Planning Board Meeting August 7, 2025

001All right, we'll call this meeting of the Greenfield Planning Board to order at 60:01 on uh date is October 7th. Um >> August is August 7th. Thank you. And uh >> this meeting is being recorded by the planning board. If any other persons present are recording the meeting, you must notify the chairperson at this time. Don't yet have anyone online and anyone here recording? Not seeing anyone. Thank you. As far as public comment, um public comment may be allowed at the discretion of the chair. If you want to be considered for making a comment, please alert the chair by raising your hand. Okay, we'll do a roll call of members. My name is George Palus. I am the chair for the moment. And uh one death >> Jeff Ster vice chair >> Tom Bledo alternate

002Vick Michella clerk temporarily hopefully >> and I'm Sarah Brownson member >> oh there you go and uh we hadn't heard from uh Peter does anyone know hadn't seen I hadn't seen and again I no word from him or Erica or >> Erica Okay. All right. Um, so just uh pausing to think of whether to uh I'm going to wait a few minutes to see about whether we might elevate you or whether once we do reorganization uh might elevate Utah. Um just don't know if uh Peter was going to arrive. >> Right. Um okay. So um the next uh item is the annual board reorganization, the election of a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and a clerk for the planning board. >> You don't want to approve events? >> No, that's the next item after that. >>

003And the agenda, the reorganization usually comes first staff. We would just identify the members of the >> Okay. >> the board. So the process for this is um we start with the chair. It's self-nominations or other nominations. Nominations do not need to be seconded. usually check with the person who's nominated if it's another nomination if they want to accept the nomination and um then there could be discussion if there's more than one nomination and um then we would vote >> we can't nominate people who are not here again >> people who are not present cannot be nominated for an office >> that's interesting um is that that's a rule >> I don't know I'm guess I'm just guessing because you said we had to ask them if they'd accept it oh >> yeah typically we

004would ask someone if they want to be if they want to serve >> if you hadn't talked to them in advance. >> Um, >> are alternates voting members in this discussion? >> If an alternate were elevated, they would be able to uh to vote. Um, right. They couldn't serve in a position like that, but they could they could vote, >> right? They would vote on the whatever's in front of the board, >> right? Yeah. Exactly. Um, okay. So, um, so I will, uh, Victor, just for your, are you checking to make sure no one's trying to get? >> I'm just trying to see if there's anybody else or >> I'll pause for you. >> I don't see anybody here. >> I want to make sure >> just us. >> No one gets excluded. Okay. >>

005And it is definitely on, right? Yes, it's good. >> I'm assuming everyone got into the link. I don't assume we have the same problem we've had before in the past. Should we check? >> I don't know how you check. You check. I can lock. Yeah, see if you can get into the Great. Thank you, J. Why don't you move the other because we move the other items instead? >> No, we have to do this first. It's possible. Peter's trying, you know, if it's a problem, it's probably possible. Peter is trying to participate remotely. So, see me on there. Oh, I haven't hit the button. Hold on. Hit the button. like it was working. >> Are you in? You're on. >> Oh, there's somebody. >> Okay, >> somebody's getting >> It does work. >> All right,

006>> I guess >> that was appropriate. >> Jeff, are you able to get it? >> And you're going from the calendar. >> In the calendar. Just make sure I'm in the right date here, 7th of August. I hit the Zoom link. Missing red. I don't know why she's in red. She's not completely in yet. Shows her as a participant, but she doesn't seem to be in Jane, can you if you can hear us, could you unmute and just confirm you can hear us? Just trying to make sure our remote option is working. >> When I click the link, it tells me the meeting is scheduled for January 2nd. >> Oh, is that old link again? Try try going into the bottom thing. Then if you go back out, it then asks you for the numbers.

007>> Oh, the access code and everything. >> Yeah. >> So, we're back to that problem. >> All right. Well, that works. >> Saying hell. >> And you're going from the calendar. >> I clicked the the Zoom link on the calendar. I didn't try the access codes. >> It's like J. It wasn't an email. I don't think >> I but it should be the calendar. I understand because agenda at the end says her links and things but >> right agree >> if it goes on machine you'd be able just know the way >> the calendar is the public's door to the >> Y possess yeah >> through that you have public >> I went in and I had no trouble getting to that and getting the documents and reading the documents so earlier today I didn't

008try the link but I accessed the documents that were referenced. >> Really shouldn't be multiple ways to get in. One of them fail. >> All right, we have public comments. So, might be a problem tonight if people can't get in. >> Guess that person can't hear us. >> Try and text. comment. >> Getting warmer. Getting warmer here. >> But you got in. >> He used She used the other way though, right? >> I typed in the code as opposed to using the link. >> Clicking the link is not the same as it's a different meeting. >> People are getting there. >> No, they're not. If they're just using the code, they're not If they're just using the link, they're not getting in. >> Can we do our business and then postpone the rest? We can

009do our organization, right? But we don't need public comment on that. more. >> Yeah, these people can't get in. Jane and Eric, they're in the same way that I can see the meeting. >> Can you It's going to be >> It's gonna be echoey. I don't think >> I turned off my speaker. >> Hi, Eric. Thank you for doing that. We're just trying to make sure people are getting access. >> Eric, can I ask you really quick? Uh, Were you able to click on the link or did you have to put in the access codes or >> Yeah, I had to put in the the actual access codes into my phone. The the link on the website is to to a January meeting or something. It doesn't really link. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate

010it. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Um, so so there is access but it's not by the easiest method possible. Okay. Well, let's carry on with our board reorganization. So, um and we can assume Peter would have the capacity to get in if he were going. He would not. >> So, yeah. So, I am going to um as the current chair, I'm going to elevate you, Tom, to voting member at this point. So, um uh Victor, you can just note that. Great. Okay. So, uh floor is open for nominations for chair. Would you like to chair who's on stage? >> Is that a nomination? >> Uh, >> yeah. I guess I'll nominate you then. We can discuss. Yes. >> Okay. Um, put your other hand up. >> I'll nominate Jeff. >> Thank you. Jeff, would you be

011willing to serve as chair? >> I would. >> Okay. And I would be potentially willing uh to serve as chair as well. Um, is there any other nominations? This is just for the chair. Just for the chair. >> Uh discussion. >> Is there a routine on sort of the how long the chair and the vice chair or when a vice chair elevates or vice chair doesn't elevate. Is there any we were all new last meeting the last time which is why we all nominated George because none of us really knew what we were doing last time. We're all new. Now we all had a year under our belt. We kind of got a flavor for it. So that's why I'm suggesting Jeff, he's been the vice chair. He's had to sit in at least three

012or four times. Some interesting meetings, too. >> I survived a uh open law open meeting law event. So I think he's got a little bit of credit under. >> Yeah. Well, from my, you know, my experience on the board is very obviously limited, but I've enjoyed working with all of you and I've had a chance to work with Jeff and honestly Jeff's shared actually more of the meetings that I've been here uh over the summer and those times. So, >> it feels like a good time to make a transition. You've you've been here for so long. You've done so much and you got so many other things on your plate. If anybody's willing to step up, it was probably a good idea, you know, and you obviously have great background for it, Jeff. you both

013are really good with the public in my mind and seeing you engage with people and enduring us and um and you obviously had subject matter you're you know you're kind of an expert in the field so we're lucky to have you so makes sense and you know you've contributed so much to over the years and you still are involved a lot of different stuff so thank you for all you've certainly have done well before my my time here but that that seems to make sense to me so I would sort of be comfortable >> according to the minutes here we need to have a motion and a second for each nominee. So, I know Sarah moved for George. Did somebody second? >> I would I would say that that's inaccurate. Robert's rules does not require

014a second >> for all that. >> So, I'll I'll comment. I just want to say um I think uh just generally I think it's um it it's not good to have the assumption that that um uh someone continue in a role indefinitely or something like that. I know when I was on first came on the board, we had a longtime chair and that person was going to be you know in a few years they're going to be leaving. I had proposed that they switch and become the vice chair to give the the vi the vice chair for a few years a chance and and the vice chair didn't feel comfortable stepping into that and I think it would have been helpful to do that. I think it's good to have some change over and I

015think it it develops leadership. Um and when I you were here when I became chair the first time it was just three of us right you weren't you here then when you you had just started >> I don't remember my first meeting was January 2024. >> Okay. But um when when I became chair, it was very reluctantly after Charles Roberts has left and there were just three of us and I was the obvious choice but it was very reluctantly >> and this is the second time around for >> Yeah. Yeah. I had been I had been vice chair for a number of years with Charles. So um I'd be happy to step back from that. I'm I'm happy to do it. I feel comfortable with the procedural stuff and with the um engagement with the

016public and stuff like that, but I'm happy to step back from that. And I' I've really appreciated Jeff stepping in. It hasn't been an intentional um fostering your development by my not being here a number of times, but it has served that purp the biggest uh thing I want to say is I think that um and I think you um in your comments I think at the last meeting uh that I I saw that uh biggest thing for me is around the um uh philosophy we have going forward or continuing as far as public involvement. And and the reason I say that is I know that Charles set an example for years of being really flexible about public involvement and I tried to carry that on. And at the recent um uh decision by the

017uh about the open meeting law complaint, there was such a telling um uh decision I had cited before um from the attorney general's office. I'm just going to read it again that that open meeting law does not require a public uh body allow public participation in its meetings. Um but says it can't speak unless permission with the chair. But we do however encourage public bodies to allow for as much public participation as time and circumstances permit. And that to me really hit a court. I I that's kind of the philosophy I had had all along and that Charles had embodied. But I thought boy they're really saying we should be flexible. shouldn't be necessarily >> restricted to a um you know a small comment period. We should be willing to be flexible and so I

018think >> Jason I can't get any sound. >> Um >> is this Jane Jane on your computer? >> I am. >> Can you mute? They're not getting sound, so they're not hearing. >> Fix that. >> So I I just wanted to say I think whoever's chair I would I would as a planning board member I would want that approach to I think it's really vital to have as I know it's challenging sometimes but I think it's really important to have that. So that that that was just one uh comment I wanted to make about the approach in public engagement. So I strongly support that George because I I'm you know I've not long been on the government side for a long time. I've been in the private sector. I've done a lot of boards and

019I've been chairs and done a lot of governance and nonprofits and businesses really mainly businesses and but also not straight nonprofits uh government a long time ago but I'm not used to the formality of government in some ways and so the limited amount of time and not just being able to have a back and forth. So I I'm more comfortable. That's what I've been. So I support that very much as well. >> I do to a degree. >> Too restrictive otherwise. And if it gets out of hand, we can pull it back, but I'd rather encourage it and see where it goes. >> I I the only comment I would make on that is, you know, if we ask the question on, does anyone have one comments on topics on the agenda? If no one

020raises their hands, if they have no topics on the agenda, what I would do is I would wait till the end of the meeting and say, does anyone want to speak on something else? because we've been allowing people to speak on anything they want to, which takes up our time trying to do our business. >> But we can do our business first and then open the floor and if it takes till 10:00 because they have things to say, then that's what happens to us. But at least we get our business done. That's the only thing I would comment on. If this if it's not on the topics on the agenda, then it shouldn't be at the beginning of the meeting. It should be the end of the meeting so we get our work done. I

021definitely agree 100%. If someone's going to come to a meeting or tune into a meeting, they should have a chance to speak. >> Yeah. >> Especially, but I would agree with you, Victor. If it's on the agenda because every meeting can't be an opportunity to run out the clock on the same topic over and over and over. So, if it's not on the agenda, it doesn't seem we we can't talk about it, then it's not it's not to be discussed, right? >> But if it is on the agenda and there's a line out the door to speak about it, then we'll sit here for a long time and listen. But it should also be a duration of time that doesn't The other thing I've experienced in my job and also here is that the comment

022period can go so long that we have no energy to do our work when it's done >> and people are leaving and missing the actual discussion. So the discourse has to I mean that's important but so is the agenda. There have to be a balance that everyone who makes the effort to show up in a meeting should have a chance to talk. >> And structurally I don't think it works to clump it all at the start of the meeting. I think you look at a city council meeting and it's, you know, endless. And I think what we've tried to do, I know Carl and I try to do is fit it in organically, you know, sometimes and it takes some deafness and some negotiation, stuff like that, but sometimes someone will come up with something

023in the midst of something and you don't have to. It's discretion, you know, and you might say, well, wait till the board has their discussion, then give and it's not a watching the clock, but you know, just using judgment about how long or have wrapping wrap it up. So, it's that. Anyway, I want to go on long about that, but >> are you able to put sort of other business or something like that on the agenda or is that kind of too open-ended? So, therefore, can't do that. I mean, is there a way to have a at the end if someone wants to talk about something else, you just put it to the end and you see if there's anything that anybody wants to comment on, then you close the meeting down. >> You just

024put public comment or you put public comment at the bottom of the agenda, whatever, wherever you want to put it. >> I think we all agree. We want the public to to be open to be able to say something, but we want to work within our parameters of doing our business. >> It's a good suggestion. That's all. >> Yeah. I just say it's also the public's mission. So, we're trying to find that blend where we you said they want to hear the deliberation of the decision too. So they don't want the thing to go on so long that they can't see the whole thing >> and hear from each other. Yeah. >> Thanks. Thanks for entertaining that just so given that >> y wanted to suggest we vote in the order of the nominations. So

025all in favor of Jeff as chair. All right, that's unanimous. >> Congratulations and thank you very much for serving. >> Thank you. All right, nomination. Nominations for vice chair. Floor is open. >> I was going to nominate Peter, but again, he's not here. >> I'll nominate George. We know that he's uh >> yes, >> capable of leading the meeting and I certainly don't want to be vice chair. So, >> maybe Victor could be, but I don't know if you'll >> I want to be a member for a church, just sit and listen and talk. So, I don't really want So, I don't want to be clerk for sure. >> Oh. >> But, uh, you know, so you guys better start me thinking about that. Um, yeah. >> Thickens. >> Okay. Uh, well, um, you headed

026off my, uh, nomination, Sarah. Uh, because that had been my intention, but you were saying you would not be willing to consider that. >> No, I have a baby. Life is too complicated right now. That's a thing. >> That's my excuse. >> It's a backup, right? Okay. >> Fills in. Let me >> All right. So, uh, okay. We have one nomination and I would be happy to serve support our new chair. So, um, all in favor of me as vice chair. >> I >> All right. That is unanimous as well. All right. So, uh, I think Victor is suggesting that we override that uh, approach of not nominating someone who's not here. [Laughter] I don't know about we should I mean I would like to nominate him but again you can't really accept what nobody

027decides he doesn't want it ahead and voted him in. >> So what what I know boards have done before is when you have you don't have full uh representation is you just table uh a nomination till the next meeting when you might have a full and you have the opportunity to check with someone directly if they might. We just voted in it. So I don't we can go back >> second for other positions. >> So we don't we can wait on clerk till everybody's here. We want to appear. >> Yeah, we could consider rotating the clerk position or something like that. I know some boards do that. Of course then it becomes more complicated. People don't do it. >> You know, >> you could Victor you could nominate. >> Good Victor, you're real good. >>

028You could nominate the participant. You could nominate the one full board member who's here. It doesn't have an officer position yet. >> Well, I'm not gonna nominate S. >> The one I heard. I heard her. I wouldn't do that. >> Clerk, I could probably do it one month if I had to if it were rotating, but I I don't have the time to sit down and do the finish. >> I think we should. It's a good idea. >> So, I would table it till next month. >> Should we have a vice clerk also? is like Peter's that means I hear several meetings. It' be great if he could do it when he's here, but Eric also isn't here sometimes. Is there is there a backup role for that or is it just whoever wants to

029do it that day? >> Whatever. >> I don't know the answer to that. >> We'll talk about that. >> Really only discuss >> what it should be is if somebody doesn't show up, someone should step up and take a minute. >> It's unless except for you because you're the chair. You may have to take this if I'm here by myself. >> This this role is particularly bad when Eric is not here because you have to then do minutes. >> Eric hasn't been here for a while. I think he's kind of getting used to not having to use. >> So that's okay. I mean, you know, he's got a lot on his plate. So why why have a clerk and a and a board if the clerk's not going to do any work? So I mean

030I understand completely. >> So we agreed to table the clerk. >> Yes. >> Vote till next month. Okay. >> That's helpful. Mr. Chair, you your meeting change immediately? >> Yes, sir. You can you can delegate it, but it's your meeting to to it. >> Okay. All right. Next order of business, approval of meeting minutes of July 3rd, 2025. Does anyone have any comments on the minutes? >> I have a question. I can't really vote cuz I wasn't at the meeting, but when I looked at the meeting minutes, I see that the board approved a medical they changed the name of what a that is what medical and we approved it by right in the town. And I thought we did something with medical clinics and did not allow them to be approved. Did we vote

031on >> this? This was a different issue. We were um this was about veterinary, >> right? The woman who came and spoke because she she had a proposal for cherry rum and what we discussed was initiating a process I thought to make a change in the zoning ordinance. >> Well, they changed the definition. It says they change the definition to medical clinics and centers. So, >> can they just change it? Can we just change it without >> Well, it's a recommendation to council to vote. >> That's what I mean. That's that's what it was. It's a process that we initiated. So >> So again, we but in our motion to the council, we said we allow it by right and I thought we did something about not allowing medical clinics by right early on. >>

032Yes. >> Yeah. Oh, sure. I I just want to say this agenda item is about the minutes, not about revisiting. >> I'm not want to make sure they're accurate. >> Well, I'm just asking a question. I can't vote on them anyway because it wasn't there. So, I'll shut up. >> It just seems like we did something. >> I'm just saying if >> Okay, I understand. >> I wanted to be put on a future agenda. >> Okay. >> I'll make sure it's correct, I guess. I know. >> Okay. Well, I'm just going to make a note that I question the minutes and we'll do something about it later on. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as written. >> I think um George, you probably just you weren't you didn't call a planning board meeting

033at 602. I don't think you were there, were you? >> Correct. You you I was not there, but I'm making >> Is that the formal? >> No, no, no. So, right here in the minutes, I don't believe you. It says you weren't present, but it says you followed the planning board to order. >> Okay. So, I'm making a motion to approve, please. That would be part of the discussion. >> Okay. So, I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Excellent. >> And okay, just for I think uh George is trying to get out. Usually it goes with Robert's rules usually. >> Yeah, I got it. >> Okay, fine with that. >> I was just I just make one correction. I think whoever called the meeting. I think it was you, Jeff. You

034were the chair. >> That's all. >> You caught that little time before. >> Yeah. >> You're here. Sorry, >> we made you chair, vice chair, and >> so we have we already have five people. So Erica will be Raina alternate today. >> So do you want to know if there's other discussion? >> I have something when Victor's done writing. Right. >> So on the ANR action item not required want to make sure I said that because that's my neighbor. I said that I have no I disclosed that that was my neighbor's house and that I have no financial interest or any personal interest in that project. You did too. >> I'm going with the last topic down here action item A material interest for in that game street. >> Yeah. in that stated he had

035no material interest. >> Um >> just to clarify Victor's question, the motion was just to it wasn't to change any um what was allowed by Wright in any particular district. It was just to kind of expand the definition of medical clinics and centers to include veterinary under medical. Um, so it wasn't changing any about the districts which had discussed the previous meeting. >> Eric was going to bring that to councelor. You would have updated on that on where that stands if you were here. Thank you. >> Okay. So, I got two corrections in the minutes so far. who opened the meeting and then Jeff's statement about not having a material interest in the property for action item a the 60 James Street prop anything else >> okay yeah >> two things I'll just point out

036that that um uh item that was expressing some interest and curiosity about will be coming back for a joint public hearing so that will be coming back report. There'll be another chance to review and reflect on that. And uh that as far as voting, you can vote on minutes if you weren't there. Uh you can either vote just because you believe there's integrity to the process and you trust the process or as I did, you watch the video and you know that it's reflects accurately what happened. >> But either way, it's permissible. >> Yep. Absolutely. >> Good to know. Thank you. Glad you vice chair to help me. I need to brush up on my just Okay. Any other discussion on the minutes? The motion to approve the minutes with the >> As amended, anyone

037>> or are you asking for >> I'm asking if I have a motion for moved. Second. All >> in favor? All right. Thanks. Unanimous. >> Okay. Moving on to public hearing. Uh application of the estate of Anna Batinsky for property located at 370 Colin Road Assessor Tax Map R27 lot 10 which is located in the rural residential RC zoning district. There's a special permit for sections 207.8 eight and 200 H3 of the zoning ordinance in order to allow a flag at this location and we think that some people from the applicant are here. You want to tell us about this? >> It would just mention it would be good to come up here so the microphone can catch with the public. give us your your take on what you're trying to do as we look

038at the documents. >> Your name address >> 369 Corine Road. >> Thank you. >> So, we're trying to split the property. Uh, it's been a family farm. Uh, my it was still in my mother's name. My brother and I have been running the farm. She passed away and left it to the two of us. And we're trying to split the property. The house was left to me. Uh, we have the barns are with the house. We don't have enough frontage to separate the house with the barns and still leave the property in the back. So that's why we're trying to the flag lot. Uh that's really what it amounts to what we're trying to do. >> I have one question. >> Time for questions. >> Yeah. >> Okay. um your flag pole is there. My

039concern is that the angle that you've put in there and I'm just trying to think of fire trucks or anything else. I don't know what the purpose of the lot is, but in the event that something happens to where you're expecting public vehicles to go down there lot, >> the actual piece that's coming off of Coin Road, you've got that sharp angle in there. I assume it's going to be a driveway or an access way. It's >> it's just the access to the property. >> Okay. Uh, I'm just I'm not I'm just not going to try and presume, but it looks like a very sharp access. >> Could be Could you make it kind of more a curve or something to where it's the original it was sharper and she did okay turn it a

040little bit there slightly. >> Okay. >> Angled it a little. >> Okay. I can say that we got uh comments from city staff forwarded to us from Eric Torog and he said that nobody had any comments. >> They would have assessed it for for that sort of thing and whether or not it meets public safety standards and that kind of thing. >> I I had a question um and it and it relates to that. So, I didn't have a chance to look up the original deeds in the in the on the county um Franklin County registry of deeds. So, I'm assuming that angle was because of that existing partial of the >> because of this existing. This was pre-existing, right? >> That's what your house >> I'm assuming that's what you're talking about. >> Yes.

041And that's your house. That's your part. >> 360 road. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, the addresses aren't on here, so it's hard to know what's what, but um yeah, I had the same reaction about the angle also public safety. But you're using this for farming, correct? >> Yeah, that's what it is. >> And and long-term planning, >> right? I mean, I'm just going to put this out there because we we keep losing prime farmland and Cole Raino is is full of prime farmland that it would be great if you do further subdivide this or sell it for whatever that you keep residential towards the street and keep the the back open. Preserve that farms if you if it ever comes to that. >> Yeah. Well, >> you're shaking your head. know you're still farming. I see your

042beautiful shirt. So, looks like you're invested in your farm. But anyway, for future your your children, your heirs, whatever. Um because there I see there's a brook here also I'm sure has for us a hydraulic site. I mean it looks like it's prime land. So we hope that >> so for me I have no problem in subdividing and doing these flags and keeping everything to the rear because that was that's a mechanism planning mechanis or right >> serving mechanism to preserve that back >> for farming and do residential along the road. a lot of towns do that and so I'm I'm in full support of that, but I would just >> do everything you can in your estate planning to make sure it stays warm. >> So, so you're carving out seven4 acres from the

043overall farm. Is that right? >> Why so much land if the goal is just to preserve to peel the house out? >> Well, so we're splitting the farm. So on the other side of the road across the road from that >> there's more farmland which is going to stay with the with me. >> Okay. >> So I'm going to keep the buildings >> the house the land on the other side and down along by the swimming pool. >> Okay. >> And about 8 acres behind the barn. >> Do you share the barns between the barns or >> we you know we've been working it together >> for Yeah. >> I mean that's >> right. we've been doing, but it came down to being able to split it. >> Yeah. Yeah. You have to somehow do

044>> Neither one of us want the other half, right? Do that. We each wanted to have something. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And it also makes sense to follow the brook. So I don't that was intentional. >> Uh but >> yeah part of >> put putting that that boundary line >> some of the brook >> yeah because you can't really do it. >> You'd be keeping the farm stand if you open that back up for now. >> I don't know. [Laughter] >> Health issues are kind of what pushed that. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> we're still doing the hay and you know and lease some of the land. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Great. >> Yeah. as far as um I think to address Erica what you were saying just looking at the in the um

045part of the zoning ordinance to speak specific to flag lots and I'm sorry I didn't catch Eric's um uh indication he wasn't going to be here because I would have I would have asked him about this specifically but um uh some portion of the regulation says once approved as a flag lot such a lot shall not be used for other than a single family use or subsequent subsequently be subdivided unless as part of an approved definitive subdivision plan. And it says plan submitted under this section shall be the same as the plan submitted to the planning board under the subdivision control law. Um and the planning board shall not endorse any plan under the subdivision control law for the purpose of creating a flag lot unless a special permit has been issued for the flag

046lot. So I was a little confused by that. I don't know if when you guys read that if you had a sense of that. I was about the timing if um uh you know the flag block gets approved and then subsequently a subdivision plan could be uh uh submitted. So I don't know if you folks have a understanding of that process. Oh, that that can happen. But that's why I made my comment about as as possible pres preserving, but I don't know if the 55 ft is enough for a subdivision. >> And that's what I think >> was >> the frontage. Yeah. >> Considering as far as if there were >> Yeah. >> a need for access >> written sort of as if it's going to be a single family home on back of the

047slot, you know, period. Well, you're talking about just it being farmland, >> right? >> No, I'm saying the the bylaw is written like it's single family home. >> Well, it says unless part of an approved subdivision. So, >> right. My reading of this is if you have a special permit has been issued for a flag lot, which we're being asked to issue, um then you could come back with uh saying want to have a um you know a >> sub a subdivision. >> A subdivision. Sure. >> Does anyone think that's inaccurate or is that >> it could come back? >> That's my that's my reading of >> once once we get we can't do that at the same time as a flyby maybe. Yeah. Right. Yeah, that's what I that's what I heard. >> I'm

048not I'm not discrediting your plans or your statement. I'm just saying to I understand from point of view of our understanding of our responsibility. >> Please. >> Sure. So that's >> um section 200-7.8 flag watts and I was reading sections, M and N. Thank you. >> The percentage is okay. >> Uh it depends. >> Oh, it's 99 on my second. Yeah, >> but 200 7.8 Okay. And >> flag pole. It's so lovely. >> Just Jeff, I just want to comment that um everything we say at this table is supposed to be audible to the public. So just want to make side conversations. >> Yeah. No, I was just remembering that. >> So just just clarify there the frontage requirements increase the more development you have. So for multif family dwelling lots it's a minimum of

049100 ft and in depending on the zone um and then it goes to 140 and and 200. So it and then you have wetland set back here. So I'm sure when you subdivided this you took this in consideration. It's farmland. >> So >> thank you. >> Um >> wait we had a comment from the public. Well, we're waiting for the pres I think just waiting for the presentation then we'll go to the public here. >> Anything else? >> I think that's covers what we're going to say. >> Okay. And any any other questions for this gentleman first? >> Okay. And we had some other folks in the public >> want to come up here. So if you come up here and say your name and your address so we into the microphone >> these three

050people >> Jean 364 rain road some the little 47 acres that is there so um I know you were u ma'am discussing about the road frontage for the flag pole what is the required minimum um road frontage for the flag pole >> 50. >> Okay. And then Oh yes, there I um so like you can encourage farmland and stuff but there's really no guarantees as to what would end up back there behind my house. Correct. >> Well, right now it's it's farmland and you because of this small frontage, you're going to have a hard time if you want to change that the whole process. change what what would I want to change? >> You know, if some if somebody would want to do a big multif family subdivision here, there's not enough front linkage according

051to the bylaws. >> Okay. So, if there was something going back there, um obviously that would have to go through a whole another approval process. >> Absolutely. >> We're just approving the flag. >> Just the flag. And whether or not we approve the flag lot, a subdivision plan could still be brought forward. >> Sure. >> Could subdivide this all up in all sorts of ways. >> It's completely independent. >> Yeah. This doesn't have any bearing on that, >> right? >> So does not guarantee. >> We're not approving anything other than the little axis. >> Okay. Um and the current the road frontage currently you said the minimum is 50 and what is it? Do you know? >> 55. >> Okay. And so when you were talking about the sharpness of the angle, you were talking

052about coming in off of Corine Road or this here. >> Yeah. Coming in making that turn >> dog leg. Okay. >> Okay. >> And there's a wetlands you have to cross too. So that's >> okay. That's all I had. >> Thank you. >> I think we can only do so much. We can't attempt to regulate some hypothetical future use on the basis of this type of application. Oh, want to speak? Okay. Name and address, please. >> Sandra at the 386 road next door. So, you're on the south, right? North. Oh, to the north. Oh, this. Yeah, this is on the west side. all this. >> So, I don't have any objection to what they want to do, but I do have objections to the surveyor. Um, I thought she would be here tonight. Um, it's

053we spoke last fall and um, I have a lot of things I could say, but mainly I'm being taxed for several years for the dirt road that she has them owning. She surveyed that they own it, but I'm being taxed for it. >> It's the north south of me. Okay. >> A little dotted line right there. It should that that's something for the board of assessors. >> Pardon me. >> That that should be taken up with the board of assessors. >> I have >> Okay. >> He shrugs his shoulders. >> Is there a rightway easement? >> I'm I have a right of way and I thought they had a right away. It's pretty confusing. And then um what's the other thing about >> you're saying that the survey is inaccurate? >> Um I'm questioning it.

054>> It looks like the road is on >> because she when she met with me last fall, she made some comments about the way she surveyed and I just haven't had time to try to pursue of it. There are some pins set. There's a pipe in the tree and there's a pin. Pins are set. >> She put a sheet on Corin Road that was never there. >> Oh, the survey did. Okay. I mean, that would be something that's almost like a title search and you have to go back through the old documentation which is all at the registry of deeds. That's something you can do. That's one thing. But at least >> the taxation thing that's with the assessor and I and you can ask them. I'm sure they have a formula for acreage, what

055the val what they charge for the acreage based on acreage, what the valuation of your land is. And you could sit down with the assessment, ask them to deduct >> to make sure that that's deducted from >> is the building that it leads to. Where where is that? >> There's a building that that farmer seemed to lead to. Um, I've got their shed I think in the back. >> It's >> I don't have one right back here. It's >> I see three buildings on the aerial only one on the drawing. >> That's theirs. Not >> is that the only access to that shed. >> So, here's here's the road. >> Yeah. >> And there's the shed. >> I know, right? That's how you get to it. It's um the um on the back >> the

056D or the map I have shows um you see the bridge the brook and the bridge way back >> you can see you can't see it on the screen there we're just looking at an aerial it's just indicated there's there's a bridge So, um the surveyor we walked out and and she showed me where she put a pen in front of the bridge >> and um then my land goes over >> toward theirs and then back again, >> right? Yep. You can see it on its >> Looking at the wrong road. So you're you're saying that the road because she's showing it she's showing the road mostly on the side of the Batinsky farm. Yep. >> And then and then it shifts a little bit as you go west, but just towards the end and

057then it shifts back >> and then it Yeah. I mean that that road kind of jogs back and forth. But if if it's a taxation issue you're concerned about, >> it's a survey also. So >> Well, the survey is a legal document. It should be accurate. The only way to check that would be to ask another surveyor >> to come and do a survey and and check it and then you know take the width of the road, have the surveyor tell you how long it is. >> Um you could deduct the area and ask the assessor to deduct that or just move the road to the other side of the line. >> Yeah, I want to find out about it. I want to find out about uh I want to have the survey checked. >>

058Yeah, I always hire another surveyor. we can't do anything about. >> Yeah. >> Also, I think the for what it's worth, the flag lotation doesn't impact that line. >> No, the line >> I'm not I'm sorry I don't follow. >> So, they're not moving the line between your property and their property. They're >> right line over here. >> Yes, I have seen it now. >> Okay. So, I just I'm just trying to separate that issue, >> you know. So, if they sell it, then you know, I wanted to have it all. I want to know for sure before it gets sold. >> Yeah. And you can just for both parties, it's because I had a similar dispute on a property I owned once, the survey and the registry of deeds was right, but they had

059an understanding of something else, the the neighbor, and we had a survey come out and it ends up that they were in the same situation as I was in on the other side. So anyway, it we it clarified boundaries and we've put it in writing. There was an additional thing that was added in writing and that's then registered at the registry of deeds. So you're reaffirming whatever understanding agreement about rightways where everything is and it's at the registry. So it helps clarify. But the I would recommend hiring another surveyor to get an idea on >> told me last fall when we walked out walked the road that she determined their border by starting on my frontage. I don't think that's the correct way to do it. >> Well, the the >> I have 147 ft

060of frontage, right? land on the other side of me a few years ago and there's a lot of issues. >> Usually what surveyors will do because there's a lot of old I mean Greenfield has been surveyed a long time. They go back to the oldest point that's fixed in the ground. >> I've seen the work 1800s on all this property, >> right? And then they work their way out. Most of these points are fixed. trees are less reliable, but things that are in the ground, either a stone monument or a pin that's so and then they they reconstruct. They have to go out very far to find those fixed points and check everything which is actually described verbally in a deed that you you start at this point. Tell me a thing I don't know.

061Yeah, I said she started surveying by >> how how much frontage I had. So that's it. That's all I have to say. I'm going to pursuing it. >> Okay. I think just our decision on this, we're not even making a decision today. It's just a public hearing. But the question of whether or not the flag should or shouldn't or is or isn't allowed doesn't impact that line. That's a separate >> I I don't have any objections to what they want to do. >> Um I just want to >> be sure about the borders. >> Eric made some suggestions on who to talk to and keep facing it down and >> outside. I I didn't catch your address. I'm sorry. >> 386. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Anything else from the public? Anybody on

062the line uh virtually that would like to say anything? I know Eric is not gonna he's next, but um it's okay. >> And we can by the way, Jeeoff, we can make a decision on this when we have a public hearing about this. I can >> on the Okay. Even if it's not on the agenda. >> Well, it is it's inherent in the public hearing. Yeah. >> Okay. Then Okay. So, I'll close the public hearing 6:53 p.m. and now ask if there's any interest in a motion to go ahead and approve the special permit application. >> I'll move to approve it. A second. Sorry. Discussion. >> Is it worth going through all the criteria? I assume that the planning department did that but there are no A through N conditions on approving flag. I don't

063know if it's worth going through. >> So we have Eric's memo the official opinion of the department of planning and development. He has no issues with the proposed project. So >> I mean I I reviewed them. It seemed in compliance. >> Okay. I I think I would defer to Eric on this if you were here and he's here via his memo. >> Yeah. And I also >> Yeah. >> And that gets written up in in the approval and it has to be >> Yeah. to check all the boxes. >> Yeah. >> Building department. We'll make sure they follow all those rules. >> Okay. Uh so all in favor of approving the special permit I >> All right. passes unanimous. Thank you all for coming. You stick around and then we're moving on to the next

064thing on the agenda. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Item retired. >> I don't know how you're just learning that. Huh? Good luck with it. All right. Next item. Approval not requiring plan endorsement for lots of 54 factory hollow road parcels R05126 by Eric Pel. We have survey here to represent the Russ you want to just a very elaborate survey here. So if you want to tell what's going on you're muted Eric >> I did too. Keep working on it. It's quite powerful. >> Still muted. Or maybe you need to unmute him. >> How's that? Can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Yeah. Um it's a busy plan. So, uh but actually what we're doing is is fairly straightforward. Um if if would you like me to walk you through it? >> Yes. And

065we also don't have the benefit of Eric being here to >> Oh, yeah. Right. Exactly. >> Exactly. Um, so this is a property owned by the St. um, uh, over in Factory Hollow. Uh, they actually own, um, parcels on both sides of the Fall River. Um, their their property is made up of, um, actually seven tracks. Um, this plan represents, I think maybe five of those. Um, and what they're doing is they're going to be putting in uh majority of the tracks in their deed into conservation restriction with through the Franklin Land Trust. Um, but in order to do that, uh, they have a um, they need to reconfigure the lot line between their house lot and the rest of the property. Um, because the land trust does not want the tennis courts, obviously. Um,

066so if you were to look at the plan, um, just below um, if you go to the big, um, CR2 label and then go south, um, you'll see there's a track line there and that's labeled AB. That is the current property line uh between um tax map RO6 lot 18 and tax map RO5 lot 12. Both of those lots are in common ownership with the stasis. Um, but what they'd like to do is move that line down south to the line that's marked C D. And that's going to run sort of at an angle northeasterly. Um, and they're going to move that line down to there. And what that's going to do is that's going to increase the area of um, R0512. It will reduce the area of R um I'm sorry, it'll increase the

067area of R0618. It'll decrease the area of R0512. Um and what it will do is it will create an exception lot, if you will, um around the house, the tennis courts, which will not go into the conservation restriction. Um it does not affect frontage. Um, it really just affects the location of the line between the two assessed lots. Um, so that's all that's all that we're we're asking for the uh for the endorsement. >> Boy, that's simple compared to this. >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We don't This This was pretty straightforward. It uh I think we just um it just it's just just necessary for the conservation. It actually isn't even necessary for the conservation restriction, but the land trust likes to configure the lot such that if uh if people want to go ahead

068and sell the accepted land, then they don't have to come back to you at that time and do it. >> That's right. Sure. You know, >> what are what are all these parcels being used for currently? >> Oh, currently they're currently they're you know, they're they're vacant lots. I mean, there I don't know if you've been out there, but there's trails. >> I got up to the front driveway and I decided I'm not going to keep going. >> Yeah. No, no. Uh >> I ran into one of the brothers, so I came back. >> It's it's just it's heavily forest forested. It's along the river. Um there's currently some, you know, >> hik some hiking trails out there. I believe one of the um the STS is does a lot of uh mountain biking and

069there so there's mountain biking trails especially on the on the gill side. So um it's it's really it's not currently being you know used for much more than recreation at this point. Uh there was an old if you go halfway up the river um you'll see there was the old international paper dam that was removed back in uh >> 2014. Uh, so all of this was international paper land at one point, including even if you go further north, the Boy Scout camp and >> and such. >> So, um, it's nice. It seems like a nice, uh, nice place for the the land to end up after all the usage history there. So, um, >> you said it was going into the Franklin County Land Trust. >> Yeah, correct. The Franklin Land Trust. Yeah, >> Franklin.

070No county. No, no. Franklin Land Trust. Correct. Y >> Eric, um do you know is there a plan after this uh goes to the land trust for public access to the um reconstituted area there? >> Um I I don't know. I don't know. I don't represent the land trust, so I don't know um what their plans are. Sometimes they do uh provide public access. Um, I think it depends on what the agreement is between them and the land owners. Um, I don't know that. Um, as just as the surveyor, I don't know what that agreement is. >> Um, >> the reason I ask is we're just finishing up approval of a revision of our master plan, which includes the hope to increase access to the Fall River uh, on the Greenville side. So, >> yeah.

071And it's lovely that it's all being preserved. >> Yeah. Yeah. But it would be great at the like you talk about hiking trails and stuff. >> You It's private land from the road at least. >> I think >> Yeah. The only issue would be just that, you know, if I was the land owner, it's really going to come down to um whether you want people walking through your your dooryard or not. Um, I think there is uh the potential for access from the gill side if somebody wanted to um uh well, you know, construct a bridge or something over the fall river in spots there. There are there are places where that could potentially happen. Um, like a walking bridge or whatnot. Um, there's also the possibility of access through um, you know, at some

072point if Mackens did something with that property, I don't know, but um, >> thanks. Just curious. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Appreciate it. Is there anyone? Yeah. >> I'll make a motion to uh, endorse this uh, ANR now that I understand it. >> I'll second it. Any further discussion? >> One of the most interesting add arts I've seen. >> Yeah, I think I can't imagine how it would violate that Eric would Eric Tora would would say we need to worry about you know if Eric has looked at this and you've been in touch with Eric Tor to >> Yeah, I did talk to him. I did talk to him when I dropped it off. He he you know Eric seemed to think that we could handle this through the assessors. Um I I I

073have not heard of that. So this the traditional method would would be even though this is fairly straightforward and simple um we always just do it with an ANR. I I have to look into that. He he said that there was a way to to make the applicership lot line switch without any sort of frontage changes but um this seemed like the safest way to do it. So >> he didn't object to doing it this way. >> No, not at all. No. Okay. No. No. >> Okay. Any other discussion? >> Compliments to whoever drafted the plan. I thought it was well done and because I did go out there. I ended up go driving around and coming down through Gil and then walked around, but >> I was able to find my way thanks to

074the plan. So, >> Oh, great. Thank you. I appreciate the comment. Yeah, >> compliments. >> So, all in favor of approving the approval not required endorsement. >> Endorse. Sorry. Endorsing. I >> I >> All right. And then >> I move to have the chair Yep. >> sign on behalf of the board. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay. So, we'll I will go get this signed once we get that to Eric Forog and sign this and it's five or six copies and I'll do that. >> Great. Thanks. Thanks. >> Thank you everybody. Have a good night. Yep. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Last item is continue discussion planning board's continued discussion of proposed master plan chapter updates with specific focus on the vision, goals and strategies and implementation items of the land

075use chapter. Is does anybody know if this first section that we kind of finished reviewing the last during our last meeting um on natural and historic natural historic cultural resources is that has that already been submitted because I wanted to add something. My recollection from hearing and watching was that it was decided not to vote on it at the last meeting and to um uh because this says continue discussion of the proposed master plan chapter updates um with specific focus on a land use chapter at this meeting and then there was going to be a vote on both chapters at this meeting. Okay, >> that was my recollection. Though it's only listed under discussion items, it's not listed under action items, which I thought was the intention, but it's not listed on the agenda under

076action items. >> Okay. >> Got a note from Nancy that she was trying to get into the meeting. >> Oh, no. >> She would be she's been joining us at these meetings to give us more context on >> Right. Right. >> And her note to use the codes. >> I did. >> All others have gotten in using the code and she should >> do the same. I just >> water. If you give her just a minute comes and we can pull up the chapter, >> a lot of new goals. Maybe I should wait to make this comment, but this um under land use the majority of the actions are new. Well, they were in the in the other as well, right? In uh >> yeah, natural. >> That's true. >> So, I might have spoken

077out of turn. Uh Erica getting out of chair mode. Um but you had uh because you had asked about reverting back to some of the former chapter. I'll defer to you, Jeff. Yeah, I think we So, it's one of the things that Eric Toro said last time reminded us that this document has been through a lot of process, a lot of time. Nancy has demonstrated you've been on the committee as well. Right. Do you want me to respond? >> Yeah. So, this uh this went through I'll just review the process again. I went to the the um uh students of the Conway school and there were four members of the um uh the um uh SGIC master plan implementation committee who um worked with them. uh and they mostly completed this this document and then

078mostly it was the um uh the that subgroup of the master plan implementation committee that completed this document with the implementation right and then this was vetted by the entire implementation committee um and then was coming to us um I think this is I mean this is an impactful document ment I know in going through this last chapter I found multiple errors and um things that you know are are already accomplished that need to be removed and things like that or things that I think are in a section they don't belong in things like that and I think this is our final chance to cuz we own this is to clean it up or you know uh improve it um so I think it's I don't think it's disrespectful to the uh the effort or

079the integrity of the former work but I don't think certainly we want to rubber stamp it and I think people were you know recognized in that but I think I think and I I agree with having heard the comments uh at last meeting we don't need to in read through line by line and I appreciated hearing that people said oh yeah this is our document and so we we can read through it line by line outside of our meetings obviously and I'm sure people have done that Um but um uh just that you know we want to have this as fine-tuned as possible to represent this town and to >> you know shape shape things going forward because it's meant to be a really quality guide to >> you know the town's future. So >>

080Eric in the last meeting um gave me a sense that it had been vetted more thoroughly than that and like it's finished unless you wanted to add something not that it needs word smithing and changing almost like that oh don't do that he almost had a heart attack I thought when we were like right >> so it felt like it was a little more done than maybe but you're in if you're finding mistakes you know I'm not at that level so I don't know >> I heard just respectfully just disagreeing with the chair at the last meeting and so I'm respectfully disagreeing. I know he was getting impatient with him some of this. I think I think you know you don't want to go >> has anything to do with his absence here today. >>

081I I don't you don't want to be overly sluggish. I agree with that. But but we do want to be do our due diligence. And so that's what I would say is that we we're the final better of this thing. >> Um makes a lot of sense to eliminate errors. >> Yeah. And and you're different errors. sure about uh the industry and and uh innovation you added last time was great. It's an oversight. >> I have another ad. >> Yeah, >> but I want to throw this out there for Betty, but I'll wait. Procedurally, I think if if there's an error, we should fix it. If there's something important that's missing that we want to modify, we should fix it or modify it. That's not to say we shouldn't get in here where we need

082to, but we can just I think we just pick the items up as as they come. we can go throw our notes and the items we want to focus on we can talk about but otherwise trust that at least most of the work is is well vetted and and very thought through. So, I have comments for the second part, but the first part um and I for some reason I thought it was going to come up in the the second section um but it didn't. So, in natural, historical and cultural resources under four, I'm wondering if we could this is ensure that residents can access town parks, rivers, water bodies. If we could if it makes sense, I'm putting this out there to everyone to add something to the effect of creating pedestrian access that's

083well um indicated with signage or something to poet seat because poet seat is the symbol everywhere for Greenfield you see it on our gateway entrances welcome to Greenfield but if you're downtown Greenfield you can't get to it and the winding road up to it is not very safe for pedestrian it is within pedest pedestrian access and usually people who are hiking up to to the top of things like to have a walk. So is that do you think that makes sense to add that somewhere? >> It's referenced in the write up and it references want to improve access to poets in here. >> Yeah, it's not in there. >> Yeah, I appreciate you raising it because I live right around the corner from there and I actually go up there a lot. you know, I

084walk or drive up that road or bike. Yeah. And it's like a super wide road and there really could be easily access. And I'm thinking if you walk from right downtown main crescent down, you know, you can be up a poet, you could it's like a 15-minute walk. >> It could be a scenic nice walk, >> but when you hit the end of mountain, it just sort of disappears. Sidewalk disappears and you just have no idea where you're going and it's dangerous. So yeah, it surprises me that there's it's basically so inaccessible. Uh even though it's right there and it's in very walking distance. So I would support adding something. So where were you thinking that would >> I was thinking in four for access resources for ensure that residents can access the town's parks,

085rivers and water bodies. And I would just add that in there. pedestrian access to I mean here they're talking >> I would say pedestrian and bicycle >> yeah pedestrian and bicycle I mean we talk a lot about FRTA and other I mean there is a little bit walking distances areas within walking distances in like 4.2 to assess whether but I I feel like it we need yeah this is not for everybody for not only environmental justice areas but visitors to town town residents that we maybe it's we study >> should definitely should definitely be >> huh >> should be definitely in force >> maybe we study the development of a you know walkable pedestrian in access to these areas, a map that we hand out uh with signage. I mean, maybe we put it in

086>> the state alliances and areas of of of historical interest instead of out a place. >> Yeah. No, no, it's in general, but pedestrian access, not >> that's already in there, right? You have access. >> It's not just historical, it's recreational. >> Yeah. >> That's what >> Well, then it's already covered. If it's recreational, it's already covered because I think recreational is listed, right? So, if it's a recreational area, then it's already in four, but you're wanting to spell it out as a specific place to look at. That's like saying, you know, the park on the corner, you know, why was why are we putting in specific? >> Well, George George, this last time this came up because it's talks about access of Th River and Green River, but then there's actually nothing to do.

087Then it's just ironic that this thing comes up to us, you know. >> But do you remember that last time you raised that concern? >> We were just talking with Eric about it. Yeah, >> there's nothing to do. So, >> well, maybe there is. >> Maybe there is. >> Yeah, >> maybe there is. >> Um, >> well, is there, >> you know, it it it also ties into having this lovely accessible, attractive downtown? I mean, it goes two ways. You know, people are up there, maybe they want to walk downtown or anyway, I mean, I'm I'm focusing on that poet siege because a lot of people who don't know anything about Greenfield, they see the tower. A lot of towns have towers, a lot of cities have towers. They leave, they don't even know anything

088about it. And it's a really precious spot up there. Um, it's like the wedding photo spot. And every town needs one and we need to toot our horn a little more. And having a kind of nice pedestrian signage way. Follow this path. We'll get you there. Similar to bike trails, also an a safe bike path up there would be nice. That's all. I just I don't know where to put it, but that was my first guess was in four. >> I see. >> Are you talking about creating a way to get there or promoting it? >> Well, there is right now there is not a safe way to get there once you get beyond once you get to the bottom of the what's it called? >> Bottom of Crescent. >> Bottom of when you hit

089mountain, it's all there sidewalk. >> Yeah. And it's I I don't feel safe riding up there and I don't feel safe walking up there. A lot of blind curves. Then when you come down Crescent and then it turns and then the exit Highland Park comes in. But right down there there's no sidewalks. You're out of sidewalks when you get down to that part of Crescent and then it turns and then becomes Mountain Road and it goes up all the way. >> Yeah. >> And there's no there's nothing there. Just two road cars >> and then they go very fast. >> So it's sort of that that shoot has no pedestrian or biking. It's just a road >> and it doesn't necessarily have to be on the road. I don't know who wants to land to

090the side of the road, you know, maybe it winds its way through, but it would just be nice to have some way to get up there. I' i've always asked people, how do you get up there if you're just walking without putting your life in your hands on that? For what it's worth, the in in HC number one 1.1 implement the 2021 open space and recreation plan. And that document has a very long list of very specific things like that. I just did a bunch of it 15 times so I didn't get through all of them yet. >> Okay. But I guess that the intention of putting the reference to that plan is so that that can kind of be the >> for the mount, you know, the very long list of specific things. So

091maybe check and make sure it's in there. >> Things that might not be in there, we could add to our plan. >> So then the only thing I would generalize it and say is access, you know, because we have access via public transportation. I would say just via pedestrian and bike trails. that line >> make needed improvements to poet seat Rocky Mountain Ridge such as investigating opportunities to improve pedestrian safety and pedestrian access to poet seat and satch from Maple Street to Rocky Mountain Road and improving connections to other open spaces that's in the that's in the open space plan. >> Okay. >> So I agree with you 100% but I just don't want to be redundant and >> right >> I think you need it to be in this plan so that we can

092then point to it and say hey we said we were going to do this >> let's do it. But so I think maybe go through the open space plan and make sure it was done relatively recently by fur cog but >> agree good point. >> See if there's anything missing there and then that we could >> okay >> append it. >> All right. >> Thank you. Good comments. All right. So for land use >> did anybody was I guess I should just ask if there's anything specific we can make our way through the this section we could chart with ly's born anything in that area that zone that people had comments >> just wanted to check we've tried to help Nancy get on >> yeah I'm checking my email and she hasn't replied so this

093was she emailed me a while ago I didn't see it but >> she called me okay Yeah, but obviously I don't have my phone on. >> We should I'll check in with the clerk again. >> Should we email her or >> I did >> I just told her how to get in >> and she hasn't responded. >> That's right. Maybe she just >> up or she'll check later. If she pops in, we'll we'll go for it. >> Maybe we could I hate to suggest this continue this discussion once we have everything that we want to say maybe we could, you know, give Nancy a chance to discuss at a future meeting. >> Yeah. I mean, my sense from her was she didn't have she was there to answer questions. So, I think if we have

094a question and we feel like we need her input, we could table that, but she's she's not going to change anything. She's I think representing this is what she would like to see adopted. >> Yeah. >> And I I don't think she was expecting us to check, hey, are you okay with this? She's just >> she was just wanted to offer clarification if we had questions for her. >> Right. >> Um and I and again we don't have it as just an action item. So I don't think we're voting on this tonight anyway. >> So we have no one more chance. >> Yeah. So you want to just ask >> I think let's go through. So land use one. So the first goal >> cultivate a lively attractive and accessible downtown environment. So just within

095the strategies, implementation actions under that goal, did anyone have any anything they wanted to edit, fix or adjust? >> Got a couple simple ones under uh 1.3. The third um invest implementation action, a very simple one. Uh it says investigate the use of a bylaw. Uh we don't have bylaws because we're a city. Bylaws are for towns. So it should be investigative use of an ordinance >> for vacant commercial property and they use bylaw because the example they give the Arlington vacant commercial property registry which I looked at and it's interesting they have bylaws so through the ordinance. >> Okay. >> Um and then >> shoot >> and then two down uh the first one under 1.4 before there's a word missing just uh seek funding for the oversight of downtown cleanup. Um and the

096one just below that I think this is from the point of view of stakeholders. Um support and fund decorative flower boxes plantings in downtown including maintenance and walking uh watering. I was hoping Nancy was here for this because I believe the Greenville Garden Club does that already. >> That's correct. shelf, man. >> Sorry. >> They're stretched very thin. >> But don't they haven't they had a history of doing that? >> Yeah, but so it doesn't happen. >> There are plantings downtown >> that have you know there's one by the post office I walk by all the time. >> I'm not sure where the other ones are off the top of my head, but um I'm not sure. I think those are individually sponsored by businesses that >> organized by the garden club. I didn't want

097to disrespect the garden club by not including them if they're already that came through at all. That's not what you're saying. I'm just saying that I know they're stretched thin and they're >> But do they still sometimes do that? >> Yeah, it I'm I'm not the person to ask, but my sense was that it's take that out. >> No, I would suggest adding it, but we can >> stakeholder. >> Yes, that's under stakeholders. Just I I understood that >> they had the garden club as a staple. Is that what you're saying? >> Garden. Yeah, just garden club >> as a stakeholder. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah, I understood just to honor their work. They've been doing this for years. It's my understanding. Maybe they're, you know, having trouble doing it, but I I didn't want

098to. >> Yeah. >> What section is that under again? >> I'm sorry. That's um under 1.4 the second implementation action. >> This one had a missing word. This one has a missing stakeholder. >> Right. That's all I had on that page. >> Wait till the next one call bigger. >> That's all I had on that page myself. >> Okay. >> And that and the kind of overarching theme of 1.4 was help with maintenance and explores explore ways to make program financially sustainable. Um because part of that is we're asking a lot of the businesses and we're asking a lot of the same group of volunteers. So I guess that falls into that. I don't I had one one thing about um kind of with signage and a green field kind of brand branding thing that

099if we want to be asking for some consistency along Main Street or that like we have like lampost planters all the way up and down the streets or we have >> uh I I don't know if we want to have something that kind of reinforces the quote unquote Greenfield downtown brand, which doesn't really exist yet, but once we finish our complete streets upgrades, we'll have lots of opportunities for planters. And has everybody seen those plans? >> Seen which plans? >> The complete streets, the paving planned, and the new layouts of Main Street. Yeah, >> I wasn't asked about that and where that stands. And >> there are I got a 25% set from Eric. Um I think >> we don't have to talk about a second but I was just curious where >> it's it's

100in process that do we look at it no >> the department of transportation state >> public works DPW >> no it's the state that's funding >> state is funding but DPW is also involved now no >> but the decision decision to go angle versus parallel all that I mean who decid that's they're deciding that >> the state is funding the project and they have certain parameters about what they'll fund, what designs they will fund and what designs they will not fund. >> It's also based on the existing width. So, it's between 40 and 45 ft is the paved area >> and between the buildings it's between 90 and 95. >> I don't mean [Music] we can come back to this another time. I was kind of curious where the design planning was for Main Street

101and it it seems very relevant to all this planning because it's something that's going to really happen. >> So the but >> so the planters on poles is just your idea that's not >> it's it's not my my own personal idea. I'm just saying there's so many other things you could add to this, but to make it to reinforce our downtown commercial area to have a little more more coherence from one, >> it it's not something you've heard someone else propose. You're bringing this up in this room, but you haven't heard someone else propose or something. >> Okay. I'm just trying to clarify. So, >> yeah. I mean, I would I'm always wary of ambitious projects. You're saying the garden club is stretched in stuff like that. of things that are organic as far as

102sustaining them. But it's downtown is is a brutal environment for trees, plants obviously and uh so you know cuz sustaining trees in a healthy way is challenging in that environment. So I'm you know you know >> trying to be not overly ambitious in that setting. So >> just to clarify, my point was more in having a consistent aesthetic that reinforces and unifies our main central downtown artery >> because right now it's a little bit of everything. It's some of it stripped with our setbacks and car dealers and garages and stuff and some just to >> slowly that we take steps in having a really solid downtown pleasant street to walk in. use 1.3. >> I I don't Yeah, I mean it would go in that, but the idea of just having something >> funding um

103to for facade improvement program to aid building owners to make facade improvements. >> I was sort of curious about that. I mean there, you know, there's a lot of room for improvement building facads and it's a little bit what you're getting, >> right? >> Um and I was that's a new one. George, is there much talk or excitement around of the challenge of doing u facade improvements and getting businesses to do facade improvements is there >> not there yet. >> Um but we don't have to worry about whether or not they're can be infeasible and we'll get around to it at some point. This is >> I just don't know what the history is around it. But I only raised that because it's something close to what Erica was saying. In my opinion, if you

104put all these together, it's getting pretty close to what Eric is talking about. It's not stated and and quite as >> as concisely, but it's it's the undertone of of this section. >> Yes. >> I mean, it when you look at, you know, under 1.3, you know, you know, use the state sanct. But if you look at the the Arlington vacant property thing, registry that has some uh teeth to it because it it if that were to be implemented as an ordinance, it requires uh property owners to register. It requires them to um report how they're trying to promote it and it it requires them to uh pay into a um certain amount of money into the system. So um you know there's a uh it puts some pressure on them to uh try to

105do it and also you know this is obviously trying to get them to have the next implementation action is suggesting trying to have temporary you know users you know um in there >> this is an important section this important >> stuff you're talking about >> yeah here I'm going to sum it up more succinctly >> design guidelines for downtown >> that We just that that sums it all up. That would take in all this stuff. Landscaping of, you know, our our sidewalks, that's planters, that's benches, that's lighting, all that stuff. And and design guidelines, how facads are treated. And maybe we even talk about a design review process for any development and new building and signage in I know there's signage process right here. There's a signage approval process in Greenfield or no >> for

106signs for is there do you have to get approval to put a sign on your building in Greenfield in your downtown? >> It depends on I mean you get have to get special approval if it's outside of the >> parameters. Outside of the parameters >> but otherwise you can do what you want. Nobody's reviewing those. >> It's 10 by 10. You can do whatever you want on by 10. Anyway, for for our downtown, we're trying to reinforce our downtown. And part of a successful downtown is having a personality that's unique to a downtown. So maybe to sum up all these things I'm kind of incoherently throwing about, we under one of these things say um study the development of design guidelines for our downtown or our main downtown commercial streets. >> So you put it

107in 1.1. Yeah, because it's in there it says investigate whether formbbased code is applicable. So you're talking about >> for a little different. >> No, no, let me finish this. >> You're talking about an overall design vision. And so it would seem it would fall under 1.1, but you have to come up with a language. >> Correct. >> We're going to put it in there. And you sounds like you don't have language yet. >> Well, I haven't written a language. I I'm floating it out there. If you want, I'll write a sentence. >> Well, we can't vote on it now, so we can consider it and vote on it next time. I'll come up with an important it's an important concept that we should decide if we like or not. >> We discuss we discussed

108this early on though the whole idea of form based design. Kind of said yes and then we said no and then we said no. >> So >> actually here's a simple fix. Investigate whether a formbased code or design guidelines are applicable and useful for green. >> Yeah. >> That's it. >> There you go. >> And over there good notes. >> I think that's >> sorry long discussion to get just to that. My approach to a plan like this is just make sure that anything that you might want to ever consider is in there. It doesn't matter if it if you're not sure then you use the word a word like explore investigate. >> It's already in that one. So you can say whatever you want, right? >> Yeah. So >> you start with that word

109>> and it could be design guidelines. >> I like what you're proposing >> design review say or find >> or design. >> Yeah. Design guidelines process. >> Yeah. That gives us some latitude to continue figuring out what is going to work best for me. >> Yes, >> it's important. I I was just walking down the street looking at all the science thinking about it when I, you know, when I saw this thing about trying to develop more facade program and just looking at our storefronts, but I know what the business is, they don't really struggle, but it's it's not a nice looking downtown as a result, >> right? But there's savings in numbers and if there's some kind of standard then everybody gets together and pitches in and >> right gets their little piece of

110the pie >> modification is to one point >> adding the weather for >> design guidelines >> andor design guidelines is or are applicable and useful for green >> and that goes to us right >> okay >> I mean design guidelines for adding that >> review process. I don't know if you want to add that other one, but >> we have a design review. >> There is a zoning section here too, but we could a little bit add those things there too. >> Anyway, that's that's the place for 1.1.2 the phrase adding design guidelines isable. >> Yeah, >> adding design guidelines after form based code. So, just forbased codeable. >> Yeah. andor design guidelines back to the original text are applicable and useful for >> Thank you. >> Got to clean up our act in town

111here. Make it look nice. >> That's the word. Clean up our act. There you go. >> We want people to come downtown and enjoy being there. >> Yeah, that's 1.3. Clean up, repair, and beautify our act. Yeah. >> No, but it's true. >> Anything else in one point in section one? >> I I don't I I had one more thing. I'm just I put notes all I marked the hell out of this thing. Um the cannabis storefronts. I know it's a state law. You can't have >> Well, I had it under cleanup and repair 1.3. I just had an ordinance about cannabis storefronts that they just cannot put black plastic out there. That they either do something with public art, but that that one foot of between the one foot inside the glass should be

112something else instead of darkness. >> Yeah. >> Um we got to put we've got to animate those. I'm sorry. I'm so tired today. I'm very incoherent today. But we have to animate those blackened out storefronts. We're going to let Canada be a reason to deny a permit. >> I I agree. But we haven't we've been letting people come in and I understand >> I understand land owners have to rent their space. I mean, I'm trying to >> but we can still deny a permit. If someone comes in and said they want to put a cannabis store on our property and you got to put a black storefront, we can say no. >> We haven't been, but >> I'm not sure if we can. >> Sure can. Because our if our guidelines say no black storefronts

113in our town, >> that's our guideline and they want to put a black storefront in our town. We say no. >> But we don't have those design guidelines right now. >> We've been trying to get that done. is one of the things that can sent off for agendas that we'd never get on the agenda is to address that specific issue >> come up with a recommendation that says this >> because I wanted to do when we had the discussion I got all trouble about I want to send a letter to the Z >> that says when you go to the special permit for that town tell me want to be redesigned. >> Yeah. and you want the you want the the the dispensary to front on the on the side street and the other storefront

114to center on the main street. Then you don't have to worry about having a black window. >> We can do that too. >> Also could invest in a more attractive window. >> It's not that complicated. >> Well, design guidelines would address that too. >> Exactly. >> So if we have the design guidelines somewhere else, >> we need to do something before we get to this whole design guidelines. That may never happen. So if we if it's an issue that we find particularly unappeasing unappealing to us, we need to make a recommendation sooner than later that says our zoning law needs to be changed to put this into our zoning law. >> I would suggest that is a separate issue. >> It came up as a topic and since you guys have been wandering all over

115>> if I could finish >> I thought I would support that. >> We should we'll put it on the agenda for a future meeting. >> Agenda. >> Yeah. But it's it's I'm not suggesting it's an invalid topic. I'm just saying it's not an >> a master plan topic, but it could be put on another >> meeting and I know it has come up before as you're saying and it's more urgent than the master plan. >> Yeah. >> Can't wait for design guidelines eventually coming up when this is eventually, you know, runs through. >> You can't do it retroactively. I assume that you don't send a letter to the CBA though >> and and whether or not I mean you know messing with the cannabis control commission all that stuff is tricky enough as it is

116but so I think having you know some kind of discussion about this >> collective discussion complicated topic than we probably realize. >> Yeah. So that that would be good I think for >> but it is our downtown. >> Yeah. I think that the spirit the spirit of the comment is >> in the the master plan especially if we had the design guidelines piece because then that is the mechanism by which we would >> establish these rules long term. >> Yeah. >> And I think if we want to talk about we could spend some time next meeting if you want to add the agenda to >> I'll send you I can I can send him an email right with you tell them right now. You tell them like I've got four or five things like I

117like to put on your agenda. We'll do it later. You're doing a thing now. So let's finish your thing. Okay. All right. Anything else in Ly's check one? >> I do on the next page. Um, under 1.6 the first implementation action. Um, under the stakeholder, we definitely, if we're talking about protected bike lanes should include the DPW as a staple. You're not going to have protected bike lanes without the BPW. Um and uh likewise for the next one building a complete safe biking network that should involve DPW. >> Next one down >> first two implementation >> first two under 1.6. >> Okay. So um >> uh question since we have since this is safe pedestrian and bicycle access could we put a safe pedestrian and biking network? Could we add pedestrian to that? >> Uh

118>> oh okay this is really it is only bike lanes but maybe we add another line >> pedestrian still on 1.6 six that George mentioned with the safe biking network and improved bicycle safety. Since under the strategy of improve and expand safe pedestrian and bicycle access and public transportation downtown, all of this is about bikes. There's nothing in here about pedestrian. Oh, just the last ones. See, creative solution. All right, I guess that covers to build a safe pedestrian and bicycle path. But that's just Turner's Falls Road. So maybe we add to that mountain road the last one under 1.6. >> I actually before you get into that, I have a comment on that. But if we're talking about um you you want to you're suggesting add something about say pedestrian access to downtown. You're

119saying, right? that would yeah I mean this this the strategy is p is pedestrian and bicycle and public transportation is very heavy towards bicycle and I just want to make sure we have >> pedestrian in there that's all that we emphasize that too >> it just comes up in the last one in one location I just want it more generalized >> before we get to that could I just say there's a few of these I think should be eliminated if I can in that 1.6 six. So, it says, "Explore the feasibility of creating a Franklin County Ebite share program." I don't think this belongs in this goal because this goal is about downtown. >> I don't think that has anything to do with creating a lively, attractive, accessible downtown. Um there is in the transportation

120chapter of the original master plan there is a uh implementation action about creating recommend creating a bike share program. It's an ebike program but I don't think I don't I think this is a noble idea but I don't think it belongs in the land use plan. I I think we should just eliminate that. >> I I think we should just it doesn't belong in this chapter. I think we we just rely back on it. I think it should be in a transportation. >> It's already in the in the >> it's not an ebike, but a bike share program is in there and I think you know we can just >> in this before and just not comment it just or just you just noticed it or correct. >> Yeah, this is my you know when

121I first reviewed it I didn't it didn't jump out at me. >> I would suggest we eliminate the third implementation action under 1.6. That's one proposal. >> Thank you. Sure. >> Um the simile u the one two below it where it says explore whether Deerfield would be interested in collaborating on a bike trail between Greenfield and Deerfield along Route 510. I am an enormous supporter of that goal. I I put together a proposal the first year of the CPA to try to come up with an off-road bike path um between us and Old Deerfield. didn't get funded, but um and I collaborated with people in Deerfield to propose that >> should do it again. >> Yes. But I don't think that is um it fits under this and it's already an implementation action. It's mentioned

122in the transportation chapter of the original master plan. So I don't think it belongs here. I don't think it's related to uh the downtown uh a lively attractive and accessible downtown. I mean, it kind of is in the sense of access to downtown from Deerfield, but um >> interesting that it's listed as new, but it's been in the transportation plan. >> Yeah. Well, they don't they're not going to catch it and nor did I. >> What's in the same section, George? What's the feasibility of public transportation bus loop refill? >> Okay. So, that one I'm suggesting eliminate because it already exists. Route 21 bus goes from the >> that's the FRTA, right? >> Oh, yeah. And the number 21 bus goes from the transport, you know, the the John I mean the over Thank you.

123over transportation center. It goes it's a loop around Greenville 45minute loop. I've taken it many times. >> Two there are two other routes. >> Well, there there are multiple loops but that that one is a is a >> that is a you know T bus loop in Greenfield. And again, I didn't happen to catch this, but there are multiple bus routes. I don't think that's that's realistic to put it in there because a a local already exists. So, I would suggest eliminating that as well. >> Oh, that's true. >> And lastly, the um the one you referenced, Erica, the last one, seek creative solutions to build a safe pedestrian bicycle path along and near Turners Falls Road to increase non motorized travel to and from Turners Falls. It's not just increase it, it's make it

124more safe. I' I've been involved with the former assistant planner um and with Furcog multiple times. We've done cleanups on that road. We've done um surveys on that road. It's it's I biked and walked that road. It's in I know clients I work with in my job who take that road. It's incredibly dangerous. Yeah. >> Um but that's already in here. It's it's uh highlighted that particular road as needing attention. So is there >> I think that's got nothing to do with our downtown. >> Is there a way to just make it then more general so it stays there as an action to implement? >> I don't think eliminate like Turner Falls Road but just say throughout. >> I don't think so. I I think that was I think it's a good idea. They were

125just thinking of it you know and the students whoever had a good idea but it's it's not part of creating a lively attractive accessible downtown >> in Greenfield. So, I think it's just they were I think they were trying to throw too many things in there. >> So, >> I would eliminate the one about the >> 3, four, five, and six. >> Three, four, five, and six. Correct. >> I would keep the increased bicycle racks. >> Three, four, five, and seven. >> Seven. I'm sorry. Yeah, keep the bike racks. They just put it in. I haven't seen it yet, but a great new bike rack at the library. >> Oh, finally. Yeah, cuz they used to had that DRA one for the longest time and they kept saying they were going to get a better

126one. So they finally did. So I would eliminate those um three, five, and seven because they just don't really belong there as and they're represented in the the existing transportation chapter. That's where they belong. It's the transportation chapter and they can be updated in there when we get to that. and um uh number five uh four rather because it already it's just it's already there is such a bus route. >> I mean one thing about these little summary documents with the bullet points is they're kind of reminders and so if we also eliminate too much it gets completely forgotten and I think that could be one of the reasons they've put it in there. environment because it kind of becomes like your cheat sheet because people always go to this first table first >> that's

127>> without reading without reading I'm saying for those who don't want to read that stuff they'll just retake this and >> but this is only one chapter this is the land use chapter this is the transportation chapter >> and we should be reading all seven chapters this is not land use >> I mean this and this is about land use of the downtown where having bike racks downtown makes sense >> Mhm. Mhm. >> But working on Turners Falls Road doesn't seem to fit. >> Yeah, I can I'm I'm just in my head. I can see how they came up with that. Again, bringing more people downtown, but whatever. >> I apologize cuz I was on the SGI and I didn't catch these before, so we're having to do it now. >> Anyway, it's fine. Okay,

128>> I'm just proposing it. But >> yeah, no. So, I wanted to kind of get those out of the way because now you're saying if we're limiting it to one, two, and six, then those still don't address the pedestrian part, >> correct? >> Or the public transportation part because that's also listed in the strategy. So >> is it not a case you kind of waste your good sentence on the strategy and you don't have like the strategy should also be an implementation action you need like a catchall for >> right >> if we have lamb if we have the phrase improve and expand save you know everything in 1.6 six >> is that >> do you need any more detail? >> It's in there. >> Yeah, >> we might not have a thing to do

129quite yet, but that doesn't mean we're not allowed to do anything further besides the three things that are left. >> August. >> Well, but one is a strategy and the other one are the different actions you can take to achieve that. >> But there's going to be there's a bunch of other actions, too. These are just the first ones that somebody came up with. As long as it's a strategy and a goal, >> it's fair game for the future, >> right? We don't need a soft nonthought out >> for everything. >> Yeah. Exactly. Right. You're It's almost like you're limiting yourself to the three items you put in. >> Yeah. If I >> And you're not this this ultimately >> strategy is all you need to know. >> You want as much Yeah. You want

130as much latitude as possible. So this it's open to interpretation. The goals and strategies are very open-ended intentionally so that whenever we think of a good idea, we can justify it with one of these goals or strategies. >> And they should be evolving with time too from year to year. >> Yeah. And I'm sure they are. And the the main street redesign is hopefully going to improve um say pedestrian access. >> It's fantastic. It's really good. I looked at in detail safer bikes for for vehicles and for pedestrians. It's actually it's good. They followed all the good good design guidelines for safe complete streets. It's well done. >> Okay. Anything else for land use one or move into land use 2? >> Now George I don't want to presume we should follow the same thing

131which is these things are accomplished. We don't take them out. There's a lot of stuff here that was actually just recently done and accomplished. >> But I think it's important to keep them in on the housing front. >> I don't think you would take them out if they're accomplished. >> You would take them out? >> Yeah, I was thinking of taking them out. I was like, "Yeah, for two, we're moving on to two, right?" >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, I was >> I mean, it's an impressive it's an impressive amount of stuff because a lot of stuff's been done here. >> Yeah. I was looking at 2.1 and I was like, a lot of these are just the recent >> zoning amendments that we got done during the process. You know, >> the

132third one we just did, >> the pro the zoning work uh outpaced the plan. >> Yeah, that's great. I do think they should be taken out. >> And also the ADU, detached ADUs, that's also allowed. >> One, two, three didn't get done because they approved that silly house with the >> that's not in place yet. That was another item for the agenda. >> So number one under 2.1 allow multi multif family dwellings by rights um and semi-residential. It is true for up to 24 I think >> um units >> but not for 25 and above. >> We tried to get that but didn't get corrected. >> So it kind of is a college >> leave it in there. >> Why would you leave it in there? >> Well, just because it didn't pass this time,

133>> but we kind of it was like a compromise. I felt >> was it not? >> Well, yeah. >> Mass used all the time. So, >> the next one considered raising the maximum allowed in new multif family buildings. The present zoning imposed a 24-hour cap. That's done because it was raised above that. >> I didn't think it was. >> Yeah, it's right. >> It was approved. It went to 20. Look in the zoning. It's >> I don't have the came up. I have to go that's that's a lot more than 24 units in one building. >> We definitely >> I think we allow more. I forget where we drew the line. >> Well, so I mean I guess just a general thought is these are moving targets to try to be precise about exactly I

134I would say that these types of ideas should stay in there because for one thing zoning can be done. It's like it can be done. Need to have a history that these are our zoning priorities. So we could be broader in how we describe them. So it could just be promote multif family dwellings in corporate zoning districts or something. Generalize the language, take out the specificity but maintain the priorities and it probably need to have the same number of >> like like the first floor dwellings. That's a very specific idea. At minimum, we should at least states it pretty well already. provide zoning ordinance to allow greater density housing downtown and in the greater downtown area. These are some of the ways to do that. Some of them have been done. Some have been kind

135of half done. More will come up. We shouldn't strip out too much >> that we lose the history of support for those ideas. >> I think if something's been accomplished, I think it shows we're moving quickly toward these ideas. And I think >> you don't you don't know that cuz it's it's eliminated. I when I read this plan and see things that have been accomplished, I feel good. It makes me feel like, okay, why and we're actually working on some of this stuff and we're making some headway. Not that, oh my gosh, that isn't that already done. >> Well, maybe because you lose it. >> One one example is so increased bike racks and other infrastructure in downtown. That's a general way to allow more bike racks. If the rule, if if the idea had

136been put a better bike rack in front of the library, we would have crossed that off. Bike racks wouldn't be there anymore. So, you have to generalize them so that you can keep working towards a broader goal >> and there's nothing you can check off quite yet. You don't I think in the zoning some of these things, you don't want to check them off because you're never going to be done with them. >> If they're more general, actually, >> I'd be okay with that, but not the way it's currently written. So you want to revise number one to say promote multif family housing. So basically >> this is specific >> to semi-residential, >> right? So I think the first three at least are too specific to keep in there given that they've already kind of

137been addressed and codified in some way. >> Like said you keep them but you revise the word. So promote multif family housing. Yeah. >> Write that down. remote multif family dwellings they just take out in semi-residential zone >> I guess it would have to be more promote allows if you're not being specific about the zone it's hard to say allow people would interpret that as everywhere >> I just use the word promote >> yeah okay so promote multi so change allowed to promote and remove in semi-residential zone >> where are they now not allowed in most residential zones, right? And you can go up to three family, but you can't go beyond that. >> I'm don't have I don't have my heart isn't updated. >> They're not allowed by right in some places. I also

138need to we need to look at the need to write myself. >> Well, they are now in >> special permit in multif family dwelling for less than 24 units. It's only allowed in SR and CC. It's not allowed in well obviously O and PI but everything else special permit >> and special permit also for >> and above. >> Another way that maybe more general way so we don't have to try to actually figure it out right now is >> just to say explore more ways to >> revise zoning to promote >> more housing production >> and and the the needs evolves and the way people live evolves. So keep it open. >> Yeah. >> So that's that's the strategy, >> right? >> The strategy is saying what you just said. >> Yeah. So >> so

139I don't think we need that implementation act. Strategy is saying revised zoning to allow greater density. >> Yeah. So if we think that the strategy can stand alone is something to point to and it implementation action doesn't have to be directly tied to it then >> but it's only in the downtown. strategies only in downtown >> and in the greater downtown area. >> Yeah, >> the greater. >> Somebody added that. >> I guess that might imply, you know, walking or biking distance of downtown. >> Absolutely. >> So now we're back. So deleting one. >> I would suggest eliminating one altogether. >> Mr. Chair, >> seems like we should eliminate We would therefore I think need to eliminate the first three. >> Well, can we take them one at a time? >> I mean number two

140that is what is the now what is the um the cap >> it has been raised. >> I didn't think we got that through. We want but we thought we went 24 without by right and then permit you can go a lot higher. That's what it says in here. I >> if you look under um uh semi-residential. So I don't have >> a special permit for 25. >> Oh, this is the latest one that he handed out last year, >> but I don't remember what the cap is. So this is um 200-4.5 uh semi-residential district uses 13 B13 is multif family dwelling in accordance with blah blah blah 24 units and below amended by city council on December 18th 2024. This is by bright >> but but what um 24 >> and above it's special

141permit it's special permit >> but what is the cap what is the above it can't it's not put >> it doesn't say 25 and above it's special permit yeah >> so so this happened >> the maximum number of units allowed multifamilies was a limited >> the cap was limited >> the concern I have about pulling some of these things out is that this was a plan. Well, >> it's not a plan yet. >> I know, but this was this was um this represents sort of the policy direction that a whole planning process says we should do. >> We've now embraced pieces of it in zoning, but as you point out, >> people could push back and want to change. And should this not stay in the plan that was developed because presumably you're going to

142start knocking it off and in three 3 years some of this will already be done. Do you take it out of the plan then? No. >> It's just the plan is the plan and you start trying to accomplish it. >> Yeah. So the fact that something is early in it done already I don't know why you take it out of the plan. >> My suggest my my answer would be it's not a plan. proposal and it and because this stuff especially around housing is moving so quickly, >> this stuff was in the air and this proposal the actual actions caught up with the proposal and so this has been done and so great and so there's no need to capture this history of you know we we've done it which is the most important thing

143and so we don't need to capture what have been the proposal we want the plan to be current and future future. So, we don't want the plan to be historical >> and and we've gone back and looked at the rest of this and there's nothing in it that's already accomplished. I mean, we've taken this filter to the rest of the plan. >> Well, everything I'm I'm just every time I'm looking at something, I'm whether or not something's happened. That's why I was looking at it. Have we done this? >> How about if we word it more I want to say aspirational, but that's not the right word. How about if we say promote on ongoing study and that again that's not the right word but along those lines just that we don't lock ourselves in

144a point in time because we know the needs evolve and as green field builds we're going to have to come up you know as we move move forward in the future we're going to have to stay open and creative to finding new solutions for new needs as they present themselves. So I'm just wondering if >> that goes back to that goes back to the strategy revised zoning. So it doesn't say revise zoning today. It can say this means revising if something comes up next year revise it again. So it's >> so okay. >> Yeah. The information >> so what would be the action of that promoting that looking at um I had I noted in a couple of places look at it look at a tax incentive for the creation of an accessible I'm giving

145an example accessible ADU. Um, I had another thing could study tax incentives for rain gardens, rain gardens, I mean to keep people from putting uh sump pump water into the sewer. I mean, I'm just wondering if we because some of these do have assess study the feasibility of XYZ. I'm wondering maybe if we turn that around like that. >> Well, you >> as an action again as an action item. Sounds you're proposing a different >> um >> I was just giving example >> something you're proposing a different strategy there's a strategy to buy zoning >> and the next one is about barrierfree housing specifically and those are the two under this increase housing >> but those are just examples maybe there's a way we can phrase something here that addresses what you're saying >> at

146the same time Greenfield did a housing plan it it's customary to reference reference other plans in this document. So this document doesn't have to replicate everything that was in a much longer plan just like we did for the open space and recreation plan. So there's a plan that is presently I don't know how adopted it is but it's the policy of the economic development department. My firm authored that study and must disclose. I'm only suggesting that because that's >> there's a lot in there. >> Well, let's reference it. >> So might be a shortcut to some of this stuff because it has a bunch of things in it. So the same would be true for transportation plan. There's a parking plan that was done recently. So you know if the town has invested in planning

147in any of these topics, >> we don't need to rehash that. We can just point to it. >> Totally agree. >> So we just reference it. >> So that that would be an implement implementation action could be >> implement whatever it said for the open space recreation >> implement recommendations of the Greenfield housing plans. >> Okay. And what is the status of that plan? Like you say the it's been >> I don't think it's been formally adopted. They're not always formally adopted. A lot of times a plan like that is just meant to be the you know today's policy perspective or or it's the data to inform specific decisions. has been used to make decisions to justify decisions >> and it was it was um who >> commissioned by >> yes commission >> commissioned by

148the economic development by Amy economic development department it wasn't planning or another group >> right >> it was funded by a state grant I forget which >> I think it was a >> urban agenda or >> yeah yeah small city I guess yeah >> I know the answer to this but could you share that with the rest of the report or >> Yeah. Yeah, there's a website. Yeah, sure. Thanks. >> So, I don't if you don't mind me going back to the topic at hand. >> Um I I understand where George is coming from. We've got the strategy in place. Items one and two were specific implementations that were written at the time this plan this what do you you didn't call it a plan. What' you call it? Proposal. >> Proposal. >> This proposal

149was done. Those specific implementations have been accomplished. So we can take those off. Doesn't mean that we forget about because the strategy references them anyway. There's revise. So we could So I I understand what you're saying. I kind of agree with things that were listed here that have been specifically done. This specific item has been accomplished. So I don't see why we can't delete one and two. Three was not done. >> I don't think so. >> Okay. Because we have an issue with that. >> But then we can eliminate seven too. So one and two I think we can delete if you don't if you agree Jeff >> I would they were specific items and they were specifically done you can always add something later if we invoked something bigger like the housing plan in

150this case then it captures ideas like this I I would feel that there are that those are being carried forward by this plan just as the open space and recreation plan >> one add a new one that says reference that >> probably someone else should make that suggestion too close. That's so so one and two we're going to agree on. >> Three is still active >> because we had that with another discussion we had in front of the economic development committee. We're going to sit down with the plant and we're going to draw a line >> that says this is where you cannot have ground floor housing and we didn't do that there. It's a memory. >> Got to do that. >> And I think um I think it is good to have rather than

151just generally reference oh see this plan. I think there's value in that. But I think something like this, which feels um you know u I think there's value in having certain things specifically and I'll just mention as an aside that um I think it was at the end of the last city council meeting um councelor Healey touched on. I think this is what he was talking about and wanting to bring this forward to get addressed because this was something he wanted to champion as well. So I think it's the very issue you're talking about. So, we might be hearing about that. >> Mention that. >> Okay. >> Can I ask um I know uh you had mentioned at the last meeting you wanted to wrap this up at this meeting. Um I wanted to ask

152how long we want to go tonight. >> So, my plan was to >> was it me who said that? >> I think so. >> Look at me. >> Especially because we don't have an action to >> approve. Is it approved? No, we would be voting on yes approving this basically and yes >> I think and it sound so I being late we have more section. So I was going to suggest we get through land use two >> and then go home and then sound like Erica you were maybe going to work on a couple things. We we have a little more to think about and then we have a few more pieces to get >> I think we already added what the line about the design guidelines. We already added it >> but then we

153can put on the next agenda an action item to to vote on approval. If I can suggest land use 2, I mean Oh, yeah. Land use 2. I'm sorry. Lies 3 is next page. Oh, okay. Sorry. Where are we? Do we um I assume we want to get rid of the um accessory dwelling unit one. >> Yes. And the open space cluster development. >> Yeah. So that's seven and eight. >> Seven and eight I think should be deleted. Any changes to four, five, and six? Three we know is not done. So we need to look on that. The rowouses that had come up. I was trying to remember. I was going to check if that had >> I'm sorry. What' you say, George? The >> uh one, two, three, four. Number five about the rowouses.

154>> Oh, the row houses. Yeah. >> Did that get Did we vote on that? That had come up right. I know there's been so many things happening. >> I'm not sure. Uh Eric, can maybe help us unless you guys remember. >> I thought we allowed single family downtown but not on the main street or something. >> The thing with row houses, it's just >> I was asking about row houses. >> Yeah. >> I don't think we did anything with row houses because it's just basically another style of of a multif family. It's like a it's like a 40 unit multif family. Doesn't 25 multif family, right? row out. >> It doesn't Well, no, it has to do with the >> It's It's the setbacks also. If you have if you have setbacks required on the

155side, you can't do row houses. >> Um, and the thing with row houses, building rowouses sometimes is a lot cheaper because you don't need an elevator. Somebody's doing the ground floor and you have multi-story and you can make it narrow and long and and it's a >> we didn't do any of >> it's a great Well, we can't do them here. So we'd have to get that into that needs to stay here. >> Okay. >> So we know which ones to cut. >> One, two, seven, and eight is what I have to >> Are we adding anything? >> N. >> Uh, yes. Oh, >> did did we want to add um something like implement the suggested actions included in the 2024 or 2025, whatever year it was housing study. >> That's what you're proposing. >>

156Yeah, that's the one you're proposing. >> That is what I guess what I'm proposing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can you first >> say it again for me? um implements the actions, >> but we're not voting. >> It's a very good plan. >> The housing >> don't disagree. >> We're not voting. So, >> is there a date on that? >> I don't remember what year it was. 2024 or 2025? >> Well, there was an addendum in 2025. So, called >> 2025 by Jeff's company. >> Oh. What's up with it? >> I guess I should say material interest in whether or not >> I want to add >> that one and future ones. >> Okay. So, I mean now that I'm looking at what three, four, and five are, they are maybe pretty quick. We just want

157to check them off real quick. my fault. >> I guess let me just ask if people had significant amounts of comments on three, four, and five. >> Did we talk about 2.2 land use 2. >> I I just want to end 2.2. Uh consider an accessible ADU tax incentive. >> Did you still talk about 3.5 on the section two? >> Oh, I thought we jumped. >> The numbering is Yeah, there's Well, >> I was I was section. >> Okay, I guess we're on land use 2.2. >> 2.2. Okay. >> Okay. That's where I'm saying. Do we want to put a tax incentive >> assess the feasibility of a accessible ADU tax incentive? >> ADU tax >> accessible accessible >> ADU tax >> and why >> just trying to get people to to build those things.

158I mean it was it's such an easy it's a low for me it's a lowhanging fruit at grades accessible standalone detached ad unit. It could either be a garage conversion or just completely new construction, but it's so easy to make an egg grade in your backyard accessible unit. And I'm just finding because it's so hard, so costly to build right now. And maybe it makes sense since we want so much housing to consider is it feasible to have a small tax incentive that over x amount of years we reduce your property taxes on that unit for x amount of years. kind of like federal tax credits or whatever. But anyway, that's I'm just throwing it out there. >> If we had the town to offer, would that be our top priority if we're to put

159it? >> What do you mean for where to put it? >> Oh. Oh, you mean in here? >> Well, you're Yeah. You're proposing to use a tax incentive to something. >> Is that where I would want to put it? I'm not sure. I would say that's the >> the best plan. It's kind of random to just pick that. Yeah, >> we haven't really thought about it. I mean, tax breaks. >> No, you make a good point. So maybe since it comes up in other areas of these recommendations, assessing feasibility of tax incentives or financial things, whatever, maybe we put it under the housing stock somewhere as a general thing, but >> it is something to consider. >> You can use the word incentivize. It might be a little easier. >> Yeah, incentivize. >> That can

160mean a lot of things. That's already in >> we have to check if it's feasible. So that would be an act an actiz >> that's already in 2.2.1 advocate for state and local programs to incentivize rental property owners directed. >> Okay. >> Or existing. You could add something about ads >> do rental properties. Just say rental properties. >> It says existing. >> Just get rid of you. >> Just get rid of retrofit rental property. >> I'm I'm looking for new. I'm saying you could you could amend that sentence. >> Yeah. Okay. >> To include that. >> Yeah. >> It's actually >> that that's fine. >> So rental property just change to where >> Well, that's planned. >> I don't know if you want to try to word smith that right now or >> it seems

161like it should fit in there. >> So where 2.2.1 You say to provide barrierfree rentals. >> Yeah, that's what I would do. >> Owners to provide >> or create >> provide rentals with accessible features such as let's just say to provide rentals owners to provide rentals with accessible features such as that would cover everything, right? Yeah. >> That's fine. Yeah, >> that works. >> Mhm. Are you talking about adus as rental properties >> just in general? >> Right. >> So you could say something like incentivize owners to retrofit existing rental properties or um >> no I think to your point it doesn't have to be just provide rentals just just use that >> be new or existing new if someone builds an ADU to rent it that should be they should try to make it

162try to make it accessible. >> Okay. But you're speaking to not just ADUs for rental. You're speaking to ADUs whether they be rental or or for sale. >> But this is for rentals. this I guess I'm if I could finish this in just a sense you could say advocate for state of local programs to incentivize uh owners to retrofit existing rental property um with accessible features such as blah blah blah or for the creation of new ADUs with similar features >> because the existing or create new I would just keep it simple either or >> but you're not >> you were saying just eliminate completely don't distinguish between a new or a retrofit. >> But are you talking about rental? I'm just trying to distinguish. Are you talking about rental? Is that what the incentive

163is or >> It doesn't even matter rental or not because my point is that somebody owns a big house >> might want to downsize and move into an accessible ADU and then rent that big house. So, and they're still the owner of the property. And I'm trying to catch all of that. >> Yeah. I think I think we're just talking about rentals. We're not talking about new ones for sale. I think this I don't think that's what we're talking about. Telling people they're going to build. Most people aren't going to sell an ADU. It's on their car. That's not going to happen. And you can [ __ ] operate. Okay. I think you can interpret the way it's written and do what you're saying. An ex adding ADU is retrofitting an existing property, but very good. >>

164There you go. There you go. I like that. >> I think you can remove the word rental. >> Okay. >> It's not like we don't want people to retrofit their own houses. That's a thing, too. So maybe remove the word rental and add so owners to retrofit existing properties or build new with accessible features such as >> is that that seems to cover everything. >> Yeah. We're taking here >> just take out the word rental and say or build in property >> rental >> and are you hoping to have adu flag particularly? >> No, there was well there was a separate line for the barrier. Well, this is all about bar. No, it does I I think it doesn't have to be separate. >> I think the personally ADU is overly specific. Yeah, exactly. >>

165Build it. You can add a unit to a house. I guess you could call it ADU. You can not call it ADU >> and have the same impact. We need >> So, let me just read it to myself. So, advocate for a state or local program to incentivize property owners to retrofit existing properties or build new with accessible features such as Correct. Yeah. >> Yeah. Let's move up. All right. That's it. >> Okay. >> The only other thing in this section I had is the last 2.2.4 and this is just under stakeholder. I thought in addition to housing green field and economic development uh since it's talking about increasing resources and programs to the houseless population we should include human service organizations and also the mayor's office as I know obviously those kind of organizations

166the one provide the resources and programs and um the mayor's office is very involved with >> and human resources what >> organizations >> human resource organizations >> human services organizations >> and the mayor I would suggest if we get to I don't know how much they can do. >> Is the mayor called out anywhere else in this Oh, yeah, it is. Okay, I see it. >> And I wanted to suggest I know we have a page and a half left. I know on the next page there's some cleanup needs to happen. I know there's a couple of places where there's just, you know, things are repeated and there's one where in Frances says still needs reworking. Um, so I want to suggest we we call it at this point and uh we're going to come

167back to this next >> next month anyway. So I I sense some fatigue and we're we're obviously working hard on this and I would suggest we call it night. I think yes. And if we could have very specific people could look at this over the next month and and come back with specific language to to talk through, we could probably cut through the last few sections pretty quick. So then for the agenda, >> Victor has added something to the agenda. >> No, I'm going to send him I'm going to send you an email with a couple of items. >> You can mention it here. I mean, it's okay to to mention the topic without advocating for any agenda where that actually fits. So that's fine. Didn't say new agenda items. >> Can I just so

168I know I don't have anything else I have to do. We we did add the design guidelines >> in one of I don't have to write anything for that. That's done. >> We did solve that. We solved that. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure that >> coming back and not having done my homework. design for bay. glad the tensis are staying in the borrowing business >> and I wanted to suggest for next time that um uh revisit the appointments chair's appointments to um the sustainable vehicle implementation committee and the um CPC has >> make those appointments >> the um community preservation committee and the master planation committee as sustainable implementation committee. So review board representation on other committees on Yeah, just those two. I was going to say other committees. >> My apologies

169for going on and on about that right away on that property boundary. I was trying to get these neighbors to find a solution. >> It wasn't it wasn't the neighbors. It was the She wasn't taking issue with the neighbors, I don't think. Oh, she was a surveyor. >> She was like, I own that or I don't own it. I couldn't really figure out. >> I know. She wasn't taking the hint. It's we can't figure it >> before we next meeting date >> September 4th 6 p.m. >> Thursday motion to move. Second >> favor. Yes. Thank you. [Music]