##VIDEO ID:bG8ijAmEWZs## [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] recording in progress recording stopped [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] counselors please take your seats we're going to begin recording in progress yeah sounds good I'd like to call this meeting to order at 6:33 this meeting is being recorded by the city council and gctv 9 if other persons present are doing the same you must notify me at this time and seeing none we'll move on to roll call of members clerk Scott councelor golb here councelor Gordon councelor Master Taro here um councelor bulock notified us that she may not be in attendance tonight if she does join virtually we will let you know no but she is not here currently vice president Gilmore here councelor Perry councelor walosi yes councelor Healey here councilor Brown here councelor Garrett here councelor Minos here counc Toronto yeah in presence councelor bottomley president bottomley here Mr President you have a quorum and per open meeting law I'm just announcing councelor Minos councelor Healey councelor Gilmore are attending virtually online and next we move to the Pledge of Allegiance which is voluntary flag United States of America theice uh can I have a motion to approve the minutes so moved I need a second on that uh any discussion motion and seeing none a roll call Vote councelor golb Yes councelor Gordon Yes councelor master Taro yes vice president Gilmore yes yes councelor Perry yes councelor wandalowski yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett yes councelor minhas yes councelor toronzo yep and would the president like to vote yes and yes the minutes pass we will next move on to Communications from the superintendent and the school committee okay great thank you welcome good evening uh just a couple of topics this evening an update on a capital project that has been Ono for a little bit over a year and a half is our Federal Street Elementary School North elevator the bid was opened up on December 4th the bid submission um only one was received received by United elevator the scope of the work came in at approximately a little over 222,000 which um was a little over 40,000 more than what we have in a capital funding available so on last Wednesday's school committee they voted to approve the use of school choice funds so that this project can be on its way in the elevator can be up and operational at Federal streets North Tower um the city's been noted ified of the vote and they're sending out the award letter to the United elevator company to get the contract in place and we hope to have this project done ASAP the other um invitation that's on here is we've been doing this um I think for the past three years but wanted to officially invite all city council members to do a tour of our city school buildings um January 31st is a Friday it's a professional development day teacher in service day so students won't be in the buildings but I'd love to uh have any of you who wish to join and tour the facilities with us um we will meet at the schools according to the schedule that's on the agenda so if you can't do all of them and you're just interested in a particular school and just want to come for one or as many as you want I'll be at each of those schools at at that time and we'll wait uh for a few minutes to see who shows up and we'll give you a tour of the buildings and I think it's um important for you to see the inside of the schools and you're often not in them unless you have students in our district so I hope you get a chance to join us and that's all I had for you tonight I don't know Glenn if you're online and you'd like to add anything I'm here nothing to add happy to um answer questions so I guess we'll open this up any questions yes can you just say again what time the the school's tour is on the 31st sure um we're going to start at the four corner school at 8 we're going to go to the high school at 8:30 then we'll go down to the middle school at 9: Federal Street at 9:30 Newton at 10: and then do the preschool at 10:30 so we'll do the the loop yeah um it's ALS the schedule is also on the agenda it's okay councelor toronzo um I'm curious the uh the capital thing that came last year was like you said the elevator right um where I guess where about is that that that sounded like it was a a larger request than the the original part was I know that we were very happy last year at Capital at Capital committee that we weren't going to have to replace like a couple of elevators at Federal Street but um so was a a much scaled down uh request and then where the the money process is going in from there I guess I think um maybe it was a little over two years ago Eric heee I think was our facilities director at the time and I think the original thought was that the whole internal shaft had to be replaced and I think it came I think where it was like a million doll um expectation and then after um I think it was actually United elevator that was on site with Eric hee and did some more research into the inner workings of it and then last year when it totally went out of commission they did confirm that the whole internal piece did not have to be fixed so the bid that went out is a lot less than the million dollars thankfully and um we are hoping to have that up and operational obviously for compliance issues for Ada any last calls yes councelor walowski I just have a comment for Glenn I know maybe two meetings ago we talked about that in the past there were opportunities for our ways and means to work with to talk to school committee as you were working on the budget and so I just wanted to earmark that again that maybe we can make that happen um so that so that we get ahead of things and instead of questioning things much later in the process absolutely um I think if the chair of ways and means and wants to connect with uh Kate Martini who's chairing our budget committee and has been doing a great job um soliciting feedback from the public uh in the early stages of the budget development process um I think she'd be very open to that and we'd be happy to work with you thanks for bringing that up again any other questions looks like that's it thank you I just want to wish everyone a happy holiday season as well thank you thank you president if I could um so the other part that I uh I see with the U the schedule and I've I've tried to uh attend some of these in the past and I know some other counselors have as well um and they're they're good like I mean I I want the open right communication uh for the walkthroughs and stuff uh I I think that they're probably not a hard and fast timeline right like from going from one school to the other within 30 minutes so I I presume like if if uh counselors or or other folks were to attend uh a start at 8 a.m. at the discovery school at Four Corners in order to get over to all of the uh six schools by 10:30 it it I don't know if the timeline would be realistic right like if you're going to tour the discovery school and then sip over to the you know within 30 minutes I guess I don't know what you would be learning at that point um um is there is there leeway in the in the timeline for that uh with with folks who are going to be touring with with folks on this um January 31st date to to expand across uh past 10:30 I guess is is what absolutely I'm working all day we can spend as much time as you'd like I just wanted people to have a touch point if they didn't want to go to all six of them so just know if you didn't want to go to the start and you're waiting at the middle school we'll be there all right all right cool great thank you um we will move on to Communications from the mayor welcome good evening everybody um um just here tonight I'm pleased to welcome our new Finance director Stephen Numa who's here with me today um he comes to this position with uh great experience serving in financial leadership in Municipal uh government for over 25 years this includes Chief finance officer for Greenfield Public Schools Steven possesses a versatile skill set great familiarity with the region and detail driven mindset that will be fantastic for our community um additionally I wanted to share a quick update on the treasure collector position um we've welcomed a new treasur Mandy Whitten she's been there some days already but we'll be starting full-time on Monday and um Steven price is helping to acclimate our new treasur collector as a training consultant um he's done has years of experience as a treasury collector in nating natic and Framingham and on the good news front our tax rate is down um 83 cents uh 1956 um that's down from 2039 right now so that's a decrease of 4.2% and that actually marks the lowest tax rate in the city since uh fiscal year 12 our chief is assessor Randy Austin suggested that the new tax rate will lower the average family tax bill by $30 compared to last year um very proud of well it's very good that it's not going up because that's what generally happens um and no promises for what that will be next year um I'm very proud of the work our assessors Department did and the whole Board of assessors they were real heroes working diligently to get all of this done and helping us through this year um an update on the elderly taxation fund I've been asked about we're working to get this established um the committee is going to include Council meas um our treasur collector Jim Gman from the board of assessors and citizen appointments one of whom you'll hopefully be approving tonight Patty and next year next month is um uh David Ralston I believe will be appointed for January so we'll have a full board then and they can get be able to get started I think that you may have received the charter changes um I don't know if those went to full city council but they were uh approved these are the ones not the ones that we you just passed this year but ones that the city council before you sent into the state it actually takes about a year and a half um one of the highlights in that is there will be three people on the board of assessors so there'll be an an one more elected position to the board of assessors there are several other changes in that and I'm sure we'll be forwarding that information to you um and um we've had a lot of fun with the holidays uh this year the tree lighting was on December 6th um uh twice as smart came in saying Central maintenance did a wonderful job um setting up the um the festive tree DPW was Stellar putting up the um Christmas lights took them several weeks to get that done the Greenfield Business Association also was huge contributor to that um I had a blast volunteering at that Amazing Race the jingle F Fest and um uh I judged easily all of the Gingerbread House contest that was actually very fun and I would encourage anybody to do that next year it it's adorable and they do need people and if that many of the spots we' volunteer would be inside um so um additionally we'll have uh manora uh will be returning to the common later this month um Jasper lapienski organizing that manura lighting which will occur Monday December 30th at 5:30 and um wishing everybody a happy and safe holiday season little addendum we've had City Hall Plumbing issues um and operational issues there at City Hall as you probably heard by now City Hall is undergoing significant Plumbing issues that require extensive work um we're planning to close City Hall either on Friday January 3rd or um Friday January 10th that's the house house trap that's sort of collapsed and if it's just that it will be three days if it's the pipe that goes out to the to the Sewer it's going to be a much more significant uh change and we'll have to have a new plan because that would be like probably a week or 10 days and that pipe goes under the condensers I think so that would affect the heat so we're all planning for what we would do next but I actually just wanted to alert you to the fact that this is it it it's a big problem we've had a problem in January with the heating we've had problem with sewer backup a couple of times we've had to move people urgently upstairs had the fire department in to check it out and you know people from DPW Central maintenance Etc and last week we were making an emergency plan for what we would do so I think that in general Bears watching Bears maybe putting a committee together to look at what we're going to do next um so I am concerned about the city Hall's future viability because there's so many issues that are actually with that building and um last week we were kind of up against it hopefully the um that the pipe that goes out is not as severely damaged and is at the right angle and everything but I don't really know that so that's it for updates I don't know if you wanted to say anything Stephen it's nice to be here and uh it's nice to be back at Greenfield um you know we're we're working hard over at City Hall uh trying to as you know there's probably there's a lot of turnover in some positions so uh we're moving forward uh we're able to get a um payroll person AP person as well as the all important treasure collector uh piece in there within the past uh three weeks or so so we're extremely happy about that and uh you know we're getting tax bills out uh right now uh so it's business as usual however there's a large learning curve uh with everyone uh trying to take on new roles new responsibilities but it is really a great crew there I'm extremely happy to be back in Greenfield and I I look forward to uh the next couple months uh developing the budget uh with you folks and uh taking advantage of some of the um opportunities here uh to do some uh interesting things uh with the budget and move the city forward so um thanks for uh for for having me back thank you and welcome thank you uh open up for qu questions councelor master tataro I I knew your father and if uh he was a great guy and um my condolences by the way and um I'm assuming the Apple doesn't fall far from the tree so welcome thank you thank you thank you for that yeah he sadly missed already mayor I have a couple questions that but there's been a lot there's a lot going on with ordinance change es and I was just wondering if we can get your take on anything um regarding or how you feel um about the potential marijuana shop that's going to be on Main Street that they're proposing to be on Main Street what's your feeling about uh two pot shops within spitting distance of a preschool and particularly one on Main Street that a concern of mine and I was just wondering how you felt about that so um I was on planning board for a long time and we would have people that came in all the time and say how come are we having so many nail salons the fact of the matter is we as the we as as planning board members as city councilors as mayor we're not in charge of what businesses come to the city something is either zoned for this or it's not there is I have not followed that whole story with the Cannabis um I I mean I read that in the in the newspaper as well um we did it zone for how many feet it's supposed to be from uh a school so it is not how many of those that I wanted the planning board zoning board whoever is voting on that is going to vote what is allowed to be in the in how many feet from whatever it is we could have five of them that were there or 10 could be on Main Street if that's what the market dictated we are not in control of if there were 12 pharmacies on Main Street so that's um people have to follow the zoning regulations and you actually need to approve what is in what comes before you unless there's a reason that it's not zoned for that uh one other thing is that 176 main they're proposing um uh the apartments and right now uh there's again we have to vote on it um change the ORD or ordinance to allow first floor residents on Main Street um but it seems to me the way this is proposed there's laundry mat and mailboxes that are going to be for the tenants on the first floor as well as a lounge to me that's not a commercial business does that's for the tenants of the building and I just have an issue with uh this steamrolling and losing uh um storefronts as as much as we have many empty store fronts I think that that we need to uh move forward and do everything we can as a city to fill those storefronts but if we lose them we'll never get them back so I I have a real concern about that I just I I don't know what your feelings are about that but um again yeah right by right is one thing and right is another um I I just don't want to see things perpetuate and we lose Main Street anyway so I don't know all the particulars of that one I know that we are way behind behind on housing and we can't build it fast enough um I think [Music] the there are so many housing units that are needed I'm happy that we have ones that are going to be coming in the former Wilson's in and that project will bring many housing units there's some on Silver Street I'm happy for everyone that there is the one that's up um almost all of the proposals that come forward I I think it's a good thing we need more places to put people uh if we want more people to move here so that's my feeling on that um but I don't know about any of the particulars of that particular one I think I did hear something about that and there's a zoning change that's coming up something that's before you which will be for you to to vote on and decide so uh do we have any other questions for the mayor seeing n i I actually brought with me um director uh Warner and um the fire chief we're going to come talk about the rotary because that was a question that um Council Garrett brought and I thought that they might be a little better explaining uh about the traffic and why they felt uh how they felt about the rotary yes that's great thanks welcome thank you for having us um as you all know you received an email through Mass do uh suggesting um a potential roundabout at Maine Federal and Bank row um to give a little backstory on the Main Street project it goes back three and a half years now um when we started this project uh it's part of what they call the tip program through the TPO uh Transportation Improvement plan uh through the transportation planning organization um our history through this program is you pay all the engineering and design for a project um and the the overall project is funded by uh Mass doot and Federal Highway Administration example um wisdom way and the Nash's Mill uh Bridge replacement so we we've been very successful in this this program so uh three years ago we started out um with engineering and design uh for 350,000 for the first phase the 25% design and that's where we're at now 25% design went into Mass doot it's in the comment period um so comments are made um and then they had suggested a a roundabout at this intersection um they're not saying we have to have it they provided data um we had to go through a road safety audit during the process with our consultant firm fuss and O'Neal for this project um I will say when we went through that project the stakeholders were Public Safety Chief strayan representatives from the police department DPW uh our engineering department um former mayor uh and the current mayor now uh as part of the the stakeholder so we went through this road safety audit that we had to pay an extra $50,000 for and what it did was it collected crash data from for so many years back of every intersection that intersects Main Street so they could do the data and try and decide how we want to change Main Street with the original scope or plan to make it more pedestrian and cycle uh bicyclist safe safer I guess um for the downtown so as they went through that study and they concluded that study and and and gathered all the data believe it or not Maine and federal was the safest intersection we have on Main Street when it comes to crash data um the few accidents that has happened there is actually where we're actually cyclists uh in induced not vehicle induced so so that's some interesting data we live our Our Lives by data in my world these um these days but um not all data is uh fits every location when it comes to these roundabouts um uh from a personal standpoint I love roundabouts the one at the college is perfect it's the perfect place to have one um there's been some concerns there's pros and cons um on on the current uh suggestion of a roundabout at that intersection um so when you have a roundabout they set the crosswalks further back picture every crosswalk 100 feet back on Federal Street 100 feet on both sides of Main Street and then down Bank row and what comes with that for today's standards you have to have raised curbing Granite curbing bailout areas in the middle of the road so a pedestrians cross and they don't get stuck in traffic flying into the the roundabout they have a safe safe zone so that raised concerns um when I had attended a meeting about a month ago um thinking of of Public Safety especially um Chief Strand and his fire trucks having to get to High Street or or to the to the East part of town in a hurry uh with all these raised Granite islands and curvings where do the cars bail out and how does he get through this this um roundabout in a swift manner um I I think that's an issue personally um because we're narrowing our areas going into a roundabout the way it's set up now if we keep it signalized there's cars can bail all all over to the curb and and the chief has all kinds of room to run his fire apparatus through when they pull over ahead of it um the other piece of uh a roundabout is it's all about speeding up traffic um so it's it's a little to me it's a little redundant if you we're trying to speed up traffic but we're trying to make it more pedestrian friendly or running bike lanes are a roundabout so it it it's bothersome to me personally um like I said we live we live through data but data doesn't always fit the bill um cookie cutter so to speak um so so that's kind of the background on this um it's going through we just have to answer Mass do it it it's technically our decision the city's decision whether we want to do it or not they're waiting for a response um and then they can finish up their comment period uh with our responses uh consultant firm responses uh and then we move on to the second phase that we had appropriated um I I think the other important piece here is um it's going to increase what the city needs to um earmark towards the engineering and design it could potentially raise the the um engineering design up to 10 10% which could be a significant amount of money and the other piece is when the engineering design goes up the project costs have G gone up in three years this project after two uh public meetings with fuss and O'Neal our consultant firm and having the public actually in this room um and taking all the comments and suggestions um the the the project has gone from 5.0 M 5.08 million to over 13 million as we speak so the engineer in design we pay a certain percentage towards a project cost um if we increase it $2 million for roundabout our engineering design our portion is going to increase significantly um so I wanted to point that out um so that's that's kind of like a precursor um it's it's the funding piece um the other thing is is the the safety data um and what the initial scope and an objective of Main Street project was all about um wasn't about speeding up pedest and uh speeding up vehicle traffic at at Main and federal and Bank row um the whole intent was to add bike lanes and and have uh safer P passage for pedestrians and cyclists um so um if Chief Strahan wants to speak um to the project um right ahead uh good evening councilors um happy holiday season to everybody it's nice to see you all uh I just wanted to follow up a little bit with director Warner said about the roundabout uh the rest of the project on Main Street is um you know um very needed and long overdue there's some uh critical intersections outside of the main and Federal Street um a lot of them are T intersections which mean Main Street goes one way and the street comes into it that needs some attention um and that's where we see some of the crash data and the and the injuries um for vehicles that are involved in a crash or pedestrian accident um the main and Federal one when it was a first approached to me uh about a roundabout my my initial reaction was this great like roundabouts are great they they serve a purpose um until I um started talking with uh director Warner uh and the limit we there's not a lot of room on Maine and Federal Street to put in a large roundabout you know um GCC works great we can go up over the curb if we have to uh the problem or the big difference between GCC and downtown that I see is just the traffic volume we don't see the large trucks as much going around that roundabout um uh like tractor trailers that we would see often going up and down Main Street um but more importantly my fire apparatus access that intersection um multiple times a day uh and I am concerned that if somebody pulls over to the right which is required by law to do in the middle of that roundabout if I'm going to have enough room to get my larger pieces of equipment around that roundabout quickly e and and easily and safely um I also um looked at The Pedestrian component of it and I still can't get my my hands around where the pedestrians would cross safely um right now it's at a it's out a light and they're guided to cross the street when the traffic signal turns I don't know how you interrupt traffic and a roundabout safely to have pedestrians Crossing I haven't really um seen that in the report and would like to see that but uh overall I think the Project's good to move forward I do have concerns with the component of the roundabout um and I wanted just to share that with everybody tonight so thank you for having me and happy to answer any questions great we'll open up to questions councelor toronzo um I understand the apprehensions with uh with the roundabout in that area um I also I recognize space issues and stuff we already have those in the city as it is uh we have a sorry guys you guys are back there uh we have a also unenforced uh parking problems um I will call out Chapman Street any given day of the week that that street is a pardon my French a  show um and very narrow and parking on both sides is already a problem which should be addressed but the problem I'm talking about is closer to Main Street there are loading zones there are no parking zones that are completely unenforced seven days a week and I will guarantee you Sunday Pats are playing people in the Vic all of that corner if you try to turn any kind of trailer Mac Truck anything down Chapman Street that's a nightmare because all of those are unenforced we have very unenforced mandates in our situations with parking in our downtown district as it is um nobody gets towed nobody gets ticketed bottom line and people can give me any Guff they want about it but I've lived here a long time doesn't get enforced at all um when it comes to operations of that uh with with something turning into a downtown roundabout it would be great as you say it roundabouts do help with certain circumstances and they also can deter from other things uh I don't think that what we've have downtown right now for pedestrian traffic bicycle traffic car traffic is ideal um at all it's it may be deemed safer on one level right now because the lights do stop you from doing it there are plenty of people who make all of the all of the ones at the downtown the federal and Maine no turn on red right every day I just saw today again while I'm at the light people turn right on red all the time and you're not supposed to they got signs say no turn on red you can try to enforce traffic as much as you want right and it's not going to happen so to me those kind of like back and forth arguments um about what's going to be most safe for folks and what's not going to be um I don't know it becomes a it becomes a hard Logistics of and again I don't envy any of you who have to really get into the meat and potatoes of this at all uh I just want to point out like as much as we would like to make everything as safe as possible for every constant circumstances going forward it is not going to be that way it's just not realistic um and all that to say just because the way that the the the city was set up when it was built 250 years ago and we're trying to modernize it doesn't mean we can't find ways to modernize it and we have with with the traffic studies with parking studies with all of these things um I don't want to discourage this idea uh and and and throw it out because it might make some other aspects a little bit more difficult to deal with if we have to move pedestrian traffic back 50 feet 100 feet I mean people cross in front of Greenfield's Market all the time there's no crosswalk there but they're going to do it because it's easier they don't want to walk 50 feet down the road and across the way it's like it's the same reason why people in Greenfield say we have no parking Greenfield we have a crapload of parking in Greenfield but nobody wants to walk 50t to get to where they want to go to they want to park right in front of where they want to go and get out for their convenience that it's not a level of convenience it's a level of safety for the public it's a level of safety for the operation of the city and I think people need to you know maybe dial it back a little bit and say hey maybe I got to walk another 50 feet it's not you know it's not a matter of like 88 or handicap it's a matter sometimes it's a matter of convenience that I think a lot of a lot of bickering gets out there for so I would I would like to see this taken as an approach um a realistic approach to to what is functional um for for folks living and working downtown and then for for our Emergency Services of course and and then maybe there's a there there's like a middle ground in there councelor Gordon thanks uh thank you both for for being here and talking this through um I have to admit that when I got the I saw the email from do I was thinking you know okay great I also love a roundabout they can be quite Pleasant they can be quite useful uh but it's not clear to me what problem this particular roundabout proposal was trying to solve for um and it sounds like there are lots of reasons for us not to do it which make total sense to me the cost certainly being high up there I mean if it was going to make us like a lot safer a lot more efficient you know whatever I think that would be one thing it would be you know worth considering but it sounds like from what you're saying there's really not a a big Improvement that we would see if we went to the the effort and the cost of of doing this am I hearing you correctly uh yes that's somewhat what I'm saying the increase in cost and when we talk about safety um I I guess we're not gaining a whole lot from what the road safety audits are already telling us the uh in the pros and cons from our consultant firm to keep it signalized um so yes okay is it I mean do you have a sense of other than like in general roundabouts can be helpful and you know all the good things they pointed out like do you have a sense of why they are making that recommendation particularly here or is it just sort of a general roundabouts can be great the the main thing that was pointed out in their suggestion of adding a micro roundabout there and I say micro because it's not your average roundabout it's smaller it's tighter it's compacted and again it's going to make difficulty for traffic to get out of the way with raised islands for the for the crosswalks that are going to be set back um um so it's going to narrow Main Street Federal Street and Bank row significantly to add those um safe pedestrian bailout areas in the middle because of traffic coming off the the uh roundabout so um again there's pros and cons for both um I followed the the idea that the the road safety audit and in the true crash data we've had um do we want to invest uh bump this project up another million and potentially 300,000 in engineering design that comes out of our coffers so um the main thing that came out of the the mockup engineering design was it's going to speed up vehicle traffic and again I I go back to the the spirit of the original project of putting bike Lanes on Green Field and and make it safe for pedest and so on and so forth to council tono's Point um it doesn't seem right we're speeding up traffic but we're putting cyclists or a roundabout um it just has a bad feel to me personally by reading all the data councelor Healey thank you um can you hear me all right I'll take that as a yes y yes okay thank you um having worked for M doot I I do know that they the past 10 15 years they've really been pushing the roundabout Theory and I think it does work in most situations you go down to Northampton by the bowling alley it's great right it works well there um the one by GCC works well the problem with Main Street is and councelor toronzo brought up a great Point pedestrians will cross kind of where they want to cross if you put a roundabout there they're going to cross close to the intersection it's it's actually probably going to make it more dangerous because they're not going to walk 100 feet to go away from the roundabout um secondly I'd like to say that vehicle traffic and and emergency vehicle traffic it's it's definitely gonna slow them down going through that intersection uh you you could just look at the Deerfield project on Route 5 and 10 where they put Granite curbs in the center of five and 10 and they were ripping them out a year later for the fire department right so a lot of things I think it's a great concept just not a great location my suggestion Marlo and maybe this was covered under the traffic study I didn't look but did they do any in intensive like traffic signal timing studies to look at how we can improve the traffic signals I honestly don't think the traffic is that bad going through that intersection maybe around two o'clock it gets a little congested but um did they take any data on how we could improve the traffic lights would be the question I don't I can look through uh all the reports I don't think actual data on the timing of the lights um I know when we swapped those lights out about 12 years ago um we had to um keep adjusting the timing for like a couple of years to hit everything properly not backed up on Bank row Federal Street so on and so forth part of this project is going to be upgrading the signals which um I have to assume with today's technology there's going to be better ways of timing that out but to my knowledge there was there was no time timing they just took the overall timing in the current study of what the lights are now as opposed to what they predict it'll be with a roundabout yeah so that would be my my personal preference would say you know move forward with like a timing study in in the next engineering step and with the newer technology they could say okay between two and three we're getting more Peak flow coming down Federal Street towards Main Street we can increase the timing by five seconds on these lights and kind of work through it that way with traffic engineering I I just I really I I oppose roundabout in this location I think it's a terrible idea thanks thank you guys for coming and speaking to us about this I H don't want to keep going around in circles around this but um I in a roundabout way I'll get to my question I had to um I I was the one that asked the question about this and so again I really do appreciate you guys showing up and kind of giving us your perspective the piece of data you know that on this I'm looking at the mass do sheet and not all of it is explained but there's a little number in the bottom right hand corner about predicted fatal uh injuries and crashes and the roundabout version of it they think it's half it's like 0.52 versus 026 and I don't know what that means um if you can explain that I also have a second question about those Granite curb islands in the center of the road am I right in understanding that those would need to be there in a signalized intersection or a rotary it doesn't matter what happens uh as far as this intersection or is it just if there's a rotary there' be Granite curbing in the middle of the streets the the granite curbing for this project if it was a roundabout installed would have to go there under under standards but without a roundabout it wouldn't no it does not because the original um thoughts and design on the whole length of main uh Main Street was to put a granite Island all the way down the middle okay um and and as I said the stakeholders working with the consultant firm it's a bad idea um to get fire apparatus down the middle of Main Street uh when you have 8 inch raised Granite cbons so it's going to be kind of like you see on an on and off ramp a 91 raised like two Ines when you're coming off you know going on the highway from an onramp so that fire apparatus or uh PD can get down the middle of the road as cars pull over on that piece um and as far as the data um I I think it said rhetorical I don't have that report in front of me um so it's it's it's like an estimated data um from all the data they've gathered from roundabout so on and so forth so um I'm not sure how that lines up with the actual road safety audit we did of actual crash data uh from our PD um that was part of that RSA and how they can say you know in the next 20 years the death rate is going to be higher if we keep it signalized I'm not sure um how they come up with that or can can guess at that hopefully no one but um um I have one follow-up question to if um we stick with a signalized intersection you know as you mentioned one of the main goals of this project is to increase pedestrian and bicycle access to Main Street if we stick with signals is there any intention or is the St going to look at uh how to make it so it's safer for a bicycle or to travel through that you know I imagine you know I love taking my bike around town and I imagine going through a rotary to be a terrifying Prospect but I also know for many people including you know my wife it's not fun to go on Main Street at all especially that intersection you have to get in between cars you know I know that that's probably you know require more um study and money it sounds like for the engineering but you know some sort of signal for bicycles in particular I know that's not a thing that exists in Franklin County or anywhere else in western Mass or anywhere in this country really um frankly but if we're going to actually do this you know a rotary maybe is a bridge too far maybe it doesn't make sense for some other reasons but focusing on safety should be our priority and I know it is for you folks so that's something if it's possible to look at even if it's not that specific intervention anything to make it so a bicycle can travel through more safely would be spectacular um I would love a little you know bicycle stop light but again I don't think I'll get my wish but if it's if we can ask the you know the Mass DOT Ferry for it maybe they'll pay you know yeah I I can bring that up to the our consultant firm um the other piece of it is U remains signalized um a cyclist follows the rules as a motorist um and it's terrifying when you mix when you mix pedestrian uh bicycles and Automobiles that's not it well that that's the other thing that's been in the back of my mind it would be terrifying to be on a bicycle will try and get around this roundabout at noon time traffic at Main and federal I mean I've lived here all my life and I pretty much know the crazy times and when to stay away from that intersection but um again um cyclist entering a roundabout when somebody's looking to the left looking to the left to beat that car onto the rotary I don't say rotary it's a roundabout um they're not looking to their right they Hammer the throttle and they just hit a bicyclist entering that roundabout in their painted Lane so uh all these things I've I've thought through and thought through you know what what what's going to be the safest best most economical solution for the city I guess um you're welcome councelor walowski then councelor Master tataro just a quick comment um there are roundabouts that have been designed for cyclist I've rode my bike on ones um in other states so yes if it's your bike going in the roundabout with the cars that is terrifying and I would not do it um but there are other designs and I think where you get fatalities um when there's lights is because people are speeding up to get through the yellow and then they plow through a pedestrian so that's that's why roundabouts can be safer because it keeps people going at a constant speed instead of speeding up to get through and make that left turn yeah I agree 100% um but what we're dealing with the main in federal and Bank row is only so much room you really can't have a separate um raised bike lane so to speak or something that affect like the rest of the main Street's going to be a raised bike lane um it's in the in the design anyway so um we're trying to put a roundabout into a very I know it looks like a big intersection but it's a very tight area and they're calling it a micro roundabout so I can assure you by looking at what I've been looking at the cyclists are going to be mingling with the motorists um the other thing that came out of the study was an issue of line of sight coming up Bank row it's really Steep and then hitting that roundabout that that came up in the study too is a concern so thank you councelor Mr jaro yeah I I think I remember seeing that there was a second one proposed as well at at high in uh Maine yes the the original we had three original designs um draft designs that's kind of been the the one at high in in Maine has been kind of pulled off because we have historic property on on two corners of that and that turns into uh a very long drown out process that um Federal Highway Administration of mass do doesn't want to touch because it's historic property whether you take a foot of it two feet of it or whatever so the last proposal I saw and it like I said this is in discussion with a mass doot is potentially straightening that intersection out to code you know a four-way rather than like a Ty intersection it's a funky intersection up there um and having more more of a four-way stop and then the the other proposed thing that I'm kind of on board with or I am on board with is a signal added to Conway and Maine Conway was the worst intersection to council tono's Point uh the crash data is like accidents all the time I mean we've all tried to go left on the Main Street on Conway and it it takes a long time so um and it's a narrow spot there um we we uh the chief and I talked early on on that so that's important that he can hit his little button coming out of the fire station and get traffic out of the way if there's a signal there um so I uh I I I only ask because if there were to I would have choose between one or the other I would think the one up historic property aside um Main High in Congress would be an ideal location for roundabout um but and and they're bevel those curves uh within this around the perimeter of the circle right yes on the inside can get over them um but it's not going to happen so I I mean it's still being looked at and if you take a look at that three-way intersection you've got all kinds of personal driveways coming at every different angle around that corner too that that has an effect on personal property and how that gets redesigned so on and so forth um so like wisdom way we had to do you know we had to go through the um uh the real estate thing and pay off pieces of the property that that we impinged on to replace the wall and whatnot it that would that would come into play on something like this what one more question it's different topic it's about the house trap could can't that be eliminated at City Hall altogether I mean now fixtures all have their own traps um yes that that's the intent um our record showed uh at the DPW that back in 83 that trap had a problem um the the issue with the trap at City Hall is it's very deep usually it's at the surface of the cement in your basement this one's four to five feet down so they got to dig down to it to remove it and then we'll put in what we call a standard cleanout so we can get equipment in there to clear the line to the outside so yes that that is the uh as the mayor had talked about that's the initial piece of closing that particular Friday um because they got to open up a fairly big hole in the basement to get down to that to remove it from the main piping I I only know this because I recently had got rid of my24 year old house uh a house strap that was causing uh significant issues um because they not need it anymore but that's back before I guess fixtures had their own traps so y that's correct and most cast iron traps in in all households just uh Beware that they rot out on the bottom and they start bringing in mud and gravel and you have sewer backups in your house you're plugging your outside line so they're no longer needed every fixture in the home has a trap on it now to prevent sewer gas from coming in the home y you're welcome um I've got councelor toronzo and Garrett but I want to ask if there are any counselors that haven't spoken to this issue if they want to speak first uh I guess not we'll go to councelor toronzo and then Garrett this may not have to do exactly what we're talking about but since I've got yeah here um and it does have to do with traffic uh I know that a thing that has come up in the last couple years I think I've mentioned it briefly before is the um Federal Street Pier Street intersection and it seems that maybe I'm totally wrong but sometimes things just make sense when they make sense uh when that was redone that intersection was repaved and whatnot it it appears that that that is one of the only weighted intersections left in town not by camera is that correct and it would appear that after the last uh renovation to that area it really screwed up the the timing um the weights there there's a left turn signal every light cycle on Federal Street it's obnoxious it's obnoxious to myself it's obnoxious to people who have told me about like can you do something about this and I was like I'm just a city counselor I can't do it but I can only express my concern um it's obnoxious like there I imagine the box in the corner that controls the electricals can somehow be adjusted to the weight and measure of of that intersection that every cycle doesn't have to have a left turn arrow sitting there for 45 seconds when no one's in either left turn lane um I'm only saying this because we're talking about intersections I I do have an answer uh that particular intersection is is the older system yeah uh when that intersection was redone I believe at some point uh it's the old style you have traffic Loops under the pavement and when that pavement was milled we didn't have evidence that the loops got damaged but we believe they got damaged so that intersection had to be set to Auto there's no adjustment because the loops are not working properly if the loops were working properly you wouldn't get that obnoxious left Arrow every time if nobody was parked there right or in line so um I I know the central maintenance director uh Joe pugs is is is aware of it um you know and at some point we have four or five intersections and and he can speak to that um they're going to need some upgrading uh as far as the signals and in in the hardware but is that I mean we just had it re that intersection redone so is there no like kind of warranty on what was redone there because it seemed like what it was fine before it was remilled or repaved or whatever was done at that intersection to make it uh nicer on the surface but it it created a bigger problem with traffic um is that not covered under something like a warranty that I if if if what they put on let's just say for instance it's a weighted system right like if no one's sitting there on top of it and like motorcycle might not be able to to weigh it um but a car would uh but if what what was done with the the milling and repaving of it added more weight to it that is causing a false signal to the system do we not have any kind of recourse uh to to go back on that to be like hey you got to fix what you did because now you you've screwed up our entire light system um well we've we've gone Way Beyond the statue or the intersection was done to hold the contractor liable so with the president's allowance this agenda item is not listed on the agenda for discussion open meeting law would suggest that it put be put on a future agenda for future discussion would that be appropriate okay I just don't want to get too far off off the track because we can just discuss this at another meeting because we're already in our our 10 minute segment which is gone quite a ways if that's okay sure councelor Garrett excellent do we have any other questions I think that's it all right uh thank you for having me and uh happy holidays let's see moving on we don't have any more questions for other city employees so we'll move on to public comment um please state your name and address and we'll use our standard three minutes uh Jasper lepenski so this is my first public comment before the Greenfield city council um and yeah so my name is Jasper lapienski I'm still at 34 Washington Street and um the mayor kind of took the wind out of my sales a little bit by saying some of what I was going to say but as the the Builder and the sponsor of the hanuka manur that will be put up on the common as of Monday unless I get frostbite in the process um yeah so uh Kathy did did you hand those things out yeah so all the counselors who are here in person should have uh a copy of the poster that's related to the event um but basically the way it's going to work similar to last year the uh there's eight nights of Kaneka and um I or someone with me will light the manura each night um and members of the public are welcome to come any or every night um the ceremony will take place on the sixth night which is Monday the 30th uh last year we did the seventh night but I didn't think it was feasible to do it on New Year's Eve um and I'm expecting a bigger crowd this year because we're doing a lot more publicity the Greenfield Business Association among others has delightfully agreed to help promote it and um as of tonight five businesses in town have become sponsors um I do expect more to join on but so far we have um Greenfield solar BK tile and stone Tazza restaurant laptop and computer repair and Isaac mass as sponsors um and I did promise them that they would get publicity for doing that so why I'm saying it now um everyone whether they're Jewish or not Jewish are warmly invited to come to the ceremony um and the event afterwards at the library which I'm not allowed to call a party will be fantastic this year we've got a bigger room than last year and we will have the JC see a kmer Ensemble playing fantastic holiday music for us um and that's that's all as far as that goes um and uh I'm I'm really happy to be on this side of the table so um Good Luck to all of you thank you for all of your service and I hope to see you on December 30th 5:30 outside six o'clock inside and tell your friends thank you uh Pamela Goodwin good evening everyone uh Pamela Goodwin 54 High Street um I guess I'll start off by saying I Avo avoid Federal and Main Street like the plague I don't care if I'm on foot or if I'm in my car but I detest that intersection and that long waiting um and I actually go from High Street to devans and around and I love the roundabout at GCC and that takes me out of this mess downtown as far as people trying to be there or my car waiting forever at that intersection so I would highly recommend that we take a look at either the timing of the lights or whatever on Sunday morning it only takes me two seconds to get there and through and then get down to church on on Northampton but otherwise it's annoying when I'm on foot um and then I will say um I hate Facebook for the most part but if I get on there all of a sudden it's everything Greenfield and then it's this and this and the Mala that's going on and soal social um issues in the city is very disconcerting to me and um it's like a Feeding Frenzy with people going back and forth and they're so mad and what about this and I'm probably not going to quit Facebook but I'm wishing that people would do what I had learned a long time ago go directly to the person you're upset with have a pleasant conversation air your grievance if that doesn't work go and use the chain of command I had to do that in corporations and businesses I had to do it in the school setting for all those years and I wish the heck that people would be calmer and deal with their issues in a different way instead of on on Facebook and these various insundry sites out of that I will say that I'm really encouraged to be thinking that we have a warming warming center now that it's getting really cold um sometimes there is a staffing problem with volunteers so I would encourage people to find out if you could be helping especially the people who like to complain about the benches that were moved when the chief of police and the mayor and councelor wahab and the local business owners all had legit reasons why those benches had to be moved back further I would hope that the same people that are complaining incessantly about that could see if they could help man the Salvation Army on cold nights so I encourage that I'm going to go myself the mayor has offered to go if we can't staff it then we can't open it and keep people safe secondly I want to say that I'm hoping that people notice that the city call Hall is open the common that was a big issue it's all paved we have we have handicap parking we have free parking to run in and out of City Hall and I would hope that some people would feel a little grateful about some things that are are going well in our city instead of this constant complaining thank you thank you David masaro good evening uh David Moser 43 Country Club Road I apologize for looking down I usually don't have notes but I'm going to go through notes so um and I'm speaking as a resident not the public safety commissioner um f is a right in Massachusetts um but I did talk with the Attorney General's office and the municipal uh law unit and uh as far as my understanding is goes and there will have to be some research on this um that the city can enforce Provisions with respect to agricultural operations the 5 acre requirement is part of the state's definition of what is a farm um but nowhere in the state's definition does it talk about quantity of chickens and roosters the quantity was set by the charter from people of Greenfield they based it off of okay if the state says that a farm technically is five acres of land we should base some of the rights off of the five acres but this the set for roosters and chickens was based off of our Charter so um we can make Provisions to that uh so I disagree with the agricultural Commission um they're right about the farming is a right but I don't know if they know about all the details um I don't believe that the Living Waters Church at 450 Davis Street is registered as a farm in Greenfield um I don't think they meet the mass definition of a farming Greenfield I don't think they're registered as a tax status of a farming Greenfield and I don't think they produce or go to the market like the state definition says which is a farming Greenfield there are single family residents they are listed in the town for tax purposes for 3.8 acres of land they have 12 acres of land but the house where the roosters are housed are 3.8 Acres they pay no taxes in Greenfield I believe they should be subject to at least the minimum laws in Greenfield um the charter again like I said was created by folks within Greenfield um and I think there is room for provisions and um you know I was going to bring I I I taped the rooster this morning and I was going to for my last minute play the tape because it went on for three or four hours starting at 6:45 and it didn't stop so you know I didn't bring the tape I didn't want to an I didn't want to annoy you playing it for the last minute but you know you can't sit out on your D in the winter time it's great your windows are closed but you can't sit out your deck on a Sunday morning or a Saturday morning because you have to hear these birds squawking for hours and hours and hours these folks don't own a farm I mean what happens to just common decency in Greenfield thank you for your time and I thank the economic committee too for hearing this last week I appreciate it thank you and there's no one left online so we'll close the uh public comment section um I'll move on to the public hearing councelor toronzo sorry uh approved memorandum of agreement between city of Greenfield and mass cops local 470 and transfer $ 32657 19 from contact cont contract stabilization hold on a second I think that's is that the page 47 I don't have page 47 oh sorry thank you Kathy it didn't have a oh it does have page number sorry uh in accordance with home Rule Charter the Greenfield city council will hold a public hearing on Wednesday December 18th 2024 at 6:30 p.m. at John Z Community Center 35 Pleasant Street and zoom to receive public put on the following approv memorandum of agreement between city of Greenfield and masscops local 470 and transfer $326 5792 from contract stabilization to Police salary and wages the city council may consider the same on Wednesday December 18th 2024 at 6:30 p.m. at John on Community Center 35 Pleasant Street and zoom materials can be obtained from city clerk's office 14 Court Square from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday on or phone 413 77 21555 extension 6163 John Botley City Greenfield city council president thank you I'll open this public hearing at 7:49 p.m and anyone that wants to come forward to speak specifically on this issue is welcome to let me know and I don't see anyone signed up and I'll have you read the second notice approved memorandum of agre AG between city of Greenfield and mass cop's local 470 and transfer $326 57.92 from contract stabilization to Police salary and wages thank you and I will close this hearing at 7:49 pm. we will move on to motions orders and resolutions the first one is the mayor's appointments councelor golb are we going to take a break are we going to go straight to the Motions do you want do we do yeah how about we take a five minute break before we shift to voting on yeah sounds great five minute break thank you [Music] n [Music] a [Music] [Music] [Music] a [Music] [Music] n [Music] he [Music] a [Music] [Music] a [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] m [Music] [Music] a [Music] [Music] [Music] n [Music] n [Music] n [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] n [Music] a [Music] [Music] [Music] recording in progress [Music] I know councelor bulock can you confirm that you are attending remotely I am here and attending remotely thank you vice president Gilmore can you confirm that you were attending remotely she is not um councelor Healey can you confirm you are attending remotely I'm here thank you and councelor Minos can you confirm that you are attending remotely yes I'm here thank you so much Mr President you have a quum excellent we'll move back to motions the mayor's appointments councelor Golab order number fiscal year 25030 the city council move that it be ordered that the Greenfield city council pursuant to Charter section 210 affirms the following appointments and reappointments by the mayor elderly and disabled taxation fund Patricia Williams term to expire December 31st 2027 Human Rights Commission Kathleen Kenny termed to expire December 31st 2027 Public Library Board of Trustees and Dylan Jim Sakara terms to expire December 31st 2027 mayor's task force against domestic violence Naomi bledo term to expire December 31st 2028 Scott Smith Katie rosor Megan cluder terms to expire December 31st 2027 planning board George tum kiss my apologies term to expire December 31st 2027 Public Safety commission David mcaro term to expire December 31st 202 seven Recreation Commission Danica hiter Mt Jack Mary Phillips alternate term to expire December 31st 2027 zoning board of appeals David singer term to expire December 31st 2027 majority vote required I need a second on that second second then and report from committee unanimous positive recommendation I'll open up for discussion um I'd just like to add I'm really thankful for all these people coming forward and especially uh two of the people on here have been chairing um David singer on the zoning board of appeals has had some very contentious difficult issues and I'm very thankful that he's willing to return and also David moscarello who's done an outstanding job on public safety and I'm glad that he's continuing to serve in that role so I guess we will take a roll call vote councelor Gob yes councelor Gordon Yes councelor master Taro yes councelor bulck yes councelor Perry yes councilor wandalowski yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett yes councelor minhas yes councelor toronzo Absolut mry does the president wish to vote yes and yes the motion passes next we'll move on to the amendment of uh code chapter 49 um councelor golb order number fiscal year 25023 the city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council amend the code of the city of Greenfield chapter 49 meetings by adding article 3 hybrid meetings attached as exhibit a and further amends the index of the code and further that non-substantive changes to the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield majority vote required and I need a second second and report from committee this received a positive unanimous recommendation as well as a positive unanimous recommendation for a an amendment would you like to discuss the amendment first or the rationale of the entire or discuss the entire piece first let's maybe if you've got an amendment to make maybe let's jump right into that yeah so we're looking at um 497 D and to add the language in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act to the end of the first sentence sorry could you repeat that sure so 4970 the end of the first sentence in accordance with the Americans with this Disabilities Act we need a second on that second second and open up for discussion on the am on the amendment so I'll share that this there was a request from a Community member who wanted to ensure that this um ordinance would be in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act um while the current language as proposed is um the the the language reasonable access infers that it's in accordance with the ACT I wanted to make it explicit to make sure that those concerns were addressed um any discussion on that Amendment councilor Rono um I don't really have any objection to it I guess just it seemed like very broad language as to what what was being like cified um to address the concerns that were not already in the language that was there I guess that was that was I guess my confusion do you want me to read the entire sentence that would be amended so I think that it is pretty clear if you read the entire sentence but I would be happy to do so no I mean I mean if it if it covered all that that I just I just wasn't I guess I wasn't um understanding the distinction to to to the amendment is what to the amendment the amendment the I will read the sentence just to make it clear all meetings this this Clause states that all meetings conducted with remote access including hybrid meetings shall provide equal opportunity and reasonable access to persons with disabilities and we are adding and there is some redundancy in this addition but it's just making it explicit and abundantly clear that it will we will provide equal opportunity and reasonable access to persons with disabilities in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act any other questions comments on the amendment we'll do a roll call vote on the amendment councelor goab yes councelor Gordon yes councilor Master Taro yes councelor bulock yes councelor Perry yes councelor walosi yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett yes councelor Minos yes councelor toronzo yep does the president wish to vote yes and yes the amendment passes so now we're back to the amended uh motion uh and I'll open that up for discussion yes councelor Golab sure I'm I'm wondering if we could invite Matt and Fernando up here great yeah um I'll share that this um I have a lot of gratitude for both both Matt and Fernando and your work on this um I started talking to Fernando about this ordinance in late 2023 just to see if this would be possible and uh your enthusiasm for this would really uh paved the way for us being able to do the have the collaboration that we've had and it's been year of collaborating with you Fernando and Matt you've been incredibly helpful with with Kathy um with Christian with the mayor's Department um we have gone through more drafts of this than I can remember uh and and I think I'm just so grateful that for this hasn't been the easiest year and this collaboration has just been such a bright spot and so thank you and and um thank you for being here to answer questions from counselors yes open up to questions yes councelor Garrett so I just have a logistical question about so say we start a meeting and the internet goes out we've done maybe a couple of motions before that and then we would presumably have to cancel the meeting after the point where we've done a couple of motions with remote access there is that right like this is basically changing it so if we don't have the ability says the proceedings of the body public body as they are occurring so that tells me that like an audio recording after the fact wouldn't cut it is that true and I'm not really sure who can answer this question best maybe the sub commmittee members yeah that's you're you're right okay so I I brought this question so another we've also been collaborating with Javier Leno from the ACLU and so have had sign significant like every step we've also been Consulting with lawyers from the ACLU to ensure that this is in accordance with the law and um I reached out to Javier last week um when appointments and ordinances needed to immediately go to or quickly go to remote because um because of the situation in City Hall and I looked in it into the ordinance and um section um what is the number here section 49 7g um it's it states that in the event that a public body required to conduct hybrid meetings has provided public notice of an upcoming meeting and an emergency subsequently makes either in-person access or remote access impossible the public body shall consider the practicality of rescheduling the meeting to a time when it can conduct a hybrid meeting if rescheduling is Not Practical the body shall provide a reasonable advanced notice to the public and conduct the meeting entirely in person or entirely remotely um and I and he verified that um this the that the um we that the advanced notice that Tammy gave in emailing everyone so so many different um department heads and the counselors and everyone that that would uh count as a reasonable advance notice so this is kind of indirectly answering but this was a question that came up for me as well yeah sorry to interject uh but they didn't in that they did not Define what was considered reasonable it's I know it's splitting hairs I just all in the world world of like trying to follow like letter of the law so I just's reasonable right that would that is up to interpret those like a lot of we use the word reasonable a lot in our laws and they are up for interpretation and the opinions of the lawyers there was that that was reasonable yeah councelor Gordon I just had a response to councelor Garrett but the it was answered so I'm good thank you um I will actually though take this opportunity just to say that I think um you know I've seen this go through a lot of iterations we've talked about it at ano multiple times I'm very excited about this proposal I really appreciate all of the incredible hard work that's gone into it I think that you know this is something like no one imagined before covid that you know so many public meetings could be hybrid and could be made available to people who aren't able to come and attend in person um and it's it's really a huge step forward that we've realized that we we can be that much more open um and make government that much more participatory and I think that codifying this you know we're really on the kind of the The Cutting Edge like I don't think that a lot of cities in in Massachusetts have done that yet um so we're really setting you know a important High bar that clearly we're in a good position to meet um to you know make sure that not only can can as many folks as possible in Greenfield participate uh in public meetings but you knowour encouraging other communities to do it as well so I think that this is really exciting and I'm I appreciate all the work uh any other comments well seeing that I guess we will do a roll call vote on this thank you on the motion as amended councelor golb yes councelor Gordon yes councelor Master Taro yes councelor bulock yes councelor Perry yes Council wandalowski yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett yes councelor minhas yes councelor toronzo no does the president wish to vote yes and yes the motion passes by majority uh next we'll move on to the memorandum of agreement uh councelor toronzo page 71 I think I have page oh you're G help me here thank you sorry my computer did not want to work today um move it uh city council move it be order pursuant to mglc 150e subsection 7 that the city council approved the memorandum of agreement between the city of Greenfield and mcops local 470 and transfer from contract stabilization account number 84318 the total sum of$ 32657 192 to fund the first year cost items to be allocated as follows Police salary and wages 010021 z. 5111 majority vote required and I need a second for that and this did not go to committee because we had the problem at City Hall so it's coming right to the floor of the council so I don't know if you want to address this councelor toronzo or I can just open it up to the floor to if people have questions on this I'd be totally privy to you opening it to the floor because I don't we didn't have a meeting so do we have any questions or comments on this um contract this memor memorandum of agreement I oh y c the only thing that I'll say for the record was um there were some concerns I had and I did um uh talk with the mayor about those and I I felt more satisfied with them uh not I will say full disclosure not entirely satisfied uh I think I've expressed my concerns with some of the uh previous um I feel like part of this was was following suit to the the memorandum that was 3 years ago I believe uh the last contractual uh negotiation um and as I said for the record sorry guys I know you're here you're looking at me but uh but I am dued with the fiscal responsibility uh as chair ways it means and I come 100 100% disagree with our 100% funding of what was called the Quinn Bill uh since 50% of it was supposed to be supported by the state and I would encourage anyone who disagrees with me to petition to the state to reinstate the Quinn bill because I think it's important um I just don't think that our municipality should be funding 100% of it uh as the original agreement up until it was cancelled in I don't know like 2003 2005 somewhere in there uh they stopped funding 50% of it I would like the state to to fund the other 50% of it as they're supposed to for all municipalities not just Greenfield um I just feel like as a a person who's supposed to have a uh a voice for the the taxpayer money in the town um without that support from the state I don't feel like this is a that portion of it is a positive negotiation but I am also not the person who negotiates that contract um I'm not going to stimy it I'm not going to stifle it I'm not going to say we shouldn't go through with it I just would like to make any Echo I can make to the The Ether out there that maybe a senator or somebody would push for the state to fund this rather than it having to be totally burdened Upon Our municipality to fund that that's all and just to clarify for everyone I believe that's article 11 which is educational incentives um do we have yes councilor Garrett I um am looking at theou as well as the teacher contract right now and so I'm looking on page 14 of the police Mass cop uh wage scale for the first half of fiscal year 25 we've got a step one patrol officer uh with an annual salary of $ 6,819 120 and in the teacher contract if you were a first year teacher with a PhD you're walking away with $557,000 516 and so I have actually really no problem with the uh negotiation that the police Union made I think you know frankly the work is that of public service and it's difficult and it's challenging and you know I'm happy that they're able to negotiate a salary that is commiserate with some of the labors they're doing and a first year teacher with a PhD should not be making less than a patrol officer with no degree requirements and so that 60,000 there you know with those Quin Bill Provisions you're looking at like a 10% increase within Associates I think it's another 10 within a bachelors's and then up and up and up so just you know again as councilor tronzo said the city council does not negotiate contracts but if we value education the I hope that because the teachers are up that this contract is looked at when we're considering what a teacher in their first year especially where it's especially hard to retain teachers I think it's the stat is something like in the first five years of teaching you lose about half of teachers and part of those is the salary so again no opposition to this contract per se although I do have concerns about the fiscal responsibility of taking on more obligations as Council torono does but I just want to put that note out about the teachers and what they're getting paid compared to our other public servants all of whom are doing worthy work thank you any other comments looks like we're ready to vote on this uh roll call Vote councelor golb Yes councelor Gordon Yes councelor master Taro yes councelor bulock yes councelor Perry Yes councelor W OSI yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown abstain councelor Garrett yes councelor minus yes councelor toronzo yep does the president wish to vote yes and yes the motion passes by majority we'll move next to zoning amendments councelor Lu yeah if councelor Garrett if you are okay with doing this since I wasn't planning on being here and you're in person I'm happy to have you give the report and read okay um unless unless you want okay all right so um at the oops we need the motion read first on page 87 okay let me pull that up the city council moved it to be ordered that the city council of Greenfield amend the zoning ordinance chapter 200 section 200-2 semi-residential District Sr by adding language and bold and by deleting language and strike through his follows an attached exhibit a and further amends the table of contents and in of the code and further that non-substantive changes to the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield simple majority vote required need a second on that second that and would you mind doing a report from committee councelor Garrett uh so we had four members in attendance and of the four members we had a positive unanimous from three with an exstension from one and uh from the planning board it was actually the same I believe there was one exstension and four in that case uh in favor of the amendment um so we had a discussion about this this was initially a proposal that I put forward working with director tarag to make U multif family dwellings in the semi-residential district by right this got amended in subcommittee to uh based on feedback from members of the community who had previously been opposition to it so you if you've attended a economic development committee meeting or watched the tape there have been lots of folks showing up and giving feedback and I think that the fact that they're not here tonight is pretty good evidence that they're satisfied with the amendment that we made and so the uh motion as amended would allow uh 24 units or less by right in the semi-residential district and 25 units and above would require a special permit this would make no changes in any other zoning districts in the city and it again it's just the semi-residential district where this change would occur and I'll open this up for questions comments councelor master tataro I have a question oh find it the that entire the amendment uh 40 well that coincides with this uh two- uh 40 right 200-40 uh let me find it here that you that's on what 91 page 91 you did a strike through sorry are are we treating this as sorry councelor M are we treating this as individuals well we are but one but this affects the other right I mean are you asking about the other zoning we talking about 200-2 right but refer but you're striking multif family accordance with 200-40 right but that's the next one that's a different that's a different that's the next it has to be voted on separate that's all I was saying was oh okay is just a point of clarification or whichever they make me say that're we haven't got there yet is I know we haven't got there yet but my the thing is is [Music] um so the motion on the table is regarding the amendment for chapter 212 I understand that okay I suppose I'd be willing to vote this if this is by right but the other Amendment affects this one sure so to vote on this without discussing the other is an issue for me okay I don't know how folks want to deal so well we have this motion on the table right now and I I still have a question about looking at this the has this been amended the amendment to subsection B number 13 yeah page 90 is the most recent version and we did vote unanimously to uh amend this in subcommittee so it does say three yes it is four yes if I remember correctly so my understanding is that Amendment would need to be then made here oh I'm sorry and we need to vote on that Amendment got it probably first so let's so I I'd entertain that motion okay um if you want to make a motion that it's on page 90 so motion to amend um subsection B number 13 adding the words multi family dwelling in accordance to 200-40 25 units 24 units and under in addition adding to subsection C9 the phrase after 200-40 25 units and above hold on point of order all of these Amendments have to do with 200 - 40 we're talking about 200-2 which has nothing to do with that we're we're we're ahead of the game EXC right well I mean one can be one can seem like it's the same thing but they're two very different sections of the law if I can please um the section we're on now is just focusing on that District right so the SR Sr District Okay so 200 that point4 is just kind of what the definition of a multi family dwelling unit is to clarify so it's it's separate so we're allowing multif family dwellings in the SR District by right if there's 24 and under units if it's over 24 still requires special permit total different issue um we did talk about this quite quite a bit in EDC and I was on the same page as you guys but it's it was made pretty clear in EDC these are two separate issues here right yep may I clarify so there is no amendment to 22 the amendment will be if I'm correct to 2003 in section 240 is that correct so the motion 25024 dealing with zoning ordinance 200 section 212 is not being amended it's I'm sorry it's striking it's striking from that section c number nine multifam dwelling in accordance with 20-40 and it's striking that uses permitted by special permit so that's staying the same as it was initially proposed not exist are we still not at the fourth the Roman numeral fourth measure of motions orders which has nothing to do with 200-40 it's 200-2 like the these are very clear as they're laid out is it exhibit a and in the initial order it does say 200-2 right like we're talking about two different complete sections of law yes so two this one we're talking about 20012 right now is just a strike through that so feelings about 200-40 don't are irregardless right now and irregardless is not a word for it's what the initially was going to be a striketh through getting rid of the special permit requirement in subcommittee we made a suggestion to do an amendment to keep to get rid of the strike through but add the words 24 and under for Section 13 and 25 and above for Section N9 or C9 so B13 I believe yep B13 adding the phrase 24 units and under at the end of it and then C9 adding the phrase 25 units and above and that's what I just read from page 90 but that's under 200-40 right so that's the next order so at the top of it if you if you look at page 90 it says under zoning Amendment one amend section 200-2 semi-residential of the zoning ordinance to allow multif family dwellings by WR instead a special permit and VI fing new number under subsection B use is permitted so maybe that's the language I was supposed to have read but I read what was up above on page 90 just a moment ago we at I think we're at page 87 no but I see you're zoning amendment number one on page 90 which addresses 200-2 right so it's confusing the way this has this on the document because the first amendment is 20-2 200-40 it's because 200 -12 is the section of the zoning code that deals with the semi-residential district and 200-40 is the section of the co code that deals with multif family dwellings so we are we are voting this specific one is to strike through multif family dwellings needed by for special permit in the semi-residential district the next motion will amend that will amend section the multifam dwelling section 200-40 to say that the projects with 24 units or above will need a special permit so there's different sections of the zoning code one section need deals with the semi-residential and the other section deals with the multif family dwellings thank you that's helpful may I yes the potential problem with this is if you vote one way on 200-2 and vote a different way on 200-40 you have a problem potentially because you can have a if you want to put a semi res uh semi res you want to put 24 units in a semi- by right in semi- residential right and we disagree with or somebody disagrees with 200-40 or vice versa what do you do right coun councelor Garrett do you want to so if let's say this motion passes and we have a special permit process for 25 units and above and then we vote not to change the other section lifting the cap so right now there's a hard cap of 24 units in the whole city the this amendment would be a moot point for subsection C9 allowing 25 units and above so a special permit could be issued but you couldn't build it because there would be a Prohibition on 24 units and above or 25 units and above so I understand the concern but you could vote for this in the affirmative and if we don't change that cap this could still be an operative law if that makes sense so you can we can do both like I understand the conflict potentially but if there's a hard cap then subsection C9 is just moot that make sense try to make councelor bulock did you have your hand up yeah I just I'll say two two things about this the first is that you know if someone doesn't want to support this they will vote no for both both pieces um that that are to follow um the second thing that I want to add is that it was not lost on me that every planning um every EDC meeting and public hearing that we had on these we had to walk past or walk over or around people that were going to sleep outside that night um and so you know these are these are NE this is a necessary um thing for our city to do and it and it's really aligned with what is happening across the state in order to have it even be a potential for um for organizations uh or developers or uh local local developers to to build more housing and we absolutely need that in Greenfield Master SAR yeah um I understand all that but I if somebody knows the answer to this um why originally did it require a special permit to allow multifam dwellings in the uh semi-residential District does anybody know I have a guess that it's the same reason we have a height restriction on buildings in downtown you know it's just a fear of development you know basically would be my assumption I mean honestly you know it's councelor GB did you want to respond to that okay or you another ISS yes I just want to say that I watched EDC and I'm a big fan of collaboration and I I saw the community come out and with concern about this and I saw Joe Marie Jackson give her uh suggested Amendment and I Saw You all take her up on that and I was really like heartened instead of disheartened I was really heartened by that and um and I agree I think the fact that so many people showed up at EDC and they're not here tonight and I haven't I just double checked my email haven't heard any complaints it would be it would feel good to to to you know hear some appreciation for the good work that you all did but this I'm excited about the collaboration and the um compromise that this represents uh any more comments yes councelor Garrett I just want to thank councelor goola for mentioning that and I 100% agree you know coming through this process and having you know fairly contentious meetings on EDC for months and months and months the fact that you know some of the folks who were in opposition to this came out with a proposal that is workable and reasonable is something I'm really grateful for so I also view this as a potential model for other potential changes you know there are we don't have to have it be all or nothing it can be different thresholds for different zones what works in the semi-residential may not work in the rural residential and almost certainly wouldn't so I appreciate the idea of having bu right for things we want to encourage and a special permit available as an option for things that we want to take a extra uh look at and I think that really did assuage lot of the community's concerns which is fabulous you know that's kind of how democracy is supposed to work so thank you for mentioning that uh any more comments are we ready to vote I guess we will do a roll call vote councelor Golab yes councelor Gordon Yes councelor master Taro yes councelor Bullock yes councelor Perry no councelor wallowski yes yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett yes councelor Minos yes councelor toronzo yep good work folks does the president wish to vote uh yes and yes the motion passes by majority um we'll move on to the next zoning Amendment point of order oh yes do we need to vote on the whole thing because it was that the amendment there was no amendment to section 212 that was the main motion for that section okay that was just the strike throughs I see okay so for the next one we have to do thank you so councelor Garrett if you could read1 page 91 yep absolutely uh let's see order number FY 25-24 do1 the city council move that it be ordered that the city council of Greenfield amend the zoning ordinance chapter 200 section 200-40 multif family dwelling subsection B procedure by striking paragraph four in its entirety as follows in attached exhibit a and further amends the table of condex con contents rather and index of the code infer that the non-substantial changes the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield simple majority vote required I need a second on that second and councelor Garrett I guess we'll continue our discussion um just as far as the report from committee this was three votes in favor and one exstension and do you want me to speak to it further or do you want to just open it up so we still need to do the amendment is that correct on page 90 I believe the vote that you voted on uh amending this in in EDC is that correct okay so that's where I was asking a moment ago my the zoning Amendment one on page 90 was about the last um Amendment why am I so confused about this I no this you're cor sorry you're correct counselor Garrett that this is this the information on page 90 is the amendment that you made for this 200-40 because this is the section on multif family dwellings so the two highlighted areas on page 90 um those are the amendments that you want to make you want to make an amendment where section 13 and section nine okay point of point of information I maybe correct me if I'm wrong councelor Garrett what you're referencing is that under the zoning Amendment one there is an amend section which had to do 200-2 correct which says semi-residential District of the zoning ordinance to allow multif family dwellings by right instead of by special permit by asking the by adding the following new number under subsection B use is permitted but then it turns into 200-b yeah it's confusing because it's copy and pasted it's not the entire code word for word so if you read our the actual code it doesn't read like this it's like copy and paste sections right so okay point being I I see that the the motion and the voted for portion that came from subcommittee um the motion was one thing and the the vote was to do something else but the immediate backup now pertains to a different uh subsection um which may or may not when the grand scheme of things be relevant but I guess going forward that should probably be cleaned up before brought to full castle for clarity purposes yeah I definitely have to say it is not clear I will just say that for sure uh the way this is printed the way okay we think we had reference I so the way I understood what is going on here so the on page 87 that's about the semi-residential Zone we needed to amend the stuff on page 87 using the text on page 90 and so my understanding is we needed to vote to amend which I think that's what we did and then we needed to go back to basically page 87 and vote on the amended ordinance effectively and then what I just read is the other zoning Amendment about the cap on units total does that make sense okay I am sleep deprived but I think that makes sense it's not very clear on the printed page at all that that's what you're going for and I don't like that that you can't actually read that and determine that uh based on what I'm seeing here on page 80 I'm sorry page 90 where it's so may I ask a question order 25- 024 regarding section 200-2 amended 200-2 to read as in shown on page 88 exhibit a amend section 212 semi-residential Sr of the zoning ordinance to allow multif family dwellings by right instead of by special permit by adding the following new number under Section B uses permitted number 13 multif family dwelling in accordance with 200-40 so I think where the confusions coming in is is yes yes okay yes so that amendment that Amendment indicated on page 88 that's what was just voted for section 12 so there was no Amendment proposed councelor Healey has his hand up so I the page 88 is what was initially proposed correct and then we amended it or made a suggestion to amend it in subcommittee that's on page 90 and that's what I was referring to when I was talking about the 24 units and under and the 25 units and above and the community input and all that so I think what's confusing is that there's an amendment on 88 which was the initial language that came to subcommittee and then at subcommittee we took the suggestion the community and amended it again I using in probably the long r on page 90 so my impression what we were voting on was what was on page 90 as an amendment may I ask one more question yes so what was just voted on by the council did not include the language on page 90 that says 24 units and under true okay I'm sorry I think I can I think I can clear this up it's it is very confusing in the packet the way that the code is copi and pasted is not the way that the code reads if you look at section 200-2 semi-residential District of our code all it is is that list of uses permitted and then uses permitted by special permits and so the last motion that we just voted on strikes multifam dwellings in accordance with section 202 200-40 from that list this the one that we are now voting on is in reference to section 200-40 multifam dwellings that is a totally different section and it does not look the way that it looks in our packet so that is maybe what is confusing people is that you would have had to refer to you would have had to refer to where it says like amend section 200-2 semi-residential in our packet and then it says number 13 and by strik striking subsection that does not is not how the code of 200-40 reads okay so 200- 440 the section on multif family dwellings what we want to amend in is what we want to amend and make 24 units or above by special permit if I may hold on let me let's I want to I'm I want to go with clerk Scott quick M may I ask Council bulock a direct question yes okay yes the motion that that was voted for 200-2 is should have 24 units in under attached to it by recommendation of the EDC is that correct councelor bulock that I believe that the reason that it's not attached there is because we are striking that that we are striking multifam dwelling from from uses needed with a special permit so I believe we're striking that completely and then when you go to section 200-40 for M like if you wanted to build a multif family dwelling in the semi-residential district you would then read the next section you would see you don't need you don't necessarily need a special permit and then you would go to section 200-40 and say okay I want to build a multif family I'm reading the multif family section and it says I can build a multifam unless it's 24 units or more and then I'm required to have a special permit so my understanding of how the zoning law would read is that we would strike multif family dwelling from from necessary special permit in 200-2 and then we would specify under multifam dwelling section in 200-40 that you're allowed to build a a multi family dwelling unless it's 24 units or above and that would be how that information would be under 200-40 the multif family dwelling code that is my understanding I would I would appreciate if counselor Healey has other um other input on this because I'm sure he's more familiar with reading code to actually build things councelor Healey yeah so I agree 100% so I think in the EDC meeting we originally did have it under the first the first item which kind of we're striking out and saying okay it's byright so in Sr it's byright you can build multi family dwellings at the time we did say let's put it under that item but after further review I think this is a much cleaner way of doing it because now we're striking in the next order which we're on now we're striking out the the definition of 24 units which was the maximum previously allowed for multif family dwellings so we said if it was 25 units you weren't allowed to build any multif family dwellings anywhere right so now we're being very specific under Section 200-40 that we will allow multi family dwellings under each zoning District that it is permitted by by right however you're only allowed up to 24 before you need a special permit I think this is a better way of doing it so um I'm in favor of of this approach um does that kind I just want to make sure um councelor Garrett kind of understands that approach as well because this was kind of his um this was his task here so I'm happy with whatever gets us to what we talked about at EDC so if we need you know so I I don't you know I think the language on page 90 made sense to me in the process but if folks are looking at another way whatever we need to do to vote on getting what we all agreed on I'm down yeah I I think this is the clean way of doing that it's clearly defining what multif family dwellings are defined as as a definition in the zoning Amendment and it's telling you what the Caps are before you need a special permit I think this is the best way to do it do you want to propose that Amendment um well it's already kind of done right so fair um I will propose that Amendment um I propose we amend section 200-40 to say 24 units and under and by striking C9 and ring the remaining items and I don't know how to word that actually um sorry um amend section 200-40 multi family dwellings of the zoning ordinance by stri striking section B4 in its entirety and adding 24 units and above by right 25 units and above by special permit second you mean 24 and Below right second as clarified yes sorry I have a head cold I'm feeling like crap we're all doing our best so just I guess discussions on that Amendment well I understand that it makes sense to me so I'm fine with that is there actually an amendment that's what I'm asking I guess what I'm gonna ask because I think it was already listed as that it was just two separate orders which I think was the confusion if we have to vote on twice let's just do it we well we already voted on the first order right so now we're on to fy2 0 24.1 right right but we already voted on that so that one's dead and gone this amendment is definitely for the next order which is FY 25-0 24.11 right we already voted on the previous corre which now would be moo even if we screwed up okay which I don't think we did but is there's an amendment on the I don't think there's an amendment right coun councelor Healey made an amendment and councelor Garrett seconded the amendment to okay point of clarification yes what is the amendment to what was already there because it sounds like there was no amendment to what is already written on the page councilor Gordon at the risk of jumping into this Fray and making it even more confusing it seems to me like page 90 the amendment on that is written on page 90 actually belongs to the order on page 91 right right so all we have to do because we just voted on the previous order so now we have to propose order number FY 25-0 24.1 and then propose the amendment right I read that already oh you did you did I'm see I'm just totally lost okay so in that case I'm not entirely clear on what the problem is because the amendment does seem fairly clear I don't think there's an amendment to anything it's just no we have to add the amendment we have to add the amendment that says that multifam dwellings in accordance with section 200-40 24 units and under requires a does not require a special permit and 24 units and above does require a special permit what happened is that the zoning sections are clumped together in and they do not they don't go together so what counselor Gordon just said is exactly true the page ahead page 90 ahead of the order on page 91 is the appropriate language AG so we need to we need to add in section 200-40 which is our zoning code related to multif family dwellings that 25 units and above requires a special permit and multif family dwellings in accordance with section 200-40 25 units and under does not this there there is two necessary motions that are traveling together that are two different things right but but page 90 has to do with the backup to the order we already approved which was order number FY 2524 no it does not it does not it's it's confusing the way that The Zing law is pled in with the Motions right but we haven't even read the motion on fy20 54.1 yet that's what I'm saying we haven't the we haven't gotten there yet we we have back up on the page before it that you're saying is going to be for a forthcoming Amendment which hasn't even happened yet that's what I'm saying is is the point we're we're we're we're not debating the the facts of what is going to happen it's just it's the order of operations and we haven't gotten there yet because we still are stuck on FY 25024 which we already did we haven't read the motion all the backup for it was until page0 point of order respectfully he read that motion already he did yeah not the one on P right we already voted on that one we didn't read the next one did we read the so we're going on back up on the one behind it 200-40 that's the one we just we read that we were talking about can I can I propose that we just read order number FY 25- 0241 whether it's been read or not already it there's clearly enough confusion maybe we should just read it again and then propose the amendment what's that no it has not yes it has he proposed it but for the sake of clarity perhaps we should read the full order and then read the proposed amendment again just to I withw my Amendment what he say okay got him can I may I ask a question so motion 25024 the motion was made it was seconded and it was voted with no Amendment okay motion 25241 was made and seconded there was an amendment proposed by councelor Healey and seconded by councelor Garrett councelor Healey has withdrawn his portion of the motion to make it a little bit cleaner at this moment if that's even possible councelor Garrett do you withdraw your second on the amendment yes okay so the main motion [Music] order 024 that has already been voted and we're all clear on that if it should have been amended to include comma 24 units and under I can help with that I think that's what should have happened okay however we have another order on the floor Excuse me yes on the floor the motion on the floor is as originally proposed for Section 400 section 240 if I'm correct that needs to be amended to include number nine multif family dwelling with 200-40 25 units and above and the ruming of 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 and 18 is that correct yes with the addition of the language 24 units and under for the new number 13 for the new number 13 the language on page 90 is the amendment that we talked about at EDC for the first fiscal order okay so the new number 13 is it supposed to be in 240 or 212 212 I yes so if we look at okay that stop please okay if the council votes 200-40 and someone makes an amendment to 200-40 with the language shown on page 90 including number nine multif family dwelling in accordance with 240t comma 25 units and above and the ruming of the rest of that section and the council considers that and votes it there could be if the council wishes a motion for reconsideration on 25-24 and we can go back to that and correct the error so if that makes sense I would suggest and correct me if I'm wrong someone make a motion to [Music] amend 200-40 as written on page 90 of the council packet which indicates a new number nine multif family joeling in accordance with 20 200-40 comma 25 units and above and renumbers the remainder of the section that would be a suggested Amendment which may or may not want to be made by the council I would be happy to make that Amendment if you tell me exactly what to say so if you were to say motion to amend 240 motion to amend 240 as indicated on page 90 is indicated on page 90 I'm I'm not going to do this wrong that's number nine multif family dwelling in accordance with 20040 comma 25 units and above number nine multif family dwelling in accordance with 200-40 25 units and above and renumber the remainder of the section and remember number the remainder of the section period period so help me God I that needs a second second now we have a second on that I I what is already written there it already says mellars with it is our already there because that was a motion made at EDC on December 2nd to change the original proposal coun Council Gordon I hate to say this uh but I think that we should table this I think that we're all confused I'm very confused right now I think anyone who is watching or looks at the video of this is going to be very confused I really want us to do this I really want us to do this right um and I I don't think that we are in a position right now to actually do it in a way that feels solid and like good to go I have one final I'm sorry I should do does does that motion need a second are you so is that a movement it does I would second the motion to table Gordon made a motion to table and I seconded it okay and that's yes a motion to table is non debatable so we need a roll call vote on that you're tbling it's the amendment you're tbling the amendment because I how do I table move to table the whole thing I think we have to do the amendment first I think I know how to get out of this knot I really do but you know but you know I think I I just have to say well we we we have a motion to table so we really need to do that that that vote is this to table a the specific Amendment or to table the whole thing I'm order the whole order I on the motion to table all of 25241 counselor golb yes councelor Gordon Yes councelor master Taro yes councelor bulock no councelor Perry no councilor wandowski no councelor Healey no councelor Brown no councelor Garrett no councelor Minos no councelor torono yeah homework does the president wish to vote yes and yes yes to tabling yeah okay the motion is tabled or the motion is not tabled so we're back at it again all right can I I'm sorry sorry can I say something here yes um I'm sorry I'm like exhausted I've been traveling and this is absolutely a motion that required homework to be done I think I heard you say that uh that this would go on your homework list counselor toronzo I personally spent a lot of time reading this code and understanding it and parsing out the two separate motions to understand them so that in the EDC meeting last month I was clear on what needed to be done I do not think we made a mistake section 200-2 semi-residential the section of our code under General legislation has two areas section B and section c section B says uses permitted section c says uses permitted by special permit all we need to do in that section is Strike multi family dwelling from uses permitted by special permit in the semi-residential district I believe that's what we've done yes Kathy can you sorry I can't see you I can't see you all but coun uh president bottomley you're saying yes that's what we've done I believe that's what we've done yes okay the next motion is section 200-40 under General legislation in our code under that section it's a whole section of our code that is specific to multif family dwellings there is many sections in that code but it does not list out like it does on that page 90 that's not a part of section 200-40 so that may be where some confusion has happened I think there's a lot of confusing things here section 40 lays out in section A of it of-40 in section A when a special special permit is required when a special permit is required for multif family dwellings what the procedure is and when it's not and what our multif family structures can can look like and and and such what we need to add to this section is an amendment that says that if you want to build a multifam dwelling that is 24 units or under you do not need a special permit if it's 25 or above you do that is what needs to be added to section 200-40 of our code and that is the second motion that we needed to vote on this evening that's all I'll say because I just said a lot but I hope that that [Music] clarifies what needs to happen with these two motions and what they're about and if we do end up tabling this I would implore my fellow counselors to please read these two sections it took I had had to read them a few times to wrap my brain around what needed to be done here but I would implore you to read these two sections before we come back to the table next month okay and also I want to say I think a lot of us are getting what needs to be done what's printed is very confusing that's the problem that's what's creating an issue about should we be voting on things in public when what's written is very confusing that's my because I get what what I under I comprehend what we're trying to do uh councelor Golab yeah I this was clearly an item that was that is important to the community and how we do this has to be trustworthy if we have this much confusion amongst ourselves the community will likely have confusion as well about what happened tonight and it matters that they trust what happened tonight I I I thought that I had done my homework I watched EDC because I knew how much this mattered to the community and what counselor bulock said made makes sense and I do not believe that it is reflected in the language that we have in our packet and I believe that we have to have language that is reflected with what we're saying out loud I see that on page 90 it says amend section 2012 with these pie I do not see that it says amend section 20 240 and this is why I'm I I want this decision to happen I support what's the the the spirit of what is here I want us to get done with this but I do not believe that we given this conversation can vote on this in a trustworthy way and given the confusion in the packet which is why I would support a motion to table this all right I have councelor Garrett can I say we we have quite there's Garrett uh master tatara wandalowski and then I have you down so I think I'm gonna try to stick to this order ccor Garrett okay I want to say this as clearly as I can so I wrote down what I think the three steps that we should with these there's two different amendments one about mult multi family in general and what about multif family in the semi-residential the fiscal order on page 87 is about just the semi-residential Zone the initial proposal that was brought to EDC is on page 88 so by my lights what we should have done is read the order on 87 then made the Amendments on page 90 to the order on 87 because it is about to -12 because we were not talking about getting rid of the special permit uh for 24 units and below in any other District except for the semi-residential so that is a very different thing than amending 20 2-40 to change it to a strictly a byri process for 24 units and below so Step One Reading the order on page 87 step two amending the order on page 87 with the language on page 990 and then a third step entirely is is the language on page 91 and that's about getting rid of the cap on units total I know that this stuff is confusing but I'm looking at the text here and it's all here and I honestly fail to see a way that this can become clearer other than reprinting the entire zoning code we've been working on this as councelor Bullock said for a very long time and I would love to pass this this evening obviously this is language I proposed and with the feedback from the community I think the best thing we can do is if we have to just go through those three steps I think we have consensus as a council on making the Amendments on page 90 I think it I hope it's clear to everybody we're talking about just the semi-residential zone for lifting the special permit under 24 units I my recommendation my request would be that we go back to the beginning and just really quickly go through the semi-residential Zone amendments 87 and 90 and then come back and do this stuff on page 91 about lifting the cap and I think that's the cleanest and clearest way we can do this without having to table it until January so I I hear your concerns about transparency but if we go through that those three steps that I believe will be sufficient to making sure the community is a clear on what we're voting on B we're all clear on what we're voting on and making sure that we've kind of hit all our legal ducks in a row it's not a real metaphor but again we're all tired um does that make sense uh yes but I will continue down to hear what all the other counselors have to say counselor Master tataro Okay wowski then Mastro then Minos and Golab thank you and I think that's really clear councelor Garrett um I think it's all in here and it was the process of like do you do the chicken across the river first first with the grain and I think that's what we're getting stuck on um so I think if we follow your road map it's all of this language is in the Motions it was just in the wrong order councelor Master tataro yeah um and I'm not trying to fall monkey wrench into this I promise it's I'm curious to know uh because I'm it's already in in red and you guys proposed amendment but I'm actually in the city or I'm reading it and for multif family dwelling why and this is just a question of curiosity um B number four which is all read and you guys struck everything out and just this is the next this is the third this is the stuff on1 you're talking about I suppose it is it's but it's part of it's part of uh the second right and you guys struck so let's get it out of away you guys struck through uh including more than one building may be placed on one lot but no structure may contain more than 24 dwelling units by right but what okay so you're saying no 24 24 units by right and 25 and above is uh it's got to be special per correct that section doesn't have anything to do with by permitting it's just about the number of units allowed total so this so that that what you're referring to doesn't change anything by right more than one building may be I'm asking you why all this was struck more than one bill building may be placed on one lot but no structure may contain more than 24 dwelling units point of order I think we're just not there yet I don't know where we are but we're not there it's all we're not there does just does councilor Garrett or uh councelor bulock want to answer that question or if don't know if that came up whether we there yet or not it's been struck if we could go and just I would love to go through the process of just starting at the beginning and I'd be happy to discuss that even first if we want to discuss that Amendment before the other one if we just reset this and make sure we're all in shape I still agree with councelor Gordon I still have Minos and then golb to get through on these comments and I'm just going to say it's we've been round and round and round on this and this is when it's supposed to happen in subcommittee and I know that I I I think that most of us comprehend what's being said here but I'm really really uncomfortable with with that someone would look at our packet online and you couldn't figure this out but I I will go with councelor minhas and then Golab yeah I'm just gonna Echo that because okay I feel like I was I had more clarity before I got to the meeting and while talking it just seems like what's written is not what we're talking about or it's not just there's not a clear parallel to that and I know I voted against tbling it but I if someone makes a motion to table it I support it now because I feel like I support this in the spirit of it but in the spirit of transparency for the public for someone who's watching this meeting for somebody who's who reads the packet it doesn't I don't know it doesn't make sense and I don't think that's not fair I don't think it's fair to the public um I've got coun golb then Bullock then Healey um there could be a motion to re if there was a motion to reconsider and perhaps I don't know how many motions to reconsider there would be needed to take us back to square one one could yeah right I I hear counselor Garrett saying what is written in the packet and I do not feel ready to vote on something that is not written in the packet but I would want to vote on what is written in the packet and I do believe that in order to do so we would need to go back to square one and reconsider the Motions that have happened so I'm one I've never sub I've never made a motion to reconsider and so I'm wondering if I'm understanding the process correctly and if so I would make a motion to reconsider multiple times to take us back to square one because I do believe we have a basic agreement about what is written in the packet it's question because I've never made one before so was a question about process and how I would do that so motions for reconsideration on any motion can only be made once you only get one other bite at the Apple so by one person or by the entire Council like I can only make that motion once I'm sorry that's okay on a motion it only gets one motion for reconsideration doesn't matter who makes it and it would be for the entire Council to reconsider it okay but if if the will of the council is to not consider this tonight for Clarity reasons and to reconsider the first motion for clarity reasons if this motion that is on the table now by the way it's still an amendment that's on the table um if this motion tonight is tabled to go on to the January agenda in the rules of procedure there is a section about reconsiderations being filed after a meeting that that reconsideration would go on the January agenda to be done at the same time as this one can can a can a motion for reconsideration be made in the middle of the council me meeting yes but then it has to be reconsidered that night right and so if I make a motion to reconsider we could go back to square one and vote on what is written in the packet yes but you want to clear up the motion that you're on first before you bring another motion back and so to do that people who made that motion that's on the table would need to withdraw it the amendment would need to be withdrawn and the motion that's on the floor could also be withdrawn to have a reconsideration heard but if the goal is to have them both heard in January no I feel comfortable I think there's been things that are not what's written in the packet said and I feel comfortable voting on what is written in the packet it says a men's section 20 212 right there I I agree with what countes if we start in the normal format that we typically do I do think that that is trustworthy and clear for the community are also before you do anything just to let you know two other people that have their hand up to speak point of clarification I don't know if this is necessarily I presume it's understood but maybe it's not um but if a motion has the word amend in it doesn't mean it's an amend motion it's actually just the emotion the motion that's amending something that already exists right so yes it gets it gets really hairy at that point where you think you have a motion but then there's an amendment but it's not actually Amendment because the motion itself is to amend something that already exists so just to be clear in order to reconsider the people who made the motion to amend would need to withdraw and the people who made the motion to discuss this motion would need to also withdraw correct sorry I'm just trying to clear ask question was there was there a an amendment here or was it just that the yes what was the amendment to the motion because I thought the motion itself said Amendment and I I don't remember somebody amending the motion or was it just because that was from the amendment from the recommendation of committee is that where that coming from the motion was made and seconded F all happened sure there was an amendment which was withdrawn there was amendment that I spoke about that councelor Garrett reiterated that Council minha seconded that amendment is still on the table on the floor we still have people counselors left to speak and I just want to say for clarity I know what we want to vote on but from my perspective if it went back to committee even if it took five minutes in committee to say we want to do one two three it's laid out clearly and it says we want to do one two three because right now we have a confusion about what was originally submitted and what was amended at EDC Bull and then counselor Healey um can you let counselor Healey go before me sure yeah so I have a way out of this but um we are gonna have to reconsider the last motion and then I think we should sit down collectively and go through this um I just dove into the code a little bit and I think there's some confusion here and we should just take the time to go through it the right way so I would support a motion to reconsider and I would also support a motion to table um this into the next meeting I would I would make a motion to table this um and if I am still chair VC in January I will make sure you all print outs of the code uh with the with the appropriate motions on top of each one before we get to Council in January we need a second of that just to be clear we are motioning to table table which which one remind us all of the zoning let's just table both zoning motions second we we can't table something that was already voted on without a reconsideration so is the motion to table to table 0241 yes yes yes and second point of order don't we need to withdraw the amendment first NOP no okay so we'll do a roll call vote on that to table order number 25 24- one councelor golb yes councelor Gordon Yes councel master councelor Bullock yes councelor Perry no councelor walosi yes councelor Healey yes yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett no councelor Minos yes councelor toronzo yep does the president wish to vote yes and yes the motion passes to table 0 24.1 by majority coun going to move that we reconsider year 2524 second of I don't want to be a pain in the ass I really don't do motions for rec ation coming item 16 or can we do them now if we can do them now please do it now and get it over with I would love that but I didn't know if we were yeah oh sweet okay FG what I just said on the motion to reconsider order number 2524 councelor Goan did just point of order did we need a second of that motion you did get a second it okay then yes councelor Gordon yes councelor mastero sure councelor Bullock yes councelor Perry no council wandalowski yes councelor Healey yes councilor Brown yes councel Garrett yes councilor Minos yes councelor toronzo yep must the president wish to vote yes and yes the motion passes the motion 25024 is once again on the floor so we already can I move to table that as well if we're going to table the other one it has to be voted tonight so just so I'm clear we tabled the one about lifting the cap on number of units and then now we're back and we have to vote on the one in 87 so my suggestion is that we vote on we I'm sorry we amend it as it's written on page 90 and then we go back and we vote on the amended order and just be done with this one is there in and at that point honestly like why don't we taking the other one off the table would be just as easy as anything else but point of clarification if we brought something back up why can't we table it now we've taken it we we've riged on our vote which would bring it back to the table to begin with so a motion for FL rather a motion for reconsideration is different than a motion to table that originally right um a motion for reconsideration is isn't a reconsideration tabling no that's not an option no it's not an option huh well that seems moot they even have it so if the motion to reconsider had been submitted to the office after this meeting but before Friday at noon it would have gone on the next Council agenda it's almost like we Ted it so it would have thank you to counc Gordon okay I feel like I understand this actually a lot better than I did however long ago we started talking about it I think that we can actually do this right now and do it well and do it right according to the road map that councelor Garrett laid out we can so now we're we're considering FY 25-24 right that has been brought back we have to vote on it tonight I move that we amend that motion according to the language on page 90 um to amend subsection B number 13 adding the words multif family dwelling in accord with 200-40 24 units and under and in addition adding to subsection C9 the phrase after 200-40 25 units and above second so now we're on discussion on this on the amendment the amendment councelor go I'll just say this is we we're back at square one now and this is what we all thought we I this is what I thought that we were voting on and I believe that this is what we all thought that we were voting on a long time ago yeah I'll just say I I wasn't entirely clear I think before I had it I was confused about which amendment went with what I think councelor torenzo is exactly right the part of the issue here is that we're we have amendments on amendments on amendments and the language just gets very confusing and thus the way it appeared in the packet at first was to me confusing but I actually feel really clear now and it it makes total sense to me that this amendment goes with the motion that we're now reconsidering and that this amendment makes a lot of sense because of the compromise that was offered and you know discussed at EDC multiple times um and I I fully support this I hope we can vote yes on the amendment and vote Yes on the motion which is basically saying 24 under by right and C res do we have any more comments on that does um councelor bullet do you want to speak on that yeah I just want to say that section 200-2 is specific to semi-residential so we we that is all that that section of the code is about um and I will support writing that into the code the amendment although I'm reading the code and I I don't understand how it'll fit like what what yeah so I will support the I will support the amendment for the sake of getting through this meeting um yeah too um I also agree uh my I will say for clarity my my comments are not uh to be obstructive in any way or combative they are for this exact reason is to for Clarity on what we are voting on and it when these things and I know that that that zoning is very difficult but words matter we've seen words matter in all aspects of our life and and simple words such as must or shall or may can change something completely and that's why when we're voting on something that is going to be a substantive change to what is happening there and especially with things that have been talked about and there and I I agree that was a bit offensive what I was trying to throw in there as a a slate um there has been a lot of homework done and I appreciate that um so that's just me being petulent and and I apologize for that but this is why those types of words matter in especially in writing codes and and this goes beyond the the Ridiculousness of the whereas is and the whatnots and and whatever other Old English language that we still use in our our our codes but we want to make sure that it's clear because um we we get a lot of public input and there has been a lot of push back on this and the fact that there's not a lot of people right now pushing back on it does speak volumes to the work that has been done and I will give the credit where credit is due that there has been work done on this to make compromises to assuage some of the uh the apprehensions of the community on some of these things with a lot of people who don't like change I'm only saying this and the the the the words that I've said earlier are to make sure that we are actually doing this in the right way so that we we don't get blowback a month or two down the road after we've already done this and like you've done all the work and we've got this through and then you don't want to sit there and get a whole rash of crap later um in regards to it so that that was it but uh but if we can if we can make this happen with the the amendments to the proposals to the things that are already on the paper tonight even if they aren't as as clear as long as we're all clear on what's Happening and and that's going to be once we vote on it that is what is written after that point will withstand uh push back then I have I have no qus with that um I still have counselor Healey all right I really want to go to bed but I'm going to clarify what we're doing here so section 2.40 deals with what's required for special permit of a multifam dwelling that whole section is what you need to do to get a special permit for M multif family dwelling so I really think the way this needs to be changed is instead of striking out all nine say multi family dwellings over 20 25 and over in accordance with Section 200.4 Z and what that does is if you look at the zoning ordinance section 200.4 Z spells out what's required special permit required the zoning board of appeals May Grant a special permit for multiply family dwellings under the following procedures and requirements and it spells out all those requirements point of order that's the um the amendment that Council Gordon proposed does just that except in a slightly different order so it's yeah but do you really want to lump in the 24 and under it should just say 24 and under by right or something it I think we should just go with the amendment as it is okay just as an Al alternative if we voted this just like we did the first time it would it would lengthen the process it would have to go because we've Rec would have reconsidered it we could vote to amend that again but I believe we would have to go through planning board again it's just really hard I'm hearing two different ways to go about this with a split committee from EDC um councelor Gordon yeah I mean I just want to reiterate the amendment that I made is is the amendment that came directly from EDC that was approved three Z with I believe one exstension and I think that is perfectly useful language that does what we need it to do for the sake of the motion counselor bullet yeah section section 200-2 is specific to semi-residential so what we did the first time striking out multifam and then going to 240 and clarifying what needs a special permit and what doesn't and that's where we got chopped up that's one way to go about it and that's fine if we want to add to section 200-2 a line that clarifies the under 24 and above the amendment that councelor Gordon made that's fine we can add that language to 200-2 if this Council feels like it's necessary to add special permit language and and and unit count in 200-2 it's just it's different than the code is written and it's different than how I understood what we did in EDC but that is that it's just another way to do it with some different words and that or the same words but on a different section and that is fine so are we are one vote for both issues now is that what we're going to be doing or is it still be two separate votes no we will still need to bring back 200-40 and amend the section that is specific to multif family dwellings number of units and special permits we will need to add this to section 200-40 as well that is where I actually think excuse me I don't mean to interrupt but I have a very very early plane to catch tomorrow I am leaving yeah it's getting difficult I just feel like there's a lot of pressure to to do this which is what I don't like I don't like feeling like we're under the gun that we have to do this because we did a reconsideration vote so we can do it I I mean I'm I'm I'm in support of what we're trying to do I'm not liking how we're doing it and I still don't think it's so if anyone has a suggestion how to get out of this mess Toronto point point of information though don't we actually have to do this by January 4th which I'm sorry that's just Dawning on me now but I believe that I believe January 4th is the date if we don't complete this byy it has to start all over again anyways we don't have confirmation of the dates here so I don't have the folders with me so I don't have the folders with me I can't confirm the January date that councelor Bullock said I believe it could be voted at the January council meeting on January 15th but I am not positive I don't have it with me so I can't say you know we're still here we're all here the committee did the work we know what we're voting on so why prolong the agony I agree I just I'm hearing two different ways of going about it so I guess we can hash it out and determine which is the best way I guess I'm just a little confused about what the two ways like I'm only hearing one way at this point like I've proposed the amendment think the amendment's pretty clear we can vote on the amendment right counil I just what was the amendment aren't these just what we're voting on anyway I mean I know it says zoning Amendment what are what are we amending from the first one that we're Recon but what are we reconsidering from the first vote we just we we motion to reconsider right you made a motion to reconsider 200-2 yes right councelor Gordon made an amendment that was seconded by councelor Garrett to add the other pages that were seemingly misaligned with what we were thinking they were okay if I may I think another problem here is that these sections reference each other so when we say like two 200-2 2-4 like that's actually a really confusing way to refer to them because both of them talk about the other ones or at least in one of those directions the the amendment that I made is a proposal to amend 200 Dash to to amend order number FY 25-24 I want to use the motion the order number rather than the zoning section number because I think that's also getting us confused how about we vote on the amendment which is on page 90 correct on page 90 are you calling the I would like to call the question on the Amendments so we need a roll call vote to call the question it's all right I'm calling the question for order number 024 councelor Golab maybe the first time I've ever said yes but yes councelor Gordon yes councelor bulock yes councelor Perry no council walosi yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett yes councelor Minos yes councelor tono yep does the president wish to vote yes and yes the motion passes the question has been called on the amendment for order number 024 would anyone be on the amendment for 024 as proposed by councelor Gordon councelor goab yes councelor Gordon yes councelor bulock yes councelor Perry yes councelor wandalowski yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett yes councelor Minos yes councilor toronzo yeah does the president wish to vote yes and yes order number 24 has been amended and is still on the floor so still have to vote on it again can I call the question for the original motion please we will have to vote that great let's do it okay call the question 24 as amended calling the question councelor golb no councelor Gordon yes councelor bulck yes councelor Perry no councelor walosi yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett yes councelor Minos yes councelor toronzo yep does the president wish to vote yes and yes the motion has been called order number 24 as amended is now going to be voted on roll call Vote councelor golb Yes councelor Gordon yes councelor Bullock yes councelor Perry yes councelor walosi yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett a th% yes councelor Minos yep councelor toronzo y you do councelor bottomley president bottomley who would you like to vote Yes 024 as amended has passed you know just you know a lesson learned for all of us because con go and I talked in the past the committee you have to have the DU role when they bring this stuff to the full Council so there's no misinterpretation there's no you know Oh I thought you meant this you know it's just an example of the the agenda came out last week and no one questioned that it was only when people started saying what what's going on so we need to be a little bit more with it when we get to this point in the process you know that's all so we have to decide we have table the other one whether we're going to bring it back and do it tonight and finish it or uh since we've gone this far I'm just they're saying we've kind of taken the plunge coun sorry I move to take order number fiscal year 2502 4.1 from the table second that so that is off the table and oh sorry and that's a roll call okay to take order number 0 24.1 0241 off the table councelor golb yes councelor Gordon yes councelor bulock yes councelor Perry yes councelor wandalowski yes councelor Healey yes please councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett yes and thank you for your patience councelor minous yep councelor toronzo yeah does the president wish to vote yes and yes 0 24.1 is now on the floor councelor Garrett do you want to take this away would love to so this is the most important of all the zoning amendments that were proposed um it takes away the hard cap on units and buildings which currently in our zoning ordinance is 24 total so no special permit no major development review no Act of God would allow you to build more than 24 units in a building in the city under the current zoning rules that's a huge problem because economies of scale and um you know dictate that the more units in a building the more likely it is to be able to be constructed profitably so this is by far the highest priority I have as far as these zoning amendments because it will make the biggest difference for housing we have a huge Gap in units in the city uh the housing study that came out recently said we need to build 800 in the decade in order to stabilize the increase in prices it won't lower Rents It won't you know so that's just to keep things from getting worse there's a housing crisis in the whole country we need to build as much as we can to try to mitigate it and not basically become frankly Northampton or East Hampton or Boston or Cambridge or any other desirable community that has more demand for the housing units than they do Supply um there's a lot of reasons for this I also think there's some interesting um choices that could be made with a type of housing built you know so if you have very small units you have a building that's the same size as another building that might have had 24 units and you put 36 but they're shared bathrooms or a boarding you know so there's a lot of different things this unlocks and in addition the um language on page 91 if you look at the strike through there's also currently a 40 foot spacing requirement that I have haven't really mentioned and there's also requirement for stairwells the spacing is wider than the zoning ordinance requires in say the central commercial or the urban residential and what it basically does is increases sprawl so you know just to make a small joke we are sprawl busting by uh um by basically passing this zoning ordinance if we if we strike the section in its entirety one of the arguments that I made at EDC about this and why it's not just free range zoning or open zoning is there's all sorts of parameters that dictate the size of the building in addition to the language that's here so right now you know zoning uh setbacks would stay in place the frontage requirements would stay in place for all the different residential zones the height restrictions that apply throughout the city would stay in place so very similar to the adus where you wouldn't be able to build an Adu on a lot that's too small for it this would prevent wrong sizing of buildings in other zones just because it doesn't abolish the other elements of the zoning code so this is a hugely important thing to do it's also it's going to make a substantial difference in number of buildings where residential units were able to build especially in the central commercial and the semi-residential Zone um I'm happy to answer any questions about it but again it is not just an unlimited number of units because we have other parts of our zoning code that are addressing these issues in the future I also would be open to what we did with the semi-residential zone and that model where we again WR size the kind of construction we're allowing different zones but that's neither here nor there so I'm happy to answer any questions but I hope that made sense open this up for discussion more discussion do we have any oh councelor Gordon I don't want to interrupt whatever if that was an important I just didn't know if there was any proposed amendment to this okay councelor Gordon yeah I um I really appreciate this proposal I think it makes total sense I think that there has been some confusion about it in the community because people have not understood that all of the other rules and and processes and parameters would stay in place that would keep this from becoming some like outlandish you know development opportunity for someone but the thing that's also really convinced me is that in in listening to you know planning St here in Greenfield at furog and the planning board you know all of the experts that have talked about this 24 is an arbitrary number 50 is an arbitrary number like there's no reason that the numbers were set where they were and so we act like removing those arbitrary unuseful and and actually harmful caps will just allow us more flexibility to hopefully be able to get some more housing development in the community and I think that that's just only a good thing any more comments so we are ready to vote on this so the motion is proposed 25 24.1 is being being voted as initially written with no amendments uh roll call vote councelor Gob yes councelor Gordon yes councelor bulock yes councilor Perry no councilor wandalowski yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes councelor Garrett yes councelor Minos yes councelor toronzo Y what the president wish to vote yes and yes the motion passes wow um we move on there's no presentation of petitions and similar papers uh any reports from committee uh no unfinished business no old business new business we have first readings on page 92 all right we're GNA transferred $ 2,600,000 from free cash to Capital stabilization fund uh transfer 200,000 from free cash to compensated absences fund transfer 100,000 from free cash to contract stabilization fund excellent um what's up oh councelor wandalowski by proclamation we want to recognize our fellow counselor who has a new baby Oh by proclamation here youin or resolution so it doesn't need to go to a committee and the contents are less than the cap just so you know followed all ethics did not break any laws thank you congratulations um we have no uh motions for reconsideration I hope we already that so I will take a motion to adjourn moved moved so second and we need to do a roll call councelor Gollum yes councelor Gordon yes councelor bulock yes councelor Perry yes councelor wandalowski yes councelor Healey yes councelor Brown yes coun councelor Garrett yes councelor Minos yes please councelor tono Y and does the president wish to vote yes and yes the meeting is adjourned at 1010 10:11 p.m. sorry better than midnight Midnight all right so I'm now I'm really confused I