Okay. Uh, good evening everybody. We're going to start the meeting at five o'clock. We're going to start the meeting for the um community preservation committee um October 23rd, 2025. Um,
and uh let me start out with reading the chairperson's statement. This meeting is being recorded by the community preservation committee. If any other persons present are doing the same. You must notify the chairperson at this time.
Seeing none, we will move on. We'll call this meeting to order and we'll do a roll call of the members. Uh Becky here. Donna. Donna don't think she is here. Okay. Wisty
here. G >> here. Sarah >> here, Victor >> here, >> Travis >> here, >> Jack >> here. >> Okay, so we have a quorum
um so let's move forward uh on the minutes for September 25th. Um do I have a motion? >> I move to accept the minutes as written. >> Uh do I have a second? >> Okay. Um, are there is there any
discussion of those minutes from anybody? I just have to comment that Sarah did a great job. Um, always any anything else? Okay, then I will call the role on accepting the minutes.
Uh, Becky >> here. Yes. Sorry. >> Wisty, >> yes. >> G, >> yes. Sarah, >> yes. >> Victor, I think you would abstain. Yeah. >> Uh Travis, >> yes.
>> Jack, >> yes. >> And I'm a Yes. >> Okay, moving on. Okay. Uh is there anyone from the public here who wishes to make a statement, a general statement? This would not be specific to
any proposal. Seeing none, we will move on. Um on to new business and the first part of new business is to me welcome our new member Vicster Michella from the planning board. >> Welcome. >> Welcome. >> Yay. >> Thank you. And what I'd like to do is
just ask everybody to kind of introduce themselves and if they represent a um a particular uh part of the uh the the grand number of organizations the city organizations that we represent or if you were just a representative um
appointed by a particular part of of the city. So let's start Sarah let's start with you and we'll go around. >> Hi I am Sarah. I am the secretary of the historical commission and I serve in that role here on the CPC. >> Becky George, I'm appointed here by the
mayor. >> And Wisty Roarbacher, Susan, is am I a mayor appointment or a council appointment? >> I think you're I think you're a mayor appointment. >> A mayor appointment. >> Uh Travis Drury. I am a member of the
conservation commission and appointed by the conservation commission. >> I'm Suzafik. I'm a council appointment. >> I'm Anna Olman. I'm uh the administrative help for the committee from the city. >> Uh G
>> I'm G Sheenel. I'm the Antifa appointment to the committee. >> I'm I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure it's a mayoral antifa committee. >> I I think you are a mayoral antifa. Uh I >> I'm not putting that in the minutes. No,
I think that's not a good idea. Um, Jack, >> I'm Jack Redmond. I am the executive director at the Greenfield Housing Authority and I am the Greenfield Housing Authorities's appointment. Um by J um Victor by statute um and both
by the state statute actually um there is a requirement that the various groups that we are representing um are uh part of this committee um which includes the planning board. The one uh group that is not represented here uh Donna Dell who
represents the um the um the recreation commission. Welcome. And if there are any questions that come up during the day, please feel free to ask any of us because there's we're not very formal here. Okay. Um,
vote to approve change to the scope of fiscal year 2025 Connecticut River Conservancy Project. Would you like to explain? >> Um, yeah. So this was a project that was approved by you guys uh for last year and in their quarterly report which they
duly submitted they mentioned that um some things have changed with their funding and so uh they're looking to reallocate allocate some of the budget line items. Um not adding anything new to the project but just things have become more expensive than they
originally were. Um, and we actually have Sam Stegman from the conservancy here. Uh, if you want to explain basically what happened and what you plan to use the funds for. >> Sure. Thank you. Um, can you hear me over there? Okay. Um, yes, I could I was
thinking I could read our update from the report because I'm guessing you all have not had opportunity to see it and that just spells it out. Okay. Um so this is the uh we have not expended any of the funds yet. uh we've been in
the planning process and this is an explanation of um the the proposed shift um upon receiving grant funding from the CPC which by the way was um $45,984 um and from our two other funders in the
Connecticut River Conservancy engaged a historic preservation consulting firm called Epsilon Associates to assist us in preparing a submitt to the Massachusetts Historic Commission, which we have to do because we have a a preservation restriction with them. Um,
this submitt detailed how every aspect of our multi-year project would meet Massachusetts Historic Commission standards for historic preservation. A few months later in September, we were informed that everything we proposed was approved with the exception of the windows that we had specified. Even though the windows are not facing
the street, they're facing the two alleys and the basically the back of the movie theater. Um, even though they're not facing the street, we are required to match the original circa 1836 window design, which is six panes over six
panes. Um, and wood windows. Installation of these wood windows that meet this standard will be a great deal more expensive since they do not use fire rated glass and therefore may require significant upgrades to our sprinkler system or fire shutters. And
the windows themselves are more expensive, too. So, our plan is to go forward with the window project as it is the cornerstone of returning the building to its former glory, creating a community accessible meeting space and kitchen while reclaiming the building's original window openings that have been bricked in for many years. We have the
funding, the contractors, and the permissions in place to com to complete the windows portion of the project as planned despite its budget now being more than double the 35,000 we had budgeted. So 35,000 was this like 10 windows and one exterior door on the
second floor. Um and it uh it we had said 35,000 based on an estimate from our builder Renaissance builders, but that was before we found all this out. Um this extra cost will require us to pause other aspects of our project while
we seek additional funding. We would like to use the full $45,984 of CPC funds toward the windows portion of the project. We are happy to provide documentation of the many steps that inform this preference to meet with committee or to provide a tour of the project. We fully intend to complete the
historic improvements to the building exterior. That was the remainder was the two front door sills and essentially a bunch of masonry work on the brick and the granite. Um we fully intend to complete the historic improvements to the building exterior in the summer fall
of 2026 pending additional funding. We have been encouraged by Historic Preservation Massachusetts to apply apply for $10,000 for these improvements in 2026 and we will apply to the Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund for the remainder. So that's what we
submitted on our report and I'm happy to answer any questions, >> other questions that people had. Just to go back, we had Oops, sorry. Um, just just to go back on what we had originally funded, we had originally
funded the bit of Mason's rework and the windows as part as at that $45,000 and obviously it's now not enough. Um, so they are asking for us to allow them to
provide funds for just the windows. Um, and they will get the additional funds that they need to be able to make it all work. So, um, does anybody have any questions? >> Meaning this will just be for the windows, not the casing part of it. The
>> No, that cost includes buying the windows, knocking out the brick that's been blocking them in, not brick, but cement blocks have been filling them in for all those years. Um, taking out the old windows where there are some, painting, everything, building the
frames, installing them. So, that's installed. >> So, you're not asking for more money, you're just re Yeah. >> Using the money differently. >> Yes. We didn't want to get to the end of this and say we spend it all on one portion of the project and nothing on
the other. We didn't actually detail in our proposal like a breakdown between the two because it's all construction cost, but I just wanted to >> That's fair. >> Make sure that it was, you know, >> we appreciate that. Thank you. Um, >> since I wasn't part of the original,
just give me a little bit of background. What building are we talking about? >> Oh, yeah. It's 15 bank Row. It's between, Do you know where that is? It's between the Magpie Pizzeria place and the >> empty bank. >> Okay. And who's telling you to match the windows?
>> Uh, 20 years ago, we did a renovation before my time and got a preservation restriction with Massachusetts Historic Commission, which basically says anytime we want to make any significant change to the exterior or the interior, we need to get their approval. So, this is a
building that Massachusetts itself has put on some sort of a role and not Greenfield. >> Um, right. It is it is we opted into that agreement. I think we got like a $30,000 grant >> and agreed for the rest of ownership of
the building to to get their approval on every change. And the reason I'm asking the question is because the planning board is in the process of trying to put together what we'd call building design guidelines. >> So that we can try and maintain the look and feel of buildings downtown. >> Yeah. >> Um to our knowledge, there's nothing
there that does that as of now. So I'm just very curious as to why you said someone told you you have to match these windows. So if you if you enter into a Massachusetts preservation agreement, >> yes, >> they have some sort of guidelines that
tells you this. >> They do. And you have to appeal to them >> by writing a report saying, "This is what we plan to do." So we hired a consultant that specializes in that, >> right? >> Paid them $6,000 to help us navigate the process because it's quite difficult.
>> Interesting. All right. Thank I >> Yeah, I will speak to that as well if you have extra questions. Basically, once it's on the state's list of protected buildings, it inherits a special kind of legal status for uh protected status. And normally, it only extends to the exterior, but it sounds like because you have that preservation
restriction, it applies also to the inside. Normally it would only apply to like front facing, street facing views, but because the windows themselves are part of the historic building and they're going for the whole look, it sounds like um actually I would be fully for it myself, but um it does sound like
um it would be on the macros database for the whole state. So we can look that up too if you have any questions later. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else have any questions for for Sam around this? Uh G
Uh, no. It seems like a, you know, there there's they're still still using them the money for like what we approved it for. It just doesn't go as far. I I would I would move that we um accept their updated
um project plan. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Any discussion about that? Okay. Then seeing none, I'm going to call the role. Okay. Becky, >> yes.
>> Wisty, >> yes. G, >> yes. >> Sarah, >> yes. >> Victor, >> yes. >> Travis, >> yes. >> Jack, >> yes. >> And I'm a Yes. Uh Sam would like to thank you for coming and for letting us
know about this ahead of time, but um but the the alteration in your plan has been approved. >> Great. Thank you >> very much. Thank you all and I'm gonna speak. >> No worries. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> If it's okay, could I have a copy of that document just so I can get it in the minutes just to make sure it's
accurate? >> Yes, please. Unless it's online and I can just get it emailed. That works, too. >> Whatever's easier. >> This is >> Oh, yeah. I'll email it to you. >> Great. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> Great. >> I have a piece of new business, too, before we move on. >> Excuse me.
>> I have a small piece of new business, too, that >> Okay. Um is okay >> it's minor. >> Yeah. >> Um back when I made appointments with the library to have outreach sessions available to the public, we also put on
the calendar one upcoming in November on the 8th from 10 to 1. And that would actually be maybe an interesting time because at that point I think we'll have gone public with the application. We've got we've got the applica we've got the
public outreach discussion a little bit later in the in the um agenda. So that's no that's okay. It's just you know public meeting law is is requires us to have everything on the agenda. That's the only reason I'm asking for for >> what this is about. Okay. So why don't
we move on uh to the question of the church of St. James and Andrew. Um, >> take it. >> Right. So, uh, the Church of St. James and Andrew had submitted a pre-application, uh, for a fiscal year
26 project looking to do, uh, historic renovations on their buildings on Church Street. Um, when we talked about it last month, it seemed like the sense of the group was that what they were proposing was pretty well in the bounds of the CPA, but the state community
preservation coalition strongly recommends getting an opinion from the city attorney before you do work on a church. So, that's what we did. Um, he gave me a written opinion which I can share with the committee and I'll I'll email it to each of you. um it's confidential to us, so just don't share
the full text of it with the public, but it's just to sort of guide how we how you look at the um at their application when it ultimately comes in because the attorney thinks that this is definitely a an okay project. And the sort of long and short of the opinion is that um he's
looking at both the motivation of this committee in giving funds to a church and what the effect of those funds would be on the church. Um and he finds that clearly our motivation is historic preservation as a public good. We don't
have a religious or um uh any kind of targeted motivation with it. And that the effect would also generally be a public good in particular because the building that they're looking to do the historic preservation on is largely not exclusively but largely used for secular
purposes. So it's their sort of administrative buildings on Church Street, not um not the chapel uh or the rectory which is on Federal Street. So that's sort of the test to keep in mind if and when their project is submitted.
He also um uh looked favorably on the fact that none of the historic items in the building that they're looking to renovate have a particularly religious significance. So the state court case uh where the SJC had ruled against a town
giving CPA funds to a church, they had restored um a stained glass window with pretty significant religious iconography and the court uh took issue with that. Um so that's the opinion and we've told the church that they can go ahead and uh and submit their historic preservation
application. >> Any questions for Anna on that? >> No. Okay. Um then we also the other thing we need to look at is the um Miller's meadow um pre-application.
>> Yeah. So um so this was one where you guys had basically voted um uh I I believe the exact vote was no. It doesn't qualify unless uh Stuart from the state community preservation coalition tells us otherwise which we
did not expect him to say yes. but he actually said a kind of maybe. So, I'm going to try to explain what he said um and we can parse it together. But basically, what he said is that even though the Miller's Meadow Parcel is uh
it's currently conservation land, there are sometimes projects that create recreational land on top of an existing conservation land. And the example he gave was creating a new hiking trail on land that had already been preserved as
conservation land. So it's creating a new use. And he basically said that it was it was a question we could decide locally whether we think that that's exactly the case with Miller's Meadow. As you guys will recall, they've already done a decent amount of work there. It's an ongoing project. They definitely are
trying to create it or I said the word create and that I think is kind of what this hinges on. But they are trying to uh effectuate a a recreation area that can be broadly used and they have started but arguably not
completed that. Um so that's kind of that's kind of where the question comes down to. Um, so considering all of that because uh this was one of those questions of does it fit or does it not fit within the
matrix that we use to be able to establish that it fits the law. Um, it's basically on us if we believe that this is developing a
new use for that land. um then we can say yes and they can move forward. If we do not think that this is a new use basically then we we say no.
Um that's what it comes down to. So do I have thoughts on this? >> And Susan is it specifically to work on the invasive plants that are along the riverbank? It's a combination of that and also
they've been planting trees. >> They've been planting a whole lot of trees there. So, they've ch they're changing essentially what that land is going to look like eventually. It it may not it may not be showing up for a few years, but that's that's that's the the
purpose of what they're doing. >> Yeah. Um, I'll I'll repeat what I remember Athena Athena's argument being, which again we can buy or not buy, but basically that by clearing the invasives and planting new pollinators, it's changing the view that you can see when
you go there, it's changing the experience of using the space, it is arguably changing um the ecology of the space to make it a nice place to walk around in. [Music] Perhaps I'm being simplistic about this, but we're a preservation committee,
correct? Not our creation committee. So, >> I mean, if someone's making something new out of something, I don't think that fits with us whatsoever. If there had been a hiking trail there or some sort of recreation there that's fallen to disuse and through whatever needs to be
restored I could probably bend a little bit but to actually create which is the word you slipped out and said but I don't think it fits with at all within our but that's just my point of view. >> Other thoughts? Um yeah. Yeah. So, uh so
my my only concern I mean I guess I have a couple concerns. One concern is that um previously when I met with Stuart he said don't look at what other towns are doing because they don't
always do it right and they might actually not be following the law. So uh just just to point that out. Um, and then I believe Stuart said here that in order for it to be creating, like in that example, you need to be adding a
new use, so it needs to be adding recreation where there's currently no recreation on the property >> and people already use that property for recreation. So, this seems like it would be rehabilitating and changing the
recreation. Um, but I mean I know people like people call it the dog park sometimes like like they walk their dogs and they walk by the river and >> um >> there's you know a road that goes down and people bark and so to me it's not
actually creating it's changing and adding to the recreational opportunities but that's the same thing as a city park adding uh you know adding to an existing park
you know they're changing and adding new things to the existing recreation and that falls under rehabilitation and restoration. So, like if this was fully forested and no one ever went there, I could
understand like, yeah, if you're, you know, adding a trail that is creating recreation where there is none, but in this case, there already is recreation. And also I was just looking at their their their uh description again and
essentially uh they talk about they want to create um wildlife habitat, improve climate resiliency. Um, it doesn't really talk about like I know of I you know I'm on the
conservation commission like I know eventually the plan is to you know create trails and things like that but it doesn't sound like that's part of what they're trying to do with this pre-application. And again, like I would love for conservation land to be able to
get money to do things like this, but I'm also really a stickler for the rules. And so it and especially when, you know, when something is trying to be bent in your favor, I feel like that's when I push back even more because I'm
like, well, I got to make sure I'm really not, you know, just wanting it to happen. So, uh, just to be the bad guy again, I'll I'll say all that. other thoughts. >> So can >> actually sorry uh who wants to go first?
>> No, you can go for it. >> So I would actually push back on that because the creation of trails on an existing conservation areas is is I think different from what's what's happening there. Because there's a road there doesn't necessarily mean that it's it's a park. It's for recreation. I had
no idea that the place even had a name until I saw it in the paper. Um, and I would argue that it's not so much an established park as it is an empty lot that has been repurposed and people go there to recreate. Not not that it's put
aside for recreation. It's not a designated park. It doesn't h it's not been set aside for that purpose. It may be that people go there to achieve that goal on their on their own, but it's not, you know, a designated area for that. And if they're using the native plants to create pathways and to create
the trails, I would say that that's the creation of a new source of recreation out of what is essentially right now kind of an empty space. >> Okay. Uh Jack, >> so there's a conservation restriction
currently. Will they add a recreation restriction? Is that what Stuart is alluding to, Anna? That if we allow multiple use as a
committee, I'm trying to understand what his exact wording to you was >> just to be particular like Travis. >> I think the question is um is it being trans is it is there a layer of
recreational use being created on top of it? And my understanding is for that to happen it would have to then fall under um the recreation department. Is that uh >> No, that's not true because um I I'm I'm
trying to find the language right now, but I think the language preserving um the the land I think it um I think it specified that it is for
uh conservation and passive recreation purposes. >> The language around Miller's Meadow specifically, you mean? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um and you know there's a lot most conservation land in Greenfield at least
um is for conservation and passive recreation. So um I don't think I don't think it would it so I think it's already protected for recreation and open space. Um even just being under the
control of the conservation commission. Um I think that it does that. Uh, so I don't think it would need another restriction and I don't think it would need to go to the recreation commission and it would take a lot to be moved under the recreation commission anyway.
>> G, I'm looking up the language. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. My my understanding from the preapp that this was this was about you know altering and enhancing
like an open space thing not a not a recreation thing. Right. Right. They're they're they're planting trees and maybe maybe cutting some amount of stuff somewhere. We, you know,
we haven't seen the full full app, but it's it's not a it's not really a rec recreation project, right? And the the issue was it's it's like enhancing an open space thing that was that was acquired with
FEMA funds, not with CPA funds. >> Yeah, that's right. They they had originally proposed it as a creation of open space project, but it seemed clear that that that couldn't be allowed because it um it already is conservation land. So, the recre the recreation angle
is trying to find an angle to make it work. >> Mhm. >> Um just to point out one one sentence from the uh deed. Um, it says the property shall be used only for purposes compatible with open space,
recreational, or wetlands management practices. Um, just to point that out. >> Okay. So, we're still between a rock and a hard place here, it sounds like. Um, >> so, but that means that it is already
serving recreation purposes. >> Correct. Correct. So, it does potentially fit as a recreation project. >> No. Um, it doesn't fit as a recreation
project because it is not under official rec it is the land is owned not by the recck department but by the conservation commission. >> Can't there ever be overlap? I mean you said there could be Anna right in the
letter there can be overlap of recreation and conservation roles in our community. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think I think the point is that um
uh in order for this to fit as creation of recreation, it has to not have any recreation currently. and that by doing this project it will add recreation to an existing conservation land.
So what Jack was saying isn't this recreation already? That would mean that they can't create recreation because there's already recreation, >> but it isn't official recreation. >> Well, it it's dee restricted as recreation and open space. But this is
where I I don't so just for my own this is my own personal belief on it. But the um you know the community preservation act was originally um created to preserve open
space so people could have money to buy open space for for the cities. And then they had to like add in all this other stuff over time to make it you know make people want to do it more. And you know the rehabilitation um rehabilitation of open space and
recreation that wasn't allowed at all for you know unless you had purchased it because they wanted people to be purchasing land. They didn't want people rehabilitating land. And so but cities were so mad that they couldn't rehabilitate their parks that they got
state law to change so that they could do that to parks. But I don't think the conservation commissions had as much pull to get the state law changed so that you could rehabilitate conservation land too. So >> part of the issue is that this is not a
park. This is not officially a park for >> not a park. It's conservation land. Um yeah, so it's not it's not uh managed by the parks department. Well, >> it's yeah, it's it's conservation land
and it's it it doesn't feel like what they're proposing is adding to the recreation or any variation of recreation unless you're like it's better recreation if
you get to look at different trees. Um, I mean I, you know, I I I think maybe the easy out is like, well, you can you can apply, right? I mean, any any of this is sort of like our
suggestion is we don't think this is valid. Someone could still send in something and, you know, we can vote it down or not later. >> Uh, I'd like to know that Donna has joined the meeting and she has something to say.
Hi everyone. I'm sorry I'm late. I think maybe we started it at 5 and I forgot. Um I this this is a really tough thing because what they are proposing is a
really good thing. you know, they're talking about all this reclamation and getting rid of invasive species and I I don't know. I mean, I can hear everyone, you know, with the pros and
cons of just the law, but there I just feel like it would be great if we could make this work some way because it feels like a really loudable
endeavor. and um and it feels like the CPC law is not necessarily or CPA is not necessarily meeting the needs of what we want to do here. So
just saying >> yeah I've got a comment too. >> Sure. my my understanding and I'm not sure about this because I really haven't talked directly um but I think is the focus on the river bank area and partly
why I'm bringing that up is I went to look at that the other day because I have my own invasive thing that I'm working on and I want to say that that river bank area is pretty terrible and that is not a place where people can
walk Now, >> so in saying what I'm going to say, I don't know if it'll work for them or against them. It'll be multi-year working on that area, but if they start that now, cleaning up those invasives,
my understanding is they hope that people will have access to the water. And there's a huge thing about having the green river be improved and maybe people having more access to the water.
So I think that um I would say laudable and that um again there is not people are not hiking there unless they're walking through rose bushes that are over their heads. So, um,
I just I I second what Donna is saying about that. >> Any other discussion on this? The other thoughts? Uh the only other thing that I'll add from their pre-application is that it says
um it talks about tree planting um and planting the uh wildlife uh meadow and then doing work on uh invasives and uh oh man, where did that go?
you know, you're always reading something and then when you go to to say it, um, if someone else has something, you can come back to me. >> I'm wondering if this is a qu a question where we would direct them. Um, what I'm
thinking is that I think the in terms of the tree planting and that part of it, there may be some question about whether it fits within the CPA guidelines because it's not it
it they've begun this process and that area is already used as a recreation area. But if we direct them to ask us for support around cleaning the invasives and making the uh availability
of the of the area to the water that that might be a way in which we could fund them and I'd like to hear thoughts on that. Well, I'm just thinking because they already have a restriction
it in reading the open space if they're going on this ocean, river, stream frontage discussion. It kind of seems like that could be
preservation of open space. But then I also wonder since it does say recreation, do they want to look at what their ask to us is and better define perhaps
that's what they're looking at? Because my understanding is when we were doing pre-applications for folks, we could give them feedback as to, well, it's not quite eligible for this, but it sounds like you're trying to expand on a
recreation or rehabilitate a recreation area. And that kind of seems like it is an allowed space, allowed option since the 2012 amendment that the CPA did.
>> Other comments? >> Do I have a motion then in any way, shape, or form? I the only the only other comment I have just going back to what he was just saying is that um you know in the last meeting we were looking at that web page
where it was talking about how it all goes back to the land and uh if it's I I don't think I don't I mean I to me it doesn't seem like we could say that this is rehabilitating
a recreation land since it's conservation land, even though there's conservation land allows recreation on it. >> Do you know what I mean? >> But I I think it says all three things though, Travis, right? If you've read
what the deed restriction is, it does use the word recreation, right? >> Conservation and recreation. And I thought that was the idea of the CPA putting that they have to have the restriction because we want to ensure
that our funds continue to be used in the purpose and both of those purposes are eligible. I feel like >> Donna >> Yeah. I I mean I think that we're really just we're r we're running up against
semantics here and we have a project that makes a lot of sense but doesn't fit neatly into any of the CPA boxes. And you know part of this conversation is
about how do we make it fit? But then there's another part of me that says, you know, maybe what we need to do is uh question it. Um make us make a a case for it being a
project that CPA should recognize. You know, I know that's like painfully changing what the CPA says right now, but it also
feels like it might be a correction because, you know, this is a fairly new act and we've all been figuring it out over the last few years. You know, I I don't want to go to the Supreme Court,
but it kind of feels like is this one of those instances? >> I'm just going to go back to what I said earlier. I mean, >> preservation and rehabilitation to me both mean that there's something there to do something with. >> Um, if you've got an empty lot and you
say it's recreation, >> what what's the recreation you're doing? What's the recreation you are you playing softball on it? You need a new field? Are you playing soccer? to just it doesn't fit in my mind with what we're supposed to do. We're either preserving or rehabilitating something
that already exists. I don't think our goal from what I understand is to create something new on a piece of property that may be listed as recreation, but if there's been no recreation there, I mean, someone trying to walk down to the river is not
necessarily in my mind recreation unless it's been designated for that. There's a sign somewhere that says here, "Hey, come here and walk down to the river." >> Good. >> They're sounds like they're just trying to use something that might make us feel good to get money for something that they want to do, which I'm not saying
it's not a good project, but our funds are limited. Our budgets are limited. We need to use it where it's most intended and easily fits, too. Sounds like we're trying to talk ourselves into this. When it doesn't fit from the beginning, if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. They want
to come back with some other application and some other wording or some other T. We can certainly look at it, but the application they've submitted from what I understand sounds like it just doesn't fit. That's my two cents. >> No, >> can I can I read a part of Stuart's email? Sure.
>> I did get forwarded Stuart's email. So, um he said, "The Miller's Meadow project is an interesting one. Land under control of the Conscom is considered open space on the CPA allowable uses chart. You are correct that building the meadow on open space conservation land
is not creation on the allowable uses chart. The land is already dedicated to conservation purposes. So building a new asset on that land is rehabilitation of conservation land. And rehabilitation is not allowed on open space conservation land unless the land was acquired or created with CPA funds. We don't know
much about pollinator gardens, but could they be considered a recreational asset? >> Here's a definition of land for recreational use. And then he gives the definition. He said, "If the pollinator garden is considered to be a recreational asset, then they likely
could recommend using CPA funds to create recreation land on Concom's parcel." And then he talks about doing that with trails. So, it sounds like I mean to me, we would it would have to be very specific like he's already saying
the meadows out or the Yeah, the meadow. Um, and then I think with the pollinator garden, I think I the way I'm imagining him reading that is like, is this a garden that people are going to be like planting in and harvesting from? Like
that kind of garden where it's recreation. >> That's what I'm imagining he's thinking when he cuz a pollinator garden and a meadow are kind of the same, you know, they're kind of like the same thing. >> Um, >> yeah. So anyway,
>> well, okay. So partly then what I hear you saying, Travis, is it's not thinking about the river bank. It's thinking about the the pollinator garden and meadow that's that they have started working on already.
Well, and I would say that that is recreation. Like when you think of the now famous Highline, the refurbished subway in New York City, you know, more and more they're asking people get out and walk, get in nature. And so we need
places that will draw people to nature. Um, so I kind of wish that they would that that the people submitting this would get more particular about what it is they want to do with that money so that
we could make a decision. >> Yeah. I' I'd like to make a motion that we get back to these folks letting them know that if this is creation of recreation, it appears to be eligible.
However, open space is deemed not eligible because it is preser No, it's rehabilitation and it wasn't used wasn't purchased or acquired by CPA funds. That's my motion if it was clear.
>> Yeah, it's clear. It's clear. Is there a second? >> Sure. Second. >> Okay. Is there discussion about this motion? Jack, can you just say that a little bit more? So, so, so my feeling is that
again, we're not voting whether we're going to fund this project or not, but it appears in the matrix that we all have to follow, deeming something eligible or not, that if they're deciding to create recreation
on this existing area that they originally came to us about preser or rehabilitating open space. They could do recreation, but they cannot do exactly what they
originally came to us because it falls into a box that is not eligible. So we'll still vote on this whether or not we want to fund it, but apparent our only job in this beginning stages is to see if something is eligible. And so it
could be if they present it in this recreation planning mind or goal >> in their full application. >> That's correct. >> Full application. Yes, >> that's correct. >> Um >> I have one question. Will we look for
specific recreation? They can't just use the word we're going to create recreation. >> No, they would have to tell us what they're they'd have to tell specifically what they're going to be creating. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah. No, they and that and and that can that can be creating walking trails, but
they but they need to be clear about what what they're planning to do if uh is are there any other comments on this before we go to a vote? Oh, >> you talking? >> Donna, did you want to say something?
>> No. Okay. >> Can I just ask if you have it handy how much money they asked for for this? >> They didn't say >> Oh, they didn't say yet. >> The pre-eps didn't say, >> they don't. Okay. >> Thanks. >> Um, okay.
Seeing no further discussion, um, I'm going to bring this to a vote. And what we're voting on is the motion that Jack put forward. basically a directive to this group that this that this in this is what we're looking for that we're
looking for how more specifics on how they would make this a recreational act a recreational site basically >> and it sorry is it only are we saying that we would only be funding
anything that is adding recreation is that what we're saying to them like we can only fund this any part of it that's only if it's adding recreation to the site >> basically. Yes. >> Yeah. That's that's my motion Travis
because that's the only thing that's apparently eligible because that's what our only job right now is to tell them what is eligible because originally what they gave us isn't. >> Okay. And it's not just limited to the meadow part. Right. >> Right.
>> Right. It it would also include the riverbank code. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Are we enough clarity on this to be able to vote on it? Okay. Then um a yes vote would be to send this directive
to them. A no vote is to basically say no, you're not eligible. Okay. All right. Becky, >> yes. >> Donna, >> yes. Wisty, >> yes. G, >> yes.
>> Sarah, >> yes. >> Victor, >> yes. >> Travis, >> yes. >> Jack, >> yes. >> And I'm a Yes. Okay. It was a hard job, but I but we did it. And I I thank
everybody for for going through this because it's this this is the kind of stuff that drives us all crazy especially when we see something that we think is a good possibility for the for the community. Okay, moving on to old business. Um
is there anything we need to do around reviewing the application pro process and the plan schedule for um the review meetings? review meetings will be starting in January. Um, and what we one of the what we'll be
doing at the December 30 December 3rd meeting among other things, we'll be setting a setting a schedule for those review uh meetings. >> Um, but is there any >> we'll have all the the full applications in at that point? >> That is correct. We will have the full
applications on um as of November 17th. And uh while we won't be discussing them at the December 3rd meeting, um we will figure out what what it looks like because we don't know. We we really don't know. There may be some uh group that we think is going to uh apply and
does not apply and that may change how many meetings we need to have. Um so it'll be a question of of setting that up. Um, so, um, are there any questions or things about that that we need to discuss in terms of the application
process at this point? Okay, seeing none, um, we can talk about public outreach. And Becky, why don't you bring your stuff up? Well, we had two sessions. One of which was I would call it fairly
uh well attended given that it's only a couple of hours sitting at the library and people aren't expecting you to be there necessarily unless there's a really good campaign in advance. So, um one session though we didn't have anyone and the next one we have scheduled is
the 8th of November. It's a Saturday, excuse me, 10 to 1. Um, and I wasn't clear about who would like to be part of that other than Wisty and I did one and Jack and I did one
together, but I found it to be a really good way to learn about the process, Victor, just in case you might be available. Um, so we have this scheduled, but if no one can go, I need to >> think about another time. The library
has been very open to our being there. >> Okay. What do folks think? Do you want to have another another session at this time or do you want to let the library know that we're not going to be doing that? And um you know, because this is it's kind of a
we're at a point where we can't accept new applications, but um it is a time when we can talk to people about them. Donna. >> So, there are a number of community events coming up that might be um
worthwhile to partner with or on or be available at. Um the Halloween downtown in Greenfield that the rec department does might be a little bit too busy, but there is Jingle Fest in um the weekend of December 5th, 4th,
5th. Um, and there are a number of activities that are happening downtown. So, I just put that out there as that might be a place where um you could connect with people and know that there's going to be a crowd.
>> Yeah. So, I go ahead. Yeah. Go ahead. This is an issue that I think we brought up before, maybe a couple of months ago, and I did it with Becky the second time, and I had a delightful time with Becky,
but uh >> really we didn't have any takers at all. And um I think we need to even have some photographs, some boards, some I don't know what you call them, but some things that will catch people's eye to come
over because otherwise it's just two people just sitting there >> and people don't really have anything where if it's photos, if it's something that attracts people there, you don't know what's going to happen. But for me, I think until we have something like
that that would be appealing and a draw to people, I think I would rather not do it. I mean, I had a really nice time with Becky >> for real. >> And we did have some pictures, but Anna has made some new things that I'm aware
of. But the other thing is that it's a good opportunity, maybe not this particular date, but at some point before decisions are made, I think it's good to get out in the te in the community and say these are all the applications we got and these are the ones that fit what we're doing as really
good examples of what you might think about in the future. >> All right, let me let me I want to clarify I No, no, no. I want to I just want to clarify something that you're saying before we go on to G and and Jack >> the what are you what are you thinking
that the role of this outreach at this particular time is because it's kind of in the middle of the process and so I'm just trying to get an understanding of what what your goal is here with with this with this particular thing. I mean,
if we did it after if we did it in March, for instance, when we're waiting for community feedback from our our um when we say when we have our um our questionnaire out and all of that, and
we also want to be at the um at at the table and and say, "These are the things that we've been hearing about. What do you think?" That's that's one way to do it. It does not mean that, you know, we'd have to figure out a way to make sure that we had that information as
part of our overall structure of evaluation, but that would be one way. At this point, I'm not sure that we have anything to share like that with folks. And so, I'm I'm questioning what the goal is at this point, but I'd like to
hear from G and from Jack before anything else. G, go for Um yeah, I guess that that was um going to be more more or less my point. It feels like we're a little bit in between. It it feels like it would be
better to do um outreach when we have all the projects in and we're like, "Hey, here's here's the projects. Here's the, you know, here's the questionnaire." And like you can, you know, the next cycle will be starting
in, you know, May, May, June. you can be thinking about projects for there. Um that feel feels like a um probably a better possibly a better use of time um than than doing something in this in
in between portion >> Jack. >> Yeah, that that was my point exactly. So, I think that not that it would be a complete waste of your time because even if we were able to connect with one person, I think it's valuable, but I
think it's there's really two outreaches needed. One for one for trying to get people to apply. It's too late right now. And the second is to get feedback from the projects we're potentially approving. Um, I think we could talk
about spreading the good work name of the CPC and the funds and what we're doing as like a bonus, but I feel like you'd be wasting your time on the ETH because there wouldn't be a solid goal.
>> I'm happy not to give up a Saturday. I just it was on the calendar. I needed to bring it to the meeting and >> see what people thought. And now I know. One of the things I think this brings up though is that once we have our calendar of going through the applications, we
should also think about having a day at the library where we use our valuation forms and we give those out as if people come in and we tell them what the and we figure out a way to present you know what is what these applications
are. Um, that's going to be a little tricky, but we we need to once we have the applications, we can figure that out. And I understand we're getting a new person coming in who's going to be helping us. Is that correct? >> With what? >> No, you're helping. No, I I maybe I
shouldn't have said that. Um, no. Amy Amy said to me that there's a new staff person coming on. >> Oh, yes. >> Okay. All right. So So we will be have we'll be having a a new person coming in. >> Will help you. >> You don't know they're helping us. Okay. Well, we'll we'll wait on that to the
till we know more. But if that makes sense, then let's put that as part of what we're going to think about when we think about the schedule when when we're going through December. So once we know how many sessions we're doing in in terms of review, we can also think about
well, let's say two weeks after our last review, are we going to do something? Or three weeks after our last review, are we going to do something before we do our final vote? And so we can well I think we need to probably do the whole the whole plan in terms of when we're
going to have our our vote and when we're going to present to the um to the council so that we we have an idea of when we might be able to have this happen. Does that all make sense? >> Yes. No. Yes. Okay.
>> Okay. So with that um we can move on. Um, do we have any updates? >> Nope. No. This is updates for of of previously funded projects. Sometimes we
have things that we um we need need to either know about or applaud or whatever. Okay. So, with that, um, our next meeting is December 3rd. The question is where? >> Um, Donna, since you were um, can you
make a five o'clock meeting in December? >> Yeah. Yeah. I I could have made this one. It was I remember we talked about it and I didn't put it on my calendar, so my bad. Sorry. >> Okay. That's okay. That's okay. you were the one person who was uncertain about
whether a 5:00 meeting would work. With that understanding, for the 3rd of of December, do we have a spot, Anna? >> No. Uh so the third is a Wednesday.
Thursdays are usually uh pretty doable. Wednesdays get packed with other meet. There's so many committees now um and not enough rooms. So, uh, I had, well, I shouldn't put them on blast, but I had a thought that maybe we could edge out whoever is using the library room. Um,
but none of the regular, uh, city rooms are available then. And, um, you know, we have to meet both in person and online, >> right? >> Um, we decided on Wednesday because there were conflicting meetings on Thursday,
correct? The the Okay. Um, all right. So if we >> No, she's already checked that. That's the Yeah. Um so >> I don't think so. I can I can check again for that specific date. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Um why don't we leave it at the 3 and you will let us know super quick? >> Yeah. about, you know, whether we have that because if we don't and we have to change the date, we're gonna have to figure that all out and so we'll have to
we'll have to >> we'll have to do a doodle poll. >> Yes, we'll have to do a doodle poll and figure it out and everybody will have to look at their schedules once again. Okay. So, let's say the anticipated date is December 3rd at 5 um for our next
meeting. And with that, I will entertain a motion. Can I ask one more thing? And um it's related to what we were just talking about the outreach. >> I have had a couple people say to me, would something like this be eligible
for CPC? >> And and I don't know how um I don't know when we could offer something in maybe at the library. I don't know where, but to to just be available. So, if people
have just a rough idea if a couple of us could be there and could even suggest how they would begin investigating or the kind of information we would want that they could start collecting, I think that might be helpful to people. So if we just considered that
>> the um the Greenfield Local Cultural Council uh has just gone through their granting process and as part of it for the first time they held office hours. They were had to be careful about how many pe how many members could be there because of um quorum but basically a
drop in where you could talk to a member of the committee and just kind of pitch your project and see if it fit. >> Okay. Uh Donna. >> Yeah. I'm looking at the Greenfield Public Library uh calendar and I don't see anything in the conference room on
December 4th. >> Third. >> Third. >> Third. Okay. Wait a minute. Hold on. So yeah. Um so the community room would be the one we want. And there's nothing in the community room
on December 3rd in the evening. I'd be happy to put in a request if I could do that right now if that would be helpful. >> Please do um just in case we can use it. But are you sure that that's the one
with the Zoom capability? >> Yeah, the community room is the big room and I'll definitely make sure. But yeah, why don't you let me work on that and I can get back to you and that way we can feel a little bit more confident about our plan.
>> Great. Thank you, Donna. >> Yep. Okay. So with that again I will offer the opportunity for someone to make a a uh a motion here >> to adjourn.
>> And there's a second. Um all those in favor I have to se I don't think we have to do this one on on with a roll call. Do we? >> No. Yeah. But we'll do a roll call. All right. All right. Just in case. Just in case. Becky. >> Okay. >> Donna.
>> Yes. Wisy, >> yes. >> G, >> yes. >> Sarah, >> yes. >> Victor, >> yes. >> Travis, >> yes. >> Jack, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. Okay. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very, very
much. And we'll see you in December. [Music]