Citing confusion, Greenfield city councilor seeks redo of vote on housing amendments

Published: 12-24-2024 10:22 AM |
GREENFIELD — While City Council overwhelmingly approved a housing amendment lifting the 24-unit cap for the development of multi-family dwelling units, a councilor who supported the amendment has since filed a motion to reconsider.
At-Large Councilor Wahab Minhas, who last week voted to approve the two amendments to the zoning ordinance presented to the council, filed the motion to reconsider on Friday, citing a desire to see a clearer presentation of the amendments following the Dec. 18 discussion, which saw city councilors get tangled in the weeds of amendments and zoning language over the course of nearly 90 minutes.
The council approved two amendments at the meeting, with one allowing the development of multi-family dwelling units with 24 or fewer units by right in the semi-residential district. Any development with 25 or more units, though, will still be required to go through the special permit process. The second approved amendment strikes language from the city’s zoning ordinances capping structures at 24 units.
“I think it wasn’t fair the way that we were steamrolling it through, especially when everyone was so confused,” Minhas said Monday morning. “It just didn’t seem in the spirit of transparency and public representation, that it was OK for us to be that confused and steamroll through it.”
At-Large Councilor John Garrett proposed the amendments as part of a housing ordinance package intended to increase housing density and encourage housing production in Greenfield.
In the meeting, councilors showed their support for the intentions of the amendments, but confusion soon set in, as councilors began working through amendments to the amendments and votes to table the motions.
“We’ve been round and round and round on this. … I’m really, really uncomfortable that someone would look at our packet online and [they] couldn’t figure this out,” added City Council President John Bottomley. “I’m in support of what we’re trying to do; I’m not liking how we’re doing it.”
Garrett said Monday that there could have been a better way to present the information, but the confusion at last week’s meeting was focused on the logistics of approving the amendments, not the policy changes.
Article continues after...
Yesterday's Most Read Articles






“Parliamentary procedure can be confusing, but we made sure we took the time to get it right,” Garrett said. “It’s clear the council understood what they were voting for and this motion to reconsider should be reconsidered.”
Garrett added he feels it is unlikely the motion to reconsider will be accepted by his fellow councilors, as the amendments properly made their way through the committee process and further discussion will just “retread old ground.”
“We did something to try and solve a problem,” Garrett said, adding that City Council’s action “unlocks the potential” to try to address the city’s, and region’s, crippling housing shortage.
Minhas said he wanted City Council to reconsider the amendments because of the confusion among councilors at the Dec. 18 meeting, and due to a desire for further discussion on how lifting the cap on units could affect the city.
“Looking back at it, I wasn’t particularly in support of having unlimited development. … I don’t think it’s culturally appropriate out here to have no guardrails at all,” he said. “Once we have that motion to reconsider, then we can properly hash it out and see what are the implications of this thing.”
While the cap was lifted, Garrett said at the meeting that it is not “free-reign zoning,” as developers would still need to follow other parts of the zoning ordinances, such as setbacks, height restrictions and other parameters.
“There’s no reason that the numbers were set where they were, so removing those arbitrary, unuseful and, actually, harmful caps, will just allow us more flexibility to hopefully get more housing development in the community,” Precinct 2 Councilor Rachel Gordon said at the Dec. 18 meeting. “And I think that’s only a good thing.”
The motion to reconsider the amendments will come before the council on Jan. 15.
Chris Larabee can be reached at clarabee@recorder.com.