I would like to call to order this meeting of the Greenfield Conservation Commission May 12th, 2026 6:33 p.m. Since we are hybrid, there's Emily great. We'll do a roll call and we'll start with the folks online.
Travis. Here and can you guys turn the camera on? Um. How about that? I think it's in the process of coming on but I don't see it yet. Okay.
I just see a black screen but it it changed slightly when you said how about that. Okay, hang on then that's going to be um Usually it's just a matter of clicking that video button on the iPad. Yep, I did that and it's on
or at least it's not x'd out. Then press the power again. Okay. I'm not. Um does it say any camera select? I'm sorry, I can't hear very well. Is there a camera camera select?
Like that. Which which device is actually um It's the it's the cameras on the wall okay that are just linked in like remotely to the TV so
usually I mean this is this kind of is where sometimes the last people who used it will mess with the settings but it's supposed to just automatically could without us doing anything. So,
I don't completely know how to guide you. Is the TV plugged in? Did you guys use the TV this time? Yep, the TV's doing what it's supposed to be doing and And it it doesn't show anything on the TV screen? No, it's
It's yeah, the John's on. It's it's um Oh, I see. I see. Yeah. That's what it's doing. But I can't but this that's my See what it says the video is on and then
I see. So, it does feel like the camera just Like it's got a lens over it. And that is not that's not through the iPad. Right. Travis and Emily, can you guys hear them well? I'm having a hard time hearing. I don't know if it's my computer. No,
that's probably me just not going in close enough. Okay. Okay. I can I can hear you. I just can't hear who whoever else is talking. I'm not in the room. I'm I'm remote. Oh, sorry Elizabeth. I can hear you Elizabeth. I just can't [laughter] I just can't hear who else is with you
Elizabeth. Hi, this is Ella the planning director. I'm filling in person for my first time meeting at John's on. Thought we had it set up. Sorry for the delay. This is usually the initiation. >> [laughter] >> The John's on the center.
I'll call Aaron. Okay. Um Meanwhile, even though we don't have camera feed, can we continue or do we need to wait until we get this sorted out? Uh is there any members of the public in person? Yes.
Um, I would think if I could still share my screen, then and it went to the TV, should we give it a try? Yes, can we do that? Yeah, let me try to share my screen, see Let's not forget where we
were in terms of the process. Or let's not let me forget where we were in the terms [laughter] of the Okay, does my screen show on the TV? Yeah. >> Yep. Can the people on Can the people online see your screen? I can. >> Yep. I'm on as well, yep. Okay, what do you
think, Travis? You think this is a I think it's fine. I think in the open meeting law, I think audio it like even audio only is acceptable for public participation, cuz people can call in, too, you know. Oh, yeah. And if
everything that we want people to see is going to be shared on the screen, I think that's acceptable. So, people on in person and online will be able to see all the materials. Okay, great. >> [clears throat]
>> Okay, so in that case, then, um, let's proceed and we were starting with roll call. Travis? Here. Emily? Here. Erica? Here. And also, I am Elizabeth and clearly here.
Um, so next we will move on to minutes from April 28th, 2026. Has everybody had an opportunity to look those over? Who needed to? I make a motion to approve the minutes from April 28th, 2026.
I'll second that. Great. All right, so let's take a vote if there's no conversation around that. And we'll start with Travis. Yes. Emily? Yes. Erica? I. I am also an I. The meeting minutes
from April 28th, 2026 have been approved and they should be available to the public on our website for the next business day following this meeting. All right, so we're going to just jump right into it. Our first item on the agenda is a public hearing notice of
intent construction of open-air pavilion at 52 River Street map 32 lot 2A department number not yet issued continued from April 28th, 2026. The project project consists of constructing an open-air pavilion that is 40 ft by 80 ft with a concrete floor
slab on grade. The building has a pitched roof and is intended to store non-hazardous materials out of the rain. The proposed site is on the in the outer 50 ft of riverfront area. A portion of the parcel contains priority and estimated habitat. The applicant has stored items in this area as well as
parked vehicles and other disturbances over time. Conservation Commission to discuss an enforcement order to restore this portion of the parcel. The applicant has informed the agent that many of the items stored in this area will be stored in the proposed pavilion. I we are [clears throat] still waiting on
comments from Mass DEP as well as the file number and the applicant has requested a continuance. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> I believe we'll need you'll need to vote for the record.
So, can I get a motion to continue construction of open-air pavilion at 52 River Street map 32 lot 2A? So moved. Can I get a second? All right, so we're going to go ahead and vote on that starting on line. Travis? Yes.
Emily? I. Erica? I. I am also an I. We will continue this uh agenda item on till our next meeting, which will be
um the 26th of May. Um yeah, no? Yeah. >> [laughter] >> It'll be a long one. Hm? Yes, the 26th. Yes, thank you. Um okay, great. Um
Thank you. Was anybody No? No. >> [laughter] >> Okay. All right. Uh so, moving on to new business, 37 Butternut Street, Assessor's Map Parcel R06-28A. Mackin Construction is in the process of selling this property. Agent to review
with the commission the history of the site and past Conservation Commission applications, including the wetland delineation on file from 2008. We've allocated 20 minutes for this. I'd like to make a public comment, if I could. Sorry? I'd like to make a public
comment, if I could, before the commission deliberates. Uh actually, we we welcome your public comments, of course, but if we could review the project at hand first, that would be super helpful. Um Okay. I can hold my fire. >> Thanks, and we appreciate you joining us.
Okay. [clears throat] So, um this is really just kind of to introduce you guys to the situation, cuz they haven't submitted anything yet to the Conservation Commission. But it it is going on, and there's been discussion around um you know, wetlands
on the property, um what future plans may or may not be, and I spent quite a bit of time kind of digging into past files or lack thereof. So, I wanted to talk to you guys about
about it. So, um basically, this is the Mackin Gravel Mining ex- operation that's been around since well before there were wetland protections. And um
they are looking to sell it. And we are going to after this little review, we're going to uh talk about the special permits that they put in applications for. But let me just draw let me just bring up on my screen so we can kind of look
at the last wetland delineation and the only one that I have found on file that was from 2008. Uh so give me 1 second and I'll bring it up. Uh let's see. Sorry, I think I closed out that window.
Second. 30 seconds. Oh. Okay, I'm going to share my screen. Can everybody see my Google Drive? Yep. Okay. So that's not what I want. This
aerial photo is from 2005. So looks it looks a little different now, but this is the wetland delineation. This was done before Greenfield had protections against uh intermittent streams and inland interior vegetative
wetlands. Uh so the wetland delineation shows um mainly bordering vegetative wetland and then the the two um isolated vegetative wetlands. I don't know you can see my cursor kind of circling those.
>> Yeah. Okay. And then up here uh, where my cursor is kind of going back and forth, that's a bordering vegetative wetland, but within it is an intermittent stream that goes down to the Fall River. Uh, to the west side of the property is
also bordering vegetative wetlands with an intermittent stream that comes down uh, to the southwest. You can see at the bottom of the screen, this is where they enter the property. This is Butternut Street, right? So, you
go in, there's this parcel here is 33 Butternut, and then this large parcel, which is the gravel extraction operation at and then some, like it it goes way up here into the woods.
They own this kind of odd-shaped parcel, too. Um, there are some wetlands up at the top of this odd-shaped parcel. Um, they continue off screen, but those weren't mapped cuz it's not part of the property.
Uh, there's a little one there. Um, but basically the topography is such that this sort of bald north-south running, that's that's like a a higher elevation, and then this
more wooded evergreen is the lower elevation, and I believe the terrain is such that it the um, direction of the water goes south and enters uh, these bordering vegetative wetlands and becomes an intermittent stream.
So, >> [clears throat] >> this is the wetland delineation that we have. Obviously, it's it's well out of date. They only last 3 years, and this was done in 2008 uh, by Ward Smith. Uh, so, if I go to Mass Mapper,
I can't highlight the property boundary, but you sort of can tell with the gravel operation. It's obviously increased in size over that time, 20 years. Um,
you know, the entrance is still the same. There's actually a cell phone tower up here just to kind of orient you. That That was built, I think, in the early 2000s. Uh, the Fall River comes down this way.
And what you're seeing, cuz it is Mass Mapper, I don't have ArcGIS. Um, I mean, regardless, these are state state layers. So, you're not going to see Ward Smith's detailed um delineations,
but we know we know they're there. So, anyway, the I don't know that the odd thing that you you don't seem um on our maps is there is a zoning district um boundary that
kind of cuts just through uh the the edge the northern edge of the gravel operation. Um, the gravel operation is primarily in um land industrial. And then above to the north, that is not
uh currently um disturbed, is rural residential. So, the uh the prospective buyers, they would like to um
Well, okay, so for So, the Mackenz have been doing it so long that they they um need to apply for a special permits because they were doing it before they were required to have these permits.
So, the uh potential buyers were trying to get everything up up to speed on all ends, and so they've submitted these applications to the ZBA to get special permits. Um
and that's what we're going to talk about tonight. They haven't submitted anything to the ConCom, so it's more just to submit any comments to the ZBA from the ConCom. Um we're not approving anything.
Um but I would recommend that the uh buyers submit plans directly to the ConCom so that they can uh be discussed and all um
all the results of the discussion and permitting process be submitted to the ZBA at that point for the ZBA to decide about special permits. So, I don't know if anyone if you have any questions cuz um I am a little under
the weather, so I feel bit scatterbrained, but um that's kind of the gist of the current situation, and then we can really dig into the specific special permits cuz I have those here as well. Jessica, I have some questions about the
special permits. Yeah. We actually have Ella here to talk about those briefly. Oh, wonderful. Yeah, hi. Sorry that Or I jump in. Love to hear more. Okay, great. Thank you, Jessica, so much, and thanks very much for joining even though you're sick today. I spoke with Jessica earlier this morning, and
she could hardly speak, so it sounds like you're on the mend, but thank you. Thanks. Um so, my name is Ella Wise. I'm the planning director in the city of Greenfield. Um and I'm happy to further explain the special permit process to the extent that that's
helpful. It's different than the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction, but they're related. So, um agree with everything Jessica explained. Jessica and I um were able to also visit the site. But so the the technicalities of the special
permits are for 37 Butternut, this large 220-acre parcel. There are two special permits under review that were formally filed. One is for the southern portion, which is where the gravel mine currently is,
to continue what they're doing, they don't need a special permit. Um it's a pre-existing non-conforming use. It's basically grandfathered in. But about from what we can tell from the applicant, about 15 years ago, they started blasting. Um
and because blasting is they they started using that new technology, so it's the same earth removal use, but it was altered with the use of that new technology. So, due to that, uh the Planning Department has interpreted that that's
that blasting wasn't grandfathered in. And so they're seeking a special permit to continue that blasting. But to clear to be clear, the blasting has been going on for 15 years. So, this is really just to uh permit what's already been there.
Um so, that will be heard at the Zoning Board of Appeals this Thursday, May 14th. Um you are all welcome to comment, submit comment as well. There's a second special permit to expand into the northern portion, which is in a different zoning district,
in the rural residential, as Jessica explained. And perhaps surprisingly, the zoning code allows earth removal in that northern portion. It prohibits it in the southern portion, where it's happening. But because it's been going on for so
long, it's grandfathered in. In the northern portion, uh they're seeking a special permit um to expand into that area. The application um specifically says earth removal um
and then provides a 400-ft buffer around the property lines. So, the Zoning Board of Appeals will be hearing that special permit application this Thursday, May 14th, as well um at City Hall, and you're all welcome to come.
Uh the Planning Department has recommended a few inquiries of the applicant and conditions, which is something we do with most special permit applications. So, I just wanted to share that with the Conservation Commission this evening because it involves you all. So, for
your consideration. Um given the known water resources on the site and potential for impact from the specific use, um I am recommending that the Conservation Commission complete its review of the proposed project
um in order to inform any ZBA or Zoning Board of Appeals uh conditions to in order to inform their review. Um so, to get kind of the sequencing right, um although they've filed with the ZBA, I'm
recommending they also file with with the ConCom and that you all complete your review. Um also recommending some further inquiries into the history of blasting on the site materials used just to so the public and the ZBA can better understand the potential impacts of
blasting um although it's been happening for several years, and that's on record. The Fire Department has permits on record. They attend every blasting. Um let's see. Let me make sure I recommending there's a buffer area
around both there's transmission lines on the southern portion, as well as um from the wireless communications tower. Um recommending uh consideration of scenic views um and the potential for erosion and
sedimentation. And then the fire inspector, the building commissioner, the city and the city engineer all reviewed the applications and provided recommendations as well. So, of course, supporting their recommendations. So, uh that's the more technical zoning
side and it um I hope I didn't confuse anything. You know, there's two different jurisdictions. Um but I'm I I'm open for comments or questions. I have a a question.
Um Ella um does the um citywide uh zoning and special permit process regarding um flood plains enter into this at all? It seems like part of the area might well be within that and I was wondering
if that was um you didn't mention it, but I wanted to see if that also was um jurisdictional. That's a good point. That's within the Sorry. Um the ZBA purview. Thanks for noting that.
The flood plain overlay district um uh governs or is defined by the 100-year flood plain. Given the topography of the land, um I'm not familiar with it off the top of my head, but I think it's very limited, if at all existent, along the
Fall River there. Um hi, I'm Travis Drury. I just have a question. Um just to clarify, you were saying that the planning department was recommending that the conservation commission complete its review. Um are you saying
doing what we're doing tonight and we should like review this and offer comments or that they would need to go through an entire like NOI filing process before the zoning Board of Appeals makes their decision? Thanks for that clarifying question. The
latter. Okay. Great. So, to be clear, this discussion tonight does not count. Yeah, thanks. It might count in the grand scheme of things, but not the final not the final decision. Yeah. Um, yeah, and then um,
this isn't really a question about this in specific, but um, Jessica, I was just wondering if um, if we should do public comments like once we're done with our questions either now or as we
go through each of the Yeah, I just something to think about either either like do it all up front or you know. >> all up front might make more sense because >> Yeah. they're also intertwined and it might there might be a lot of redundancy
for each, you know, um, each project, but that's just my thoughts. That makes sense to me. But that's your call, Jessica. Or Elizabeth, sorry. Elizabeth. Elizabeth. Oh my gosh. When I'm not
there in person, it's so hard. I'm like looking [laughter] at names. It's okay. I think we're both doing I'm just saying the wrong name. I had the right person in mind, just said the wrong name. I have done that myself, so. Um, so I I just to clarify within the conservation's process, my understanding
from past experience is that once public comment has been made on a given project, that is the extent of public comment for that project and that we don't then entertain further public comment. Am I remembering that correctly? Well, >> this I was just going to say I think um,
because this isn't like a formal NOI, I feel like it would once the NOI was submitted because there'd be so many more details and you know, that that would kind of clean the slate for fresh public comments. Good. Okay. Yeah, we would we would be required to do public comments again for
the NOI and technically tonight we're not required to allow public comments, but I think in general it's good to do. I agree and I think that especially with this project we will move forward with that this evening. Has the commission
asked the questions that it feels it needs to at this time? Yeah, I would want to see more details before taking to the detail further. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, but but yeah. Okay, great. So that having been said, Doug you've waited very patiently, so I'm going to
start with you. Thank you. Are you ready? Yes, please go ahead. My name is Doug Stuts. I'm a trustee of the Stuts Realty Trust. Excuse me, [clears throat] our parcel is about the entire eastern side of the Mackin property which is about 3,500 ft in Greenfield
and another 660 ft where the Mackin property borders the Falls River and we own across the parcel across the river in Gill. Combined we own about 96 acres in Greenfield and Gill along the Falls River. And as you know, we recently placed a conservation restriction on 86 of those
acres in the two towns. So my family's roots there lie deep as does our commitment to conservation. So we are extremely concerned about and in fact formally oppose the three special permits the applicant is seeking. Our largest concern is this request to
create a new strip mine without any apparent limits on a virgin hillside entirely zoned rural residential. That zone exists solely to quote provide areas for low density residential development and for agricultural uses and quote. That's a quote from the
zoning bylaws. The conservation impacts of this proposal are obvious. It would mean the clear-cutting of dozens of acres of forest. It would mean strip mining sand, gravel, and ledge on a hillside. Creating huge erosion, runoff, and groundwater management issues.
The site's proximity to the Falls River and the pollution potential there. Blasting, the potential removal of two highest hilltops in Greenfield east of the Green River. And the harmful effects of sonic and subsonic blasting pressure waves on neighbors, industrial park employees,
farm animals, and wildlife. We are also very concerned about the proposal to work blasting in the legacy quarry area, which is zoned PI. Blasting as an ongoing daily commercial activity is not even contemplated in Greenfield zoning ordinances, let alone
allowed by special permit. This permit would allow blasting within 180 yd of my family's house. Blasting here is basically fracking. And it will create the same potential issues as fracking. There's a pond on the site today created by past quarrying.
Blasting threatens the water quality of this pond, the Falls River, and the groundwater that nourishes the immediately adjacent 20-acre farmland covered by the Gagneux agricultural preservation restriction. Finally, the least of our worries, but a significant worry nonetheless,
is the request to reopen a heating oil business at 33 Butternut. This should be considered only if we can be assured there have been no leaks of fossil fuels over the past decades, creating a toxic plume making its way to the Falls River. Thank you. Thank you, Doug.
Uh I see that we have a hand up online, but I also want to give folks in the room an opportunity to speak. Um if you would take that chair there, please, and push the button on the mic, and it should turn green. And then, uh if you could please tell us your name and the organization you
represent. Uh I'm Sam Pettingill. Um I've lived on Rang- Can Is it working? >> bit closer. Just tilt it down toward you. There you go. Okay. So, I'm Sam Pettingill. I've lived on Rangerly Road
in Greenfield almost my entire life. Um one of the many things I love about living here is how things are balanced. Residential neighborhoods, downtown, businesses, and the industrial park, farms, hills, and forests all coexist and make this beautiful place to live.
Um Mack and Sandpit, at least in my lifetime, has always been there. Um and it's been fine. It's been going on so long and they've dug so far down that you can't really see it. Um it's far enough from Adams Road, etc., and it's now a pit. You can't really see
the excavators and the goings-on there. Um I am concerned they've been blasting for years without a permit, and uh now want a permit to do it forever. Um excavators are fine, heavy explosives are not. Um
what I'm really concerned about is the applicant's request to be able to clear-cut, strip mine, and blast all the way up the hillsides and over the tops of the hills. Um he could even remove them if he wants. Um this is no place anywhere. This has no
place anywhere in Greenfield, but particularly not in an area zoned for houses on big lots and farms. Thank you. Thank you. We will uh move back online. Uh Raphael, I believe you had your hand up next. Yeah, thanks. I'm I'm also a resident of
Adams [snorts] Road. Could you please state your name and for the record? Sure, yeah. Raphael Wolman, and what else? >> [snorts] >> And you've mentioned the the road you're on, yes. >> Yeah, yeah. Adams Yeah, 325 Adams. Uh I'm not a landowner. I haven't lived
here long. I have been in the woods um down to the Falls River where we're speaking of. And um I do have experience contracting for Fish and Wildlife
boundary marking. So, I um know a little bit about, you know, not professionally about plant communities, but there's a huge diversity of plant communities in the slope going down to the river. And it's beautiful, and it's kind of um
maybe in my experience of exploring Greenfield, one of the biggest and kind of most special unbroken stretches of woods. And any kind of
industrial use above the hill would totally ruin that. In my non-professional opinion, so I I think that needs to be explored very deeply, and that area needs to be surveyed for wildlife and plant life and things like that.
Um I don't know how to go about doing that, but cuz I don't know the landowners. But, yeah. It would be a a shame to break up that stretch of woods. Thanks. Thank you for your comments. Is there
Please. Um my name is Brian Kleeberg. I What do you need my address? >> Street, not the street number. >> Well, I I live on Adams Road. I own a farm on Adams Road. I also own some land in the planned industrial uh 30 Adams Road. So, I'm pretty familiar with the area.
Um I didn't write anything down. I probably should have, so I was a little more organized for you guys, but I'll start by saying I'm I'm a huge advocate of um you know, if it's your land, it's your land. I know there's restrictions, there's you guys are here for a reason
and I've been on the other side of this with my lot on Adams Road and I understand that, you know, um conservation is important and I've had, you know, restrictions put on on my land. So, I know what it feels like. Um where I'm going with that.
I guess where I'm at is I run an agricultural business. I I own a farm, a livestock farm. We have up to 75 head of cattle. Um And the direct effect would be to me, um we have
natural brooks. It's all ledge up there and we have natural brooks that just emerge. You would walk You walk up and there's just a brook comes out of the ground and that's how I water my cows. So, um when we're looking at the map, there's that weird like pencil
piece on the land. Um that from there it actually slopes downward north. So, it slopes towards my farm. It's not all sloping back to the pit, which is a little concerning for me because if we disrupt whatever's going on I'm not a biologist or whatever, I don't know how
things work, but if we disrupt the ground and the ledge and I lose my water, um I'm out of business. So, um that's it's just something to consider. Um I have I personally, I'm speaking for myself, have absolutely no
issue with with the gravel pit. I think it's an asset to our community, actually. Um some people may be irritated to hear me say that, but as somebody that buys gravel, needs gravel, it's it's very convenient to have that in our town. It is an asset. It's There's a lot of
construction companies around. Um but to expand into a into a an area that's not zoned for that type of work, that could have um huge consequences not just on me and my
farm but the land itself and the way the water runs and sediment and I just think it's um it's a big deal. And I think needs to be looked at um you know very seriously.
That's it. Thank you for your comments. Christine, I notice you have your hand up. Yes, um my name is Christine Langdon. I should say that my former name is Christine Stuts. Uh Doug Stuts is my brother. Um so my parents um
own the property adjacent. My father died about 10 years ago. My mother is still living there. Um I know that my family has gone through a tremendous amount especially thanks to my brother a tremendous amount of work to conserve
the land with the cooperation of the Franklin Land Trust. So our interest is just in ensuring that this property be um as undisturbed and um as possible. I will also mention I live in the eastern part of the state now.
I live in Dedham. I was formerly a member of the Conservation Commission in my community. So I've I've been in your shoes before. Um I think we all want to come to a resolution that meets um as many needs as possible but you know
we're all interested in ensuring that the balance that's existed between commercial um and residential and and and recreational purposes somehow um continue going forward. So
that's that that that's my that's my level of interest. I just have to say that those of us who had the privilege of growing up in Greenfield um are still very connected with the community and really care about it. So that's that that that that that's my interest in in
participating. Thank you for your comments. Do we have anybody else in the room who would like to speak? Please. I'll be brief. My name is James Terrapin. I'm also a resident of Adams Road. I've been there since 2009. I do live a little bit downhill from Mr.
Kleeburg. So, I share some of the same concerns about runoff and things along those lines. I know some but not all of my neighbors. So, I'm concerned about how this may be affecting them as well as how it may affect my own property. I
certainly don't offer any expertise on these matters, but I just would like to know that we've given as much consideration to everyone's concerns as possible moving forward so that we make the right decision here. That's all I have to add. Thank you. Thank you.
Do we have anybody online who has any comments? I have to sign Or Were you here to comment on this project? Good. Okay, thanks. All right. Do we I know I've having listened to
everybody come up with a few extra questions of my own. Does anybody else in the Conservation Commission have any further comments or questions? I'll read the second quote. Okay. I I just have a quick clarification to ask. So,
um I was just looking at Greenfield. So, I'm not not totally up on like all the zoning stuff, but I was just looking in the zoning ordinance and
it looks like the soil removal is only allowed in two types of zoning in Greenfield um with this rural uh Oh gosh, I just lost the page that I was on.
>> [laughter] >> The rural residential >> RC Yeah, RC and PI. Wait, no. GI >> RC and GI, yep. PI is the one that it is. Uh So, there are only two where it's allowed, RC and GI.
And so, where they want to expand to is RC. So, it is allowed there, but only by special permit in those two, RC and GI. In all of the other ones, it's not allowed. So, I guess I just wanted to clarify that it sounds like
of the places they could be doing this this type of zoning is one of the two types where it could happen. And but anyway it happens, it's by special permit or or grandfathered in if it was prior to the zoning.
Is that Is that uh That's all well said. That's accurate. >> Correct. Okay. All right. Coincide with the soil removal. What did you say? So, blasting is not that there is an ordinance for soil and removal um
and blasting is not specifically mentioned. So, usually when there's a use that's not specifically mentioned, you need a special permit. The zoning code certainly doesn't is not compre- can't comprehensive every potential use in the city. Um so, I just want to
and maybe Jessica or the chair can do the same, but the special permit will not be considered by the Conservation Commission. That is under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which is meeting on May 14th, this Thursday. Yes, the sole purpose of what we're
doing here with these three special permits is to provide comments to the zoning Board of Appeals from the ConCom so that they have it at the meeting. So, should we move to then the first permit?
Say again. Uh should we move to the first permit to the sky cuz there there's actually three on here. I don't know if um what uh the third one that we didn't discuss as much was the um
the 33 Butternut that talks about fuel storage, but um if we would like to just dig into these uh special permits so that we can provide comments for the ZBA. So, why don't I go ahead and read off that item agenda item and we can do
that. All right, so the Department of Planning has provided the following special permit applications to receive comments from the Conservation Commission. 37 Butternut Street, Assessor's Map R06 Lot 28 A. Portion of the parcel is located in rural residential zoning
district. Application for a special permit in order to allow for earth removal. 37 Butternut Street, Assessor's Map R06 Lot 28 A. Portion of the partial parcel is located in the planned industrial zoning district. Application for a special permit to allow for the
extension of pre-existing non-conforming use of earth removal with blasting. 33 Butternut Street, Assessor's Map R05 Lot 28 I. Parcel is located in planned industrial zoning district. Application to allow
for storage and sale of fuel. Okay. So, the first one is I think um probably the medi- meadiest. Um I'm going to share my screen again. Um just cuz there is
I have a a map that was provided that can give you an idea of um the extent This is this I've been told is the long-term plan. And the way the line was drawn
was merely to consider the allowing 400 ft from the abutters. There wasn't um I think that you know, there wasn't a ton of research into like why this makes sense
besides giving the neighbors like a good amount of space. And so, you know, I look at this and I see I know they're crossing into wetlands right off the bat. Um you know, this uh let's see. Right down here is the
entrance to the property. And we know based on previous delineations that there are wetlands that kind of go up this way, I believe. Um so this was what I was alluding to
earlier that I was um going to recommend that the commission request that the applicant submit a full application to the commission so they can review the plans. And you know, appropriately
discuss it. And Jessica, there's also an intermittent stream that goes up through there, too, correct? Correct. Yeah, that's what um what I was referring to. So this is all again, this is it's not mapped here, so I'm going off memory, but I believe
right in here is all BVW to intermittent stream, and it goes by this This is a a neighbor um it goes right by their house. It's really like wooded swamp kind of I drove by there um and then up and I I'm just basing on the
contour lines, I feel like it might go this way. Uh but I'm not I'm not sure. There's also over here, this is another one. Now, given that the current wetland delineation was done in 2008 and it's
got a 3-year time limit on it, is there is the commission likely to need a new delineation? Absolutely, and I I did discuss that with the um the applicant.
Well, I think that seems very clear to me. Um if they're they want to expand their operation into an area where we know there are jurisdictional resource areas and buffers um I think they would definitely have to
file an NOI um and clearly outline those boundaries and show how they will not be impacting those resource areas. Um so I I think that's pretty
cut and dry for that you know, for that expansion part. And again, the wetlands the wetland delineation that we saw previously, I think I think even in the records like some of it wasn't even like officially approved as the boundaries because they
couldn't get in to access the site to approve them and so, you know, the wetlands could have grown since then or there could be wetlands that weren't even identified on the previous um you know, the previous round. So, I
would take what we saw on that map as potentially a minimum of what the wetland and resource areas are on that site. Although not even approved um you know, you definitely need new
new uh delineations. Mhm. Jessica, were you within the framework of the wetlands as they are currently known? Has there historically been any um surveys regarding endangered species?
I haven't seen any record of of that. And I know there has been other um delineations, but they haven't been as far as I can tell, they haven't been filed with the city. Also, I looked on MassMapper and there were no
uh natural heritage areas um mapped on this parcel. What would um what would um what would be the indicator that that would need to be evaluated?
Like at what point? >> species, is that what you you're saying? So, so natural heritage would become involved should a endangered species survey yield positive results. I don't know when exactly they get involved. I know that there's
um you know, citizens that take it amongst themselves to report things when they're in, you know, public spaces or on their land. Um, but I don't know beyond that what's involved with um the mapping
being where the mapped areas are. Uh I just know there's not any mapped areas on this site. And my understanding for the conservation commission's point of view is um for natural heritage, if there are
mapped areas, then, you know, we have to require that they, you know, file with natural heritage and stuff like that, but I don't I'm not aware of a way to
uh like get natural heritage involved, I guess, in in another >> Mhm. Okay. Jessica, do you have anything further for this particular uh permit? Or shall we move on to the next? >> Um I mean, besides
them needing to file an application with the conservation commission, I I think that um there should be special attention to how the hydrology will change um even if they're outside resource, you know, the typical
jurisdictional boundaries. I think when we're getting involved with like clear-cutting a large area and blasting, there's subsurface changes that are happen- surface and subsurface changing changes, and that will be something that the applicant needs to
Well, I believe that they need to be prepared to discuss how it will or will not affect the wetlands. And this could be a situation in which it makes sense for the like if they file an NOI with us
uh makes sense for the Conservation Commission to require them to hire um you know a second consultant for us to review their plans and um and make sure you know it all checks out
and makes sense because I mean that's going to get very complicated like the hydrogeology of the of the land and um so that that could be a situation you know major enough to um
require such a extra review. Mhm. But that's something we can discuss if and when we receive an NOI. It comes. Good. Yeah. Okay. So uh should the um
just so I'm aware for the comments for the ZBA I'll be typing them up tomorrow and providing them uh to Ella. Uh do you want to say anything beyond that we recommend they submit a formal
application to the Conservation Commission? Can can we just like specify that can we include the map of previous mapped wetland areas and talk about how their um you know proposed work area
already crosses into areas that were mapped as wetlands and intermittent streams and resource areas protected by the Wetlands Protection Act and the Greenfield Wetlands Ordinance. Um
and therefore any you know, any work in that area would require a notice of intent filed with the Conservation Commission. Yes, a notice of intent that includes a current wetland delineation. Yeah. Yeah,
because the previous one has expired. Yes. That's my comment. I don't know if anyone else has anything. [laughter] Any further comments? All right, okay. So, the next permit is um for the lower portion of
the [clears throat] the actually the current active portion of the parcel. Um This is the I think what they were trying to draw in this map was just the area they would like to
maybe continue working in before they move north. Um Again, so this this area um that is most likely an isolated vegetated wetland is protected in the Greenfield
ordinance. All disturbance around it happened prior to protections and now it's just like an active road that goes by. Um >> [clears throat] >> However,
uh I believe this also requires an application to the Conservation Commission even if it's an RDA to see if whatever work they have they're proposing in this area isn't going to disturb
uh the wetlands on site. Um just >> And also a current Yeah. What kind of work is it? Is it um mining like general business development and >> my understanding Well, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I interrupted you. Go ahead.
That's all. I just wanted to know what the work was. So, the work is to uh continue the gravel extraction. And there's like an uh open ledge there they want to continue kind
of chipping away at. And um Yeah, continue, you know, harvesting the the resources that are there, but it's it's this particular application is for the the blasting the zone I think there's some blasting.
But this is for the zone's um industrial. Right? So, the one that we looked at prior to that was the um the rural residential, whereas this is the part that's actively being mined. So, it's it's just different. It's
different in scope. However, we know there's wetlands in the area, and I don't know the the extent of what they want to do, and I think that at the very least it requires a request for determination of applicability just to determine if what
they want to do will impact that isolated vegetated wetlands or the BVWs. Or the riverfront area to intermittent stream. Either way, I think it's it's a similar where a um
application to the Conservation Commission for further review. Mhm. Does the Commission have any questions or comments about this? I just have clarification on what the zoning thing. What On Thursday night, is there are they making their final like decision on the
premise on on Thursday night or is it discussion or is it Thanks for asking. Yes, you know, it's the first public hearing of the special permit and based on my recommendation that Conservation Commission complete its review in effect, that means that that public
hearing will be continued until you all are satisfied. Okay, so there's >> Just as you continue your public hearings. So, they will they can do whatever they you know, it's up to the ZBA, but my recommendation will be that they don't take any votes.
Okay, so there's Okay, so there's no Hopefully you're You're you're going to recommend there's no changes being made Thursday night to the current zoning. Yeah, no regulatory permits provided. >> Yeah.
Okay. Yeah. Further questions comments from the commission regarding this particular permit? Um just a couple Sorry. Sorry about that. This is why I'm not here in person. Um a couple
[clears throat] other comments uh that big wetland area there is also mapped as a potential vernal pool and um for the Wetlands Protection Act um only certified vernal pools um are
protected. However, the Greenfield Wetlands Ordinance does extend um protection to uh vernal pools that are not certified as well and there's a definition in the Wetlands Ordinance. So,
um just pointing out that there are sort of multiple resource areas um in that one spot. And um I also looked at there I I can't tell if they're You can see there's like little buildings or little vehicles or
something like parked around that um that wetland area. Yeah, those are those were uh parked trucks and um Mr. Mackin removed those. Uh we talked about that and he removed
those immediately. Okay. I was going to say I know some of those were within 100 ft of you know, they were within the buffer area of the um estimated wetland boundaries there, so
just thought I'd point that out too, but that's great that they moved those. And I will say also I was looking back at the um aerial imagery going all the way back to like the 1990s black and white imagery and there's actually more um
vegetation around that uh wetland area there now than there was in the '90s, so that's a uh I was expecting it to not be that way, but um yeah, just thought I'd >> Yeah, I actually spent quite a bit of
time analyzing aerial photos. Yeah. Because when uh we first were aware um the potential for the sale, I I was concerned that there had been a violation, but from what I could tell um the disturb- the bulk of the disturbance
um in specific areas, especially around that potential vernal pool, happened prior to any protections of that area and then after that uh the the area vegetated cover increased. Um so
yeah, that was my uh conclusion from that research. Mhm. Yeah. Are there questions, comments from Emily? Just um one more question about the what's marked.
It's very unclear, but I it sounded as though the request or the special permits were for that sort of tilted rectangle that runs sort of parallel to the dotted line or um dashed line.
Is that correct? Or is there is there for more clarification? >> is for the permission continue extraction in this zone. So, the whole zone is like
Here, I'll use my cursor. It I believe it goes diagonal this way and kind of like down here and down there. Yeah. Or or maybe even like their whole parcel basically to this diagonal. And so, they just want
permission to continue doing what they've been doing in this area. And the reason that you know, conservation commission would would comment on this would be okay, if you want to continue doing that, we just need an application that
shows what the plans are and to determine if they're going to impact the wetlands. So, it's kind of like they they're having one discussion and it ours kind of, you know, is in there somewhere, but they're they're having a bigger discussion about zoning, whereas we're just wondering, okay,
well, what are the plans going to be and how are they going to impact the wetlands? Okay. I was just I was just trying to figure out what part of the whole parcel or the whole area of the parcel is is a is under discussion. So, it's not just that rectangle that's
roughly drawn, it's the entirety of the area. Correct. Okay. What is that rectangle? Is that something specific That's Yeah, that's what I I I believe that is their active work site is what I believe that is. Um
Uh but it wasn't really um explained to me um the like this drawing specifically, although we we have talked at length about the project. Thanks. May >> Jessica add to that?
This is Ella. Just about this special because this was material from the special permit application, so the dash line that Jessica pointed out is the line between the two zoning districts. So, this site plan um yeah, is [clears throat] for the special as Jessica explained to continue
what they're doing. And then so that box is not really a regulatory uh has like no regulatory meaning, but in indicates where the most of the work will be happening because there's a large rock ledge there, the eastern
portion of which has been started to be removed. The western portion of that rectangle is where the expected uh near-term operations would be. And do we know what the arrows represent?
The areas as in like acreage? Oh, sorry. Arrows. >> Yeah, sorry. Generally, I think just that's where they would start and then they would continue uh based on conversation I've had with the applicant, they'd continue to pursue the
ledge where it's >> Mhm. um where it's present, but they would need that separate that's that special permit application that we already discussed to go north of that dotted line, the dashed line.
So, I I guess that to me that um you know, with with those arrows there there's an arrow pointing east and an arrow pointing west to wetland areas. So, it looks you know, it looks as though eventually they're they're wanting to expand toward wetland uh
habitats. So, that's another another reason why you know, it would be good to have something filed with us so we know what the extent of that work would be and how close they would get and what the impacts would be.
Jessica, could you walk us through the third, please? Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> Okay, the third Okay. Um actually, the third the third Let me bring up my stuff first.
So, the third is for the permit permit special permit to store fuel at 33 Butternut, which is this location. And they have a fuel business that they've
actually had since like the early 1900s. It's the legacy business where they pick up fuel down in Springfield in a truck and then they deliver it uh to houses. It's um oil, I believe. And they for for
like home heating. And so, they deliver it and sometimes they don't deliver at all and they park the trucks and I was told they park the trucks in this building. It's like a big garage.
Uh they don't fill the they don't fill any containers or other trucks um with this fuel. It's It's specifically for home delivery. So, they didn't do all the deliveries. They
parked it there and then, you know, drive it away to finish their deliveries when that time came. Um So, they're Yeah, just looking to get that permitted. I um
It's not There's no like uh fuel storage tanks in the ground or above ground. That's my understanding of it. And as we discussed, this is um a bordering vegetative wetland to an
intermittent stream. However, when you look on Let's see. Access GIS, here's the building. The length of this parcel is 304 ft right here. This length.
If If this is accurate, which it isn't always, but if it is, it's well outside the 200-ft riverfront um area. Uh there may be other BBW in this zone.
Um Actually, why don't we look at the Sorry, I'm getting lost with all my tabs here. Okay, here we go. Um Here's the wetland delineation. So, here's the building down here in the
bottom of the page. Um So, it looks like that state-level map was somewhat accurate to Lords delineation, but um By my crude estimates, it looks like it's outside of
jurisdiction, but you know, again, I can't be positive about that. I was recommending that the um Conservation Commission um like say no no fuel fuel storage in
in jurisdictional areas. Or you know, any fuel storage in jurisdictional areas would be would be a the the Conservation Commission. I was just measuring um from that building to those wetland areas on MassMapper and it was about 400
ft um was the about the closest. Okay. I'm just just to reiterate and just I think it just brings up again, that's why we need new delineations cuz we really don't know how close it is. Um and is are are they currently using this
building already for for this business? Yes, they've been using that building for many years. So, they just want to actually permit it now what they've been doing all along or I'm not sure what the what the what the what the point of the
Yes, that's that's what they're doing is getting the proper permits cuz they've been in operation for so long that you know, they've just been running their business. Okay, so before it's sold, they want to just
get everything above board. I also from my point of view, it sounds like this one um like even if it was close close enough, like wouldn't that be grandfathered in
from a Wetlands Wetlands Protection Act perspective even if you know, for zoning Board of Appeals or whatever, that's like a separate process that you know, they might not be grandfathered into or whatever, but
I don't think we could stop them if they've already been doing it for 100 years, well before the Wetlands Protection Act has even existed. I don't know. I I think >> don't I don't my I'm unclear on like busi- you know, businesses, if it's
active destruction of wetlands, I think that's different than >> Yeah. you know, like a business location. And you know, they they park the trucks in the building.
They're not I don't know. Yeah, I think I think this one it makes sense just to say that um just to note uh you know, we could note that that's an intermittent stream there that has a 200-ft riverfront area.
And that um you know, operations storage of uh um petroleum products or I think there's something about that specifically in the Wetlands Protection Act, storage of hazardous chemicals or
something like that. I can't remember the language. But, that should be outside riverfront area. Oh, here you go. I saw it. I saw something pop up. And then once they do a delineation, there'll be a better there'll be a clearer picture. I mean, it's
you know, it does look like it's a significant difference away from you know, a significant distance away. But, with that uh you know, better resolution of data, we'll have a better idea.
Okay. Does the commission have any final comments or questions for these permitting processes? If not, I think we have a significant, uh chunk of, um
comments that we can send up to the ZBA. Okay. Jessica, do you have everything you need from us? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think that, um it's it's all very clear. Um Um good to go.
Great. Uh thank you, everybody, for your comments and participation in this particular project. Um since we're not voting on anything regarding this project at this point, I think we can just
move on to our next item, unless Jessica, you've got something else? Should we Should we just to make it official I just to make it official, I'll make a motion to send comments to ZBA, uh based on the discussion we had at the
meeting tonight. Okay. Second. Thank you. Uh okay, then, uh let's go ahead and vote on it. Uh starting online, Emily. I. Travis. I.
Erica. I. I am also an I. Great. So, uh moving on to our Unless you have any final I do not. Okay. Moving on to our next item on the agenda, which is under the category of old business, land donation discussion,
potential addition to Conti Gully Conservation Area, Assessor's Map Parcel R37-56-0. Agent to update the Conservation Commission on her site visit with the building inspector. >> [snorts] >> Okay. Yeah,
I went up to the site finally. My goodness, the winter snow and mud season and conflict of schedules took a while to get to the sky cabin. Um, but we made it and it was pretty cool experience.
Um, the and building inspector said that the building materials were all pretty simple. He, um, was curious about the date the cabin was built. He said if anything
was, um, hazardous, it would be the roofing shingles. And I found out the cabin was built in around '92 and we found the building permit for that. And so, um, that was
after asbestos was taken out of roofing shingles. So, he he didn't have any concerns about, um, taking down the building. Um, he did bring up that getting equipment up there to dismantle the
cabin was going to be an issue. Uh, so I wanted to bring that to your attention cuz access wasn't easy. Mhm. You know, it was like twisty and turny woods woods roads that
big trucks wouldn't love. So, that's that's the thing that uh, maybe you want to discuss some more. I was waiting to move forward with any sort of um due diligence around title searches with
the lawyer until we really made sure about the cabin. Um Because that's that's involving money for the city. So. Mhm. Jessica, I saw there were site visit
photos. Is that from this visit that you just did? Yeah. And can we check those out? Yes. Thank you. Oh, yes. There is some sort of a I think that's like a wildlife uh camera. That was just on the
road there. So, that's the deck. It's on They They actually poured pretty beefy cement pilings uh that the deck is um
uh resting on. And there's the front of the cabin. And this little area is actually um it initially I thought it was just kind of a storage area, but you do walk in that
portion. It has an interior of the house or the cabin. And there's still some items stored in the house as well. Oh, there's the what rock wall. That's the property boundary. Kind of cool. See that go all the way
down. And that's going the other way. Some of those rocks are big, too. I'm taking over on my side of the toes. Let's skip over the movie. Um At least would play it, but I want the sound be
off. So, yeah, there's a cot there. There's still like some dishes and stuff. This is the sliding glass door that goes out to the deck. This is a gas stove that has a hookup outside where you can hook up a propane tank.
But, there's no There's no tank. And a wood stove. And some fresh wood. That's the little um shed. Storage shed. And inside the shed, then there's an outhouse.
That's the opposite side. That's the cabin. So, there's a door right here. Where you can walk in. Lots of animal droppings under the deck area. It looks like maybe
possums live under there or something. >> This is looking towards Randall's property. Randy's property that um is currently in conservation. So, if I remember correctly, our concern around the building was um
the um liability issue of having this this building on the property and having it be within the um conservation commission's holdings. And any >> Yeah.
Yeah, and we had talked about uh breaking it down. Mhm. And so, I was asked to uh kind of loop in the building inspector and the logistics around [clears throat]
what that would entail. Um he didn't see any safety issue like right out off the bat. He said he said it's in pretty good shape. Um and
>> my I guess my concern would be it's not um monitored and so, there's potential for right. So, you know, um whether the building is sound or not is not necessarily the the concern in my
mind, but rather uh the potential for um unauthorized occupa- occupation in a building that could be on our uh in our possession. Yes, that's certainly um I think one of the main risks and he was
just saying that there's no like [clears throat] he wouldn't put a strict timeline because of this like the compromised nature of the building, you know, he's just saying like it it wouldn't hurt No one's going to fall through the floors right now, but
um so really the timeline is just breaking it down [clears throat] for the other concern. Would we Would we want to get rid of everything? Or I mean I was just looking at those pictures and I was thinking that porch might be like like a nice like resting place vista to look out maybe.
Yeah, like a picnic. Sure. No, the porch is nice. Um the floor the boards of the deck are buckling, but the actual foundation of it is in good shape. It it does beg the question given the
conversations that we've been having about various other properties and our capacity to maintain things as simple as um bridges or wet areas. I I question again the
practicality of maintaining these structures. Okay. >> Yeah, I think the logistics around like getting a team together to dismantle it will be big. Mhm. I agree I agree with the with the cabin. I just was thinking about I mean cuz
then we were talking about Griswold talking about a vista there, you know, I mean I know it wasn't it was mostly just a clearing, but um I was just thinking sort of down the road like would we want something where people could could look. Sure. >> I don't know, but and and I don't know, would the outhouse
be of any use? People are hiking and you kind of go to the bathroom. I don't know. >> Who's going to maintain it? >> Yeah, well Yeah, I feel like people just trash it. Yeah, I guess people can't just be going in there. And then it does get back to the
liability stuff, too, because you know, on conservation land there's really no liability to the city if it's open and free and people are allowed and it's in a natural state if someone falls and gets hurt there's no real liability for
the city, but if there is a man-made structure that you know, injures someone in some way, then the city may be liable. Um for any for any issues that causes, so um
that that is a concern, as well. So, your conver- conversations, Jessica did you get the sense that there was willingness to move forward even though this would be a challenging undertaking to remove these structures or
Well the only thing I was asking of the building inspector was to come with me and evaluate you know, any roadblocks that we would have if we wanted to to take it down. And so, he was looking to see if there
was any hazardous building supplies, you know, anything that would require more than just kind of a crew of people to come take it down. Um and with asbestos in the shingles, we'd have to send it away and pay a lab and do all this different stuff before we even
you know, start taking it down. So we figured out that that's that's okay. We probably still have to pull permits. >> [clears throat] >> But it would be us that would be orchestrating everything. Like he he done he probably checked to see that
everything is done correctly, but he's not really involved outside of what what I just did them. Got you. Thank you. Ella. Hi, this is Ella. I'm speaking as a
member of the public right now. Um I'm not as familiar with this issue at all, but it just strikes me my husband and I were just talking about an AMC cabin to go to with our family and wonder if there's been any outreach to
um nonprofits like AMC that do provide cabins for recreational purposes. If there's some opportunity for partnership. I'm I totally understand the concern about maintenance and liability and the cost to ConCom and the city, but I wonder if there's
opportunity to work with others who have this experience. That's a great question. I don't know. Cuz it's I mean I think when we first talked about it or at least when I think maybe I'm a we even know even maybe an educational, you know, Mhm. >> like nature school or nature nature or nature
classroom. I don't do they still are they still in business? I don't know. They do. >> [laughter] >> They are. You know, yeah. I mean, but yeah, it would have to be I guess with somebody else who maybe would carry the liability. Mhm. Right.
I don't know how we find out. Also, another component to that is the wishes of the person who is thinking about donating the land because they can also, you know, place
restrictions like we'll sell it to you as long as no one is ever allowed to camp on this land. Um you know, or something like that. So. Got you. That would be good to know as well. Mhm. Did they have any any
problems if we had to remove the cabin? I don't remember. No, we talked about it pretty openly and there was no objection. The only restrictions on the other parcels was no hunting and I imagine it would be the same. Mhm.
Um I think the biggest I think partnerships with AMC's are really interesting thought and I've never heard like I've never heard of those happening so I don't really know what that looks like.
But um one thing is we don't have public and easy public access spot um with trails so I wonder how that might affect partnerships if there's no like
active trail system. Mhm. Things that could be looked into probably moving forward. Mhm. Oops. Okay. Any other questions around this? Any >> How do they get How do they
initially build it? Yeah. I mean I mean how do they I mean you're saying the building difficult to get to. >> away and um I think they just they hauled in uh lumber on their own. Um
Like they he definitely drove his car up the right away and it's doable. It's just you know, you have to maneuver. Um and if if there was like if the vision was to get a dumpster up
there or something, I think that'd be difficult. Um you know, and I don't know. It's just logistically with the roads, it's going to be tricky for any sort of like hauling away of materials.
Okay. All right, is that all you've got for us with that one, Jessica? Yeah, and and I I want to update the person um Thomas Galli who wants to donate the land. And so,
he's wondering if the cabin issue he was is going to be a roadblock. I don't think it's a roadblock. I think it's something that requires a inappropriate solution, though. Be that Be that partnering with somebody
like AMC who might potentially be able to um commit [clears throat] to regular monitoring of the site, um updating or not updating, but like repairing the deck so that it's not uh the the the the flooring of the deck and things of that nature.
Do you guys think that that a solution needs to be found before we move forward? Okay. And what is their their timeline? Uh he's he's attentive Okay.
>> through the process. I know that um the there's like tax implications for donations and um Got you. Okay. He's excited to get that ball rolling. I dig. Uh so, you know, we we could go
one of two paths, which would be yes, but please help facilitate removal of the cabin, or give us a little bit more time and we look into the concept of an AMC-like partnership.
Okay. Yeah, I don't think he's facilitating. Cuz you know, he's he's ain't been out there in many, many years. He lives in Eastern Mass and he's an older gentleman. I mean, I I also think it's possible
that, you know, we could just accept the land as conservation land with the cabin and then figure it out later and, you know, if the city owns the land, you know, make sure it's like posted that, you know, people aren't allowed to go in and
um and I mean, that it could even be um I mean, it I don't think we want to slow it down too much, but I was thinking like it could even be a thing where if we had I I don't know exactly what the process
would be if we would need like three quotes or whatever to have it taken down, but if we went through that process and knew how much it was, when city council votes on it, you know, it could be our recommendation to vote on approving it and provide funding to
remove the cabin. Um I mean, that makes it a little more difficult for city council to accept it. >> [laughter] >> But um and it, you know, it could also be another thing that
I don't Have we spoken with like I don't know, city council or the mayor or like the city's legal department or any of that stuff about like liabilities and other concerns? Great question. No, I have not. I was my step one was
with the building inspector and that took a long time. Cuz that that could be something that, you know, like city council might say like, you know, we would vote for this, but not if there's a cabin or we would vote for we
would vote for this and mandate that the cabin must be taken down, or you know, I don't know. Um it might be worth reaching out to those groups, too, just to like give them an update and I don't know. That's kind of get a temperature check.
Okay. I'll do that in the next I'll try to get that like rolling this in between here and our next meeting and see if we can get like a better idea where things stand. I know I know with the mayor there were
previous discussions about um like liability issues with conservation land, so that might be you know, that might be a concern in the mayor's office as well. Okay. Okay, thank you. Mhm.
Great. >> [sighs] >> Okay, um last item on the agenda. Uh Griswold Conservation Area presentation follow-up discussion. Commission to discuss updating the forest management plan that expires this year considering the presentation from the Conservation Commission on January
27th, 2026. Do we have updates? Sure. Um I wanted to share with you folks one of the grants print programs that was seems relevant to the um the series of outreach workshops that
we'd like to present um in anticipation of renewing the forest management plan um on the Griswold and GDD properties. Um so I was just looking it over and uh getting a sense of what the
eligibility requirements are, one of which is that you be it be on town forest that is enrolled in the stewardship program, which we are because Lincoln Fish had done one about 10 years ago with a a bird plan.
Um and then there's a few different kinds of activities. Let's see. Is this the right thing? Uh yeah, so this is the application.
Humanities with Lynn Grant. Yeah. Um it seems like it's pretty straightforward, not too long of an application. Um if you're doing outreach, which is what we're doing, then they recommend you talk to the person who
oversees program like Downey first. Probably just to make sure that it's within the purview. Um and uh some of the requirements are that the money get paid out by the municipality and then it's reimbursed. You and you can be reimbursed up to 75%.
So um we would just want to work out our budget to make sure that that was possible. I believe it would be because the the outreach activities shouldn't be outrageously expensive and um there is money in the
fund um which would then be um um you know, reimbursed. >> Yeah, exactly. Reimbursed. Um so I feel like it'd be a good next step to maybe have that
conversation, maybe at work out a little bit more in detail what we'd like to do, come to consensus about that, and then approach um Mike Downey and have a conversation. Um and the funding is
um spoken for for this year, I believe, but we can find out. And if so, then we could apply and it would probably be better to apply for the next fiscal year because um also the program asks that the pro- the activities be done in the same
fiscal year. So, if we started in '26, we couldn't possibly and finish them by then. So, we would want to start in '27. So, starting July 1 and then going into the fall, but we're still within this year and this is the year
our management plan um elapses. So, that would set us up well to do it um in calendar year '27 probably and fiscal year '27, but we would I think the timing would work out.
Great. And we've already got a good start in identifying those four um topics that we had decided we wanted to do in terms of the educational outreach piece um and Emily, I think if I recall correctly, you thought you had a handful
of folks that you were going to contact for those. Yeah. I haven't done that yet, but I I can circle back around and sort of uh narrow in on the topics that we wanted to start with uh based on our discussion last time and then get a list
of potential um uh presenters. So, that would help us build our budget. Right. Yep. Great. Cool. Um so, I'll keep going with that if unless anybody has any other ideas.
Great. No, I think uh I think we we did all that legwork and I think that's great. Thanks for uh >> Thanks Emily. >> all that. No problem. And if um if there's any activity we want to do in terms of um repairs and stuff,
um I'd be happy to help with that. Um I think we were going to get like a punch list together um when time when we had the time, but Yeah, I I had that one list, but um yeah, Right. I was thinking about
how we discussed, you know, the placement of the signs. And maybe there is a day that you and I could coordinate to go out there. Um That'd be great. Do a little native plant ID and
>> Yeah. things in the right place and scope out Yeah, that'd be awesome. I'll reach out. Sounds good. Great. I think unless there's final comments, questions,
we can wrap it up. Okay, so can I get Do you have No, I was just I just didn't know if Jessica had any updates or anything or she had to say anything. >> [laughter] >> No updates. Okay.
All right, so in that case, can I get a motion to adjourn and reconvene on May 26th, 2026. So moved. I'll second it. Great. All right, so let's vote starting
online. Travis? Yes. Emily? I. Erica? I. I am also an I. We will This concludes the meeting of the Greenfield Conservation Commission on May 12th, 2026, 8:13 p.m. We'll see
you again on May 26th. Hope everyone's healthy by then. Yeah. >> [laughter] >> Thank you. Bye, everybody.