know we do this research for 6 months and then it moves forward or whatever. I know Kelly Varnner gave us a presentation forever ago about this and um there was
some internal procedure that the city followed in terms of like lengths of time and response and at that point it didn't feel um it didn't feel to me spacious enough for like a next of kin to be notified. >> Yeah. Kin is something else entirely.
Yeah, >> I agree with you. I totally agree with you on that. What but what we're finding how I see like with this aging population with this one in particular like you have seven river
you know yeah in cases like that where there's no one and it's done and it's like it's clear move let's move and let's do it and let's hold the money as we should and follow the law. Yeah. and get the
blighted properties hopefully in the hands of people who need houses and want to fix them up, >> right? You know, you just want it to look better for your neighbors. You know, I live in a neighborhood. You all live in neighborhoods. You know what I mean? >> I mean, you know, I want to walk on that
sidewalk. >> Me, too. Oh, me too. >> I just I just fought for a sidewalk for four years to be open. >> Yeah. >> He moved the barricades, though. Thank you, DPW. He moved the barricades. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you guys. >> Thank you.
>> Any other further discussion on this item? >> I'm seeing no. Um so that moves us on to the next item which is the next meeting. Um there's a joint public hearing with the plan. Well, no, I'm reading the wrong
ah I got too many paper in front of me. >> Is it November 6th or did that get moved? We were talking somebody was talking about December. >> No, I think we ended up getting a forum >> on November 6. We did. So, the next meeting is a joint public hearing with
the planning board November 6, 2025 at 6 PM city hall meeting uh second floor Zoom or hybrid unless otherwise posted. Can I get a motion to adjourn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All right, we got a roll call out of
that one. Um, yes. Councelor Mashero, yes. Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhas, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes as well. Thank you for your time, everybody. We appreciate it.
[Music]