Planning Board Meeting September 4, 2025

001All right. Call this meeting of the plane moving for planning board to order at 6:03 p.m. I'll do a roll call of members. Jeff Souser, chair, >> big Michelle Clark. George Sims, vice chair. >> Sarah Brownson, member. >> Tom Bleto, alternate. >> Erica Geese. alternate. >> Okay, we need one more person, right? We have four. >> Oh, you're good to go for call. >> So, do I need to pull in alternates or I don't need to? >> Uh, you have that's four members. Four members. You're good to go. You only need three actually. So, I plan and approve. >> Okay. Is it George? Is it customary to just go ahead and fill out the five members in this situation? >> It's it's optional. I will uh give a heads up that on one of the

002items I am planning to recuse myself on the uh play plan review. So in case you want to have four people involved. >> Yeah, it seems like we should have a full bench. >> Yeah, the chair's discretion. >> Yeah. >> So, um Eric, are you able to hear us? >> I can hear you. I can't get my camera to work for some reason. Okay, >> but I hear you. >> I don't know how to pick Eric. Everyone can participate in the meeting, but Erica, I'll make you the the fifth member just because you were here first. >> Sure. >> Between you and Tom. Sorry, Tom. >> That's all right. I've I've been chosen in the past. I I think it's her turn. >> All right. That's a good way to think about it. >> Sorry

003about the visuals. >> Okay. All right. Next order of business, annual board reorganization continued. We need to elect a clerk. Are there any nominations? >> Did you want to make um about this chair statement about public comment? >> Oh, yeah. Good. Thank you. >> I don't have to real document. All right. So, this meeting is being recorded by the planning board. If any others other persons present are recording this meeting, you must notify the chairperson at this time. Public comment may be allowed at the discretion of the chair. If you want to be considered for a comment, please alert the chair by raising your hand. And I will say that we're going to do u public comments after we do the meeting minutes and ahead of the the business items. Okay. Now to the board

004reorganization election of the clerk. Any nominations or interested? I guess it's got to be amongst you. >> Peters Peters who's the vice chair. >> That's right. So, so it's it's it's or Peter or or me. Yeah, I just don't >> could an alternate theoretically be clerk >> I don't believe >> I think I think it has to be a regular number >> and I think we had held off uh to see if Peter would be here to see if he might be >> Yeah, but we didn't want to >> can hold off again because Eric's here. You have the clerk present. You >> Yeah, I still do, too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, okay. So, >> when a map >> Yeah. Right. Where you going? Where you going to be on October second? >>

005I'll be here. >> Okay. So, it doesn't feel urgent. So, we can see if Peter is interested. And also, I mean, see if Peter Peter's missed quite a few meetings. I know he's got a elevated position of the fire department. He's still interested. I could Wouldn't that be something I would do? check with him to see if he >> Yeah. As a chair, you can reach out to him and, you know, find out about his tenants. >> Okay. >> Should at least be reaching out to you, letting him know he's not coming. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's true. People typically do that. Tell me and Eric seems like the the Okay, so I'll check with Peter. We have very um >> recording in progress. Sorry, I'm I'm trying to get on another close your other one

006or mute your other one. >> There you go. Okay, perfect. Thank you. >> Okay, so we're going to punt on the board reorganization again. Now to the minutes. Are there any comments or revisions on the minutes? Last time. >> I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second that. All >> in favor? Well, I was gonna say as far as >> I had a question on the minutes. >> Hold on. I have something also. >> Sure. I just got to say, Jeff, excuse me. We have a motion, a second discussion. All right. >> Right. >> There's a motion to approve. That begins the discussion. Interpret it as you're good with the minutes. Let's approve. >> Got it. All right. >> Who do I call first? Uh who did both Tom and Erica have? >> I I

007raised a question. Um it said the motion by Brown to nominate as the motion to m by Michelle to nominate Jeff as chairperson and voted 500. I I thought that was not I thought it was a 3 to2 vote. >> Yeah. Which one was that? The first the first one was first one was okay. There was a second one. >> Yeah. But Jeff was unanimously elected. Yeah. >> That's correct. >> My my bad then. My mistake. >> Yeah. George should be different. You check >> George was unanimously elected as well because I I abstained on >> Oh, you did. 401. >> Thank you. Is that all you had, Tom? >> That's it. >> Okay. So, it was noted that I arrived at 7. I actually arrived at 6:30 just after you did the um the

008board um officers. Not It wasn't 7:00. It was 6:30. >> Okay. >> Can we correct that? 7. >> Very late. Embarrassingly late. I know I was there at 6:30. Thank you. And again, apologies for arriving late last time. >> Any other comments, George? >> Yeah. Uh, two minor, uh, self-certain things. Uh, on the front page, uh, a couple places, my my name is usually spelled absolutely correctly. uh in a couple places uh when uh Sarah nominated me for chair and when Sarah nominated me for vice chair uh some someone put it was overly generous and put an additional letter in my name an N doesn't belong it's long enough as it is. Uh so and uh then more substantively on the last page uh very near the end uh that long paragraph uh he lines

009up it says Palimsus suggested adding the mayor's office and human instead of resources organizations it should be human service organizations or the lead department stakeholder stakeholder. Do you see who that is? Yep. You got it corrected. Thanks. That was it for me. >> I had something um just on the last page of board and staff reports. I don't think that was on the agenda. I don't think it has been on the agenda for the last several months. Uh so that's why we had none. But I don't think that was an item at all. >> Like I looked at the See, I actually have the agenda. Unless I'm okay. >> Thank you. Okay. Any other comments on the minutes? All right. Motion to approve the minutes. >> Oh, we have to do a roll call because

010we have people participating remotely. >> Okay. Let me when we count the notes. >> Whenever we have someone remote, this this came to our attention. um when we had an open meeting law complaint and kind of as an aside the uh um attorney general's office pointed out that whenever uh it wasn't the reason for the complaint but they pointed out that whenever there was just something hadn't been doing correctly whenever there's someone remote we have to do a roll call. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. >> I have a second raise your hand for it. All right. So we will go around the room. Victor, >> hi. >> Sarah, >> hi. >> Erica, >> Hi. From me, too. >> Okay. Yep. Now, before we get into the business, I people

011on the line, some people in the room. Um, if you would like to take two minutes to make a public comment, now is the time. Raise your hand if you're online or come to the Margo. >> Okay. Sure. Great. Um, >> get my timer here. >> Okay. I'm Margot Jones. I'm here to represent the Greenfield Tree Committee and we're just here to point out that the site plan that's been installed at Starbucks has not been maintained and the trees are showing signs of extreme dryness. Nobody's watering the trees. And when we when somebody from our committee went to the Starbucks manager and said, "What's up? Are you going to water these trees?" And he said, "Nope, not my department." And uh we feel like it isn't our department either. And so uh then and I

012have I took photographs. I mean, some of the trees are already dead and others are it's it's been a drought. It's not unusual. There are trees all over town that are really suffering, but this is a site plan that was approved by you. And uh we wondered who's going to enforce the one-year warranty clause that I'm sure the contractor had to maintain the the landscape. And will there be replacement trees? I mean, the other thing I want to say is that the caliper trees were the plan is actually quite robust and we were impressed with the three and 4 in trees that you got, but it's just kind of a shame to not take care of them and not maintain them. And in general, the landscape is woefully unmaintained. It's like weedy grass and nobody

013seems to care. So, uh, and that was Starbucks. And then when I was there, I looked around at all these and I could actually say that it's sort of the same there. There's some trees that are exhibiting serious drought. Uh, they they are staked and at least it looks like they aren't weed whacked so badly at the base. Uh but we we just wanted to point it out to you because it is a site plan. >> We're gonna talk about that and you're welcome to stay and speak during that time, but we appreciate you making the sharing your your thoughts now too if you can. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else in the room? Anybody online wants to speak? Okay, moving on. Item number five, site plan review application of Bell

014LLC for the renovation of the building at 208 Federal Street Map 76 lot 65 which is located in the limited commercial LC zoning district to allow an addition to the current building with site improvements at this location. Future use of the site will be medical introduce people first. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Comment before we start on that. I have a question. I worked with the architect on this project when the building was originally built. Do I have to recuse myself or I I'm just disclosing that I I did work on the design of this building initially when it was first built. Does that make a difference? >> When when was that? >> In 1990. >> No, it makes no difference. >> 92. I It's way long time ago. >> No, it makes no

015difference. >> Okay. Thank you. us approach table. >> Yeah, come on up. George, what were you going to say? Yes, and I did want to mention I live on Abbott Streets a few houses down from this project and um not making any comments about this project proposal, but I I feel that because I don't think I u proper neutral and dispatching considering the project that I should be able to as a planet board member. So, I'm going to recuse myself. Okay. So, >> fair enough. Thank you. Y >> if you could speak as a as a land owner. >> Nope. No, I'm not I'm not going to speak because because I'm on the planning board. I'm not going to Okay. >> Because we don't have a public hearing or anything, so I'm not >> Okay.

016>> Weigh in. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Why don't you guys tell us what you're trying to do? >> Uh first, introduce yourself for the record. >> Sure. My name is Joseph Gary and I'm working with Redell LLC. We have one of uh Redell LLC's members, Dr. John Warren who's also uh works in the industry and Paul Babino who pretty much runs the office seems um and um so we are here uh Redell LLC is doing business in Greenfield now as Longwood I present this commercial project to Greenfield which we think is going to be great um it will definitely bring a higher level of health care for I care patients in our community um we are excited excited that it's going to improve a vacant building in town and increase the commercial tax base.

017Um we with with Longwood Eye and the parent company Redell LC um investing in this community, it will certainly keep a lot of well-paying jobs in this area and likely increase jobs as they continue to strive and grow as I promised them they might. Um, and I just think it will really enhance uh the the the streetscape of Federal Street. One of the topics that continuously gets brought up in our designs is the exterior of the building. Dr. Warren is a huge advocate of making things look nice and presentable. Um, probably from a personal reasons and professional. So, uh, Redell LLC hired Joe Maddie as an architect, and we're just happy to present this to the board in hopes that we can get a site plan approval and move forward with uh pulling uh the

018working with the building department for permits. >> Yep. >> Eric, did they check all the boxes in terms of what they submitted? Yes, it was a complete application. >> Yes. >> Do you have the elevations? >> I was going to say you mentioned maybe looking at there's no elevations. >> You guys haven't elevations are typically for >> exterior elevations change in the exterior elevation. >> I don't believe so. So usually um you see elevations for someone who's building new and so you want he could see what it looks like or >> he just mentioned you want to make things look so I wasn't quite sure what that meant so I said it meant a change to the building >> but they're not going to change the exterior of the building so therefore no new elevations

019>> they're adding they're doubling an addition >> yes the addition but the building the main building itself you're not changing >> correct >> we're approving the >> you're approving the entire Yeah. >> So then I have Can I ask a question about the elevations then or the facade? If you're putting an addition on, will it will it be the same architectural vocabulary as the existing building, the same materials or are you planning on changing that or it's kind of a mystery? >> Yeah, the current building is brick, >> right, >> and and glass and the uh addition will not be the same. Um they're I think in the plans it's a vertical um exterior >> sighting of some sort >> with but with brick it's going to be um a we're going to tie in

020the brick by by having alternating um metal siding and brick so that um aesthetically it work the addition works with the existing building >> for an Iare for an IARE facility we actually don't want um windows, you know. So, the addition the addition is where we're going to be doing the clinical work >> and we'll have exam rooms in the addition. The existing building will be used for the waiting room and areas where we can retain the windows and the sunlight. So, the building was very appealing to us because of its um its its location and its existing um I think aesthetic appeal. And so, the addition I think will work nicely with it. I'm sorry we don't have >> Yeah. um something to give you an idea of how the two will blend. But

021um but there will be brick facade in the the new addition to to try to link it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. As well as a stop. >> The same height. What about the the height of the building? >> It's the same. Yes. >> Okay. I mean, it's I'm very excited to see somebody finally occupying that building. It's >> I think it's a lot of pleasant, but I'm just >> very sad. Every time I drove by to see it empty, >> we don't I mean, the facade is not one of the things we'll talk about later. Also, it's doesn't seem relevant to our approval guidelines. There's nothing that asks us to judge the Is there something that asks us to judge the aesthetics >> anyone or >> I mean state law prohibits you from dictating building

022materials that's under chapter 48 um the site plan review regs I don't have the zoning ordinance in front of me of the list of things that are required to >> you have it in front of you >> I do >> it should be very clear. >> Yeah. >> Um >> I don't think there's any like way it looks, aesthetics, >> right? >> Um >> except for historic features, which >> yeah, >> debatable, I guess, but we're not tearing down or totally changing the existing building. It's It's not a historic building. How old is the How old is the current building? >> It's the early 90s. >> The original building might have been originally, possibly. And then they did an addition in the '9s. >> Yeah, the addition was from the '90s. >> Erica, is the

023way that it currently looks new as of the 90s or was >> Yeah, there was the addition where it fans out on the right side or on the north side. That was from the 90s. >> Okay. So, >> and and the brick was Yeah, >> brick with some green. >> Doesn't seem like a historic building that needs us to judge on whether or not you're protecting it or not. >> No, but it's on it's on a main commercial street. And I mean, for that reason, I think it's it's important to well, whether it's required or not, I think it's important that we you do something nice. And it seems like that's the intent because obviously a nice building also reflects, you know, the owners or the occupants nicely. So, um I was just checking site

024plan review. It says an elevation plan showing front, side, and rear views of the proposed structure. Am I reading this incorrect? >> That's correct. But that's for new buildings that or buildings that the exterior will be changing. Um the addition is is something that falls under that but the building itself existing building does not. >> I guess in my opinion it seems like there should be elevations. >> Me too. >> But it doesn't seem material to our evaluation. So maybe it's more of a procedural maybe your discretion Eric >> if this was a build from scratch then of course elevation would would you'd have elevation. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I know what it looks like but >> it's illegal to not approve it on that basis. So >> I think it's great. There's a >>

025I could email that. >> That would be great. >> You can Yeah, you can expand it. I don't know if that Let me just make sure that that's >> Yeah. So, it's brick. So, this is going to It's not going to just be a flat. It's going to have the sophet that ties in with the sophet of the >> brick siding brick and then some kind of siding across the top. >> Right. And uh so it's going to alternate brick and then this is not going to be just one flat surface here. >> That's good. >> Yeah. So it's going to have a um a little bump out on the side side that faces Federal Street so that it's got a little bit of character beyond just a >> um a flat surface. >> So

026that's the little bumpout that's you showing on the plan >> center. Okay. I think so. Not looking. >> Let me see if I can make this bigger. >> Yeah. >> Okay, great. Yeah, that looks good. Are you going to put signage on there? >> We would love to plaster signage. >> Whatever you will allow. >> Either that or put a giant eyeball on there with long. >> Either that or some kind of planting in front because it is a pretty solid wall. And I understand why you have to make it solid while you don't want penetrations, but might be. >> Yeah, we thought about doing false windows. We looked at like uh I think it's the auto parts store down on Silver >> has has false windows, but um it would be great to do

027like a giant sign that says Long Eye there. >> Well, the the auto place that would had the false windows, it didn't work out and uh there was vandalism and they went back to the CBA and those were removed. the problem. So, they were removed, too. >> Interesting. >> Well, anyway, maybe some landscaping because it is kind of massive. Looks a little bit like a mausoleum. >> Um, >> be nice if we consider doing some landscaping in front. I don't show any. I'm sure it's not required. So, >> again, to go with the morning, make it look nice. It would be nice if you would put some kind of >> landscaping right to that extension now. Um >> I I could read my review about the landscaping and about the lighting and about the signage.

028>> Sure. >> So >> Smith site plan shows the location of exist existing landscaping and the screening. The project proposes to add our body along the northwest property line for additional screening. Okay. And the proposed dumpster location will be screened and it's shown that screening um lighting. There are four existing utility poles with five down sealed lighting fixtures. So, one ground mounted lighting placed in the front yard aimed at the existing building. There's no additional on-site lighting proposed signage. There is no proposed signage for this as submitted part of this application. Site plan uh shows the location of existing freestanding sign that used to be the Bank of America sign. Right. >> Any signage greater than what is allowed in the zoning ordinance shall require approval from the zoning special permanent approval from the zoning

029board of appeals. >> That's what I have on the lighting signage and landscaping >> plan for electrical or something out there. It's great place to hang a a giant wreath in the winter or [Music] tree light. >> Yeah. Just for historical perspective, um those of you who don't know me, I've been practicing in Greenfield since 2005. So I've been here 20 years and um made my I live in Ammerst, but um I've made my career on Greenfield Eye Center. So it it started as Joseé Pexon um Pexon Jane Winchester and Bob Buskeet started Greenfield Eye Center must be 50 years ago. And um and then I joined Pierre Alfred in 2005 that was still called Greenfield Eye Center. We had an office in Athl and then um we have since expanded to gardener and uh

030Holio and West Springfield and um so the business that started as Greenfield Eye Center has become quite a large entity. Um Dr. Alfred and myself have actually split the practice um in recent years. And he's still he and I are still practicing on Redell Street, but this really seemed like a great opportunity for me and my part of what used to be Greenfield Eye Center to to really kind of move forward to the next um you know the kind of upgrade and expand the business. >> Nice. Um, so I had a question about parking and traffic. Um, I can't really tell at a glance if you're adding parking, eliminating parking. >> Um, I think these numbers here are in the number of parking spaces 14,8 and 8. >> Try to leave the existing parking as

031as similar as possible to the way it exists currently. >> Okay. We did add um we we are adding some spots here >> near the dumpster. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Um but all of this is already existing paved >> parking. >> So you will you be adding paving or >> I think we're we're eliminating this drive-thru, right? Our addition will this used to be the bank drive-thru. So the drive-thru is coming down and we're putting our addition there. So, now we're keeping the exit the same, but the um the pathway goes a little bit around the addition. I can't remember. Does that require that we do a little bit of bing there's some paving? Yeah. >> Okay. So, there's this >> they're squaring off the building too where the entrance is. They're squaring the

032building off there >> and then they're going to put their clinical side where it's like a striped line there. So, they are >> okay. >> Probably removing some paving and adding some paving. Uh they're not changing curve cuts. They are there is room for expansion if the but who knows how long Dr. Warren wants to grind for. >> Is it a net increase in payment or I guess is it a net increase in impervious service? >> Um some of it's going away. >> It looks like it to me. It's like it's >> just a just a little bit on the um parking lot over on the >> um edge towards Abbott Street. >> Yeah. Like a net increase. >> Yes. So I can go over a couple things. >> West Corner also. >> Uh let

033me just go over the parking and also mention yes it's an increase in impervious service. The open space requirement for the limited commercial district is zero. It can be 100% inferious. So there's still a lot a lot of open space on that property even with the slight increase in purchase area. Parking the table of off street of required off streetet parking spaces requires the following for medical or dental office clinics. One space for each practitioner and four patient spaces per practitioner and one space for each employee employee of the largest shift. Uh they're proposing to provide 45 parking spaces. Most of those are existing and to include two ADA spaces. Um they meet the minimum requirements of 9 by 18. Uh there the applicant has stated there will be a maximum of four practitioners and

03420 employees requiring 40 off streetet parking spaces and they're providing 45. Uh, the only thing that I learned because I received Mark Snow's comments late and you didn't get a copy of those, you did get emailed the review comments from all the other departments, >> right? >> Um, so the ADA guidelines and the law allows for a six-foot aisle between ADA spaces. Um, but the Massachusetts Board of Architecture Board requires eight feet. So the site plan one of your conditions if you have conditions approval should be to revise the ADA space aisle width from 6 feet to 8 ft. >> Thank you. Okay. >> And the only other thing I was going to ask about was the um so when the snow melts and the drainage, is that going into um storm water sewer infrastructure

035or are you trying to do rain gardens and have something percolate on site? >> So like towards Yes, >> because the grade does drop down a bit. I'm just curious. So, when that that pile of snow melts, is it going to drain into the street into Abbott Street or is it is um is there an opportunity to maybe have have it drain right on the on the grass there? >> Yeah, I think in the drawing it says snow storage. It's uh on the Abbott side in the grass there. Think that's grass on that spot. >> It is grass. Okay. >> Yeah. It would be good to just keep it from draining into the street and keep it on. >> That's all grass there. >> Okay. So, that should should work theoretically as long as the

036grades are right. Yeah. As long as they don't pitch right >> into that driveway and off because I I we don't want to increase more storm water runoff in our storm water system. That that was my only comment about that. >> I'm trying to find the other comments from other departments. Eric, was was there any that were not in favor? >> Uh no. Um but there is one other there comments received from the fire prevention officer, Alex Kulie. Um he initially indicated in his email to the review comment that I forwarded to the applicant. He said it's potentially that a sprink system would be required. However, he's a new fire prevention officer that just took over from Captain Dan Smith and you know in review with the building inspector Mark Snow cut off is 7500

037ft square feet. Um, so but given that he's a new fire prevention officer and he's still kind of going through the review process, I would recommend a condition of approval that they obtain an approval letter from the Greenfield Fire Department within 30 days and you know definitely prior to any building permits being pulled. >> Okay. That they're cleared >> cleared from the Greenfield Fire Department meet all their codes and state fire codes. >> Okay, that makes sense. Yeah. Currently the space is 68 6695 square feet that's including the basement and the addition as well. So >> so it should fall under that threshold 500 ft and that sprinkler system shouldn't be required but that will come from >> Alex fire prevention. Okay. >> Anything else you want to share with us or any of the

038questions that we have? Yeah, we look forward to taking over that space. I think it'll be perfect for for us and we'll do a good job providing eye care to the community. That's our goal. >> The one thing that with the limited things we can weigh in on seems like a missed opportunity not to add street trees around the the perimeter of the property. there a reason why you didn't do that or is that something you could >> There's there's already trees all along the front and there's trees on Woodley Woodley U and then there's trees on the back side after the other side of the driveway on Abbott Street as well. >> But there are trees other than those drawn on the plan. >> No, the ones that are on the plan, but then

039there's >> Yes, there's there's some on Woodley that are not on this plan that are on the curb. >> There's a bush line, too, right? >> Yeah. And there's a hedge row on that row on that side too. >> Hedges aren't very shady. >> I think I would. So, as a mitigation measure for adding imperous surface to the property, additional street trees would help offset that. And I know it's a huge priority of the city. It's something we're going to talk about later today. We had a tree committee member here before. not very complicated or expensive to add shade trees that are consistent with the tree committee and the city's standards. Doesn't seem like it would interfere with your plan at all. >> I think they just planted some there. It looks like that they

040just recently planted some >> and they've been working out there. So, >> yeah, >> if that's the case, it's not not on the drawing, but maybe it's since you drew it. >> Yeah. No, it's logical if there aren't any already. >> Yeah. Yeah, it should be at the same spacing and and of this same varieties as are used elsewhere on the street to complete the at least to complete the federal street edge. >> You don't have any kind of power lines, so they sort of go to the other side of the street at that point. So that's good. Anything else that we would like to comment on or Erica, do you have anything else from your perspective? >> I was just I was just looking on Google Earth to see. Yeah, there you we really

041I don't know if there are more trees. This is dated 2024 and there's nothing. uh basically north of the pedestrian access to the building and at whole corner there aren't any trees there at all currently at least as of 2024 as of uh October 2024. So if there if the city hasn't planted trees I think I would request that trees are added >> there and there's room for more canopy than just the street edge. >> Exactly. though it could sometimes the street trees that are in that little three-foot planter strip don't do so well. you have an opportunity to add something more significant. >> It's still far enough when we rebuilding it won't make a difference in the northern corner there. There does seem to be trees along the easterly side, not the northeast corner

042though. I think there's an opportunity there that you're looking at there, Jeff. >> And then obviously some along Abbott. Not too much space along Woodley, but seems >> you could put on Woodley. Which kind of what tree? >> Sorry. >> I think she's thinking >> what kind what tree did you mention? >> Oh, on woodley. You could put one tree there. >> I feel like your group has been favor of the aesthetics of the building. >> Yeah, we want it to we want it to look good. Um, so it's it's okay with me. I I just want people to be able to see us. So I don't want it completely encased in >> all about trees instead of >> make sure they don't grow into the sewer lines or anything like that. >> I think

043the street >> the trees the building is higher up from the street so the you could put some smaller trees but they won't I don't I don't think they necessarily camouflage because the existing trees don't because they're lower and as you're driving by you're looking up through the trunk you still see the building. So anyway, I would ask that something be considered >> and it might be what you think, Eric, but the and I don't know where the tree committee put their trees on Federal Street in general, but this seems like an opportunity to put a tree on the building side of the sidewalk and not try to stick it between the sidewalk and the car gonna die. I think something a thoughtful way of continuing the tree canopy along Federal and turn the corner

044along Woodley to the extent you can with trees that are going to survive and that you're going to water and take care of unlike some of the other property owners around here. So that's I mean we can't design so if we were to make that a condition they bring a planting plan to us next time. How much of this do they have to come back and show us what they did versus as long as they do it in the spirit of what we asked for, it's probably going to be fine. >> If your condition is very specific, don't need any further action. Uh just follow through with the site plan implementation. >> Yeah, the trees that are shown on the current site plan are exactly what's there now. >> So you could pick a number

045of trees in a location and add that as condition. >> Yes. I think I mean it seems reasonable to add three trees on the federal street side and one on the woodley side. >> Yeah, I agree. >> In the event that the tree committee just put some trees there that look like they're going to survive. I mean I think you could still put trees even if they put some but I would maybe leave it to >> what kind of trees? >> Whatever is on the federal street right there with whatever maples or whatever's growing right along the road there. >> It could be >> it doesn't have to be the same thing. I see you have some lynen trees already there. I see there's a sycamore. There's a Let's see. There's an ash, a sycamore.

046>> Yeah, I'm >> You could just be uh open-ended, but uh specify it must be native species. >> Native shade trees. >> I I think so. We hope to establish a a list of the trees that would meet those criteria, but native shade trees is a good start. is you think I mean I I drew on our little map here. One on Woodley seems logical. Three in the front. Um it seems like there's three on the other side. I can see wanting to to mirror that. I wonder if three would be jamming them in. Um cuz it seemed as though the building is offset. Well, if I'm looking at it from Federal Street, it's offset to the right a bit. So, three trees along the left side seems logical. I wonder if two trees on

047the right or one >> might maintain the spacing. >> Yeah, I just >> I would I would agree with that. Um >> maybe maybe two on the federal environment. Yeah, >> I'm just just, you know, trying to be obviously give it give the business its visuals, but also um accomplish what you're trying to do for Greenfield, which is >> I mean, there's a standard tree spacing, Brown Street trees. It's they're spaced enough you can see through them. It's not I mean, you have it's not arbid that creates a wall of vegetation. I don't buy that regularly spaced shade trees are a detriment to a business. We would say use a spacing that's customary for federal street that is in front of other buildings up and down the street that whatever the tree committee has been

048establishing or whatever the city typically requires like is it 30 feet on center, 20 feet on center. >> Have to check that out. >> It usually depends on the species too, right? >> Yeah, it does. >> Some species have a wider canopy. So again, it's I guess it's kind of caveed by what species we choose, what the actual measurements are. So maybe two to three. >> Sure. >> Okay. But we >> good negotiation. >> We we could Who's the jud who who makes the call on that one? Is the is that the you and Mark that decide or is it just up to them to interpret it when they when they file for the building permit? you would evaluate to see whether or not they met the conditions. >> A part of the conditions of

049approval besides the ADA space and the other condition I mentioned would be a condition that uh they update the site plan with the trees shown on it that are going to be planted. >> That seems >> and that will be in the file and then anybody that goes in that file will say okay here are the existing trees and here are the trees that they have planted as part of this project. I think we should say four trees between Woodley and Federal. >> So you could look at if if you want a suggestion, I'm just going to throw out a sourwood tree. There's a great example in Ammeris next to the Fleet Bank. There's this beautiful sourwood tree right up against the I mean there they have very little space, but it doesn't at all

050hide the building and it has beautiful foliage and um the flowering in the in the fall. what's left over, the grapes. It's quite quite a beautiful tree. It's native to to the area and it would not camouflage your tree, your building, but they're very nice. So, you could look at the sourwood and it was that great example in Ammerst. >> It's beautiful this time of year. >> Just a gesture. It's not It's not a big tree, but it's >> trees. >> Just saying three trees on on >> It looks like it should, but just in case, let's say you can't get 30 ft. >> Yeah, you could. What? I'm Yeah, we just said four. >> It's up to you guys to decide if it's one, two, three, four. Or maybe it's like one, two, three,

051four. I think you can fit four trees there. I want you to get away with only three. We say two to three in there. >> Yeah, I think I have a feeling these I know lot Dr. Warren, but um >> that doesn't sound like the end of the world to be quite honest with you. >> Yeah, I'm certainly not opposed to um to trees. One of the that's one of the reasons we were found that property to be appealing was because of the grass and the green space and the um the visual quality of it I thought was was quite nice. and I I thought it would work well for for our purposes as well. And so we're we're trying not to change that aesthetic um too much because I like I like it and

052um I'd like to maintain it. >> So adding trees I think is fine as long as it's not um shielding the view of of our business in a way that would be be unfortunate. >> I think that you've got some flexibility with that. That's a lot of work. >> Agreed. Um, so I noticed that in the front of the building that faces Federal Street, you're you decide to leave a concrete sidewalk. Um, just because it's existing there. Uh, but then there's a note that says the doors, the front doors there will be not used, locked, not locked. Um, so just wondering why is part of the plan to leave the sidewalk. Is it for future uses or just because it's there? >> Fire escape there. >> Yeah, I thought it was for >> might be

053a fire escape. >> Fire >> just another means of egress. I know there's two on the addition. >> I think the bank was doing the same thing, weren't they? Were using I mean I agree the way the sidewalk splits is >> that was for walk up pedestrian access at the time. That's why >> they had that there. >> Okay. So, but that purpose is no longer relevant, I guess. >> Yeah. >> Agree. >> Oh, okay. It says here, um, not on I think these are the like the architectural plans. Not an entrance or exit. >> Actually don't remember what >> I don't either >> what the plan was for that. I know we weren't going to use it. So, um, >> you should probably remove it then. it will be confusing for people. >> Well,

054I guess that's what I was kind of trying to get at, but >> yeah, I don't know. There was something underneath and some other underlying reason. >> I don't think so. >> It's not need a second exit from the from the existing building. I could be wrong. >> Oh, there there's two exits on the south side coming out there. And then the main entrance like you mentioned is um towards the parking lot. >> Check with your architect. It may be a required emergency exit. Doesn't have to be an entry for exit. Could be an emergency exit. >> But it's saying very clearly it's not. It looks like it's >> Well, that means that means a regular pedestrian exit. You know, an emergency exit is not considered a pedestrian exit. It's an emergency exit. So it

055may be listed as I don't know the architect maybe again it's not the trend to get rid of the cycle I don't know more green space right >> it would reduce the impervious service to even probably less than the increase of the asphalt >> well there's going to be plenty of demo there >> keep it transparent >> because that's still looking into your reception so are we saying remove the door or just remove the sidewalk >> sidewalk the concrete sidewalk Yeah, the door. We We can't dictate the door. Okay. So, you're saying it's confusing because the sidewalk leads you up to the building and then >> can't get in. >> Yeah. Yeah. The question was why would that remain if it's not an exit or an entrance? Um. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Especially if it's

056somebody who used to use the bank and remembers walking up to it from that, you know, from that point from the street and then they going for the eye doctor like, "What happened to the door?" So we definitely remove the sidewalk. >> Yeah. >> The official reason for it is to reduce the impervious surface. >> Yep. >> And that's a good enough. >> Yeah. There wasn't any other reason. >> I don't think so. >> I don't know if we've ever even open the door. >> Oh, that door. >> I can't remember if Joe's plans had any reason to keep it. >> Yeah. There is the plants say that's not going to be used as an exit or entrance, >> right? Yeah, that's what it says. >> Okay, that seems logical and reasonable. >> Anything else?

057>> We're not putting a tree there. >> We are putting four trees up though. We might do five if it's allowed. >> I mean, now you you don't have the argument that you can't do three trees along. >> Of course. Right. I know. >> So, let's go back to three trees on Federal, one on Woodley. You don't need the flexibility. >> I like the four. I like that. That was a nice compromise. Four trees. I like the sourwood tree. I'm going to go look at that at the camera. >> It's beautiful all year round. It's a pollinator. It's not a large tree. It's But it's gorgeous. Take a look at it. >> We We probably will consult with Margot Jones and the tree committee. I mean, they seem to have their they seem to know

058what's going on when it comes to trees in Greenfield. Yeah, they've made good suggestions on our behalf to some of the other properties, the Starbucks and they help us, >> but is always nice. And again, go look at the Fleet Bank in Ammerst. It's right there on um Amity Street. It's right at the corner of Amity and Pleasant Street, that tree. It's right up against the building, too. So, that's another thing you could do is put it right next to the building where you have that solid brick facade. But anyway, take a look at it. It's a really gorgeous tree all year round and it's has a beautiful scent when it flowers. The honeybees love it and it's just the color is stunning in the fall. >> Okay. Anything else? >> Yeah, one more question.

059So given that this old entrance exit is no longer in use or going to be in use and let's say someone in the neighborhood was going to be a patient and they were going to come um into the building by foot. Uh how would they do that? Just trying to think it through here. >> Sure. Is there there's there's a break in the U's here um on Woodley. Is that what I'm seeing that there's like a path through the bushes or would there only access point be through the um parking lot entrance to exit? I >> there there is a break there. >> Yeah, there is a brakes there. Yes. >> Okay. But they would come up on the a car that would be parked there, >> right? >> Um just thinking about like the

060practical access other than in a car. Um that's what it we were to use there. Here's what it looks like. Okay, >> they're saying every what it's worth, there's some tree committee trees right there, too. I was going to say get rid of the use and put in some trees, but there's already some trees on the sidewalk there. >> Oh, that's good to know. This is the Google street view, and it just shows a little sidewalk connecting and then like a >> painted sidewalk. >> Painted. Yeah. Looks like a crosswalk kind of thing with stripes. >> Yeah. That goes through like this, like two. >> Okay. that >> so the walkway is remove >> to remove the >> walkway. >> No, there's a walkway that kind of cuts through the parking lot >> parking lot.

061So that's not >> the not the cut through the the hedges, >> but if there's a car parked there, are we is are we eliminating that hash striping or we leaving? I don't remember. So that if somebody were to walk through there, and I don't know how it works at other businesses, like if you had to walk up to CVS, you have to walk through their parking lot, right? >> Yeah. >> Yes. So it's not like there's a special walkway. >> Yeah. >> Most of it's We do get some and on Redell Street, we do get some patients who walk. >> Yeah. >> Um but not that many. >> I will say at CVS there's like a sidewalk that goes through the parking lot. they parking lot and there's a sidewalk that goes from Federal

062Street to the entrance of CVS. So, I don't know if it >> would be practical to have some kind of we don't get a lot of foot traffic. >> Yeah. >> Um but >> yeah, >> it's it's unfortunate that that cut through doesn't go where the triangle is the pizza slice. I mean, you still would have to walk through the parking lot from that tip to the building, but that's might be a safer access point. >> You saying >> there's a where's that where at this corner? >> Yeah, like so the cut through is here, but this could be an access point here, but then from I mean I would me just put it like that. The Walgreens is another example just up the street and it has a dedicated pedestrian connection from the sidewalk

063that doesn't go through the parking lot right to the door. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> What does that say? I wish I could read >> What does this say in there? >> Edge of pavement. >> Oh, edge of pavement. Okay, that's a opportunity for a sidewalk possibly. Yeah. So hopefully you right now you and we'll have the same problem on Abbott Street where you have to walk down the driveway. >> You could just have a sidewalk along the driveway that would solve that problem. >> You still got to walk across but I mean walking you can get to the building there and if you just kind of go around the >> Where does this What? Okay, going back to the front entrance, but that filters in behind the receptive entry desk. >> Yeah,

064it doesn't it doesn't enter into our new plan in a convenient location, >> which is right here basically. There's that's Isn't that pretty much where you're >> Yeah. I think in terms of foot traffic, a business like Walgreens might reasonably expect to get a number of people walking in, whereas it's pretty uncommon for us to get people walking in, you know, on Redell Street that are just walking to their eye appointment. It does happen, but >> I think I mean when you redevelop a property, you should bring it up to a certain standard. >> One of the standards is trees. The other standard is pedestrian access. And you'll have how many employees? 20 10 that might want to walk take a walk. >> Yeah. >> Walk to the you know there's >> some places to

065walk nearby. So I think there's just a minimum standard of quality that we would take this type of opportunity to achieve and a few sidewalks isn't a lot to ask. >> Yeah. And also there is I mean this is not the case right now but I don't know what your timing is on opening but we are adding all this housing uh downtown projects that are happening. We're increasing the population down there within walking distance and you are on a bus line. So you're on two bus lines actually. So, I would definitely make sure there's a way to get into the building from for >> Would it be reasonable to have a walking access from either Woodley or Abbott or would you or federal or do you require all three or would one satisfy? >> I

066think Woodley and >> I think Woodley's there. Yeah, >> right. >> Put the crosswalk back here in just >> I even think it might be even as logical to put a sidewalk along the northern part of the building >> and create a cut through to Woodley so that people don't have to walk through a parking lot >> here across. >> I feel like that might be the safest solution then to mix pedestrian traffic with car traffic. >> It might be it's the shortest distance. You know what I mean? I mean, my my theory would be you come along here and you have an access point to here. >> Yeah, that that would solve the woodly side for sure. Do that. I mean, it wouldn't be too hard to get to federal potentially the sidewalk. >>

067Let's get rid of all that imperous space. >> This is the exit. I mean, this is not a typical entrance exit. It is just a you if you're coming from down here, you shouldn't have to walk all the way to here >> for a safe access point. There's also just access an accessible route from the south and the north. >> And there aren't any plantings along the building there, so it would be pretty easy to add that. >> This is the least you would think an entrance from Federal Street would make the most sense, but your door is over here. We can't change that. If you're walking up Federal Street and you see that there's a way there. I mean, that's not a horrible extra amount of walking to do, but you could pretty easily,

068>> you know, if you like square this off or something, just some sort of landscape plan could make sense with a couple of sidewalks there. >> But this would make seems like the the shortest distance the most logical feels like this could be thought through a little bit in case that's possible. I don't know if we can really part three though. Would would there there be any logic to again going back to maintaining the Federal Street entrance and having there's an outlobe there. They could kind of come in go to the right and enter the building that way to the front of the reception desk. I mean that gives you that front access for walking. >> Would would staff be able to leave that door? I'm thinking I don't think >> staff and and patients.

069>> Yeah. But I think most walking traffic will be generated by staff probably. My opinion. >> Yeah. So does that make sense for staff if they were to go for a walk from this building? >> So all the whole building flows from clinical staff sections down the this area and then it would come out into the reception area and then out. Where is the reception area? Actually that is going into the reception area. That >> is special guys. You >> sure? I'm positive. >> It's part It's part of Nicole's office. >> Yeah. >> Oh, right. Okay. Make Nicole's office square. If you make it a square office, you go right into the doorway. >> Oh, I that's forgot to do that. >> Yeah. And then you'd be losing all that glass, too. >> Yeah. Exactly.

070>> Or it could even be diagonal. We would um I mean we'd have to Joe Maddie to give us some idea to draw that out. >> He could figure it out. He's a good architect. >> I think we'd like to see better pedestrian access either to the existing door you got or if you can add a door federal that would be that satisfied. >> What do you think? If they can activate the federal street door, that can just be the primary pedestrian entrance in and out and we don't need to do all sorts of other circuitous ways. >> No new sidewalks now. You don't have to remove the existing sidewalk. Makes more sense. Coming from Federal Street is where the traffic's coming from. And if they can go to Federal Street and go right to

071the main entrance, >> right? >> Yes. That would solve it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think our concern is that it's safe and um there existing. >> Yeah. >> And logical, you know. >> Yeah. >> We we can control. It has to be like convenient enough. One of our criteria. >> Yeah. >> Safe and convenient. So that would be the safest way for sure because you're not conflicting with any cars in parking lots whatsoever. You're completely removed. >> Right. Yeah. So if you can do that then good to go. Okay. We I mean Joe Manny has to draw it up probably. >> Yeah. So, you know what the alternatives are? >> Yeah. Exactly. Talk about the >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, if there's no access to federal safe passageway through Woodley or Abbott would

072be the best scenario where you're not walking through any parking area. And if you want to avoid accessing through Woodley or Abbott, you'd simply figure out a way to have a safe access to federal. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Um, no one has brought up um this one of the items on the site plan review criteria. Um but no one has brought up um sewage and water, but it just seems like a bank would use less sewage and water than a medical use. So just wondering was that reviewed by the PW? >> The engineering division of DPW did review it and they had no concerns because they have no comments or concerns. >> No comments. All right. Can you please put those on um the documents with the planning documents because I

073I question the change of use in that area? And not that I'm trying to stop a project, but there's a school across the street and there's a funeral home there and a church there and an auto place there and and a like a first like a a dial self there. So, when we're looking at the total accumulation of traffic, it really will be impacted during this construction. I'm just curious how that's going to get handled. Thank you. We had public comment earlier tonight. Thank you. >> Uh lighting, any changes to the lighting, any thoughts about lighting? And do we have concerns about lighting? Did you >> No. As I read earlier, there's all existing lighting fixtures with five down shielded lighting fixtures on four utility poles and one aimed at on the ground mounted aimed

074at the front of the building. >> They don't propose any new lighting, but that is very much sufficient lighting for >> Yeah. >> for the development. Anything else? >> I don't have anything else. >> Good job. All your questions. >> Erica, any other questions or comments? >> No. >> Hey, Peter. >> Hi, Peter. >> There is a bus stop at Kenwood and Federal, which is just a couple of blocks. That's the closest bus stop. >> Otherwise, it's Osgood and Federal. I was just checking the bus stops. Sorry. So, it's very walkable. >> All right. So, we also approve or we approve this on with conditions. next regardless of condition. >> That's correct. Somebody would make a motion to approve if so inclined and uh the board >> I challenge that it doesn't have to be

075at the ZBA. I'm going to enter that for the record. Thank you. >> Thank you, Steph. We had public comments at the beginning of the meeting. All right. So, does it you have a motion to approve? >> I approve with the conditions imposed. >> Yeah. pending a letter from the fire department about the sprinkling planting of the four trees and providing safe pedestrian access >> and enlarging the ADA uh >> or to from 6 feet to 8 ft. >> I think we would make a motion and then we would have the discussion. >> Yeah. >> That was the beginning of the discussion, I guess. >> So, I'll make a motion that uh we approve the site plan. or you second it because he Yeah, he made Oh, you made the Okay, I'll second that. >>

076Okay. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. >> Eric, do you have >> the conditions? >> I have the conditions listed. Conditions approve that. >> Yeah, just listen to your the way you phrased them or >> Okay. The ADA space aisle the the aisle the access aisle for the ADA spaces shall be increased to 8 ft to meet state standards. A letter of approval shall be obtained from the fire department prior to obtaining that it meets all building code I mean all fire local and state fire codes prior to obtaining a building permit. Uh let's see. Pedestrian access. Well, I have this as pedestrian access shall be from the existing Federal Street sidewalk, but did you change that to general discussion of options? >> I think primary pedestrian access should be from Federal Street through the existing door,

077but if it's unreasonable to provide that, >> how about this condition? Yeah, the primary access pedestrian access shall be from the existing from Federal Street through the existing sidewalk. If that's not feasible, the applicant shall submit a plan for the board's consideration, a pedestrian access plan for the board's consideration. >> And the last one is the uh applicant shall submit a revised site plan within 30 days approval with all these additions on site. And we get the trees trees >> and the trees of course. Four trees shall be planted. Three along Federal Street and one along Woodly A and they shall be native shade trees with a consideration of one possibly being a sour wood tree. >> I think we said it would be four trees total between those streets. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So

078it doesn't necessarily have to be three in one. I could >> I bet you changed the fact three and one. >> Well, you thought it would be four. >> That seems logical. >> We thought it would. >> That was when they were going to take the sidewalk out. >> Okay. they put in the sidewalk and there there's less room and it made the other thing make more sense. I would just maybe add that when we say shade trees were the shade is for the sidewalk not for the middle of the lawn. >> Right. Can we add one more item? I just want to make sure that the sight grading at the parking lot that drainage of the parking lot in the snow um storage area stays on the grass and does not go onto the

079pavement. Does the plan show it on the grass? >> Yes. >> Well, this the snow story on the grass, but there's I can't tell with the grading what is going on. I there there's it doesn't look like there's a change in grade. I just want to make sure that it doesn't drain on, you know, it doesn't drain off the site. That's something >> any more than it currently does, >> right? All right. Not really sure how to write that condition or how that would be enforced. >> Well, I mean the Department of Public Works did review this project and had no comments about that and they typically comment on drainage storm water issues connection to this. >> They basically infrastructure sewer water and they had no commoner issues. >> They do anything different on the

080bank. I mean, the only thing would be to just have a slight swale in there where you're storing the snow >> or think of that as a condition to create a swale in the grass area with no storage. >> Doesn't doesn't have to be a lot. >> I don't I guess I don't really know what that Well, because there's no curb here. Looks like the pavement just goes right to the grass on the existing and that's for both which is fine. I don't have any problem with that. >> Yeah. I mean the grade is pretty flat there. Um snow storage I don't think it would be an issue. >> Okay. All right then. >> And the plan shows it where it's properly located. >> Then don't bother adding that. Sound like we got everything we

081intended to get on the list. >> Four conditions. >> We have six conditions. >> Okay. And the last one just being uh you submitting a revised site plan with the other >> what's the what's there's the ADA the uh number two was the uh >> got the street trees one 882 letter of approval from the fire three actually nope there are five >> four is a removal and then the fifth one is a show a plan within 30 days right >> there was there a condition to remove the sidewalk but that was been scrapped so there are five conditions of approval Okay. >> Okay. Do I have a motion to approve on the P? Do we vote now or do we re motion? >> No, you just simply take a roll call vote. >> Yeah.

082>> Okay. >> Victor >> I I'm Eric Muse. Cruz >> I >> Erica >> I >> and I for me too. So does now that Peter's here does he become >> an acting member and Erica is no longer or >> after deciding >> after the came during the item. >> Yeah. >> But during the item it is the person you elevated >> at that time. >> Okay. >> So the would include the alternate. >> Right. Got it. Okay. So that's four yeses and one. Thanks guys. >> Thank you. Thank you. Very happy. Very excited. >> Exciting project. >> Thank you for your commitment to >> Yeah. We look forward to bringing something special there. >> Yeah. >> Thank you everybody. Thank you. >> Have a good evening. >> You too. >> Yep. >> Do we

083want to go back to item number three about reorganization? Oh, good point. >> Yeah. So, I'm gonna now de elevate Erica and Oh, Erica, thank you for filling in for a little bit. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Hi, Peter. So, we skipped an item. We started reorganizing our board and we did not get to the uh the clerk last night. We didn't have enough people here to exper to see if they wanted to do it and we were going to wait again but then you came back. So uh at the moment the new organizations I'm the chair, George is the vice chair. We have an open clerk seat so the three of you guys but but Victor is the current clerk and I think maybe wants to >> I'd like to take a break. >>

084I would have no water. >> I missed Victor's comment. What was that? I'm sorry. I would prefer to not be clerk again if it's all possible, but no one's going to do it. It's I assume it works like my lodge. You know, we stay in our office until till someone replaces us. >> Peter, I had said at the last meeting that I was not interested in being clerk right now. Yeah. >> Um I would be willing to take up the role of clerk. Um, but if I did, I see the CPC is also on the list to be discussed. Uh, we would need to find somebody else for that. >> So, I'm happy to take on the extra role, but um, I think I'd have to step back on some other stuff. >> You may

085want to change the order of the items and talk about that. >> We'll ret that one for a little bit. See how the other one plays out. All right. So then moving along. So why we talk about that one? No. Which number is that? That's we're talking about the board representation on the CPC. >> Yeah. >> So that's the other are there any other openings and committee assignments that we need to >> well the SGI >> SGI >> GIC. So I would be if you want to talk about that I'd be interested in continue on that. It's just with a new chair we need to have a reappoint. So, >> okay. >> Um, so that continuity makes a lot of sense to me. >> Yeah. >> And I guess that would do the CPC if

086if he wants to be the clerk. >> That's a good compliment. >> Nomination for that slate. >> I guess do you know? >> Okay. And this is Do we vote on these? So you do the nomination for the clerk >> but otherwise >> and you appoint >> you appoint and and my understanding too just as far as those two appointments my understanding and at least looking at the SDIC part of the um of the uh of the ordinance or the chart it doesn't involve because I think sometimes it was a little confused it had to go through the mayor it had to go through um council approval it's just the chairs There's discretion appointment. It's a direct appointment to the to the committee. That's my understanding. >> That is correct. >> Yeah. Okay. So, so

087this is you >> ordaining us. But >> I'd like to be interested in willing. So, >> yes. >> So, I >> thank you. >> Designate George as the SGIC representative for another year. These terms are probably >> whatever. It's not a term. Okay. >> Just as long as the chair. Yeah. Deans. >> Thanks. >> Okay. So then the >> CPC committee, >> you're doing that now, right? >> I am the board's representative to that committee. Yes. >> And that meets on Thursday is the fourth Thursday of the month. That's >> uh I think five. >> Yeah. Five or 5:30. >> 5:30 to 7. >> Yeah, I know. Because Yeah. My husband's on it. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> And you can do that. >> Yes. I fourth Thursday. I can do that. >> Great.

088Great. >> Okay. Well, then >> so I will nominate Peter as the uh uh board clerk. >> And we don't need a second. We don't need a second for nominations. >> All right. >> And sounds like you'll accept Peter. >> I will accept. Yes. >> All right. >> So, because we need to vote anyway, right? >> As a roll call vote. So, >> hi, >> George. Absolutely. >> Yes, >> Peter. >> Hi. For me, too. All right. >> I would be glad to step in for you if you don't show up at a meeting since I've already done it for a year. I know how to do it. >> Got a backup clerk and we have a >> Sounds good. >> One person that doesn't have any jobs. >> I have enough jobs that I

089think. >> Yeah, you got a new job anyway. Got a couple minutes. >> Thank you. >> You can be third in line for clerk. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. Settles that one. All right. Then let's we can wrap up the um the master plan. So I mean it's 7:20. We have a we're not necessarily going to get closure on all the items on the list, but should we George? Is it time to wrap up the master plan? Like is there is are we holding something up at this point in terms of its closure and the other process? >> Well, I mean it's it's uh there's no absolute deadline. I mean it's this this board's business. it's this board's um document. So as soon as we uh vote on it, then it's a process of

090how do we um uh how does it get uh disseminated? How do we seek support for it from the mayor from the council? That's what had happened with the original master plan. Again, it's not formally necessary to have the council vote on it or the mayor approve or anything like that. And I know that the SDIC is happy once it is, you know, gets board approval to um help support with promotion and, you know, public awareness and that kind of thing. So, but there's no there's no time frame uh absolute time frame for it. >> Well, I think we could wrap it up today. We've been through it. People we were we were on the final section like the end of the final sections, but do you folks remember where we >> Yep. left off

091in land use, right? >> You finished uh land use uh goal number two. So, we're on to goal number three. You hadn't gotten into goal number three. >> There's three more goals. Yep. Land use and then we could be done. See, like I might as well just do it. So, let's start with promote the growth of industry in Greenfield. Did anyone looking at that have and I think what we're trying to do is is there is significant change. Yeah. Something significant because this has already been carefully crafted and reviewed. But if we think there's something significant that's missing or should be revised, we suggest those things. Well, in that section, I see that um the implementation action for each the first implementation action for each of the two strategies is identical. And I don't know

092if that's intended or if that's fake. So the first strategy is uh promote low impact sustainable industrial development. Second strategy is increase land opportunities for industrial development. And the implementation action for first one is I believe identical. >> Yeah. >> Is that >> that's interesting. It does seem a little redundant. >> Well, it's certainly redundant, but I wonder if it was >> Yeah. >> Um Well, I guess there's two different If there if it was redundant, then it would wouldn't have been two strategies, right? If you have two strategies, then I guess they figure each strategy deserve it own implementation. Though it may be the same, you're just trying to identify it because they've identified two strategies or just roll the strategies together. That begs that question. If the implementation is the same, why strategies,

093two different strategies? >> That's why they compete. >> Well, I guess does the actually make sense for each of the strategies or for only one of them? men's zone from low impact opportunities pedestri that instance and the second strategy is not >> it doesn't it doesn't meet the second strate I mean the second doesn't meet it doesn't make sense yeah I mean it's talking about low impact I mean it's increasing opportunities for industrial development what does that have to do with low impact Well, >> and there would be a once you've increased land for industrial development, then land use 3.1 would chime in. Once you're doing industrial development, you then have the three. I think it seems like we could cut it. Maybe they just felt like there needed to be more than one. They

094couldn't pick up another one, >> but um probably should have mentioned this sooner, but I mean, just reading that, amend the zoning ordinance use schedules to allow incentivized low impact sustainable Okay, we did the use schedule. We updated it. Um, usually it lists uses based on appropriate locations for uses in certain do neighborhoods and districts, but low impact development is a way to um do developments that in in decreases hardcapes and pipes and and uses the natural environment to serve the same purpose. But that's they're mixing together a use with a way of doing development. So that that sentence doesn't make sense to me. Low low impact development. You can incentivize in industrial development by increasing the uses in appropriate districts and then separately in the zoning ordinance which we already did. You require low

095impact. So you're suggesting remove the that item from the second strategy. >> So promote low impact sustainable industrial development. Yes, that's a way to do it. I mean that's a good goal but the strategy to do it I think needs to be revised toward it. >> So you wouldn't say the first part of that sentence in the implementation act the zoning schedules. No, it doesn't. It's a separate and I mean you want to Yeah. I guess sustainable industrial development. Yeah. You you'd have to do that through other methods >> than the use kit. >> I I think they're they're reinterpreting what they mean by low impact de development and it might not be the traditional definition. >> That could be true too. Um, but that would definitely confuse people because that's a standard term, low

096impact involvement. >> Maybe we change that then. >> See how that could be worded in something you schedule to incentivize. >> So it could be it's it's meaning find ways to incentivize low impact sustainable development. >> If it just if that sentence started with the word incentivize, it seems like it'd be fine, right? or allow incentivize. >> Well, the allow goes with the use, I think. But >> think, but >> Okay. So, okay. So, incentivize for 3.1 and allow for 3.2. >> Yeah. >> What you're saying? >> I don't have the exact wording in mind, but that just confuses me because it's impact sustainable. Well, I think the first one, the first strategy is promotion of it. And so we're trying to incentivize it while at the same time the second implementation action is to

097while you're doing that ensuring public health and um uh and you know checking which uh types of industry would complement >> help grow about food processing. And then the second one is increase land opportunities and that for that it seems like the second implementation action is the one you need amend the zoning map. >> Yes. >> So you don't need in strategy number two you can just eliminate that first implementation action. >> Yes. Makes sense. >> Yeah that makes sense. >> And this is why I say as much as this has gone through multiple hands and multiple views it it still needs tuning up. >> Yeah. You prove your point there. yours. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, are you keeping who's who's officially keeping >> I'm marking things up here. So, so far what I

098have under land use 3.2 is a strike first item. >> Yeah. >> So, um land use which one? 3.2. >> 3.2. >> Okay. >> And and for um the first strategy under the 3.1, are we just saying start with the word incentivize? >> Yes. without having anything more just vague like that. >> That seems more or >> okay >> appropriate. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Right. >> That's the only thing I had in that that uh goal. Should we move on to four? >> Let's do four now. >> So, there were a few things in number four. Starting with under if you want me to continue. >> Um under 4.2 the first implementation action uh twothirds of the way down since it starts with look to the state for guidance. Then the next uh phrase I

099don't quite get also access at the watershed scale. I don't know what that means. >> Assess maybe. Do you think it means assess or it's supposed to say >> say okay assess but what is the watershed scale >> watershed scale is um if you I mean that's you know there's different scales you know when you're looking at managing of land you know and wershed is one way to look at things wershed we have the connect river wershed the deal for wershed and it covers a certain land area >> it's the scale is the word I didn't quite understand >> scale I think Well, it means at that level of scale for the waterershed >> at the at the scale of water. Okay. So, it should be assess not access. Yeah. >> It's like you care

100about >> runoff just to the edge of your property line or do you care about the scale? Now I get it. Now I get it. ESS would great. >> And then the next section obviously need still has the words still needs reworking. Yeah. Um, >> and I wasn't sure what needed reworking in there, but I just noted that. Um, I'm seeing propos a quote for green. >> At the very least, we need to take out still >> take out whether it needs reworking or not, we don't have >> okay to me. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> maybe it got reworked and they just forgot to take out the >> and then under under um for that item under lead department stakeholder. I didn't know what procurement meant. What is but procurement is when you have to

101um go out to bid for services or just a lot of law procurement to get services and things done for city. >> I think it means if if you're putting an RFP to do something to a city property. So that makes sense under that that uh column of lead pro. >> Yeah, definitely a procurement chief procurement officer would have to review all proposals, right? So they add that as a a condition of award or something, >> right? To just eliminate the parenthetical needs we're working because we think it's good enough, >> right? Uh the only thing I had was just um in the last implementation action uh for that the last sentence it says it is essential that we conduct the necessary studies to qualify for MDP. That sounds a little too that just sounded

102not very professional. We conduct I thought I would I would suggest rewarding it that isn't essential that the necessary studies be conducted to qualify for MVP. Do you see where I'm talking about? >> Yeah. >> Or maybe it should say the city of Greenfield conducts. >> I don't know much about that topic. >> I I just thought we was kind of a little informal for talking like this. >> Yeah. What was that word in your head? >> I was suggesting it is essential that the necessary studies be conducted qualify for MVP. inside the bar. >> That's not really an action statement. It could just say conduct the necessary studies to qualify for MVP. >> Sure. >> Yes. >> There you go. Even better. Yeah, that's even better. >> Perfect. >> Nobody else anything on the

103page. I think that land use for goal is very important. >> Oh, the the overall goal. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And also, can we just jump back to 4.3? >> Yeah. I'm I'm just wondering if we want to if this is something that um the planning board or the the bylaw should look at incorporating some language around um maintaining storm water on site, addressing storm water um within the confines of the site. Does everybody know what I'm talking about? Are you are you proposing Erica uh something to add to the implementation action or a new one or >> Yeah, in the implementation action that we I I don't know how we would word this um but that the planning board takes up looking at some ordinances that require um keeping all storm water on

104site to the greatest extent possible. This is again ties back to reducing the burden on our um sewer infrastructure. >> Could that be appended to the first sentence of the second implementation item? It said establish design because low impact design development ordinances is the right category of things, right? >> Yeah. >> So, but if it said specifically and redevelopment projects, comma including consideration for storm water storage or retention on site. Yeah, >> we could we could do we could add something there. >> Did you say that wording again? Including >> including considerations of >> Storm water. Is it storage or management or retention? What's >> storm? You could say storm water. Yeah, retention on >> sec. I think even just calling it storm water management would be appropriate. >> Well, some some >> Yeah, I

105was thinking that as well, just the word management because it covers many things aspects of it. Some municipal ordinances require that all storm water stay on site be treated on site either with subsurface storage systems or um bio management uh you know uh like storm water uh I'm sorry rain gardens etc but something but that all water stay on site that none of it go off. We don't have that in our bylaws anywhere and I don't know if that's something we want to mention here and work towards incorporating that requirement. Um, but that's one way to uh deal with this whole storm water problem which is just going to get worse and worse with time >> saying consider. So it's it's not it's making progress towards that and then low to me low impact development

106implies storm water management generally already. Yes. the dearation. Exactly. >> We don't require anybody meeting that threshold is my point and I don't know this is the place to add that or in the education section in like 4.4 that as a goal people work towards that. Um anyway, >> I like where you put it. It should be considered for future ordinances. We'll see we can push that further down the you know I think >> it's nice to have in there as a as an aspiration. >> Yeah, exactly. Okay. Any other land use goal number four? All right. And then last but not least, land use number five, increase the city's solar energy production, especially on roofs and parking lots. Greenfield's been doing a really good job with that and I think this just continues that

107>> I can't you increase your volume Erica a little bit. It's hard to hear you. Sorry, I said Greenfield's been doing a really good job with that as as a municipality compared to other towns or cities. And um so I think what's here is is pretty good. >> Yeah, I agree. The warning there is nice. >> Yeah, I have no comments. >> Oh, you're muted. >> I'm mute. He's actually not muted. I don't know why we can't hear. >> We can't hear you. >> Yeah, >> we heard Tom. >> Yeah, we have heard Tom, but we can't hear you right now, Tom. I don't know. Maybe you can leave and come back in or something. >> Actually, I don't know if I ever heard Tom today. I don't think I did. >> Are you willing

108to Erica? >> Yeah, you elevator. >> Oh, that's right. Sorry, we can't hear you. >> Do you want to try to uh >> maybe you can leave and come back in? Sometimes that helps. >> Is there a chat? >> We we can't officially use chat >> because it it's not audible the public. >> I can't see it. Yeah, >> that's why I know Stephanie had sent a couple chats earlier and we we often times remind people. >> Okay. Sorry about that. Oh, >> wait. >> Now we can hear you now. >> Okay. All right. >> You're good. >> It's um which Zoom setting I disabled by mistake. >> Okay. >> Um my question was battery storage, you know, an issue that's been big in some of the other towns around. >> Yeah. >> Has that

109come up at all? Was that ever considered Eric or George? Um you know, concerns around battery storage. There's concerns about protecting farmland from uh arrays of solar etc. >> Yeah. So first the solar situation u we did amend that and that it includes language to protect uh farmland. So that's already in the solar ordinance for large scale commercial. Um it's pretty good. It's written well. They have to even if they compact soils they have to uncompact them or whatever to make them back to productive use. So there is language in there. Uh the battery energy store systems, our ordinance is silent on the issue, but it's something that's been on my plate thinking about it. We have to definitely add it eventually in our zoning ordinance to deal with that. Right now, if somebody comes

110in with such proposal, which somebody is coming in, it would have to be classified as a use, not elsewhere classified. It would require a special permit from the zoning board of appeals, but there no standard. So they would have to kind of um >> go with solar bylaw. I mean ordinance kind of guide them through the energy battery energy storage system review. But I did draft up an ordinance for the mayor. She looked at it, reviewed it just as a starting point just, you know, before it comes to you guys for total review. But she wants me to put it on hold for now. Um but it is something that we're considering we should do in the near future. But you're wondering, Tom, if it should be referenced here in here in the master plan.

111Yeah. >> And I think we should add an item that says that that the ordinance should be amended to deal with battery energy storage systems. >> Now, is that necessarily >> want to ensure that the battery storage is handled in a way that you know protects the environment as well as um you know advances sustainable energy goals. So >> it can I just ask is that always related to solar that's purely related to solar? No, we're talking about >> it's not George, I don't think. >> No, you can have standalone battery energy storage that have nothing to do with solar >> and and the building code has actually been updating that the electrical code. I mean um because it used to be you could keep solar batteries storage in your home. You can't do that

112anymore. or it has to be fire rated there there because of accidents and issues that have happened they've increased the requirements >> yes >> on the building on the building side building and electrical code and FPA so it's >> the sector >> sorry the sector we're looking at right now is about the um the land use goal is increase the city's solar energy production so it's specific to solar >> so >> yeah but I I thought you were talking about batteries battery They are now. But yes, I'm just saying as far as where we might incorporate something about that. >> George was asking whether it's appropriate in this section really >> or if it fits into Yeah. how it would fit into the land use >> into the land use. >> My point was that

113some of the concerns that have just been mentioned are already taken up in other codes. >> In other what again? codes like the electrical code or the NFPA code. >> Um, >> but we still need a local ordinance. >> Is it true that I mean I think Tom is also interested in having some promotion of battery storage. It isn't just mitigate risks but also >> well I'm not sure about the latter. you know, um I'm more sensitive around some of the proposals for battery storage are have some of the same concerns about largecale solar on farmland. Though battery storage adds sort of fire safety concerns that the solar probably doesn't have. So my my concern, Jeff, was probably more around there's such a wide openen push for everything right now and some of it is

114harmful to the environment. So just like to be thoughtful about how we pro ensure we protect that. >> Yeah. >> Well, um so so uh battery use is a factor for large scale solar. >> It is. And so um land use 5.1 is minimize the impact of new solar development on forests and farmlands. And um it it talks about trying to avoid essential wildlife habitat prime farmland. Then it talks about analysis factors could include aspect biomap prime soils land cover um interconnection sites. I mean, couldn't we fit something in there about battery storage being a factor to be considered and something like that? >> Yeah. >> Um, just to have a reference to it since we're aware that that's a >> I mean, you could you could throw it into that first sentence, George. >>

115Yeah, that's what I was about to say. Um, just add it right under groundbased solar to include battery energy sources. Yeah. Yeah, >> that makes sense. You might want to add fire protection or fire safety in the analysis if you do that. >> Yeah, for something large scale I it would it's not a bad idea to have either the planning board well the planning board review that or and that have the DPW, fire department, etc. because there are certain things that go beyond uh the purview of a building or electrical or an FPA code. Um so that pertain more in a large expanded area to site. So I I think we should put something in there about the batteries like you suggested Tom. >> Yeah. If you can just to cue you Erica if you

116lean in certain ways there's certain places we can hear you well in certain place when you lean to the side we can't >> yeah thanks >> but if if people want to look at >> you got >> she's doing better than me George at least we can hear mostly >> you got the gist of what I was saying I hope or shall I re >> yes we did just let me know if you want to look at the lead department stakeholder column for that 5.1 who else should we put in There would you suggest we have energy planning and consultant. Who else? >> Fire department, building department >> and you said DPW. >> DPW. Yeah. >> But then maybe part of the permitting process. >> Yeah. They >> if that thing actually goes forward, it

117has to get permits. All those departments should be involved at that point >> automatically. >> Okay. I I mean well that's what I was saying before that a lot of this is taken into the building the permanent >> so maybe not listed in there >> yeah otherwise they could be listed in many other places right >> as well >> but it is my point also earlier was that it's a moving target because all these codes are written in blood in other words something's happened something's failed so they update the code and this is such new technology that people are just realizing wow this is risky um and and they're making changes as they go. Just like with solar panels, it used to be you didn't need a shut off, a main shut off. But fire

118fire um when there was a fire, firefighters were getting electrocuted because the solar panels were still alive and that resulted in a new code requiring an emergency shut off. >> So, it's things like that. And it's the same thing with batteries now. And it's it's it's an evolving moving target. And it's good to pay attention on it, especially when you're looking at large scale installations. And then there's disposal of batteries and all these products. When they're disposed, there's a lot of toxic materials in there. So, it's it's an evolving target, moving target. Okay. So we could anything else I have a motion to we come to the action item for this one just to cross it off the list motion to adopt the natural historic and cultural resources landing chapters. So moved. >> Second discussion.

119>> Um I think it would be Sorry, >> please. >> I think it would be great to get the uh like a make sure that we made all the changes that we said we were going to make before we fully adopt it. I don't know if that would make sense to other folks. Um >> I think that's the exact same comment. I'd like to see an uh a cleaned up copy of everything we agreed upon. Um just to make sure it's all we could all see it and say, "Yep, that's we miss anything because I know we've had a lot of discussions and different people have been here and stuff and um I think it would be ideal to do that since it is a mentoring document." So >> I could get this done in

120a couple of days, possibly tomorrow and then put it on the next month's agenda for adoption. >> Yeah. That way give you a whole month or you know several weeks to review and make sure I captured everything >> and bring any if there's any extra comments just we won't go through it line by line or section by section just share your comments. >> We have made some good improvements. So it's been a good discussion. >> What do you mean by share your comments? Bring them to the next meeting. >> Yeah, bring them to the meeting. >> Okay. >> Not share online meeting. >> I'm assum we're just confirming that everything we've done is >> Yeah. Yeah. It would make sense to vote on a clean copy of >> just because we've made changes over so

121many months. >> It's a good idea. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um we have a few more things to cover. We don't have to cover everything today. >> Hey. Hey Jeeoff, can I raise one question? >> I was trying to um ask a question earlier when I didn't have kind of audio working properly. So, and it's probably irrelevant, but um Victor, I I was going to offer if there was a need for someone else to be on the CPC committee that I would be happy to do that. I the question I had was I didn't know whether alternates actually could serve on these committees. But again, that may well be moot. But I was trying to put my hand up to say if Victor you didn't want to do it, I'd be happy to. >>

122I'll be glad to do it. >> Yeah, you were mute. But I think it is moot. I don't think I don't think I don't think alternates can either serve as officers or on committees is my >> perfect. Thank you, George. >> Do you agree or >> Yes. Yeah. >> Thank you for your willingness. Anyway, >> another time >> I have to get work plan. >> All right. So, we have uh three more discussion items. Two of them are a little open-ended. So, these are things we've wanted to talk about in the past and just haven't been able to because they're not on the agenda or we haven't had a a prompt to do so. But downtown design guidelines and and the site plan major development review is something I guess we should just keep on

123the agenda for a while. That's not something we're going to act on right away, but I was going through them and so we could choose to talk about that tonight if we want. Uh there's also the enforcement of site plan approval conditions. Then Eric, I wanted to ask you about this potential sale. Is that a timesensitive thing? Should we just check that one off the list real quick? So that >> um I was going to say that um the 30-day comment period has come and gone and the mayor's already received the comments. So this we missed the opportunity. >> I missed the opportunity. >> Oh, too bad. >> It didn't seem >> I mean, uh the comments we received were only for a couple of departments. Um, recreation had no issues whatsoever with selling the

124land. My department has no issues with with the city selling the land. Um, yeah, recreation myself. Who else did it comments from? Not not many comments we received. Um, there there is no municipal purpose for this. Uh, it should be sold. The only issue was right of access for six neighboring properties. Um, and that would have to be in the deed. if the mayor chooses to move forward with the sales. >> So, it's not really our decision. We just had the chance to >> You had the chance to say no, yes or no, make a recommendation. Um, if you felt there was a public purpose for that land, you would have commented no, you shouldn't sell, the city should use it for this public purpose. >> Okay. I was just curious because this last letter

125from the person who was interested in the ax that was being retained. I was wondering if that was something that could happen even if it was sold to the >> Yes. And it will it will happen. That's actually the invitation to bid is going out Monday, no Wednesday to the central register and the Greenfield Recorder. And it says right in there what the process is. Um >> this was a tax taking property. So we don't need the city council to vote to declare it a surplus property that. So there's three steps. Step two can be skipped because it's tax taking property. It goes directly to either an auction sale or an invitation to bid to direct a butters and that's what we chose to do. So there's there are only two butters and the person

126that interested in the land buying it is one of them. So he has to just outbid one person or the central register. So theoretically the whole state will see it and somebody can come in and bid on it. The chance of that happening is almost zero but it's theoretically possible. So, it's going out Wednesday and there'll be a 30-day period minimum in the central register. Um, and then that after the 30 days, the mayor can move forward with the sale based on the bids received. And we usually go with the highest bid. >> So, even though they're going with the abutter route, it doesn't actually have to be an auter bids. >> No, because it's in the central register, which is the state publication. Theoretically, anybody that reads that could bid on this property >>

127or or make Well, let me think about that because it goes out to direct butters, but they could still make an offer because it's in the central register. Otherwise, what's the purpose of the central register? >> What's the purpose of the offer to a buyers, you know? >> Oh, yeah. the the person uh has a garage structure that's partly on that land and is in the process of selling the property and wants to a clean situation for the sale. That's the purpose of them want to buy that piece of land. >> It's unlikely someone else would want to inherit that. >> Yes. Encouragement. >> Okay. But it was made clear in the invitation to bid that will be sent out that the access to the neighboring abutters must there must be a right away to

128those written in the new deed. >> It's too bad we can't magically increase the property lines of all of the abutters on the west side over to the other. Just give everybody a piece of it. What else are you going to do with that? No magic in the zoning ordinance. >> I know. I know. Were >> you going to say something? >> Yes. I um was very glad to see the design guidelines and the MDR in um uh in the agenda and glad that they'll be continued. GSA. I was hoping to touch on the uh item C about the uh enforcement of site plan approval conditions just briefly. Yeah, I think that's a good place to start anyway if we're thinking about site plan review longer term. So, the situation as part of some of

129the emails is is as Margot said, we approved some site plans recently and we had some landscape requirements including trees, they were met and they put some big trees that Marggo was impressed with like three and four inch caliper which I don't know if that exceeded what we asked for or not but that was it did good. But then now that they're not taking care of them and these are big companies and nobody nobody's job to water these trees and when we have weather like we've been having someone I know the tree committee goes out and waters the trees that they plant because someone's got to do I know they're talking to the city to see if there's a way to get a watering truck or something so it could be more systematic. We just

130have more infrastructure more resources to get these things watered that the first few years are critical years. So the question is if we approve a condition for something that's potentially ephemeral like a tree and they get their building permit and they're good to go, what's the recourse if they don't take care of the trees, let them die? And so we were curious go over all that. So there is already a process in place um and it generally works most of the time. Uh so the code enforcement official for the city of Greenfield in most communities in the Commonwealth is the inspector of buildings and they typically have two jobs inspector buildings instead inspect buildings for safety and code enforcement. What does a code enforcement mean? That they interpret and enforce the zoning ordinance and conditions

131of any approved project resulting from the zoning orders like from the special permit. So if you as a special permit granting authority like the flag lot have specific conditions in there and the applicant did not meet those conditions, Mark Snow as code enforcement official has the authority to say you do not meet these conditions, write a a letter of enforcement and give them so much time to act on it and if not issue daily fines from that point on. Um I have personally contacted Starbucks and Aldi's Aldi's got back to me. Starbucks did not yet. only be following up with them. But all these got back to me quickly and they said, "Yes, we're quite aware of the dry summer and the dead trees and our goal is to go back in the spring and

132replant those trees with new trees." I don't know why they wouldn't want to just water them and but they're aware of it and they're going to take care of it and there's going to be some awesome trees in the spring and there'll be no dead trees. Uh if they didn't do that then if the site plan approval didn't have a condition that said you must maintain your trees for this many years then there really is no enforcement mechanism. But in the past and I need to follow up on every single site plan approval and remind the board this should be a condition if there's landscaping involved that it must one of the conditions be you shall maintain your vegetation and watering and maintain it and so it's doesn't die or however the wording is for

133a period of two years. That's typically what the conservation commission does. All there's is a two-year plan uh time frame where it must be the agent gets to go out there and inspect it during a two-year time frame. And if anything is dead, they're dying, they have to deal with it. Um, so it all works. It's just in this case, I don't think we put a specific condition. Starbucks said you must maintain your vegetation for two years. Aldi is going to take care of their vegetation there. High class store. They don't want dead vegetation on their property. So they're going to deal with it. Starbucks. I would assume was the same, but I don't know because they didn't get back with me yet. So, I need to reach out to them and say, you know,

134if they get a call from a city official saying, "Oh, you had a sip in a pool when your trees are dying and uh you need to do something about it." Nine times out of 10, they do something about it. >> Is there a reason? >> Yeah. I um I don't I don't remember that we've done two years, but I I think that in addition to the planting of certain um vegetation and trees that we did specify maintenance was part of the condition. So it's not just stick them in there and good luck. >> Um I believe maintenance. >> Yeah. Even if that language isn't there, you must maintain your vegetation. Then we have enforcement. >> That's what I was going to say. Why would we have two years? As long as they own the

135property, they should maintain their trees and plant. So shouldn't just say maintain. >> Maintain's even better. Conservation Commission does two years where they get to actually go there and inspect a agent, a city official that is different than us, but they have to >> I like the word maintain. That's what you have used in the past. I think that's what the Starbucks approval said. >> So that means that there it can be enforced by the enforcement official. Yeah. And the first thing you do is informal compliance. So you try to work with a calm up and then you become heavy he heavy-handed enforcement once they >> So you call the store manager or who do you call for Starbucks? >> I reached out to you remember Carolyn Armstrong that presented the project to the board.

136There was somebody who replaced her Danielle. I reached out to her and I said, "Please give me the contact information to Starbucks officials that maintain the vegetation or responsible for vegetation on sites, landscaping." Um, she got me that information and then I reached out to those individuals and uh, one individual said, "Yep, I'm forwarding it to this guy um, and get right on it." But that guy hasn't responded yet. That was a couple of days ago. >> They have to have a property manager. So, >> sure. It's tricky because these companies I think lease their property from, you know, like it's not the store manager that is in charge of maintenance. It's Yeah, >> exactly. It could be some >> all different people. >> Exactly. Could be some guy that's in a different state that's

137responsible for it. You know, you never know how how the system works. But >> Right. But so just the main point is that I don't think anything special needs to be done other than paying attention to condition and and paying attention to the site plan. Like for example, when all these got their site plan approved and then they went through the process, built the project, what I do is a final site inspection. I go out there and count parking spaces, count trees. Did they do every single thing they said on this site plan? And yes, okay, I sign off on it just like the building inspector does the final inspection and make sure everything in the building meets state building code and he signs off on it. Issues the CO. I don't issue anything. I

138just sign off. >> You mentioned maintain. Do we put maintain on the new clinic? We say word maintain anything on our approval there. >> Let me see that tweet. This is yeah in real time. >> The intent is a public discussion. I mean they were here they know the trees there and they know they have to be maintained because they heard the tree committee Marggo Jones person speak. So I I can add some wording that maintain the word maintained. Yeah. Yeah. Since um Aldi specifically was mentioned, I I went by there to look and uh I was looking for one particular thing because I remember there was one condition we made, if I'm remembering this correctly, and I think I am uh because there was one uh condition that was a change from their original

139plan that they pushed back on pretty hard and that was they have two um uh accesses onto the the roadway that um comes off of off of uh to there. And um we had specified the the one closest to the main road would only be an exit. And the reason for that was we didn't want people coming off the main road and waiting to turn in and blocking uh traffic. And um >> you talking about Starbucks? >> Starbucks. >> Cuz he said all these, didn't >> I'm sorry. Starbucks. Yes. and uh and that the so they would only have signage for the drive-thru at the um further southernmost. Yeah. Furthest in. And when I went by there today, there's two signs for drive-thru at each place. And I think that's a direct contradiction to our

140conditions. And I'm I feel quite sure because we had a long discussion about that. I know that was something I was really concerned about that intersection. I thought I was really concerned about that backup and people, you know, being blocked by people waiting at the light who were coming onto the road and then waiting to turn left. So, want them to go further in so you wouldn't have a, you know, you'd have a longer stack. >> So, one response is we tell them, well, that's not you didn't comply with the condition, so go fix it. What if what if conditions change? Like what if they can demonstrate that this is not creating the problem we envisioned? >> Oh, >> I don't know. But I mean like that could be the recourse if they they made

141they agreed to that in bad faith because they always thought well we want people to just drive in wherever. Yeah. Clearly put the sign in the place we asked them not to. I I I sense they thought we were wrong and and I it appears they ignored but we're not just we're not just giving advice. We're we're >> we're giving a tradition. >> And so >> um I you know I'm thinking well maybe it turns out it wasn't as necessary as I thought and as we collectively thought and as we condition. Maybe that's true, but it wasn't just a suggestion. >> Yeah. Well, they can come back and tell us that if they think. So, we could I guess I mean, you're saying we should >> I'm just pointing out since we have this on

142the agenda >> and just one example was about the, you know, lack of uh care for the vegetation. And this was just another example at that same site, the Starbucks in the street. They should they should remove the signs only entrance. >> You see that right there? >> And then if it turned in practice not to be an issue, that's great. But if they shouldn't be a shouldn't be advertised. >> Drive-thru. There's two drive-through signs pointing in. That's that's what the other link is >> the ones further up >> and and the same thing at the other other branch and we had said >> so you didn't want traffic taking a left >> immediately immediately >> because then they might back up traffic they're not meeting the obligations of of the permit I remove them

143>> and that's my that's my do other people remember that >> I remember that I do remember that >> but that's I went to the site early I thought I went to the site early when they first did it and it they met that I don't remember seeing those four signs before. I remember going by and said, "Oh, they do what we said. >> Did they change it later?" I'll have to reach out to him. >> Yeah, the signs we had come up later. >> Yeah. I would don't remove them. >> Like I said, practice. >> There's been other instances like there was um the uh um BHN um it's it's changed near the L on the L property. >> Yep. um the one nearest of all deals. We had conditioned to put a bike

144rack um back there and they never did it. They never did. They never put that in there. Yeah. I've noticed I I work there and I you know people back there get away with it. >> Yeah. Absolutely. >> But just you know I noticed it was it was way way after you just kind of notic. >> Yeah. Yeah. Know I mean and I don't feel like we're enforcement you know that's it's a question I guess what do we do when we spot that? How do we what's our role? You know, >> I would say that if you we spotted that soon after, we would reach out to him saying, "Where's the bike rack?" >> Yeah. >> Now, yeah, there's no bike rack. I wouldn't want to reach out. You can still do >> this is

145new and I'm going to reach out to him. That's so old. I would >> have the permit conditions in your hand. So, >> oh yeah. No, I'll reach right out to the Danielle that gave me the initial information and say, "Look, >> now that we're dealing with this landscaping issue, we notice these need to remove them." >> Yeah, >> but that was the >> Yeah. No, you're right. We were >> worried about that. And we don't we don't ever implement any bonds or requirements to uh I mean some like projects I've done in Holio, we have to get a bond and if we don't meet those conditions, you know, even if it's two like one of them is watering the trees for two years. If we don't meet meet those, the bond's not released because

146the city has to sign off on releasing that bond. So we could do that in the future for projects. Well, we do that. We do require a performance guarantee for subdivisions, >> right? >> For solar projects, for the tower project that disapproved by the CBA, there's many types of projects that that they do have to give us. Well, in that case, a decommissioning bond for >> for the solar entrance to power. But those type projects, we already do require that. for your typical commercial industrial development of private property. We don't require >> maybe that's something we should consider when it comes to site landscaping and things like that. >> Would that require a change to the city ordinance? >> Yes. >> So that would be a big process I assume. >> Yes. But it's a

147doable. >> It's a statement that we're serious about. >> I mean, because the enforcement thing works, but sometimes they would rather pay the daily fine than deal with the issue. If we had the bond, we'd deal with it ourselves and fix the problem. >> Yeah. >> It's funny because in Holio, they had that requirement and nobody was ever enforcing it. Believe me, when they started enforcing it, people started getting in line and doing what they were supposed to do because money talks. >> So, consider Yeah. >> And it's costly maintaining those funds as to the project cost. Most most businesses don't want to have to keep paying that. >> Just a general statement to the board. But I mean, I think overall I've been here like 19 years and you know, I worked for other

148communities, regional agencies. I think overall we do a good job and the and the developers do a good job of doing what the site plan says to do and maintaining it. They do a very good job. Is it perfect? No. Did we miss a few things? Of course. Is there underutil? Is do we have enough staff? No. I mean, all that's true, but overall, I think Greenfield has done a great job in keeping the developments looking good. And thank you for making all those calls for these. >> Yeah. >> Your high-profile projects that the wealthy corporate overlords. So >> definitely >> they have the money. >> The worrisome thing is if it's cheaper for them somehow to just plant new trees every year than to hire someone to water them. >> I know that is

149very worrying. >> Like every time you replace replace the tree, the caliper has to be increased by an inch. There you go. >> It would have grown this much, >> right? >> Okay. Well, I know it's we've been here a long time. U the the two other items that should just be on there for ongoing conversation are downtown design guidelines and >> thresholds and criteria for site plan review and major development review. So maybe we could just quickly talk through just make sure everyone understands what these are referring to and maybe what to look at over the next month. We can come back and if we don't have such a busy agenda otherwise spend more time with it. And my perspective these are kind of the same. They could be the same. So site plan

150review as we just experienced there's a few things we can really latch on to to get what we want out of these projects. We couldn't tell them to put the front door on Federal Street. We couldn't tell them to put the front door on a pedal street because the front door should be on a federal street. We were able to tell them to we we had to have some other kind of sideways way to get we needed a safe pedestrian route. But that's we could have more direct urban design guidelines that prior that focused on walkability and pedestrian safety and especially in urban areas. It doesn't have to be everywhere in town. It's not these things aren't relevant everywhere, but in the downtown and on major corridors, we should have a higher standard and we

151should have more teeth in our guidelines. So that that list of things we have to use to justify our approval can include additional criteria. That's what we've talked about, I think, in other when we review other projects. So, we might as well come up with our wish list of what those could be. And it might be that it's a little different for downtown and other places. Like we don't necessarily add these to all site plan reviews, but we add them to site plan reviews in certain places that we identify clearly. >> Does that make sense? Generally, does that feel consistent with what we've talked about in the past? And >> I think we should have some design guidelines especially for our >> downtown our main thorough thorough affairs. And even looking beyond the downtown, um

152if you look at our main corridors, Federal Street and some others that have some commercial area, look at future develop developable or potential growth areas that are anchored by small commercial centers or you know other smaller sort I'm looking for. In other words, it's not all only the downtown. If we want to make Greenfield walkable and livable, we should look at these other potential nodes >> along these main corridors. >> Great. >> so there's there's two different models >> apply to that, too. But I think we should have design guidelines. We really do. >> There's two different models for design guidelines. You could have, you know, some cities and towns have a book, you know, design guidelines are very specific about how to do development and they have a design review board that reviews projects

153like Northampton. >> Yep. >> Um, that's one model of doing it. >> Erica was you did that in Amoris, right? Erica was >> on Yeah, I was I was on it for many, many years. >> Yeah. And then there's another way to do it by just tweaking existing regulations like site plan to get a little bit more want in that regard for designs. >> Yeah. >> But I like the model of design guidelines because somebody could take that book and develop and say here's how they want it developed. >> Yeah. You don't want to have a plan. I mean the developers will all say they spent a fortune on these plans. They didn't spend as much as they would like us to think. still you don't want like this to be the first time that

154they ever thought to do some do the right thing with regard to some of these concerns. So the guidelines document gives them >> makes it clear what our expectations are so they can just go ahead and comply with their initial design then we don't have to do as much argument hopefully. So I mean one one question is if we add a design review board to all the boards and committees that the city has that that many more people that need to staff something. Could we be that design review board? >> It would probably a representative from the or two from the plan board >> would be joining people from >> joining others to be on this design review board. Could be inspector buildings. It could be I I don't know. Do you know the makeup

155Erica and Ammerst? So in Ammerst it was people were appointed and it was the uh purview of the review board was a recommendation that was then passed on to the planning board. So we had to to look at things and make our recommendations and then the planning board when they were approving a project would take that into account. It wasn't it wasn't 100% enforcable. It was a recommendation. Some other towns it's actually enforcable, but in Ammerst it was at it was a recommendation. But we had we had developers coming in with projects and and you know the main point of that it's like look we want you to be successful. We looked at signage. We looked at facades and and most people listened to our recommendations and some of them came back many many times.

156There were some actually very large controversial projects that were developed that um the design was completely changed because there was so much input from the neighborhood about the original design being for suburban strip mall and not a downtown gateway parial. So they completely changed the design. Um and they didn't have to but they did because there was so much pressure from the public. So it it it can be just recommendations and advising and most planning boards will enforce those um if they agree but you can also make it a requirement. But there's one thing I I keep mentioning this because we changed that height limitation and and downtown if you look at our street cross-section and building heights that new 80 foot is just really too height for the wi too high in my opinion

157for the width of our street. And that's a place where having design guidelines that are enforcable you could say nope this street facade if you're going to go high you got to step back. I'm just giving that example because it's s it's such an issue and I've been looking at these cross-sections on on Main Street and and that's an example to me where saying, "Yep, these are the design guidelines for development on these parcels on this street. If you want to go this high, you got to step it back." help. >> Well, Erica, if it if it's a recommendation from the design, >> No, I'm saying it doesn't have to be. >> I understand, but it sounds like for the planning board, it actually gives the planning board quite a bit of teeth because the

158planning board actually, it's not a it's a recommendation to the planning board, but the planning board can now make decisions based on the compliance with the design review, >> right? And it's an informed decision, >> right? >> It gives a lot of power to the planning board. >> Yeah. >> So I think so to your point, Tom, Erica, you're saying that the planning board doesn't in that case, planning board doesn't have to listen to the design review board, but the planning board can base an approval or denial on the basis of compliance with the design guidelines themselves. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So approval still tied to the guidelines. That makes sense. But it feels like we could have a little bit of both potentially. we could add some things to the site plan review criteria

159in the zoning ordinance >> and or have a design review board and or have a design guidelines document. I think there's a number of tools we could bring maybe like I think there's some just absolutely critical things that you can write in a sentence in the zoning and it just it's got to make sense and then there's the nuance which is really important too that a design guidelines book could incorporate and then you can modify that book in a less ownorous way than modifying the zoning too presumably. So if you get want have a better idea, a new thought, a new design >> material gets introduced to the industry, we can we can address that in that guideline without having to go to have joint public hearings and go to council >> but actually make

160it enforceable. So we have that option and you can make certain aspects enforceable or do a blend or whatever. But you know it's it can be either or. >> Okay. But there the issue of our design review board is always staffing it and are there enough volunteers or enough people is it another level of you know so there's I like your way of saying that there's many ways of doing it you just could have a design guide booklet to hand out well the review board is good but I just worried about keeping it filled like the agricultural commission it's never Eric what kind of what kind of process is necessary to kind of consider this because I I assume there would be a lot of people that would be interested in weighing in on this.

161>> Yeah. I mean that the board could hold publicformational meetings uh or the department and we could you know the first step is to I mean we could just >> I would do some research find out what's happening around us and uh what the industry standards are whatever what's happening what they're doing look at our benchmark communities like northampton and see how they do at Ammerst >> emulate them but to go through the process it would be the board um but the start would probably be publicformational meetings on what the board's considering on doing >> and to get feedback from the community and develops. >> Eric, is that something you could reach out and sort of get what our surrounding partners do and maybe we could evaluate that? >> Sure. And and the other thing

162with these design guidelines, at least the approach in Ammeris was always, look, we want your business to succeed and these recommendations are proven winners for a successful business. So that was always the spin that, you know, even with signs, look, you know, you come in with a bad design for a sign, no one's going to read it. You're not going to get people coming in. So, I mean that's a simple example, but that was always the approach that was used and and people really appreciated the advice. I mean, we had some really good people on the the board when I was there and people really were happy to get the advice. George. >> Yeah, I'm I'm uh in favor of this in spirit and I appreciate what Eric is saying about, you know, that it

163can uh people can be persuaded that it's overall developers can be persuaded it's in their best interests. I'm also aware that if you're talking about something that's going to be a change to an ordinance or a change, you know, forming a new board or something like that, some of the reaction could be from the public and the council could be you're putting another barrier to development, you know, another hurdle. Um, we're not Northampton, we're not Ammerst, this is Greenfield, you know, this, you know, let whatever, you know, let's let them build. Um so I think it's we got to be thoughtful about how we approach it, research it and present it. I just wanted to >> one approach one methodology would be just identify all the all the options. There's two or three and a

164half ways to to approach this. You could do all the above. You could pick one. You could do a hybrid and have a bit of a costbenefit analysis >> from the perspective of Greenfield. Not just what's ideal in the ideal world, but what's reasonable for Greenfield >> and have that be publicly released >> so that people I mean so so that >> the conversation can happen. I guess I agree that having staffing a new board is a concern but it also is a huge plus if we can do it you know maybe it's worth it but let's just kind of play out each of the scenarios and see what makes the most sense. Yep. >> So then the next So next time we would talk through what these options might be and we're not making

165a decision about what we're going to do, you know, next month, but let's let's get the options on the table, kind of think about the pros and cons and I I think you're right, Eric. There should be some kind of public opportunity to talk about it too, but not before we've even started. >> No, no, definitely. Our job is to get some decks in a row, understand it, and think about options and then >> and we could present our costbenefit analysis as a start to help people kind of get grounded. >> That's where >> Okay. So, I think we So, you're going to grab a couple of examples from other places. Yes, >> we all have the site plan review criteria. We just looked at it a few minutes ago. That's what we're working with

166right now. The last component to it is the the major site major development review which is in a different place. I read I didn't find it again chapter I don't know if it in the zoning. >> Yes. Uh section 200-7.12 >> the development review or the >> major development. >> Okay. >> 200-7 >> if you have the new numbers I don't know that's why the old numbers I use is 2007.1 please review. >> See if you have the new >> I have the new one. >> Oh yeah. >> Thank you for this by the way. I got this. >> Okay. >> So, what what section is it in? >> 200-7.12. >> Two. If you're using that version of the ordinance, not the e code online. >> It's on page 102 of >> the new one.

167>> Yeah. The May 8th, 2025. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> The ordinance is kind of short though. I mean there are a lot of regulations that go with that that provide all the detail and what's required on all these reports like service reports and all that. >> So I don't know if the board has copies of that but you should have when that initial big packet that I gave you included MDR rules and regulations. >> So we should just look at that again. And and I mean one whether or not so not everything gets elevated to MDR as we >> that was part of our discussion we're trying to decide should anything that happens in the downtown area be an MDR for us should we be should we review everything that happens in certain

168areas or not I think that's what the discussion started on so many things were happening things were happening that we never saw we kind of concerned about whether that's how we want >> yeah so so one of the tools in the toolbox is to make more things subject to development review, major development review. >> And if I can, >> yeah, >> one, I had um I wasn't able to print it, so I sent you something about the changes that happened because you'll see in bold here. Several things happened on March 20th, 2019, uh as far as changing of uh some of the thresholds and who the SPGA is. One thing you won't find in here is a whole section was eliminated and that was about uh expansions. So the there were certain percentage of expansion

169of a project would have fallen under the MDR and that was totally eliminated. Um so that would be one category of something that would never talked about that had something to do with traffic visits as well was changed and so a bunch of that kind of stuff. >> Yeah. But that was a whole category of expansion. It was just eliminated. So you wouldn't even see a reference to it at this point. >> George, what is an expansion? >> I I can't Well, it was Do you see that section of what I sent you? I again I don't have right in front of me. >> Yeah. Basically it was said that uh any project of a certain size would that is a 20% expansion of of a certain type 20% expansion which is just >> adding

170more building area expansion to the project >> would trigger an empty >> would trigger MDR >> which used to be >> yeah and you know even if it's a byite use in the ordinance you know the size kicks in triggers the MDR and turns it into special permit so like if the if it's a by right You guys review site plan reviews. Um, so if it triggers MDR, you are the specifranic authority. >> I know I've shared that. Are you seeing what I sent you? That should be shared with everybody because that's something I've shared with the board in the past, but I don't know if everybody who's on the board now had seen it, but that was from 2019. That was comparison, the changes uh of what happened and kind of why it happened

171too. Did you go into why it occurred and or just what they did >> on that document? It's just purely what it is. This is in relation to the library vote. Uh that was the context of it. But this is just purely the numbers and also like I say includes the section that was totally eliminated. So because that would be lost compared to you know if you just looked at it now >> mentioned something about it triggering a special permit. I don't think necessarily the idea wasn't be triggering special permit. I think the idea as I remember it was just to look at so we could see the project. You know, I'm just saying now the way it works if there's by right use that you review >> and it triggers MDR like say there's

172a 50 lot subdivision that comes before you >> now it's a special permit >> because it turned into MDR review >> then >> it goes from the planning board over to the board of appeals in that case. No, >> because site you know you do buyers buyer write site plan reviews. So let's say a retail store wants to come in a general commercial zone. Let's say all these you guys would review that. But let's say they wanted to do 100,000 or whatever their threshold is now. Let's say the 150,000 square foot store. It's you you would normally review that but because it triggers MDR it is now a special permit and because you were the reviewing authority by right under the regular by right now you're the special permit granting authority if it was a

173solar >> if it was a large scale solar project like the ZBA well we won't go with the solar because solar doesn't >> any other special permit that the ZBA normally does and if it triggers MDR there's still a special permit grant But it says the NDR is now that was one of the changes they made that it would be go before the ZVA. >> Oh, was that they did that too? Yeah, that's right. >> That was one of the changes. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's right. They went back and forth a million times with ADU and they went back with this too. So, yeah, they they tend to give it to the ZBA. I don't know why. >> That was in 2019. That was one of the changes. >> It's in there. >> Yeah. >>

174Well, >> thank you, Thomas, for reminding me of that point >> us doing anything because we don't get I mean I think the MDR what it doesn't matter. So now >> you want to get people to fill the seats, tell them we're going to reduce or increase the trip threshold to apply for MDRs. That's not the point right now. The point is what do we actually want? What are the outcomes we want and what contributes to those outcomes? What regulations are needed to guide direct developments in that direction and then we can figure out what the right mechanisms are >> after the fact, not before the fact. >> I mean it could be the MDR is just irrelevant. we can just set it aside because we have a better system in place that takes care

175of all these concerns which aren't all that significant just like whether or not it has too many cars and addresses quality of place and other more comprehensive set of things about things like well is not we're talking about you know doing the downtown and eliminating the idea of residential on the first floor we going to look at our ordinances to stop that we want that I thought that's why we elected we had that we didn't want commercial space being taken away in residents like that one that we did approve and talk about glass we talk about having we don't want opaque class so how do we handle that yeah so I thought that's more what we're going to be looking at with the design guidelines such as that was >> putting these things in place

176so that they were there but also being able to if someone wants to come into downtown >> that we at least know that they're coming you know they don't just go ER's office file permit, get a permit, and next thing you know, there's a building going up downtown that we never even saw. >> Yeah. So, just seeing it, we have to have >> grounds to regulate it, too. But the things you're talking about are exactly what I think, too, that >> we shouldn't have a building that has no windows. Like, that shouldn't be possible. I don't care what they're doing inside. I >> in certain places. That's not to say no. I mean, there's other uses that are only allowed in very specific locations, like adult uses. There's a few certain. So we could just

177say so there's precedent for restricting certain types of uses on the basis of other things right and we just want to have an active storefront on Main Street. >> Now I agree with you with the MDR comments you made that tweaking other things of the ordinance or design guidelines other methods >> may not be relevant anymore. It was trying to solve problem but we just need to find another kind of first principles approach to this. What what are we trying to accomplish and then we can pick the right tool for that. Okay, >> makes sense. >> So I know you've been here a long time. >> Is that enough context people know what to to mle over? >> Yeah, >> that that one sounds fairly controversial because if you were I mean given the history

178around the development review. >> Oh definitely controversial. It will be very controversial. >> Well, how many So, just from a political standpoint, when was the last time MDR was triggered? >> Wilson's redevelopment project. >> Okay. And it's so the way it's >> Did you say Eric? >> The Wilson's redevelopment project. >> Yep. >> Based on the current wording of the MDR, if that were to happen again, it would trigger again. >> Yes. >> 50 units. No. 50 units. Yeah, >> that's what tribute that. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, the other >> it's something that you guys should be aware of. I mean, it can be done in the other regulations, but when MDR is triggered, you have to do a physical impact analysis that you don't normally have to do for developments. um you have

179to do an increased environmental assessment maybe not in the downtown area but other areas. Um the fiscal impact is is important. You know, how is it affecting the uh city sewer and wastewater treatment plant infrastructure and drainage and water infrastructure, all that? They'd have to take a deeper dive into that under major development review that they don't normally do. >> It's not triggered. >> The traffic mitigation could be >> and the traffic mitigation. Yeah, that's huge. Pretty intense. Um, I don't know where would we could deal with that in other parts of the ordinance if we were to think about getting rid of NPR. >> And we're not thinking about getting >> We're not thinking about that. >> It's just another tool. Yep. We're just talking. >> Just talking. >> Okay. Well, I feel like

180we put it on the table. >> Stay on the table for a while. We don't need to take it further. And there wasn't anything else on the agenda. >> Nope. So, set next meeting date. >> Believe it's October 2nd. >> No, we do have a meeting next week. Yes. The joint public hearing Tuesday >> at 6:30 p.m. at this location >> here. And what is the what is the content? We haven't seen any materials yet for the agenda today. the uh it's the it's the ordinance that you move forward on the animal definition of the animal clinic uh kennel that's clinic to change it to match the medical clinic your own ordinance that you move forward is now a joint public hearing on it. There's one other one that you might not have seen is

181from councelor Healey. Well, I did I forwarded to everyone. You should have seen it. But they addressed the issue that Victor is talking about about the first floor certain areas has to be commercial space. So that's his >> and you sent that to us. I don't remember supposed to be sitting down and drawing lines. I thought >> Yeah, I'm sure you guys see that, but I'll send it out again. >> Okay. and the the um and are we going to get um the general notice of the public hearing or something or >> we send that out too? >> Okay, that'd be great. >> And you won't be there. >> I'm not going to I can't even join remotely. I'm in meetings and >> Yeah. >> All week >> and we're not going to deliberate that

182not to particular part of the public hearing process. close your meeting and and deliberate on the wait wait wait wait wait the timing of this because it's so important member uh I think now say yeah so tomorrow I'm going to have to revise the agenda include an action item for you to actually >> deliberate on it because you remember that uh Dr. Vasar that says this timing is very important because he has option on the lease option on the building. The whole reason you're doing this for her is >> I wasn't here for that. >> Okay. So you missed all that but basically there was a meeting and board decided to work with this individual so that in the limited commercial zone uh she could do her veterary >> you know and the timing is

183key which is why we move the board decided to move forward with this at this time. >> Okay. and and so you need to deliberate that night to meet this timing of it that we said we would do for this one. >> Yeah. And I think that I think importantly the justification for making the zoning change was not to make this person be able to do their thing. It just makes logical sense >> to make so she just pointed out that >> CJ just pointed it right out. >> Yeah. So we're not just spot zoning that site. We're changing it makes sense all the places that it could apply >> and the timing we are being responsive to her needs. >> Yes. And the other thing is irregardless of her request the kennel the animal

184kennel issue with the Ali's law and we had to change our zoring ordinance on that and that's part of it because it said animal kennel or clinic. So we have to delete kennel because of alli's law. So that's something that would have moved forward with regardless of her request. >> Yes. >> Right. So this is a is it an EDC meeting? It's an EDC meeting the regular date. Uh, it was your turn, but it didn't work out because of of the fair tonight. >> Yeah, I want to do. >> So, it's an EDC. I'm just trying to the mechanics of it. So, it's an EDC meeting. We're having a joint public hearing and then we're going to have our own deliberation at that at that meeting. So, because we're going to make it >> Have

185you I've seen you guys do before where you had a joint deliberation with them the EDC. Is that something that that would happen in this case too? right about that particular one, not necessarily about the second because we're having a joint public hearing on both items. >> Yes, the joint public hearing is on councelor Healey's proposal and the one you initiated. You could wait on council Healey's and deliberate in that October, but why not do both beginning delivery and the other one? Well, and my reason would be it's the first time we're having a course rehearsal on we have on Tuesday, so I was hoping to get to some of that. But um uh is there a reason we would need we wouldn't need to do that that one? >> No, but I mean I

186mean you you're totally aware because he he wrote it up because of your concerns and the other council. >> So it's just addressing >> and we're just making a we're making a recommendation. That's all you're doing is making recommend to the full council. >> Yeah. >> So you're already aware and heard the issues and the very specific language addresses exactly what >> so it is. So I'm just again the mechanics. So we're it's also then a planning board meeting. It it's a planning board meeting. >> Yes. >> It is the plan board meeting is posted as a planning board meeting without to include the action item of deliberation. >> Okay. So you'll send an agenda. Okay. Tomorrow. Okay. Great. Thank you. Here at 6:30. All right. Right. And we got enough people who will be

187there for forum I assume. >> Yeah. I'm planning on being there. >> I I can't be there. >> You cannot. >> Cannot. Peter here. And I will not be there. You won't be there. Okay. >> I will be there. >> All right. Ready? >> Okay. >> And that's the next meeting date. >> October. >> The one after that's October 2nd. >> The next regular meeting date is October 2nd. If that's what we're supposed to do on this item number eight, >> 6:30 6:30 6 o'clock >> in this very room. >> 6:30 on Tuesday. 6 o'clock on October 2. >> That's right. Eric, you had mentioned previously that there's going to need to be another zoning change on the accessory trolling units. Where where does that stand? >> Yeah. So, I mean, it's all written up

188and ready to go. It's just on the boards, you know. I mean, you guys got a lot going for you and this we figured we had to get this zoning amendment out of the way, but I have like three zoning amendments to deal with. Uh and that's the biggest one to meet the come into compliance with state law which really surprises me because you know they touted out us initially oh this is the way to do it was doing it right with your ADU but now we're one of the communities out of compliance and um so we need to come into compliance >> what do we do out of compliance >> so basically it comes down to protected ADUs are allowed for any situation that existing one family two family three family multi multi family

189existing on a lot. Even non-conforming structures that are on the lot with it have to issue a building permit for protected ADU. So the only special permit kicks in only when someone wants to do a second ADU on a property, a detach ADU on a property. >> Oh, we have a special permit trigger that violates that. Right now we do because we say two family require this two families one requires you know that approval and that's the catch. We have to eliminate that language. It's pretty basic amendment to come into compliance. >> It has to be done. Would it be simpler if the state officials came to the meeting and voted just because they frequently asked to be collaborative frequently asked questions didn't have that in there and you know they added it later and

190there was this case that came out April 14th the AG's office made a ruling and >> you know so a lot of towns thought oh okay we're doing things right and all of a sudden the new frequently asked questions up online and the AG's decision on April 17th is wow we're out of compliance. Well, thank you for giving us a break from that anyway. >> So, I don't know when you want to bring that forth, but it's ready to go. >> Never. What are the consequences of being out of compliance? People can just do whatever they want. >> Oh, we would still issue the building permit. Nothing would change. The state would probably do nothing about it because basically the building permit is still being issued. Probably would just be out of complant. Nobody even

191cares about it. >> It's not like the MBTA communities act where like they start withholding grant funding. >> No, no, nothing like that because as long as we're issuing building permits. >> Okay. Well, we should fix that. Let's take some of it. Well, okay. So, I mean, that we're going to talk about it in a a way that doesn't bring everybody back. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. You you mentioned Eric another zoning issue that may be more actual pressing that is also going to come up. >> Well, see there's a minor one. This a technical memo came up in Franklin regional con just saying that all communities should eliminate definition of mobile home in their ordinances because they don't really exist modular air homes and it's regulated by the state board of architecture or whatever that

192board is called. I need to get the name memorized. But so I'm I'm taking the harder technical memo and putting forth a memo zoning amendment to eliminate the definition of mobile home park from our orders. >> That's a minor one. Um let me see what else. >> I I was referring to the industrial parcel. >> Oh, the reasonzoning the the reszoning of Prince Highway. Yes. Thank you. Um yeah, it's still not on the agenda. There's still things being worked out and um at some point in the near future we that will be an agenda item and the appropriate people will be here to describe what's going on. >> That's all I'm saying about it. >> Well, I'm just thinking it it would make more sense to take that thing up before potentially, you know, rehashing

193the ADU stuff >> or just do them both in one long torturous meeting and get it all out of the way. Well, I mean, I can give an update that, you know, things it's being held up because of the tariffs. So, many developers are stepping back from doing big retail developments at this point in time nationwide probably because of the tariffs. So, they said 6 months. So, you know, it'll be a while. So, we need to move on the ADU long before that one. >> I see. Public discussion at 30 seconds. I mean, we could just quickly say here's the purpose of it and u one minute per person or 30 seconds or whatever and just get it quick. >> We have to do it. I mean, it's not it's not a question. The states

194tell us we have to make the change. >> What do we I'm a little confused what we're referring to right now. What we're talking >> Oh, the AU. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's all we >> Okay. All right. Thanks. >> And back to Tuesday. You will have a um note-taking form for our newly appointed uh uh clerk. >> Yes. [Laughter] >> Thank you, Peter. >> Thank you. >> Right. Motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I have to do a roll call for this. >> Yes. Peter. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Good night. >> Thank you. >> All right, everybody. >> Thank you. I'm glad >> for being late. [Music]