My Turn: Apartments — Lifting cap all over city goes too far

Published: 01-14-2025 8:01 PM |
On Jan. 15, the Greenfield City Council will reconsider a vote to remove any upper limit on the number of dwellings in an apartment project. I asked for this reconsideration because of calls and emails from constituents who were confused about the wisdom of removing the current cap we had of 24 apartments.
When the proposal to remove the apartment cap first came before the Economic Development Committee, I abstained from voting. I wasn’t convinced this was a good policy for Greenfield.
When I was growing up in Greenfield in the late 1990s and 2000s, many of our large apartment buildings were already built. The 26 units in the Reed Apartments were built in 1929. Most of Oak Courts was built in 1949. Elm Terrace, Greenfield Acres, Berkshire Apartments and Greenfield Gardens were built in the decade from 1965 to 1975. In all, these added 437 apartments.
Leyden Wood’s 200 units were constructed around 1984. Two major repurposing of buildings — the Weldon Apartments and Mill House — were both built in the 1980s, and added 208 apartments.
These scattered apartment buildings had one thing in common: The closer they were to our Central Commercial or Semi-Residential districts, the taller they were. Greenfield Acres and the Weldon, both in the SR zone, were nine and five stories, respectively. Apartment buildings farther from downtown, located in residential districts, were all lower in height and smaller in total units.
The Berkshire Apartments, with 45 units, was limited to four stories. Leyden Woods, Greenfield Gardens, and Elm Terrace had many smaller buildings, and they were all two stories — like the neighborhoods they fit into. Outlying apartment buildings were compatible in height and scale with their one- and two-family neighbors.
Our current zoning allows unlimited apartment units in our CC and SR zones. I voted on Dec. 18 to support that decision. In these two districts, apartments can be built “by right” up to 24 units. A special permit is required for 25 and over units, and a Major Development Review at 50 dwellings. But there’s no limit on total units.
Article continues after...
Yesterday's Most Read Articles






That same evening, the City Council voted to lift the cap on the number of units in apartment buildings for all other residential zones — including those far away from our downtown. Councilors were told that eliminating the cap on apartments was not “free rein zoning,” because we still have “other parts of our zoning code,” such as frontage, setbacks, open space, and height restrictions, that limit building size. We were told “the height restrictions that apply throughout the city would stay in place.”
But I watched how quickly the City Council voted to eliminate the 24-apartment cap, and then remove any cap at all. We were told we could “prevent the wrong-sizing of buildings.” But I was not comfortable saying “the sky’s the limit” when it comes to height.
As many as 37 homeowners living in the Sunrise Avenue neighborhood, just east of the French King Highway, have raised concerns over the scale of a proposed 32-acre development in the RA zone (Urban Residential, which is actually on the edge of the city.) A proposal for 44 dwelling units located between an established neighborhood and the Connecticut River will be submitted to the ZBA for a special permit.
Neighbors are worried that the number of homes and apartments will detract from the character and scale of neighboring properties.
I have asked for reconsideration of the “no limit” vote on apartment buildings in order to respect the residential scale and character of many of our established neighborhoods. Our Planning Board said a 24-unit limit per building was too low, and initially suggested 50 units for a cap. But they ended up deleting any cap.
If the height restriction in our Table of Dimensional Requirements is lifted, will the sky be the limit?
I’m suggesting a compromise for any zone outside of CC and SR districts that sets an apartment cap of 30 units per project, to prevent the “wrong-sizing” of buildings. This is 25% more than the old cap of 24 apartments.
This would also allow developers to add apartment units with a special permit in central downtown districts, like the 65 new units slated for The Putnam building (Wilson’s), or the Rural Development Inc. application to build a four-story residential building on Main Street, plus eight townhouses.
We can grow our housing stock without making existing homeowners feel like they have become “wrong-sized” losers in the process.
Wahab Minhas is an at large city councilor in Greenfield and a small business owner.