GREENFIELD — After a roughly 75-minute public comment session that brought City Hall’s meeting room to standing room only, the Economic Development Committee voted 2-1 with one abstention in favor of recommending changes to the city’s cluster development ordinance.

Although the cluster development ordinance was the only subject to come to a vote on Tuesday, councilors also engaged in lively discussions on At-Large Councilor John Garrett’s proposed zoning amendments aimed at facilitating the production of dense housing, as well as Board of Assessors member Chuck Green’s proposed ordinance to allow permanent residency in campers and trailers parked on private property.

Cluster development ordinanceamendments

At-Large Councilor Wahab Minhas voted against recommending the cluster development ordinance changes to City Council ahead of its Sept. 18 meeting, while Garrett and Precinct 2 Councilor Rachel Gordon voted “yes.” Precinct 5 Councilor Marianne Bullock abstained from voting.

The cluster development ordinance allows developers to build dense single-family, two-family and multi-family housing on a small portion of open space in the city’s Urban Residential, Suburban Residential and Rural Residential zoning districts.

The ordinance’s proposed changes, which were drafted by the Planning Board and the Franklin Regional Council of Governments over the course of two years, would allow the Planning Board, through the special permit process, to grant “density bonuses” to developers whose designs contain features that align with the city’s master plan.

The city could then allow developers to build 10% more housing units than otherwise allowed, if more than 20% of those units are designated as affordable under Chapter 40B.

Other design features that can earn a developer extra units include the creation of senior affordable housing; net-zero carbon sustainability; extra protection of land, trees or wildlife; and the orientation of rooftops to accommodate the installation of solar panels.

Minhas was opposed to the cluster development ordinance changes amid concerns that passage of the amendments would attract large and predatory real estate development companies into the city to build sub-par housing units.

“How can you say people want to rent rather than own? Are you familiar with the real estate companies that are here? They are a land mafia, and we’ve been dealing with them for decades and decades and decades, and their great-grandfathers own those places, and we’re still under them, and we’ll continue to be under them,” Minhas said. “In this specific legislation, what that will do is give them more power to go ahead and build more horrible, disgusting rental units, rather than giving someone a chance to actually own a home.”

In response, councilors Bullock, Gordon and Garrett argued that it is important to develop a diverse array of housing options, including a mixture of rental units and for-sale properties. Garrett clarified that the city already allows developers to build cluster developments, adding that the changes would help the city prioritize the kinds of cluster developments it needs.

“The idea of this isn’t to clear away more land to create new open space, it’s that if development is going to occur, to allow it to happen, denser,” Garrett told the Economic Development Committee members.

Gordon also spoke in favor of the amendments, but suggested that the ordinance be further revised to include a density bonus incentive for developers who plan to use universal design, or structures designed for people of all ages and ability levels, for 10% or more of a development’s housing units. Gordon said she will bring her proposed amendment for City Council to review when the topic is brought up on Wednesday, Sept. 18.

Zoning ordinances

In addition to the proposed cluster development ordinance changes, the committee also discussed Garrett’s proposed package of zoning amendments that also aim to facilitate dense housing production in the city.

If passed, Garrett’s amendment package would increase the number of units allowed in new multi-family dwellings and would make it legal to construct multi-family buildings by right in semi-residential zones. The amendments would also alter dimensional requirements to allow the construction of townhouses and housing structures with shared walls in the city’s Central Commercial, General Commercial, Semi-Residential and Urban Residential zones, and would allow the establishment of accessory dwelling units, also known as ADUs or “in-law apartments,” by right throughout Greenfield.

Of the proposed zoning amendments, allowance of ADUs by right sparked concerns among residents such as Dennis Close, who spoke against ADUs during public comment, arguing that their development was a short-term solution to the housing crisis. The Affordable Homes Act, which Gov. Maura Healey signed into law in August, allows ADUs by right in single-family residential zoning districts across the state.

“We need a commonsense approach. We’re looking at other alternate measures now. We’ve got other buildings we can repurpose, we can work with builders and we can drive incentives,” Close said. “Let’s make sure that we’re keeping the strategy in mind and we’re not just cherry-picking things that might be more tactical to address something that’s perceived as a short-term need. It’s not going to meet what we want long-term.”

Garrett noted that one of his proposed amendments allowing first-floor housing units in mixed-use developments would be of use to the city’s elderly and disabled populations, as it allows developers to produce Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant housing units without the expensive process of installing an elevator. He added that ADU construction, too, creates more housing options for residents with disabilities and for those who wish to live in Greenfield but can’t afford a traditional home.

“There was a gentleman who emailed me about his severely disabled son who is not able to live independently, and this is a person with enough privilege that they could afford the high cost of an ADU to allow that adult son not to rent an apartment, but to live with them and be taken care of by this family. There are a number of stories like that,” Garrett said. “People need a place to live. The beautiful position we’re in in Greenfield is that more people want to live here.”

In committee discussions over Garrett’s proposed amendments, Minhas raised concerns that ADUs would be built by large-scale real estate developers as investments — a situation that he predicted would lead to the construction of units with less-than-ideal living conditions without much benefit toward the goal of developing the city’s housing stock.

In response, Bullock argued that when the zoning amendments are ready for City Council to review, ordinances, such as those banning short-term ADU rentals, could be passed alongside the amendments to ensure local laws are used for their intended purposes. Garrett added that while there are some valid concerns regarding ADUs, he would classify most as “straw man” arguments.

“We can definitely write an ordinance that says, ‘If you have an ADU, it must be owner-occupied within the home that’s attached to the ADU, and it cannot be rented short-term for less than 90 days’ or something like that,” Bullock said. “The Healey administration estimates between 8,000 and 10,000 ADUs will be built across the state over the next five years due to passage of this law. What we have control over is the building codes and ordinances.”

Campers and trailers

The housing proposal most widely discussed during public comment Tuesday evening was an ordinance proposed by Board of Assessors member Chuck Green allowing property owners the option to host long-term camper or RV residents on their property.

Most of the residents who spoke about Green’s proposed ordinance, which will be further discussed at the committee’s next meeting in October, expressed concerns that the presence of long-term or permanent trailer and camper residents would lead to a blighted community and an increase in sanitation problems.

“[My home] is my major investment,” resident Nancy Keith said. “I myself have had to call the Health Department three times in less than two years.”

Green concluded the meeting by presenting the ordinance to the committee, arguing that the option would serve as an alternative to living outside or couch surfing for the city’s homeless population. He argued that if property owners wish to allow people to live on their land and share utilities, they should have the right to do so.

If enacted, Green said the ordinance could potentially reduce rent rates in the city, as the option of living in a camper or trailer could compete as a cheaper alternative to rental housing.

“A person with a rental can charge almost anything they want, and a person who wants to get a rental has no choice, because there’s 10, 20, 100 people who want that same apartment. It’s inelastic demand,” Green said previously. “If people with less means weren’t competing for those apartments because they decided ‘I’m just going to get an old camper and live on my friend’s lot’ all of a sudden, there’s not that crazy demand for an inexpensive apartment.”

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