One of the most important land use documents in Greenfield’s 272-year history is its Major Development Review (MDR) ordinance. It’s also one of the least understood.
The MDR was adopted by Town Council in 1991. Its purpose was “to mitigate potential negative impacts … caused directly or indirectly by major development.” The MDR was rewritten in 2006 to apply to the following:
• New uses generating 1,000 vehicle trips daily in the General Commercial District, or 500 vehicle trips in any other district.
• Uses of 50 or more dwelling units.
• Subdivisions of land into 50 or more building lots.
• New non-residential uses of 100,000 square feet (sf) of gross floor area in the Planned Industry District, 15,000 sf in the Central Commercial and Limited Commercial District, and 40,000 sf in all other districts.
In 2019, as part of a “grand compromise” to have enough City Council votes to build a new library, the traffic threshold was raised to 3,000 car trips — so fewer developments would require an MDR. By 2024, the Planning Board had voted unanimously 3 times to lower the MDR traffic threshold from 3,000 to 2,000 car trips daily — but the 3,000 level remains in place. The City Council president was asked in 2019 why the traffic threshold was raised to 3,000. She admitted: “There was no evidence-based study behind that number.”
In the 1990s, Greenfield was more concerned about environmental impacts. In addition to the 1991 MDR, a Corridor Overlay Zone (CO) was created in 1993, which extended from the intersection of Route 2 and the French King Highway, south to Smith Street. The purpose of this CO was to “create an attractive entryway into Greenfield, to minimize strip development and traffic congestion, to protect scenic and natural features, and to promote high-quality building and site design.” The CO outlawed “gas stations and take-out, drive-in or drive through restaurants.” In 2019, the City Council voted to shrink this overlay to almost nothing. The CO still says “the ridgeline on the east side of French King Highway is a prominent feature visible from … distant vantage points in the region.” However, the proposed Stone Farm Lane condos on the slopes of Connecticut River forestland, which has been temporarily withdrawn, will be very prominently visible from distant vantage points in the east.
In the 1990s, a major focus of the Franklin County development plan was on formalizing an “industrial retention/expansion program,” and to “increase awareness and support for existing manufacturers.” For 35 years, our retail goal has been the same: “create a vital and exciting downtown” and “attract new retailers.”
Today, our land use planning focuses on how to add housing to our Central Business District (CBD), to make it more pedestrian-friendly, livable and walkable. This has resulted in proposals to add more apartments and townhouses on Main Street, and to the removal of several retail stores. Yet our City Council voted in 2023 to rezone 41 acres on the French King from retail back to industrial. We also have the 118,765 sf Kennametal industrial building now on the market, and a desperate need for higher-wage jobs. Our worker wage crisis needs as much focus as our housing needs.
Earlier this year, the mayor sent the Planning Board a proposal to reverse the City Council vote of 2023 — rezoning the French King from industrial back to retail. The mayor withdrew that plan, for now, but welcomed a national chain grocery and coffee chain to our Route 91 rotary, increasing sales leakage from downtown.
MDRs have never been used to stop large projects — only to make them better. Our Planning Board’s new review of other municipalities on issues like building design guidelines and MDR plans, will likely seek to “relax” requirements on developers even more.
Almost no one from the public attended the Dec. 4 Planning Board meeting, and two weeks after the meeting, it had only 12 views on YouTube. Very few people are willing to watch a 3-hour insider’s meeting.
Land use discussions in Greenfield are controlled by unelected boards: planning, zoning, conservation, sustainability: these boards make little effort to educate the public about what they’re doing. The documents reviewed are often not available. Meeting minutes get posted months later. Public comments are 180 seconds each. The transparency levels are near zero. These board members should run for office. It would make them more accountable to constituents.
The only consistency in Greenfield’s planning history is inconsistency. We rewrite our land use goals every few years, and then we ignore them.
Al Norman’s Pushback column is published in the Recorder every first and third Wednesday of the month.