Greenfield City Council votes down housing cap reconsideration

Greenfield City Council votes Wednesday at the John Zon Community Center to defeat three proposed zoning amendments related to housing, while also voting against a motion to reconsider last month’s vote to approve a multi-family housing amendment.

Greenfield City Council votes Wednesday at the John Zon Community Center to defeat three proposed zoning amendments related to housing, while also voting against a motion to reconsider last month’s vote to approve a multi-family housing amendment. STAFF PHOTO/ANTHONY CAMMALLERI

By ANTHONY CAMMALLERI

Staff Writer

Published: 01-16-2025 6:16 PM

Modified: 01-16-2025 10:10 PM


GREENFIELD — City Council voted down a motion to reconsider an amendment lifting the 24-unit cap on multi-family housing Wednesday night, after more than an hour of public comment in which residents expressed a variety of viewpoints on the city’s housing ordinances.

The council also voted down three proposed zoning amendments to ease restrictions on the development of medical clinics downtown; a citizen’s petition to regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on lot size; and ordinance revisions allowing first-floor dwelling units in mixed-use developments.

At-Large City Councilor Wahab Minhas, who filed the motion to reconsider the 24-unit cap, citing confusion as to what exactly the council voted on at its Dec. 18 discussion, clarified that after reviewing a recording of last month’s meeting, he better understood the original motion.

“My main reason for doing this is so that we can act in the spirit of transparency, and so the public knows exactly what we voted on and what we’re talking about,” Minhas said. “Regardless of how we move forward on it, I just think it would be beneficial if we gave it another thought and had that discussion in a more clear manner.”

The council discussed the motion to reconsider before voting it down. While Minhas and Precinct 7 Councilor William “Wid” Perry voted in favor of reconsidering the motion, most councilors, such as At-Large City Councilor Michael Terounzo, expressed confusion on the matter. Nine councilors voted against reconsidering the motion.

“I was kind of perplexed getting notification that this was up for reconsideration, as we did discuss this at length, and I feel that, ultimately, if there were regrets about it, to be frank, this had already gone through committee and subcommittee and time was spent on it,” Terounzo said. “Those would have been the times to have a better understanding what we were going over and talking about, and then we had a lengthy discussion, and if the reconsideration is because some folks may not like the outcome of it, that’s not what reconsiderations are for. You win some, you lose some. That’s just the way it works.”

With the motion to reconsider defeated, the 24-unit cap on multi-family housing is eliminated, in accordance with the December vote.

Three proposed amendments

During the public comment period, two residents speaking on opposite sides of the housing debate both invoked references to the civil rights movement. Omkari Williams expressed that arguments against housing production efforts resembled redlining, or the discriminatory practice that suppresses funding for districts primarily occupied by racial minorities. Joan Marie Jackson referenced Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy in her plea for the council to table discussions on her proposed ADU regulations.

The council unanimously voted down an amendment to the city’s housing ordinance that would allow first-floor housing units in mixed-use developments in the Central Commercial District, as long as they are not facing the side of the street with the highest traffic use.

Precinct 5 City Councilor Marianne Bullock, who also chairs the Economic Development Committee, recommended that the full council vote “no” on the amendment, explaining the subcommittee voted unanimously against it.

“The rationale behind that [vote] was that there are actually many councilors in EDC who were in support of this in some form, but we felt like we needed to do more diligence, because this is in the Central Commercial District. We needed to address things like a square footage ratio or floor area ratio, secure entrances and common walls,” Bullock explained. “One of the other things that came up was having a potential for there to be a handicap-accessible unit granted on the first floor, non-Main Street facing. So there’s just a little more diligence we need to do on this, and the changes are substantial.”

The council voted 2-8 against a citizen’s petition filed by Jackson, along with residents Al Norman and Mitchell Speight, calling for an ordinance to restrict the construction of ADUs to parcels that are 0.5 acres or larger and consist of at least 50% open space. The petition also called to ban the use of ADUs for short-term rentals such as Airbnb or Vrbo. Minhas and Perry voted in favor of the ordinance and City Council President Lora Wondolowski abstained.

The citizen’s petition came in the wake of the Affordable Homes Act’s passage in August, which allows for the by-right construction of ADUs statewide. Although the state law allows municipalities some regulatory power over ADUs, its final guidelines determining how cities and towns can legally regulate them will be released Feb. 2.

Bullock said the city received the legal opinion that the ordinance’s passage would put the city in non-compliance with the Affordable Homes Act, subjecting it to potential litigation. She assured the public that defeating the petition was purely to keep the city in compliance with state law and not to be seen as an end to discussions on ADU regulation.

“I do, personally, I feel like it would be reckless to expose us to potential litigation,” Bullock said. “The reason that I voted ‘no’ on this, instead of tabling it or something else, is because we have decided to wait until after Feb. 2, when the final guidelines come from the state, and then draft a new ordinance to be in compliance with the state, along with the necessary adjustments that we want to make for our town, if those are going to be substantial changes.”

Anthony Cammalleri can be reached at acammalleri@recorder.com or 413-930-4429.