GREENFIELD — In preparation for a Nov. 7 public hearing where residents will weigh in on proposed zoning amendments aimed at densifying the city’s housing stock, the Planning Board met at City Hall on Thursday to debate issues such as multi-family housing creation and the by-right development of medical clinics downtown.

Over roughly two hours, the board discussed a zoning package proposed by At-Large City Councilor John Garrett that, if approved, would allow multi-family housing by-right in the city’s Semi-Residential District, raise the number of residential units allowed in a multi-family building, allow mixed residential and business structures to feature first-floor housing and, at the request of Planning Director Eric Twarog, permit the development of medical clinics by-right in the city’s Central Commercial District.

Planning Board members also looked at the city’s regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also known as “in-law apartments,” following the Legislature’s passage of the Affordable Homes Act in August, which will, effective Feb. 1, make the construction of these units legal by-right in municipalities across the state.

Multi-family housing

The zoning amendment to allow multi-family dwellings in the Semi-Residential District was among one of the least-debated topics during the meeting.

Currently, those wishing to build a multi-family dwelling — or a building containing three or more housing units — in the Semi-Residential District must first obtain a special permit through the Zoning Board of Appeals; whereas, approval of the amendment would eliminate the need for a public hearing on the matter, making it by-right.

After Planning Board Vice Chair Jeff Sauser asked why the proposed amendment applies only to the city’s Semi-Residential District, Twarog responded that the Commonwealth Capital Scorecard system — a state assessment of municipalities’ planning practices used to qualify for grants — awards points to municipalities that zone for multi-family housing in multiple districts.

Twarog said during the roughly eight years Greenfield has participated in the system, City Council has voted down numerous attempts to expand housing into multiple zones. He also explained that Greenfield’s Semi-Residential District borders the Commercial District, which already allows for multi-family housing.

“It does make sense because Semi-Residential touches Central Commercial to get to one continuous area that allows multi-family by-right,” Twarog said.

While discussing multi-family housing, the board also mulled over Garrett’s second proposal, which aims to increase the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in a multi-family building from 24 to 50 and the maximum number of units connected to a single entrance from six to 10.

Sauser noted that safety limits of six units per entrance with a minimum distance of 40 feet between buildings were too arbitrary, and should be reconsidered with feedback from fire safety professionals.

“The Fire Department’s going to want to have some access ways that are more than 10 feet, that can be 24 feet or something,” Sauser said. “There’s all sorts of reasons why the buildings are going to be spaced in ways that are logical, that are based on science, so to speak, based on fire safety and things that are more relevant. This just feels like an arbitrary number, the six units per entrance. We have other rules to control these kinds of situations.”

First-floor apartments and medical clinics

Greenfield’s current zoning bylaws prohibit first-floor residences in mixed-use structures — buildings containing a blend of residential units and businesses. Approval of this amendment would allow apartments on the ground floor of a mixed-use structure, as long as it does not face the adjacent street with the highest traffic use.

Garrett said this amendment aims to not only make use of vacant or excessive ground floor space downtown that would otherwise be confined to retail purposes, but would assist in the city’s effort to develop more accessible housing for people with disabilities, since entryways to the units could be accessed without stairs or elevators.

“A really important added benefit of this is accessibility,” Garrett said. “[We’re having] this whole conversation going on about creating more opportunities for folks to have accessible buildings, and this is the exact kind of place where that could happen.”

Sauser noted that the current zoning ordinance was written to encourage first-floor retail businesses in the city’s commercial spaces. Given the city’s current stock of retail space, he does not believe the 1989 ordinance is still necessary.

“We see a lot of vacant retail, or you see retail that is designed in a way that’s never leased because they did the actual minimum they could do or it’s such a big floor plan, and they don’t revise it because they are waiting for the big, multi-national company to fill it so the mom and pops can’t afford the rent,” Sauser said.

Explaining the package’s newest addition — a zoning amendment allowing medical centers and clinics to be opened by-right in the city’s Central Commercial District — Twarog explained that medical centers and clinics are not allowed downtown, though many exist in the area that were never permitted. He referred to this discrepancy as being a “significant problem,” that could be remedied with a zoning change.

Twarog added that medical offices are allowed by-right in residential districts, and therefore, should be allowed downtown as well.

“Right now you can do a home occupation and have a doctor’s office in a residential district, but you can’t do that by-right in the Central Commercial,” Twarog said. “Maybe back when the ordinance was initially conceived in 1989, everyone wanted to preserve Main Street for retail and that type of use, but that was changed, so they should be allowed by-right.”

Others, such as board member Victor Moschella, inquired about the city’s definition of the term “clinic,” explaining that he had concerns the amendment would facilitate the opening of addiction treatment clinics downtown.

“When we say clinics, what kind of clinics, and what kind of clientele are the clinics going to have? .. That sounds really harsh, I apologize, but that’s a reality,” Moschella said. “I know the people downtown have had issues of people falling down in front of their stores or sleeping in their stores. You want to just allow any kind of clinic? … I’m worried about the type of people that may be walking around downtown, interacting with everybody else. Is that really what we want to allow?”

In response, Twarog noted that similar addiction treatment centers are already operating without permits in the city’s Central Commercial District, but that the city did not have the resources to enforce the zoning laws. He argued that allowing such clinics would not only rectify outdated zoning laws, but would help solve the problem of unpermitted clinics and treatment centers.

Thursday night’s meeting also featured a significant debate and discussion on the topic of accessory dwelling units and accessible housing.

Anthony Cammalleri can be reached at acammalleri@recorder.com or 413-930-4429.