GREENFIELD — While no votes were taken, the Planning Board and Economic Development Committee heard testimony Tuesday night from an overflowing room of residents seeking to prevent the elimination of the Water Supply Protection District near the inactive Leary Well on the northwest side of the city.
First Generation Investment Group, a Greenfield-based developer, is requesting the elimination of the overlay district after purchasing a 30-acre lot at the end of Lunt Drive, located within the district, in 2025 for $270,000. Co-founder Igor Komerzan said First Generation is in the beginning stages of exploring what could be built on the property, and that eliminating the overlay district would allow for more houses to be constructed, thus reducing the overall cost when lots are sold.
“This is our first or second step in the whole process,” Komerzan said.
Former Mayor Bill Martin, who is working with the developer, said that it has not been decided how many houses could be put on the property, and design plans depend on whether the city is open to the removal of the Water Supply Protection District. Komerzan said that with the current zoning overlay in place, First Generation could build one home on the property, or potentially three on a cul-de-sac.
“Right now, we can’t do any definitive design,” Martin said.
Planning Director Ella Wise confirmed that, with the overlay, development is still possible, and the reason the property card had been labeled as undevelopable is due to a lack of frontage. If the developers expanded the road, they would have the frontage needed to construct.
She added that the overlay district does not prevent clear-cutting of forest, and if it were eliminated, the city could recommend the developer pursue a cluster development. This would allow the developer to divide the parcel into smaller lots that are more densely packed and would require potentially 50% of the property to remain protected open space.
According to Article 4, Section 200-21 of the Greenfield zoning codes, to construct a single-family residential home in the Water Supply Protection District, a lot needs to be at least 60,000 square feet; to build a two-family dwelling, the lot needs to be at least 80,000 square feet; and for three-family dwellings, lots must be at least 100,000 square feet.
“You can still develop the property with the existing designation,” Planning Board Chair Jeff Sauser said. “If we keep this in place, it doesn’t mean no housing can be built.”
In a letter to the boards, Department of Public Works Director Paul Newell wrote that the DPW has no objection to the district’s proposed elimination. He explained that the Leary Well was never fully developed, and as it is in an isolated location, it would be costly to integrate it into the city’s infrastructure.
When asked whether the city’s water infrastructure could support further development, DPW representatives said that Greenfield uses 2.2 million gallons of water per day and has the capacity for 3.5 million gallons.
“Because the Leary Well site has no present or future utility as a municipal drinking water source, removing the local overlay district eliminates unnecessary regulatory and developmental constraints while full protections remain in place for all active municipal water sources,” Newell wrote.
Newell said the DPW is working to find a 1981 report from Tighe & Bond, which could provide more insight into the conditions of the well and surrounding area.
Community members speak against proposal
Neighbors and community members spoke against the elimination of the overlay district and said that while the Leary Well may be inactive, it could be used in the future to support the city’s drinking water needs. They added that the overlay also protects the underlying aquifer, which is an important natural resource.
“The issue is not the well, it’s the aquifer,” resident Steve Alves said. “Is it worth the risk of removing this protection district?”
“Aquifers are the best protection against climate extremes,” neighbor Shanti Douglas added.
Resident Susan Olmsted said that when the Greenfield zoning maps were updated three years ago, the overlay district was retained, and she asked why, if it was important enough to keep three years ago, it is not worth keeping now. She added that, according to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Source Water Assessment & Protection (SWAP) program data, groundwater sources and system susceptibility are labeled “high,” and the overlay prevents large-scale development that could impact the aquifer.
“Our current water sources have high vulnerability to contaminants,” Olmsted said. “I think it’s really important we preserve this aquifer as a future drinking water source.”
Residents called the Leary Well and underlying aquifer the city’s insurance policy for future water needs, and urged the city to have the developer pay for hydrogeologic testing, or consider other locations.
“Where we build housing is just as important as what we build,” resident Al Norman said. “The concept is right, the location is wrong.”
Martin said the elimination of the overlay district would allow construction of new homes, which would help the city meet housing goals as well as increase the tax base.
“It produces not just housing, it produces revenue for the town,” Martin said. “It’s an anti-housing overlay.”
No decisions made
Members of the Economic Development Committee and Planning Board said they were not ready to make any decisions on Tuesday regarding the request to eliminate the district and wanted more time to deliberate, as well as see if the DPW could find the 1981 report.
“Maybe we can come up with some creative solutions,” Planning Board alternate member Erica Rioux Gees said.
Planning Board member Victor Moschella suggested that eliminating the overlay district could allow the city to have more control over the project by requiring most of the parcel to be kept as open space through cluster development.
“I think that’s a win-win,” he said.
“From what I’ve seen of First Gen, the developer’s pretty good; they’re not trying to steamroll us,” At-Large Councilor Wahab Minhas said. “The concern is there’s a lot of ramifications we don’t know about.”
The matter is expected to be discussed at the next Planning Board meeting, as well as the next Economic Development Committee meeting, before it goes to City Council.
“This is the start of a conversation, not the end of the conversation,” Precinct 2 Councilor Rachel Gordon said. “There are going to be many more opportunities to make your voices heard.”
