GREENFIELD — The Zoning Board of Appeals has rejected an appeal of the city building inspector’s determination that the construction of six condominiums on Country Club Road went through the full site plan review process and secured the necessary approvals.
Eric Sadler lives on Silver Street directly next to 5 and 9 Country Club Road, where R.G. Penfield & Sons Inc. has been constructing two buildings each containing three residences, with a shared driveway. He told the Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday that he was never given notice of the original special permit hearing that was scheduled for the project, and therefore was never able to raise his concerns. He also argued that when plans for the project were changed to move one of the buildings 20 feet over, there should have been another hearing in which he could have spoken.
“I am just challenging the fact that there was no real site plan that I could appeal or a site plan meeting that I could attend,” Sadler told the ZBA. “The building is literally looking into my backyard. … The fence doesn’t go high enough to really block out the view. As the building stands now, I can see right into the windows and they can see the rest of my property.”
In 2024, the Planning Board held a public hearing to review a special permit application to build a shared driveway for the six residences, which it granted on the condition that the property owner submit an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan to split the lot into two parcels, one for each of the buildings. Sadler had written to Building Inspector Mark Snow asking for the project to be reviewed to see if it had met all permitting, setback and screening requirements.
In a letter to Sadler, Snow wrote that, upon further review, a change to split the property into two parcels resulted in the setback requirements being changed. The property owner agreed to amend the site plan.
According to the original and revised site plans included in the ZBA’s meeting packet, Penfield & Sons Inc. moved the north building approximately 20 feet farther north to meet a 30-foot setback requirement. The change brought the north building farther away from Sadler’s property, and the south building remained where it was originally.
“A further review was conducted; it was determined that the setback you questioned is no longer a side property line; it is now considered a rear property line. This change is
the result of an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan, which divided the original parcel into two separate parcels,” Snow wrote. “Consequently, the setback distance from the exterior wall of the building to that property line must meet the rear setback requirement, which is 30 feet, not the side property line of 10 feet as originally proposed.”
Snow wrote that he observed no violations of Greenfield’s zoning ordinance, and that the project had followed the special permit process and received building permits and inspections as outlined by Greenfield’s regulations.
Sadler told the ZBA that he does not want to stop the project, but he was appealing the decision that the change in site plans did not require another public hearing. He said that had a hearing been held, he could have requested the Planning Board require the applicant to install a taller privacy fence.
“I don’t want to stop the build; obviously, it’s almost done. It looks great, they’re doing a great job over there,” Sadler said. “I want there to be more housing in Greenfield; I’m fully supportive of that. It’s just that this is my investment, my only chance now to state my case as to why it might affect my property value moving forward and my privacy.
“I think the movement of this should have triggered a site plan review,” Sadler continued.
Snow told the board that the special permit was for the driveway itself, and that the construction of the residential buildings was by right. He added that the changes made were to bring the project into compliance with the city’s zoning regulations and did not alter the plans for the driveway.
“I think it was a minor modification,” Snow said. “I think it was good judgement and I think it was a good decision.”
Board members said they sympathize with Sadler, but agreed that the change did not warrant additional board review.
“If it went before the Planning Board based on what they had already agreed to, it seemed to me it would have been a waste of everyone’s time and money,” board member Debra Gilkes said, adding that an additional hearing would have delayed the process. “I think it is a perfectly logical, reasonable position to make at an administrative level.”
“It doesn’t feel substantial to me,” added member Mark Maloni. “It feels like a necessary change.”
ZBA Chair David Singer spoke in favor of Sadler, and said he would want the project to go back before the Planning Board for additional review.
“I have a different take on this. … I think 20 feet is enough for the Planning Board to decide,” Singer said.
Ultimately, the board voted 4-1 to reject the appeal, with Singer being the sole vote in support of Sadler.
