Greenfield’s City Council and Planning Board will soon consider a set of amendments to our Zoning Ordinance which are described as “pro-density and pro-housing, in alignment with Smart Growth principles.” These “incremental steps” may lead to changes that stretch beyond our zoning code, affecting the quality of life and character of our small town. Here are some of the changes:
MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS ARE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED:A single-family lot in the urban residential district is cut by 75% to 2,000 square feet. Lot frontage, front yards, side yards, rear yards all shrink. These reductions will allow housing in Greenfield to be packed closer together in “high density” development. I live in a “walkable neighborhood” now that is close to downtown but the big grocery stores and general merchandise stores have closed or moved to the edges of town, and require a car or public transit. Smaller lots do not create walkablity.
DELETING THE DEFINITION OF A FAMILY: Our zoning currently defines a “family” as “Any number of individuals related by blood or marriage or not more than four (4) individuals not so related, living and cooking together on the premises as a single housekeeping unit. Each additional unrelated individual over four (4) shall constitute another family.” The amendments delete “family” and substitutes “single housekeeping unit” which is defined as “an interactive group of any number of persons jointly occupying a dwelling unit, and sharing household activities…” This definition may allow “greater flexibility in living arrangements,” but it also raises issues with occupancy limits.
THREE-FAMILY HOUSING: A new definition of housing is added “to be occupied by three families,” but the amendment (above) eliminates the definition of “family,” so all references to single family, or two-family need to be changed to “housekeeping unit,” which allows “any number of persons” to live in a dwelling. The current definition of “family” addresses the issue of unrelated individuals. A 3 unit dwelling currently would accommodate 12 unrelated occupants. How many residents can be jammed into an apartment? Will they tend to be short-term renters, with no financial responsibility for upkeeping their apartment? Will new families coming to Greenfield looking for a stable neighborhood character turn elsewhere?
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS: are eliminated for all residential lots—but also for retail businesses. When a Connecticut developer applied in 2007 for a big box store at the end of the French King, he proposed a parking lot 72% larger than required. We need maximum parking limits for retailers to prevent excessive asphalt parking lots like Stop & Shop or BJs, which are often half-empty.
REMOVES “OWNER-OCCUPIED” FROM ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs): 900-square-foot small homes were presented as a way to help seniors and the disabled “age in place,” or earn a little rental income. Such dwellings required a special permit on residential lots with owners required to live in the main house. The proposed amendments turn ADUs into a subdivision opportunity for absentee landlords, needing only a site plan review, with no owner-occupied requirement. It also allows ADUs to be built in the middle of an industrial or office park. Only one or two ADUs have been sought to date, because most families can’t afford maintenance on their current home — much less to build another. Much of our housing stock is deteriorating, but these amendments do nothing to make financing rennovations, or an ADU, affordable.
One of the purposes of Greenfield’s zoning ordinance is to encourage housing for persons of all income levels. But our ordinance has a number of other public purposes, including: “to lessen congestion in the streets; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to conserve the value of land and buildings” Some of these proposed amendments may work against these other public purposes. Instead of redefining families, shrinking lots and subdividing land, we need to build more housing or condos affordable to low-income residents, offering first-time home ownership.
Far more urgent is reform of our commercial and industrial zones. In 2019 we encouraged commercial strip development. Our land use policies have allowed large national chains to push out local family businesses like Rugg, Knapp’s, and Wilson’s. Our industrial land is still a very small share of our tax base. We should restore the French King overlay and strengthen Major Development Review, while creating incentives for locally-owned businesses to locate downtown, using low-interest loans, and reduced property taxes to building owners in return for lowered rents. We don’t have to lose a town to find a city.
Al Norman has lived for 41 years in a single family home in Greenfield that at one time was a duplex. He has been active in zoning issues for the past 27 years.