Conservation commissions were created to protect our wetlands. On the Greenfield Conservation Commission website, you will find a link to a less-publicized subject of “wildlife habitat,” which exhorts citizens to “Get involved with your local conservation commission to advocate for strong protections for local wildlife, and encourage municipal planners to … consider habitat needs.”
That’s exactly what a group of Greenfield homeowners — the Sunrise Neighborhood Coalition (SNC) — has done. They attended every meeting of the Greenfield Conservation Commission — testifying against a large residential development that would double the number of nearby dwellings. The Stone Farm Lane proposal includes in phase one, 26 condos developed by Noble Homes, plus another 14-building multi-family development by Valley Housing Co-op in phase 2, which has not been filed yet.
This 32.6 acre site along the Connecticut River is listed by the state as a “priority habitat.” Due to the presence of several endangered plant species, it had to be reviewed by MassWildlife’s National Heritage Endangered Species Act Program (NHESP), to protect the state’s “native biological diversity,” and the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA), which protects endangered plant or animal species.
The state lists three threatened plant species at Stone Farm, but a survey in June, done by a developer’s consultant, found (surprise) no threatened plant species. There may also be vertebrates on this site — like amphibians, mammals and birds — but the state keeps endangered vertebrate locations a secret. An Environmental Handbook for Massachusetts Conservation Commissions explains that wetland habitat is important to “providing animal habitat.” Yet on Aug. 29 the NHESP and MESA issued a “determination letter” that was silent on vertebrate wildlife.
Sunrise neighbors were underwhelmed by this display of endangered species protection. No vertebrate survey was submitted by the developer. Weeks earlier, the SNC emailed the city’s conservation agent: “We would request that the Commission retain an outside consultant to conduct a peer review of this Species & Habitat Survey, instead of using contractors employed by the applicant. Neighbors asked for plant and animal studies to be conducted by 3rd party reviewers, hired by the Conservation Commission, but paid for by Noble Homes or Valley Land Trust.”
Some members of the local commission did hear the neighbors. “I just wanted to bring up a major concern that’s been brought to us by the public, which is the impact on wildlife,” said Commissioner Erika Laforme, at their Aug. 12 meeting. “One of the strongest pieces of feedback that I heard last time … was to make sure that the impact on the wildlife will be minimized.” “We mainly focus on wetlands,” another Commissioner admitted, “but we also are responsible for wildlife … we can ask them to please get us a new study to make sure to determine the impacts.” At the end of the meeting, all members of the commission were agreeable to requesting an additional wildlife habitat assessment.
But on Sept. 2, the conservation agent emailed Sunrise leaders and informed them she had decided not to conduct a wildlife habitat study: “This was not a decision made by the entire commission. This was a result of my research that I was tasked with … I discovered this request was an overreach and outside of the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. I spoke with the Commission Chair and called the Department of Environmental Protection to confirm. The DEP that oversees the implementation of the Wetlands Protection Act deemed this an overreach.”
The SNC informed the agent days earlier that under the Greenfield Conservation Commission’s own ecode, section 423-7H, “The Commission may require a special study (i.e. wildlife habitat) of the project area, to be paid for by the applicant, whenever it deems appropriate, regardless of the type of resource area or the amount or type of alteration proposed.”
At their Sept. 9 meeting, the Conservation Commission voted to approve an Order of Conditions for Stone Farm Lane. One member of the commission recused himself. Abutters had complained that he donated money to the Valley Community Land Trust to help buy the parcel. Commissioners rescinded their Aug. 12 vote to require an independent wildlife habitat study, claiming they had no authority to survey the whole parcel. The question remains: Who is going to protect wildlife from the wildlife protectors?
The venue shifts on Sept. 18 to the Greenfield Zoning Board of Appeals, where the range of review issues is much broader, including a site plan review, traffic impacts, impacts on water, sewer, schools, compatibility with existing uses, fiscal impacts on the city, and maintaining neighborhood character. Many stones remain for Stone Farm.
Al Norman’s Pushback column appears in the Recorder the first and third Wednesdays of each month.