GREENFIELD — The proposed expansion of the industrial development zone near Route 2 — a zoning change that appeared to be a shoo-in at the start of the process — was ultimately voted down Wednesday night following a lengthy discussion among city councilors.

“I once described this proposal as a no-brainer,” At-Large Councilor Philip Elmer said to fellow councilors. “This is not a no-brainer. The property in question is layered with bitter town history. There may be no piece of real estate with more blood, sweat and tears than this 48 acres of property on the French King Highway.”

After a failed effort to table the vote, the motion to support the zoning change also failed to pass, with three votes in support (Elmer, Precinct 7 Councilor Jasper Lapienski and At-Large Councilor Michael Terounzo) and eight votes against. City Council President Sheila Gilmour and Precinct 9 Councilor Derek Helie were absent.

The proposal, introduced over the summer by Mayor Roxann Wedegartner, involved a zoning change for 48 acres, or 11 parcels, located on the French King Highway from General Commercial, which provides for mixed retail, to Planned Industry (PI), which is meant for manufacturing and industrial development. The 11 parcels this zone encompasses include the land owned by Ceruzzi Properties where a 135,000-square-foot big box store was long proposed. That land is still under lease by Stop & Shop.

Up until an Economic Development Committee meeting last week, most of the dialogue surrounding the zoning change was positive. After a public hearing last month, the proposal received a positive unanimous recommendation from the Planning Board.

In particular, proponents have argued that revising the zoning map would allow for the growth of the city’s advanced manufacturing base and address a documented lack of industrial land in Franklin County.

Councilors who voted against the proposal on Wednesday argued, however, that the proposed change would be too limiting, and would eliminate the potential growth of mixed-used development for retail and housing. Precinct 3 Councilor Virginia “Ginny” DeSorgher said she knows there is a need, in particular, for senior housing.

“There’s a new push in many municipalities toward podium buildings,” she said, describing developments with retail on the first floor and housing on the upper floors.

Councilors went back and forth on why zoning for mixed-use development hadn’t been more seriously considered. Wedegartner explained that if the land was zoned to allow for commercial development, Stop & Shop would neither sell nor lease the land to any business that would be a competitor. She did note that in her original pitch to the Planning Board, a second option was proposed that would create an Industrial Commercial zone that would allow for both manufacturing and selective commercial options. This avenue, however, was not taken up by the Planning Board.

“What we really need are good-paying jobs,” she said. “I understand the need for other types of retail. We have another retail zone at the rotary, which there will be additional development.”

Valley Steel Stamp President Steve Capshaw, whose business is located in the Interstate 91 Industrial Park, had previously expressed an interest in expanding his company, noting he’d been in conversations with Ceruzzi’s lawyers over leasing the land for industrial development. He said the expansion of his company would bring upwards of 400 jobs to the city.

Precinct 5 Councilor Marianne Bullock said she’d heard arguments in favor of the change and against it, but had yet to hear a “windfall” on one side or the other.

Although councilors considered the possibility of taking “no action” Wednesday night, it was unclear what that would mean for the process going forward. Director of Planning and Development Director Eric Twarog clarified Thursday morning that if City Council had taken no vote before the Feb. 15 deadline, the process for the same proposed zoning change could be restarted with a new public hearing.

As the proposal was brought to City Council with a favorable recommendation from the Planning Board, City Council will not be required to wait two years before considering the same proposal.

Shortly before councilors voted, City Council Vice President Daniel Guin, who chaired the meeting in Gilmour’s absence, emphasized that Valley Steel Stamp has been a “great community partner.”

“They’ve invested a lot of money here and they employ a lot of our community,” Guin said. “I don’t want it to appear that there is anything negative here.”

Resident Al Norman, a vocal proponent of the proposed zoning change, said on Thursday he was so frustrated by the direction the conversation took that he left the meeting before it ended.

“A lot of thought and energy … has gone into trying to say to Greenfield, ‘Don’t turn away living-wage jobs,” said Norman. “This can be repaired, but they’re going to have to go back to the table.”

In an earlier version of this article, the policy regarding a re-vote on a zoning change brought to City Council was incorrectly reported. As the proposed zoning change was forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation from the Planning Board, it is not subject to the two-year zoning change freeze.

Reporter Mary Byrne can be reached at mbyrne@recorder.com or 413-930-4429. Twitter: @MaryEByrne.

]]>