GREENFIELD — In favor of allowing more time for discussion and public input, City Council voted down a zoning ordinance change Wednesday night that sought to lower the threshold for requiring major development review.

The ordinance change, which was proposed in October by then-City Councilor Philip Elmer, sought to reduce the number of vehicle trips per day that would trigger a major development review for a proposed new use. For projects in the General Commercial District, the proposed change would have reduced the threshold from 3,000 trips to 2,000; for any other district, the proposal would require a major development review for new uses expected to generate 1,500 vehicle trips per day.

In a memo to planning officials, Elmer explained that the General Commercial threshold was raised to 3,000 trips from the previous threshold of 1,000 trips four years ago. In retrospect, he wrote, the threshold had been relaxed too much.

Precinct 5 Councilor Marianne Bullock explained that the Economic Development Committee didn’t meet this month, and as a result, she’d hoped to table the motion Wednesday night so it could return to that committee for more discussion. This committee would review this proposal and make a recommendation to the full council. Because Elmer put this forth while a councilor and did not run for reelection, the motion couldn’t be withdrawn.

However, concerns about City Council’s window to respond expiring before its next meeting prompted a vote on the motion rather than to table it. Tabling it, explained City Clerk Kathy Scott, would effectively pass it, given that the proposal received a favorable recommendation from the Planning Board.

“The zoning ordinance is probably the most complicated ordinance on the books in Greenfield,” said City Council Vice President Sheila Gilmour. Referencing the council’s newly elected members, she added, “I think to put this on councilors who’ve been serving for 16 days is really unfair. This isn’t something where you can skim the zoning ordinance, flip a coin and make a decision.”

The motion ultimately failed to garner the two-thirds majority needed to pass, allowing for the possibility of the proposal coming back in a different form.

Gilmour said the proposed change would have “big implications” for Greenfield, and therefore should be “vetted and recommended to us by a Planning Board with a quorum of its members.”

Some councilors made arguments in favor of Elmer’s proposed ordinance change, in particular, that subjecting more projects to major development review “seemed reasonable,” given the potential environmental, economic and traffic impact they may have on the city. Others argued that more stringent thresholds may deter businesses from wanting to come to Greenfield.

“My experience on the council over the last two years is almost every time a zoning change comes before us, it’s because of a specific issue or developer,” Bullock said. “I think in the spirit of actually planning how our city functions, we have to get away from that.”

This amendment, in particular, was brought forward in the context of the proposed Aldi development on Mohawk Trail, which some opponents are concerned will generate more traffic than the intersection can handle.

The motion to approve the amendment was supported by Precinct 1 Councilor Katherine Golub, Precinct 2 Councilor Rachel Gordon, and At-Large Councilors Penny Ricketts and Wahab Minhas. Nine votes were required to pass.

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