I understand why they had to say that. Good evening to call. Evening. I'd like to call the March 20th, 2025 meeting with the Westfield City Council to order. Roll call please. Madam City Clerk. Meow. Here. Elli. Here. Oniskey. Here. Sullivan. Here. Adams. Here. Allie? Here. Bean. Here. Beltran. Here. Burns. Here. Fanon. Here. Vi. Here. Harris. Here. Matthews. Kane. Here. Thank you. Please. Rights for Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance To apply the United States of America with liberty and justice. Draw Reading of the record
of the meeting of March 6th, 2025. Councilor Bean. Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to Make a motion of the reading of the record of February 20th without reading. So moved. Second. Motion made. And second. Discussion on the minutes. Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now comes a portion of the meeting for public participation. Anyone wishing to address the council may do so by stepping forward. State your name and address for the city clerk. We do this in three minute increments for a maximum of 30 minutes. Anyone wishing to address the council may. Feel free to step forward. Hello, my name is Kathleen Hillman.
I live at 1 79 Susan Drive. I support the superintendent's request to submit a statement of interest to the Massachusetts School Building authority for funding a new technical academy. As a 30-year-old teach educator and school committee member, I believe in technical education and voted for the SOI. Our tech school has outstanding programs and dedicated teachers who deserve a state-of-the-art facility. Our building is old and falling apart. This building is our home, our student's home
for seven hours a day. If this was your home, would you gut the whole thing and start a new or fix it immediately if it was your home? There are toilets there that have been since 1911, so it's really important. I think you'd all go in and reconstruct your home. Our students deserve better. I know it's a lot of money and we are in tough times right now, but now is the time that Massachusetts School Building Authority is looking, um, for tech schools to expand, not decline.
Currently we don't have enough seats at our tech school. By going forward with the SOI we can improve our situation. Now is the time to help our community and make Westfield a place that students are proud to attend. Westfield needs forward thinking. Please vote Yes. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council? Thank you, Kathy. I think you set me up. No. Uh uh. Good evening. My name is Stefan Zaki. I'm the superintendent of Westfield Public Schools, 94 North Elm Street. Um, I'm here tonight as you have an SOIA statement of interest to the MSBA for a new Westfield Technical Academy with a possibility
of a consolidation, but that of course would be figured out if we were accepted into the program. I also have the statement that you would have to read that the MSBA requires that has been provided. Uh, and all of this is due April 11th. So, um, at this point, I think, uh, I was here a few weeks ago talking about the condition of the school. It is in tough shape as school committee, uh, member Kathy Hillman mentioned. And of course, um, it's something that needs to be done. It's long overdue. So, um, thank you. And if you have any questions, I'm always available. Thank you. And would also like to address the council,
Jessica Britton, 36 Kasier Street. I have some items I wanted to follow up on regarding the public hearing two weeks ago for an ordinance on battery energy storage systems. I am aware the resolution came out of the zoning planning and development meeting on Monday night. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but I did a records request for the audio and that will be forthcoming. The ordinance was initially only factoring, factoring in battery energy storage systems and not a back hookup, uh, a backup or a hookup connections to other businesses such
as charging stations, batteries in, uh, transporting trucks or warehouses such as the digital warehouse. We have planned for service star road fires do happen, and it's not a rare event. A few weeks ago in Littleton Mass, a Tesla charging station caught fire. Back in January, we had four brand new electric school buses that caught fire in our backyard in Wilham. Luckily, there were not, they were not placed in service yet. So no children were on board. Can you imagine if the children were trapped in
a burning school bus? I also found a best failure incident database that categorized the incidents between site events and other battery events, and saw many incidents pertaining to lithium batteries catching fire in transport on 18 wheeler trucks. These are just a few to reference for further reflection. The other item many residents brought out in the public hearing was the required buffer zone size. It was mentioned that the planning board wanted wording regarding a thousand feet buffer ridge away from the water
protection sites has this increase from the 150 feet per post councilor. Allie discussed the challenges with our river valley topography and how hazardous smoke can get trapped in a pillow over the valley. He also mentioned that the best project proposed over our aquifer had five other sites that identified and all were roughly within a quarter mile away from the transmission site. Given these logistics, has anyone consulted with Barnes National Air Base to see what their comfort level is
with having a living grenade in their backyard? And it looks like Barnes is less than a half a mile away. Lastly, I brought up in the previous public hearings how we are going to make a best, how are we going to make a best organization accountable by regulating inspections, frequency of inspections, coding, fire safety plan, fire cleanup plan, what decommissioning looks like, what will happen to the area when the plant is no longer active in decommissioned, and the potential need for surety bonding
for the organization to hold restoration Monies aside, should an unforeseen event happen? People are people at the last hearing asked if we could look to what California and Moss landing were setting up for guidelines. Has anyone of, has anyone looked at this or investigated that for the proposed ordinance? The writing is on the wall and enfolding in real time. That's three minutes miss. Okay, I have like two sentences. Okay. Do you have to do a motion? Nope. Oh, okay. The writing isn't on the wall
and unfolding in real time with lithium battery energy. We do not need a stop gap. We need to look at the whole picture. Also, I would like to mention that item four a, a list of monies and positions and salaries. How much taxpayer money is sitting on the table with these unfunded positions and are they aggregated to a specific department? Thank you. Thank you. Good evening and happy spring. Marianne Babinski one 14 Rogers Avenue. I was just gonna say ditto, but I had a lot more, I was going to to write pages of stuff,
but I didn't think you'd appreciate it at this point. But I too was brought to my attention about Monday's meeting. Well, we know that there's an item coming out of committee that has to do with Bess and the, a new amendment that is being proposed and looking at what was probably gonna be brought forward today. I have some copy. I don't know if that's gonna be the final one, but on this, uh, I'm interested in the section that was for industrial a where it originally said a hundred here, and then it was crossed off and changed to one 50
and there was a part that was added, I guess at that meeting and then crossed off that address boundary, a boundary from the Water Resource Protection District. And that of course, wasn't on the original proposal application that went in. Uh, and I know there was a lot of discussion at the two different op open or public hearings that were held. Uh, we heard a lot of things. Those of us who were in the audience and the people have commented about, don't worry, some of the concerns that you've expressed, like the thousand feet that the planning board recommended can be incorporated into
the zoning, the new zoning ordinance, even though it wasn't in here. That's where we take that, all those comments that were made and discuss them and decided to change that. Well, it comes out that nothing was changed. So I, what I'm hoping, I'm interested in hearing the discussion, I know that's gonna take place when that comes up on your agenda. And the 150 feet, I don't know. I looked at the zoning ordinances online and 150 feet is like a sliver compared to the distances that are between the two aquifers
that are on the north side. We have a lot of industrial a on the north side. We have a lot of the aquifer on the north side. It was also mentioned because I reviewed some of the previous, uh, public hearings. There was a big gap between the two of them. One in January and one later on is that it was mentioned that this could be taken care of with the water resource protection zoning that is now sitting in committee for many years now. It's probably grown a beard by now. Uh, that that could be handled there later on.
And that right now it'd be more important to push this through with the language that we have. I don't think 150 feet is gonna be protective for the water resource protection zone against one of these facilities. If we're really serious about why we're putting this amendment in here in the first place and somebody said, well wait till that, that bigger water resource protection zone comes out of the Natural Resources Committee. And I say a bird in the hand, how long will it take to have this go? You know, know you're gonna talk about it. Could it be delayed? It's three minutes, Mary. All Right. Could it be delayed
and could it be, uh, postponed or whatever and have another public Motion to extend for an additional two minutes. Second, Oh, I don't need another two minutes. But could it be extended for another, uh, Uh, give, have Public hearing to be held to explain why we can't have a bigger buffer here? Because I think we have to do a better job. If we're expecting other people to be cognizant of our aquifer and how to protect it, which has already been contaminated, then we better be showing that we're doing just as good a job, if not better, to protect our own aer.
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else like to address the council? Seeing nobody communications from the mayor? Item one Councilor Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. Please have Madam City Clerk read item one. Refer to finance Second. Motion made it second Madam City Clerk One appropriation in the amount of $253,012 from free cash to the new police station and project account is demolition of the building at six Union Street in term of any potential hazardous material that may be uncovered during demotion. Okay, motion made it second. Any further discussion on Senate committee? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? And now in the hands of finance Item two,
councilor Oniskey. Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to, uh, move to suspend the rules for immediate consideration of items two and three. Motion made it second and on suspension. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now under suspension. Councilor on. Thank you. Uh, item two is submitting a resolution to accept a gift donation of $250 from the Kiwanis Club of Westfield for the mayor's annual Easter Egg Hunt on Saturday April 12th at Shaker Farms Country Club. Second, motion made. And second and further discussion. Counsel?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a generous donation, uh, from the Kiwanis to help, uh, purchase supplies for the egg hunt. Anything further? You wanna read the resolution, sir? Yes. If I may, by title only is a resolution of the city council of the city of Westfield for acceptance of a gift pursuant to MGL 44 53 A to the Westfield Mayor's Office. Thank You. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item three Council Misskey. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, item three is submitting a resolution to accept a gift donation
of 2000 prefilled plastic eggs from the Westfield Gas and Electric whoop city fiber for the mayor's annual Easter Egg hunt on Saturday April 12th at Shaker Farms Country Club. Second Motion made it seconded Further the discussion Counselor? Uh, yes. Thank you again. Uh, a thank you to Westfield Gas and Electric for their donation of E strikes for E Strike Hunt. Right. Anything further? Yeah. Councilor Fi. Thank you. I'd just like to thank Patty Andres for Having the foresight to start this. Many, many years ago with the councilor had a different role, but without her,
we wouldn't be having this. So just thank an AB for her. You like to read the resolution, sir? Yes. If I may, if I title only you please. Just like the other one. A resolution of the city council of the city of Westfield for acceptance of a gift pursuant to MGL 44 53 A to Westfield Mayor's Office. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? A motion for Motion to return to regular order. Second. Second. Motion to return. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Not back in regular order reports of city officers. Item four, councilor Bean.
Thank you Mr. President. Personnel director Annie Larkin submitting a list of open positions and salaries as requested by the council. So Move Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion? Yeah, Sorry. The motion is just to place on file. I think everybody got the email. It's, uh, about 27 positions equally. 1,000,002 million four. Don't hold me to the number. So, uh, everybody should have that in their shared drive. Okay. Any questions? See none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Petitions, Remon, and other papers. Item five, councilor Matthews King. I'd like to open public hearing for on an application
for a limo license for one limousine for Dr. Luxury ride LLC 29. Dana Street. As submitted by, and I apologize if I'm not pronouncing this right, Don North. Good job. Public hearing is now open. Is the applicant here? Yes. Come on. Yes, please. Step forward, sir. Hello. Good evening, sir. Yeah, my name Wan and I'm living at, uh, 29 ninth Street. Thank you. Why don't you tell us a little bit about what you're doing? Yes, sir. I'm doing, so now I'm working at the Boston Airport, and, uh, I'm doing provide to the client.
They, I'm working in a, like a airport area and I provide to the customer that they need a, uh, like a limo service. Okay. Questions for you, counsel. Okay. Hi. Thank you for coming in here tonight. Sound good? So how many limousines do you have? So Now I have one. You have one? Yeah. Okay. Where are you going to park the limousine? So I'm parked at the Boston, but I'm living in with my mom's here at address. So most of the time I came here like, uh,
a few time per month. Yeah. So mostly likely I park at Boston, Mostly in Boston. But will you have it in Westfield? In, in Westville. I have my mom and my sister house in here. Will you have the limousine in Westfield? Yes, I think you did. Yes. Okay. And will you park it on the street or will you park it in the driveway? We park on the driveway. In the driveway? Yeah. Okay. And so there's enough room for the limousine? Yes. Okay. And have you discussed this with the, the neighbors, your mom's neighbors? It's just a car. Yeah. I just a question. Okay. Anything else? That's all, all my questions.
Council, Dean, you have something? I'm sorry. Anybody else? Questions for the I don't applicant? Yes. Any questions from the public of fact? Anyone want to ask a question of the applicant? See, none. Um, anybody in the room like to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anyone like to speak in opposition to this application? Council Matthews Kane. Thank you Mr. President. Motion to close the public hearing and refer to license. Second. Motion. Made it seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none.
All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Public hearing is closed. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, item six is mine. Council Beltran submitting a petition for street acceptance for Plantation Circle. Second, I'd like to just refer that to, so thank you. I'd like to refer that to law and to, uh, DPW and who else? Uh, L and o. L and o. Planning. Planning Board. Planning board. See how many we can get. City engineer. City engineer. City engineer. Mm-hmm. Why don't we just send it to everybody? All right. We do.
Let's do it if you can do that. But, uh, those are the necessary ones. Yeah. Am mayor wants it too? Mayor wants it. I'm sure he does. Okay. Any questions on this? All in favor? Opposed? Thank you. Reports of committees finance. Item seven, councilor Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. Finance has met and motion to approve the appropriation, the amount of 250,000 for free cash to health insurance benefit account to cover increased cost of healthcare, including increases of city's health plan premiums. Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, counselor?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Back in, um, may and June of last year, this 250,000 was cut from this account as an, as a way of reducing the city's budget. It was stated at that point that at this money was needed in order to pay our bill, we could replace it with free cash. Unfortunately, $250,000 is needed plus more. Um, the health insurance come, came in in January with a 7% arise.
That was not anticipated. So we are going to be short in that account. The exact amount is yet to be determined, but that will be coming in, uh, as a separate request. More bad news is the rates for 2020 5 26 has come in with a 35% increase. This means 1.8 million for employees, 3.6 million for the city's side. So if you think the budget ha is gonna look ugly, it just got uglier.
So I'd like to replace the 2200 50,000 that we took and then deal with the la rest of it later. Thank you. Council alley. Uh, council Figley, could you just repeat the, uh, the city side, the, those figures you just gave or the percentages or the amount for the two? For next year? Yeah, exactly. Next year, 35% increase. Correct? The city side is 3.6 million And the employee 1.8. Okay. And that's on top of the 7%? No, no, that's 35. That's what it would be. Don't
Make it any worse than it is. Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Anything further? Roll call. Madam City Clerk. Meow. Yes. Morgan Valley? Yes. Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Fi? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Thank you. Item eight. Council Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. The, uh, finance committee has met and has approved the update and review of the discussion of financial health and spending procedure of the Water resource department.
And a report has been placed on the share drive. Second motion. Made it seconded. Further discussion, counsel, I'm not going to read the report, however, it did take over a week to compose. Um, I want to thank committee members, Sullivan and Bean for their input into this. Would also like to thank those people who came to the, uh, finance committee special meeting to discuss this. Uh, it was good to see all the water commissioners there. Uh, the acting DPW director, unfortunately,
the budget analyst chose not to answer any questions, uh, for fear of a reprimand, so we couldn't get firsthand knowledge and experience from her. Um, there is a timeline incorporated into the report, followed by several recommendations. Uh, I would like to move that this report before to the water commission, the acting director, DPW, uh, and personnel Second motion you made second. Council B. Did you add something? Yeah, just, just to Add to that, I, I just wanted to give kudos
to Councillor Figi on his leadership role on this particular issue. It, it took a lot of time and effort and a lot of involvement of his, um, you know, his efforts to put the, the details on paper. So we, I know I appreciate that. I I'm sure Councillor Sullivan as well. But, um, it was, uh, it wasn't a, a comfortable meeting at all and I'm, I'm glad we did it. And I think there was a lot of things that were discussed, um, that, uh, we all could kind of get our arms around and, and hopefully prevent this from happening moving forward. Thank you, Ms. Councilor Sullivan? Yeah, so I would also add my thanks, um,
to the work that Councilor Figy did. In particular, in putting this together. I would just, um, in the finance meeting I had indicated, because there are a number of, uh, prior year bills that are not on tonight's agenda, but will be coming in. Um, and I made it really clear that I will not support, uh, passing those unless the auditor has signed off that there are VAC dollars to pay for that. Because part of the problem here was, is that the checks and balances that are set up in the city government in terms of not being able to overspend were not enforced and didn't happen.
So, um, I'm gonna require, this is just me personally. It's not written in anything else, but I'm not gonna support an expense out of the water department unless the auditor has signed off and said that the money is available to pay those bills. Councilor Morgane then Councilor Fie. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, yeah. Thank you, uh, Ralph and the committee for, uh, putting this together. Would the mayor be getting a Copy of this as well? We need to have, he's already got one. He okay. I forward it to him as a courtesy. I, I assume, but I wanted to Make sure. Yeah. Thank you for doing. Thank you. That, that's a good point. Council, thank There is one correction to this report. The mayor is not the hiring authority for the acting
DPW director or the budget analyst. The budget analyst is paid for out of the general fund. And I, I mistakenly assumed that because we paid for her, we supervise her, we don't. So that correction will be made. Councilor. So I just wanted to further answer, um, councilor's question. The mayor actually was present at the hearing. Um, in fact is quoted in the report, at least on, or at least paraphrased in one, in one part. So he was there, uh, when that was all happening. Okay. Anything further left out? I'm seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?
Legislative and Ordinance committee. Item nine. Counselor Adams? Yes. The LNO has met and voted two to one, not, uh, two to one, not in favor of a resolution authorizing the superintendent of schools to submit a statement of interest. The Massachusetts School Building Authority for funding to construct a new technical academy Second motion. Made it seconded. Further discussion. Councillor Adams ing. Mr. President. I guess I look at things a little differently. Owning a business when I put a business plan together. Um, there are many things that you look at.
Um, one, is there a need? You know, two, are you outta space? Three, can you afford it? Four. Am I gonna go broke if I do it? Um, I think then when I look at this big project, which I'll be the first one to admit, I'd never built the school. So this is way outta my league. But first of all, let me just back up for one second. I wanna thank the people school committee and everybody that looked at this. 'cause I think everybody's looking at this for the betterment of the city. However we vote tonight, I don't think is saying we don't, are trying to make the city better or trying to make this better for our kids.
I think we're all in the same boat here. I think everybody's gonna have their own opinion, and I'm sure there'll be a lot more discussion after me. So the first thing I look at when we're talking to the superintendent, I'm not sure if there's a need to build a school for two reasons. I think what he said was there's only 40 people that are waiting to get in, and a hundred of those people aren't from the city. So my interest is people in the city. I don't think we're overcrowded. I mean, we overcrowded in the classroom, but we don't have 200 of our children waiting to get into the trade school, according to
what I've heard from the superintendent. So that, first of all, I'm not sure there's a need. Second of all, in my opinion, yeah, that the bathrooms need to be fixed. I made it very clear they do. I think that building is in pretty good shape. I don't think that the cement is crumbling. If it wasn't in very good shape, we wouldn't have attached it to the school that we did up above it and spent all that money to do it, or the things that need to be fixed. Sure there is, but in my opinion, I don't think we need a new technical school. Now. I know we can get a lot more money with a technical school than we could for the high school. And I hope we're not just saying we can get more for that.
And that's why we want to do it. I went to the school. I'm well aware more than a lot of us here are of what condition the school is in. It's in about the same condition it was when I graduated. And that school has actually been kept up, in my opinion, according looking at it to other schools. Another thing is the affordability. I'm not sure about this. If we were to move forward, in my opinion, we would have to go to the people and have this voted on. I think we do that first before we get in the queue and send us to the state.
I think we're wasting a lot of time if this people in the city say, there's no way we would, we would, we can afford, we we would want to do this. Now remember, our taxes are going up. No matter what we talk about today, when we go over this budget soon, those taxes will go up. And on top of that, it could be anywhere between 800, 800 and $1,200 if we voted, if the, if this went through for the people, I'm not sure that's gonna happen. But I think it's fair that the people need to be part
of this before it gets put in. So I would vote to do that before we move forward. Um, sometimes the problem here is we have three weeks before the superintendent has to put this in. That is not a lot of time for us to talk about this anymore. I know the school committee's probably put a lot of time into this, but for us to digest this in three weeks to say, let's put in for a $200 million school, it's way too fast, in my opinion, to do this. So I voted no for several of these reasons. I think waiting one year.
And the only thing that the superintendent said, well, it could cost a little bit more if we wait, so be it. I think there's a lot more that needs to be talked about. And sometimes when you look at a project and you sit on it for a little bit, it may come up with a better project and a better way to do this than we have in front of us right now. Council. Thank you, Mr. President. I was the, uh, dissenting vote on this. I voted yes. Uh, councilor Adams and I, I mean, we're not very far apart considering a yes and a no vote. Uh, I mean the, the school is gonna be very expensive.
And it was really the logistics and the order of how I felt was better to do this than, uh, the, the two people, uh, councilor Adams and Councilor Burns, who voted against it. Uh, I, my logic was to go ahead, submit the SOI and then have a non-binding referendum question about the 800 to $1,200. Um, and if that becomes a no, a strong no, then we leave it alone. You know, it can't be done.
But, you know, I think it, it's important to get this to the people. Let the residents make the decision on the taxes or the, uh, the override, if you will. And, um, but the order of the operation, you know, a little bit different than, than Councilor Adams. Thank you. Councilor Morgan Alley. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. I, I concur with, uh, councilor Cross the Way and, and some of the comments from, uh, from Council KY as well. Um, you know, when the, the superintendent, and I wanna say I concur as far as thank you to our teachers
and appreciate the students and appreciate the education system we have here. And, and it should be high standard. I mean, we look around, I've said this before. We look at, we look at Long Meadow, uh, west Springfield. We got all these beautiful schools and, um, and, and why don't we have something new? Um, but the, the discussion that we had from the superintendent and my comments, uh, kind of reiterate them, but, um, after that discussion, uh, it was all about the how are we gonna pay for this? And what's the plan? And I was expecting an exploratory
committee to be formed, made up of residents, teachers, students, um, you know, everybody in in Westfield business owners and, and come up with a, a plan, um, and look at maybe upgrading what we have, what, what's, what needs to be up upgraded, what's is there, can we have a 10 year plan for upgrading the school to put it in a place where it, it's looked at with admiration from surrounding towns, uh, and communities. Um, and then weigh that against the cost
of building a new one and, and put it all on the table. And then, and then by that time, maybe at the end of this year, we have an idea of, well, how would we, we know the budget now, right? We passed the budget, you know, by the end of June. And then, um, and, and, and then what, what, um, what happens after that? You know, how would we pay for a new school? Um, so I really would like to see more of an exploratory committee going forward to really look at, uh, everything that put it all on the table and come up with some great ideas and,
and should the people vote on it, I, I think everybody's taxed out. I I don't think it's gonna pass the people's vote, Westfield. I really don't. Um, especially people that don't have children, that, small children that are gonna be in school in high school in 10 years. Um, and, and how long is it gonna take? This is the other thing. How long is it gonna take to get a new school built? I mean, it is a long process. And the superintendent will attest to the fact that how long it takes, it's at least 10 years, 15 years to get the school built. I believe. Five, five.
Uh, we know how things can move. Um, so it could be five, could be 10, but what, so I, I'd like to see an exploratory committee rather than, um, you know, a submission to, to the state, uh, for a new school. Thank you. Councilor Bean, then Mellow, then Allie, then Matthews game. You know, like, like, like municipal finance. Some of this stuff doesn't make any sense. And the way this process works for doing school buildings or municipal buildings, state buildings, dormitories,
whatever you wanna call 'em, is a, it, it, it's a weird process. Um, we're always playing a little catch up. Um, I completely agree with Councilor Adams, uh, on how he articulated why he voted no. Um, the only way I divert from, um, some of those comments is that the way the state works is that you have to get in line. You have to get in that queue to show that you are in dire in, in my opinion, we're in dire need of two new schools. And if we combined it, that's one thing. If we go vote tech or if we go high school, that's, there's been a lot of great ideas out there,
and I'm pretty much in favor of all of 'em, which is pretty much a politician's answer. But, um, with that being said, um, I, the reason why I'm gonna support the SOI is that, um, and, and, and the work that the school committee did is that it is a situation for me to, we have to get in line and show the state that we are in. We really are in dire need of a new school is if it's com you know, there's a second piece to that V Tech. It, it's a combined situation. It's not a comprehensive, I don't think I, I forget the language within the SOI, I'd have to read it,
but it's, it's, I I believe it's a comprehensive, and it could be just a combined school, but that's kind of an, an alternative. Uh, so that's why I'm gonna support it. Uh, the likelihood of us getting selected are slim to none. Anyway. We just finished an elementary school and, and I'm, I'm sure they're still working on it as we speak. So I I, I'm not convinced that we're gonna get accepted anyway, so that's why I'm gonna support it. We have to tell the state that we are, uh, we're getting in line and that we want our funding when it comes. Thank you Councilor Miller. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, and thank you to the councilor across the way. Could you just entered one of my questions?
Um, but I, I am wondering, this is, this is the million dollar thing that he came, the superintendent came and spoke to us about previously, right? That's roughly about what this costs. Okay. So good news. Um, that list of funded, but not paid out staff, right? That we didn't hire is about 1.5 when you add it all up. Um, so there is money that we're not using that was previously budgeted. Now, I don't know that doing this
literally ties the city to an override or higher taxes, right? Like if we send this in, are we a hundred percent committed to hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures? No. Right? But we're committed to this 1 million, right? Y'all already committed 11 million to new fields at a high school. You can't tell me that a million dollars to figure out what to do about a school and to get us in line for funding is a huge waste. When eventually you're going to need that plan developed anyway.
So we've blown more money on less important things and telling our tech academy, we are willing to put $1 million to try and secure your future even if the voters say no. Right? That is sending a message to our students that I think is more important than plastic fields. And so I'm gonna say yes to this, even if I do not necessarily think that hundreds of millions of dollars is in our future without us completely redeveloping our economic model,
which I also think we should do, by the way. Thank you councilor Allie. Yes. Um, I understand, like, we would definitely, you know, sign on this, you know, and put it forward and then, uh, put a question on the ballot in November. Um, because I mean, we're looking at, um, like council figure just laid out, was 3.6 million, is that a line item that's gonna be facing next year's budget? Yep. Okay. Um, you've got labor costs increase. You've got whatever the school committee's looking for,
whatever that final number is. Um, we're looking at a big chunk. Um, that's, um, so I guess if there's, if there's no downside to, let's say, applying for this, other than if, if, if we applied for it and we got accepted and then we just said we can't make this work, whatever that downside would be, um, because yeah, I mean, you're looking at numbers here. I mean, we're talking, you know, these are big numbers. So unless this Matthews Came, and then councilor speaking. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I am going to be supporting the SOI,
um, for a number of reasons. Um, I would like to have excellent public schools here in Westfield. Councillor Bean spoke already about how we need to get in line. And a main reason why I wanna do it now is because we've been told repeatedly that there's going to be a lot of funding for tech schools. And so it's like this moment is the time we need to do it. But I also wanna talk, I people are raising excellent points about rehabbing the current schools, And it sounds like a great idea. And that's how we often do things. But I come at this with my experience being on the, uh,
Westfield River, or we call it the Franklin Avenue School Building Committee for five years. So when you do this first study, this MSBA, the Massachusetts State Building Authority for the schools, they make you march through and they make you look at all the options. So when we were on that building committee, we looked at what would it cost to rehab Abner Gipps to bring it up to standards, and what would it cost to rehab Franklin Avenue and bring it up to standards. It was so shockingly expensive. Like people are talking about rehabbing the tech academy in Westville High. It's gonna, it's gonna be shockingly, shockingly, shockingly expensive.
I say that from my experience on the school building committee, and that's why I think it'd be better for us to just build a new school. 'cause when we looked at it, it was gonna cost as much to build a new school as to really, really thoroughly rehab those two buildings. So that's the experience I bring to the table, and that's the main reason why I'm gonna be voting yes on this. Thank you Councilor Piggy. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I serve two different roles involved in the school liaison, and I'm also chair of finance. The downside to getting into the queue is if we get accepted, if we get accepted, we have to move forward. If we can't move forward, then we go to the bottom
of the list quote list that they say doesn't happen. But that's where you end up and who knows when you're gonna get another shot. So when we take our bite of the apple, we need to be ready to back it up a hundred percent. Um, there's definitely a need for a new vocational school. I served as a mentor there for 10 years. I worked in that building. I know what condition that building is in. However, I disagree respectfully with my colleague across the way. I don't think the high school is in that position.
We've sunk a lot of money into the high school over the last couple years. We brought up the pool. We got new tennis courts, we got a roof, we got windows, we got doors. We got a lot of improvements into the high school that we don't have into the vote. I think the timing is wrong at this point. I think we'd be better off the wait a year. Some of what counts to my right has said is not a bad idea about a feasibility study that we need to do within our own self. If we do a combination, we get selected for that. We're talking $300 million, 300 million.
There might be a lot of money for the vocational piece. But remember when the state says we're gonna give you 50%, it's not 50% of the total bill. It's 50% up to a certain amount of construction costs. Construction costs an now are at a thousand dollars a square foot. So I don't think as a city we're in the financial position to risk getting selected. 'cause if we do and we can't afford it, then we're not gonna get another bite of the apple. So I'm a no for the first time in my career on this committee for schools, I have been a fervent supporter in the
12 years I've been the liaison. The city council has not cut a school budget proud of that fact. I just think we're, our timing is off on this one. Thank you. Councilor Sullivan. The councilor Fanny. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I just want to thank my colleagues for a, uh, civil discussion and disagreement on this one. I think everybody's coming from the same place in terms of trying to do what's best for the city and the students of Westfield. Um, I'm gonna be a yes, um, for a lot of different reasons.
First, I've always had education as the number one issue. So I will, um, move forward with that as well. And you know, I think we talk about, you know, the, the new high school, which is 52 years old. Um, and, you know, that needs repair. The voc tech school is those repairs that were done. And we did spend a lot of money at the time, is close to 30 years old. Um, and I think it's the most important thing that the city does as a community, which is to support education. That's the future. Um, I've always, you know,
I've had these discussions with people when they say, well, I don't have any kids in the school anymore. And it's like, yeah, but we supported your kids when they were in school and you need to support the next generation of kids that comes down the line because they're the people that are gonna be running our city and running our country. They're gonna be the doctors and the lawyers, um, and the carpenters and the plumbers, uh, the nurses and the doctors. Um, that's the way a community works. It's the hand to the next generation. So I do think it's the most important thing to do. I share the concerns that are raised here. In fact, I think I raised them when the superintendent was
making the presentation in terms of how this all ultimately gets paid for. Um, this is an expensive proposition. Um, but I do think that one is the most important thing that a community does, which is to support education. I think you do it. So I'll be a yes. Councilor Fanon, then Harris. Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to thank all the councilors for all their comments. Um, I agree with all the comments. I think this is a difficult decision. I certainly am education. I would, you know, I do everything for education, but I, I certainly agree that I think that perhaps we are doing this a little bit too soon.
And I absolutely believe that we need to get the voter's opinion and that this needs to go on the ballot prior to sending this SOI Thank you Councillor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President. As I said a couple weeks ago when the superintendent was here and he heard loud and clear 'cause he referred to it, uh, at, at the meeting, uh, at the committee meeting. I cannot speak for all the citizens and tell them that they're gonna get a thousand dollars increase in their real estate taxes on top of whatever el else. We have to increase your taxes every single year, uh,
without their input. I cannot do that to our citizens. Everybody's having a very tough time. Um, I can't do that. So I have to vote. No. Councilor Burns, then Adams. Yeah. Thanks Mr. President. As, uh, my colleague over here, uh, councilor Ky said I was the other descending vote on the, uh, LNO. And, um, my thoughts on this is, again, what Councilor Harris and few others said, I think we're putting a horse before the cart when we're, we should really put this out to the people first because cart before the horse there, A cart before the horse.
I'm sorry. Thank you. But, um, you know, again, I support the schools a hundred percent. I mean, this isn't about supporting the schools. This is about the taxpayers, the rate payers. I mean, we really, we really put it on 'em this year between rate increases and now the budget coming up, it's, it's gonna be tight like Council Figi said. So, I mean, it was a tough decision for me. I read over all the information and listened closely to superintendent the other night and, uh, I made my decision and I'm gonna stick with it. So it'll be a noble than this
Councilor Adams. Then we're Gonna move to the question. Yep. No, I just want to clarify something. Council, across the way, this isn't a million, this isn't about a million dollar. This is nothing to do with voting for a million dollars. This is voting to send it to the SBA. This is nothing about a million dollars. So I want to just clarify that. 'cause it was coming outta Illinois. So we're not voting on a million dollars. We're voting on whether we send this forward. So it's not about a million. I just wanna make sure that you're clear on that before we vote. Councilman Marilyn, then I'm gonna move the question. Uh, Thank you. The cost for the development of it was a million dollars, right?
Feasibility study. Yeah. Hasn't been done yet. Yeah. Our vote right now is about whether we send this forward. It's not about the million dollars. We won't do the feasibility study Unless we're selected. Right. Because it was not put right. Okay. So yes, If we get selected, then We have to come up, then we have to do that no matter what. Right? Yeah. And just to clarify, here's, here's what I worry about a little bit for the residents of the city. If this passes, and if it does, it does. I mean, if it passes, what it's gonna have to go to the vote of them no matter how we do it.
But if it passes, every house is stuck with a bill for 30 years. Even when you sell your home. If I, if we voted for it and I sold my home, whoever buys my home is stuck with that bill for 25 years. Now, if I'm looking to move into a community, I may not pick Westfield because I'm gonna pay another a thousand dollars in taxes when we're probably one of the higher cities around that pays taxes now. So I don't know if that's going to tell people not to come to Westfield. It could, I dunno the answer to that.
And if it votes 60 40, say it went through, there's still 40% of the people that may not be able to afford this. And I think, in my opinion, it's taking a chance. And I certainly wouldn't do this without everybody voting, but I still feel bad if it did go through that there are a lot of people that wouldn't be able to afford living in the city because of the extra taxes it's gonna put on them. Council burns and then we're Done. No, he's take it. We're gonna do a roll call on this. Roll call matters to the court. Meow. Can can I just clarify the vote? The vote is a no vote is to not send to not correct.
To not to not approve the resolution. Thank you. No, is not, no is not, No was not. Okay. But it came out. That's why came outta committee with a negative. No, don't approve the resolution. Okay. Alright. Yeah, you need to clarify 'cause I came outta the committee in a negative May. That's why I asked. Yeah, no. May yes or no is not to send it. No. Doesn't get sent. No. Is not to send it. Okay. No means no, That's it. Oh God. Thank you For that clarification. Okay. And can I just please clarify one more thing, please. Right. And and the counselor a couple tears down said
that if we say yes and we send it, we're committed to the feasibility study, but not necessarily to the whole shebang. And if we don't do the whole shebang, we end up at the end of some imaginary line that might be real. We Can back out of the process At any time. So it's not a commitment to $350 million. Correct? It's at most a commitment to a 1 million, which we just found in the unpaid unstaffed positions at DPW, right? Correct. Thank you. Then my answer is yes. Roll call. Madam City Clerk. Nolo? Yes. Morgan Elli. No. Ky Yes. Sullivan? Yes.
Adams? No. Allie? No. Bean? Yes. Tran? Yes. Burns? No. Fanon? No. Fay? No. Harris? No. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Six. Yes. Seven. No. Okay. Does not go. No, she said does Not pass. Item 10, councilor Burns. Thank you, Mr. President. Last evening, Allan O Met and on a three zero vote, we voted. Recommend leaving chapter 16 of the ordinances section 16 dash seven or 1 0 7.
Temporary repairs of private ways in committee. Second. Motion made it second. Any discussion, council? Yeah, we're gonna, we Gonna, They're gonna fine tune this. It has to go back to DPW Commission and then it's gonna come back to l and l and we, we'll look at the final, uh, ordinance at that time. Any further discussion for leaving committee? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item 11. Council Oniskey. Thank You Mr. President Eleanor met on March 19th. Upon a three zero vote, we recommended approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 13.
Article five, division two, wetlands protection. Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion. Council? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, our current, uh, ordinances regarding, uh, the wetlands protection and the conservation, uh, commission, um, really is incompatible with the State Wetlands Protection Act and regulations. Uh, there's some vague language there. Uh, it's incomplete and, and somewhat unorganized. So the, uh, conservation Commission took it upon themselves
to go through and make, make some changes. Um, and the recommended changes, or the highlights of those are the addition of four new resource areas, rear species or habitats, erosion, sediment control, agriculture, aquaculture and open space and passive recreation. Uh, some new resources protected under the local zoning ordinance, uh, including but not limited to. A hundred foot buffer zone. Wetland protection Zone lands within 200 feet of intermittent streams. Um, the ability
and method for the conservation, uh, commission to adopt rules and regulations to accompany the ordinance administration administrative approval process to streamline applications, the creation of wetland protection or wetland permit application when projects involve only areas subject to the protection under the ordinance. Filing fees, uh, with a fee table, uh, a method of, uh, permitting approval and justification for when work is proposed within the Wetland Protection Zone, based upon level of disturbance
and additional methods of security, um, to ensure project completeness and success. So it's an overhaul of the, uh, the wetlands, uh, ordinance that the city, city now has A thing. Council B? Yeah. Just one quick question for the committee, if you don't mind. Um, some of the frustration that, you know, been some of those meetings and, you know, you, you see a lot of habitual viol violators within those ordinances coming up time and time again. Have, was there any discussion about the finding in
that fee structure within those ordinances, Mr. President? Uh, yes. Yes, there was. It will allow the, uh, conservation coordinator to write, essentially write a ticket for a violation, and then the Conservation Commission would need to approve that or disapprove of the ticket. The reason being, I think it's, I'm gonna throw out a number. I think it's like 14 days that if a violation is recognized, you have to write a ticket for it. So, seems a little odd,
but a ticket would be written to cover that and then the Conservation Commission would discuss it and determine whether, you know, confirm yes or no. Can I just follow up Mr. Resident? Please. So, but current, you're saying currently they, they have that ability now though, They, they don't have the ability to, to vote it down, yes or no? No. Meaning, I'm sorry to, to write a ticket right now. So when, when someone is outside of the, whatever the parameters might be currently, are they able to write violations and enforce them Individually? No,
They're not. No. That was clarified after, after we spoke. Kudos to committee on this then. Council Matthews King. Thank you, Mr. President. If I may ask through the chair, did the Conservation Commission vote on this? And do we know what the vote was? They did, if I may. Uh, yes, they did. Unanimously approve. Okay. Council burns. Yeah. Thank you Mr. Burns. I was just gonna bring that up. It did. It went through, um, conservation Commissioner, you know, unanimously. And also, um, we spent a lot of time as a committee on this. We went line by line by line. It was as painful as it was.
Um, we came up at the end, it was just a few questions and, um, it's comprehensive. Like it took, I believe it took the commission two years to rewrite this. Um, and you know, I mean, I'm not an expert on conservation, but I, it surely, um, everything was covered in it. So I, I would suggest after the first reading, I would just, our members here, uh, read it. If there's any questions, I would, you know, bring it forward. Next, uh, next reading. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. Councilor me. Nothing. No, I've, I've,
I watched it the first time It came through my committee. I've watched for it this time. Yeah. I'm satisfied with their work. Thank You. Councilor Allen. Yeah. And anything that we can do to clarify things, because I've dealt with, you know, farming down and, and it looks, you know, bordering vegetative wetlands and stuff like that. And when you started trying to navigate between the DEP and agriculture, it was like a horror show. Um, and it is that complicated. Um, and so if you have things that are not in line with either each other, you, you can disagree
with some things, but it, you made it really, really difficult where even experts could not answer questions. Okay. This is for a first reading by title only If I may. Uh, an ordinance amending the code of ordinances, city of Westfield, adopted January 21st, 1971. That's when they were originally adopted, uh, be it ordained that the city council of the city of Westfield, um, follows the Dakota of ordinances, city of Westfield. Chapter 13, article five, division two be deleted in its entirety
and substituted with the following, which is the entire, uh, ordinance. Second. Thank you. All those in favor? A opposed counsel Motion for second reading and final passage at our next meeting. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any questions? All in favor? A. Aye. Opposed? Now on for second reading. Personnel action committee. Item 12, Councillor Harris. Thank you Mr. President. Um, personnel action Committee Councils Figgy Adams and myself met on oh 3 11 25 regarding the appointment
of Angelica coa two 13 Valley View Drive as an alternate member of the zoning board of appeals return to expire on March of 2027. The second alternate position is currently vacant and was previously held by Jennifer Gilbert. And we do recommend that appointment Second motion made it seconded further the discussion. Counselor? Yes, Mr. President, unfortunately, uh, Angelica called me last night after I attended the l and o meeting and I returned her phone call and she has to withdraw her name because she is taking an advanced course with a professor
and the course is going to be on the exact day that this, uh, board meets. So she said she cannot obligate herself to something, uh, in good faith to that she knows that she will not be able to, uh, be in attendance to these meetings. She's, thanks everybody. Um, she's very thankful for, um, uh, everybody listening to her and thankful for the opportunity perhaps to come back in a different committee or this committee in the future. Um, and she is an excellent, excellent, uh, appointee.
Okay, So my motion is to withdraw her name. Second? Yes. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on withdrawal? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed, uh, license. Committee Councilor Matthews Kane. Item 13. Thank you, Mr. President. License met on March 17th, 2025. And upon two to zero vote, approve the permit for the serving of beer and wine and to waive the open container regulation in the Central Street parking lot on Saturday, June 4th, 2025 from 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM for the WIP City Brew Fest fundraiser managed
by the Amelia Park Children's Museum and I move approval. Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion counselor. Thank you. Um, community Development director Miller spoke regarding the history of the Whip city Brewfest. The event has taken place for the last seven years with the last three taking place at the Central Street Parking lot. Off Street Parking Commission has already approved the use of the lot. Mr. Chuck Kelly also spoke about the event, um, at she, he's connected to the Westfield Children's Museum. They've already cleared several hurdles and received permission from the building department, the health department, and the licensing
commission for the liquor license. They had received verbal approval from the Highway Department and were waiting on the meeting. And there would also be two details of police officers. And this has been approved by Sergeant Meas. Anything further on the license? See none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Item 14. Councilor Matthews Kane. Thank you Mr. President. License Met again on March 17th. And upon a two to zero vote, approve the permit for the, um, serving a beer and wine. And to waive the open container regulation at Elm Street Plaza on Saturday, May 17th, 2025 from 12:00 PM to 5:00 PM
for the downtown block party. Managed by the run Westfield Flat Fast 5K Road race organizers in the Office of Community Development. Second, um, first I have to make a motion to amend. Okay, so moved. Motion made it second. And what's your amendment counsel? So this is at the request of, um, community Development Director Miller. Um, currently it states that counsel is going to waive the open container regulation at the Elm Street Plaza. It needs to be changed to waive the open container regulation at Elm Street Plaza and Elm Street
and sidewalks from Main Street to Franklin Street. Okay, we got a mo we got a motion in the second on the amendment. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? I'll vote on the amended. Okay, you done. So, community development director Miller spoke about the history of the event. The, it started in 2013. This will be its 12th year. The event this year will also serve as the rollout for the new Westfield Cultural District. Tribeca, great Awakening Skyline. And the Tavern will have a one day license given by the license commission to serve alcohol. And we'll just be approving the open containers on public policy.
Sorry, public property run. Westville will pay for the policing as it has done in the past. Thank you. Anything further on this license? Seeing none in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Zoning Planning and development committee. Item 15. Councilor Fanon. Thank you, Mr. President. On Monday, March 17th, 2025, the ZPD committee met on the proposed ordinance relative to battery storage facilities and gave a favorable approval, um, on the ordinance. Second Motion. Made it seconded. Further discussion. Councilor Pan? Yes. Thank you. Um, the committee. In, in committee, we took the, um,
ordinance in three different sections. The first section we, um, looked at was the definition as proposed in section two dash 20. And with that there was a three to zero vote approving the definition. Next, the committee reviewed the use regulations at section three dash 30.13, which is industrial. A district special permit uses that that vote came out as two to one in favor. The discussion was held whether or not to include the 1000 foot buffer from any property line as recommended by the planning board, or to keep the 150 foot
as proposed in the, in the amendment. The consensus of the committee would like to have that 1000 foot. But in the conversation with the law department, it was deemed that the 1000 foot is a substantial change from the original petition submitted during the public hearings. Test testimony was heard in favor of the 1000 foot as well as many valuable suggestions to strengthen the proposed amendment. However, because the petition for the amendment was submitted with specific items and advertised accordingly, no substantial changes can be made to the ordinances at this time without filing a new petition. Therefore, a future petition for an amendment may be offered
to incorporate the many viable suggestions, but by adding it at this time, it may jeopardize the valid validity of the amendment. And it's important to have an ordinance on the books relative to battery storage. It's unclear at this time. Oh, sorry. Oh, Perhaps this, perhaps this ordinance may or may not have an effect on the battery storage facility application that is in the process at the state level at this time. But it is none nonetheless important to have something on the books. It's unclear at this time how this application of the state will pan out. But in the case, in case the state sends it back to the city
or does not send it back to the city or does not give the waiver to exempt local ordinance, the city will have an approved ordinance that deals with battery storage facilities. And again, we can still put an ordinance that deals with battery. Uh, I'm sorry. And again, we can still, still keep moving forward with another petition and other amendments to include other activities that involve the storage of lithium batteries, including adding the 1000 foot buffer. But for now, it's important to pass this ordinance and not to complicate the process with amendments that were not part of the original process. And it is equally important to continue our united front on this
matter of battery storage. And thirdly, the committee reviewed section three dash one 70.5, which is to add the battery energy storage systems as a prohibited use in the Water Resource District. And all committee members approved adding that. Thank you. Councilor Morgan Elli. Thank you Mr. President. Can, can the chair of the committee, um, clarify, um, the, um, section three dash one, 30.3, the industrial industrial, a district special permit and what the committee voted on, what the language was for that, please.
Okay. The language was that to add. Number 14, battery energy storage system provided any structure storing or generating energy or other electrical grid related operations with no other occupancy type is located at least 150 feet from the property line. And this would be a special permit and the city council would be the appointing authorities. I have questions, councilor. All. Thank You. 'cause I thought we did include the comma and then how if the Water Resource Protection District came partially came in within that property line.
And I thought we went to a hundred feet, but I thought we were within that property line. I thought we added that section. I council morgane. I don't believe so. I I thought we kept it as was proposed with 150 feet. That's what we voted on. There was Discussion about that. Right? The hundred. Changing it to a hundred feet. Councilor Moreland, did you have something? No. Anything further Chair answer. Councilor Miller. Thank you Mr. President. Um, I appreciate all of the time everyone took to come in and speak to us at the public hearing. I appreciate the time that the committee members took in
their meeting, which I attended. I cannot support this ordinance as written. Nobody has a bigger problem with battery storage than I do. And I cannot support this as written right now. We don't have an ordinance forbidding battery storage anywhere or permitting battery storage anywhere. And anyone who wants to put it here has to take it up with the state, which right now, quite frankly, has better water protection than we do. It has better protection for environmental justice communities than we do.
And if we write an ordinance that permits this technology somewhere for some purpose, then it can be argued in court that to deny this other purpose without talking about size or distance or composition or where they came from or how they're stored or when they got here, or how you build them or what kind of protection you have without any of that information. Then if we pass this right, we're protecting an aquifer by 150 feet, which is,
as Councilor Bean will tell you, half a field. I can kick a soccer ball twice that distance. Oh yes I can. Yeah. It has zero chance at protecting our water. It has zero chance at protecting our air. It picks one use, but none of the other uses that could have the same fire and uses the same technology, which lawyers call arbitrary and capricious. Right. It ignores hours of public testimony and people who came in and the recommendations of the planning board whose job it normally is
to try and protect our water. Since the city took away bay pack, the timeline at the energy facility siting board is at least 12 months. There is no need for us to get this through right now and have something on the books that is a line. And I'm sorry, I know it was given to you and it's wrong. There's something wrong here. This is wrong. I can't support this as written. It will put us in danger. It puts our breathing in danger. It puts our water in danger. It puts vulnerable populations in danger. It is wrong.
It needs more work. They can't even agree on what they passed through. It needs more work in committee and it should come out. Didn't we just leave something in committee? 'cause it needed more work. And then when we have it together, we're gonna publish it and do a public hearing. Didn't I just hear counselor burns? Say that? Do it again. Ms. Matters. Thank you. Councilor Figgy, then Counselor fan. Yeah. There counselor across the way brought up a point about whether or not this is too prohibitive. Too restrictive, and asked for legal opinion.
Was that obtained by the, by the committee? Yes. Yes, It was. It was deemed that it was, it was a substantial change. No, no. I I, I agree that going from 150 to thousands of substantial change mm-hmm. My question was following up on what Councilor Sullivan's asked about. Is it too restrictive that it would play into the hands of the opponents? The question, the question that was given to the law department was if prohibiting it from the water resource protection was too prohibitive. And it wasn't a definitive answer on that. Okay. Perhaps Counselor Morgane couldn't answer that.
He did meet with the law department, so perhaps he has a better answer. Councilor Morgan may. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. So, uh, uh, the city solicitor and Jay Vinky, uh, Jay Vinky and I met with the city solicitor and we, we detail all of that. And it's a valid question. Thank you for asking that question. 'cause I, I know a few counsels were asking about that. So to make any changes to the way it was proposed to a thousand feet would definitely be a, a red flag. And if we, um, the, the city solicitor cited, you know, said that there,
there really isn't any, any legal cases to go by. Mm-hmm. But based on legal matters and how they go, um, she recommended that we, that this is fine the way it's written, that it, it will do what it's supposed to do. Um, that it may not affect the current project, any current projects that are with the city. Um, and that if we, if we make this stricter, uh, or anything like that, it could actually jeopardize, uh, that's what the city solicitor, uh, talked about.
So leaving it like this means that tomorrow someone may come to the city with a proposal and they're gonna see this, this is a, this isn't signal to any other best facility. That they're gonna see this and say that we are, we are making a move to protect our aquifer and we're making a move to start. This is the, the starting point. Uh, there'll be other motions coming, uh, to add on to this. And in other ways, the, the public, uh, and I'm sure some of them are here tonight to, uh, you know, that were here before about this, this issue.
They had a lot of great ideas, a lot of great suggestions. There was a lot of discussion. And the plan is to expand this to even more because lithium batteries, lithium ion batteries in general, are very, very dangerous. Uh, we had, I think, uh, three or four small batteries about that big that caught on fire spontaneously. They were in the charging unit at a television station that I was working at. And we were, uh, out of that building, we could not work in that building. The sprinkler systems came on, flooded every, and the toxic, the air was toxic.
It took months to clean up the building. And who knows if it's even safe now. And that's indoors and that's just four batteries. Uh, I think it's about four. Could have been three, could have been two. Um, but nonetheless, uh, they just spontaneously exploded. So, to answer the question, this is fine the way it is, the law department gave it, it gave it the blessing. And, um, and this would protect Westfield starting, you know, at the second reading it would, it would start protecting Westfield. So Councilor Melo, Thank you, Mr.
President. The example just given would not be prevented by this ordinance passing. This ordinance approves the existence of these systems in some places and will give legal footing to approve systems like them in places 150 feet away from the aquifer, which any of them can kick a ball for. I'm guessing. I think you did. This is not safe. It is not protecting.
And when we have this and put it in just to have it on the books, we're gonna end up with a project slipping on through and then they're gonna say, oh, I didn't know what happened. And then when we have a catastrophe, it's on everybody who voted. Yes. Thank you. Councilor Span. Thank you Mr. President. In light of, um, councilor Mellow's comments, I would like to make a motion to amend, um, my motion to bring this out and keep this in committee and look at the suggestions that we did receive from the public.
Look at the thousand feet and if deemed necessary, come up with another petition and hold another public hearing and incorporate everything that we need to incorporate to make one strong ordinance. Second, A second. Motion made it second in any discussion on the amendment, councilor alley? Um, no. I, I, I'll support that, but I, I wanna make a comment. Councilor Morgan Alley. Uh, no. I, I, I, um, would not support that motion based on what legal told us. And also based on, uh, the fact that this is, uh, this will actually protect,
the counselor is not reading the third part of this, which is it bans it from the Water Resource Protection District. It prohibits it from going there. Period. Industrial A is is around our aquifers in, in a lot of areas on the north side, specifically industrial a surrounds the aquifer in many, many different areas. So the 150 foot buffer is there. We can't make it bigger because we're going to jeopardize the city legally, but we can do it pretty soon. We can make it a thousand. We can put a moratorium, but we can't do it right now. This has to go through tonight.
I can't tell you how important this is. I completely disagree with the council to my right. Okay. The motion on the floor is to amend the leave in committee. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor? Aye. Roll call. Madame City clerk. Me? Yes. Morgan Elli. No. Ky Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Belt. Randy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Tanya? Yes. Fige? No. Harris? Yes. Matthew Payne? Yes.
In committee item 16. Councilor Fanon. Mr. President, can I make one comment, please? Okay. I'll make it brief. This is important. Councilor Miller is right. And the thing is that, the other thing is that this situation is, is that we had nothing outta the books. And the city was totally, um, stepped over it. Um, it takes, it doesn't protect the aquifer because nowhere in the Connecticut Valley Basin, one of these facilities or any large scale lithium, whether it's reclamation, any
of these facilities that are upsized be located in Connecticut Valley. We know this. Um, you've got several water supplies that are in this area. Um, you're talking fumes that will meander 30 to 50 miles out. Alright, Counsel, we, we just voted to leave it a committee, so we don't need to, to go through all Discussion. I know. We management, we've already had my hand up several times beforehand, and we, I understand we made a motion and you're managed to ignore it. I didn't ignore it. We're on to the next item. Councilor Fannie. Thank you, Mr. President. On Monday, March 17th, 2025,
the ZPD committee met on the proposed ordinance relative to accessory dwelling units and increasing the housing housing capacity. And upon a three zero vote, gave favorable approval, second Motion made it seconded through of discussion. Counsel? Yes, This is the first of the two proposed ordinances. This goes along with item 16 and 17. This is item 16. Item 16. The, the state adopted a new housing law to allow accessory dwelling units. And with this new state law, an accessory dwelling unit cannot be prohibited or unnecessary. Regulated. The city planner and the planning board did a comprehensive job in taking the
state law and incorporating it into the local ordinances to include ADU in the definitions. Permitted uses special permit, uses parking area in area, density, accessory structures, non-conforming uses in site plans. Also, part of this new state law, an ordinance or amendment that deals with an accessory dwelling unit to increase housing capacity only needs a simple majority vote. Whereas in other zoning ordinances or amendments, it requires a super majority. Therefore, this amendment will pass with seven votes. Also, at the last meeting, the city planner gave a very
informative summary sheet relative to these proposed changes for both this ordinance and the next one. Thank you. Any further discussion on this item? Okay. So this is, uh, by reading first. Reading by title, home. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Counselor? First reading is an ordinance amending the code of ordinances, city of Westfield, appendix P zoning adopt to September 3rd, 1987 relative to accessory dwelling units and increase housing capacity. Thank you. Motion for second reading, council. Motion for second reading and final passes at the next regular meeting.
Second. Second, second. Motion made it second. It all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Now on for second reading. Item 17, Councillor Fanon. Thank you, Mr. President. On March 17th, 2025, the DPD committee met on the proposed ordinance relative to housing related matters and miscellaneous updates. And upon a vote of three zero gave favorable favorable approval. Second Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, counsel? Yes. Thank you. This amendment deals with accessory dwelling units, but the amendments do not deal with increasing housing capacity. These amendments give the city some oversight. One example of city oversight is that an A DU application is
by site plan approval. So the planning board can look at each application. Another example is, is relative to allowing a home-based business in an A DU. There was discussion of this in the committee. The amendment is proposing only one home-based business per property. So if the main house had a home-based business, the A DU could not have one, but if the main house did not have one, the A DU could have one. But there is nothing prohibiting both the main house and the A DU from having a home occupation In committee, I was one of the members
that supported only one home-based business per property with the thought that some ADUs may be in very, in very densely populated areas. And having two businesses with customers and perhaps deliveries coming and going, it may be detrimental to the neighbors. Also, since this amendment does not deal with increasing housing capacity, it involves a super majority vote. Thank you. Anything further? Councilor Adams? IIII just had a quick question and I know I think Councilor Morgan brought up last time. Do we, do we ever get the, the question answered about the septic? Because if you don't have to put a septic in one
of these units, it could be very easily for anybody to do it. But if you have to put a septic tank in, it might make it difficult. Did we ever get a clarification on that? Counsel? Was, I, I believe that was a, that was not a zoning issue. It was another department. Health department. Yeah, It's a board of health issue. And so it didn't, it's based on the number of bedrooms. So if, if you're adding a number of bedrooms that exceeds the capacity of that system, it's either gonna have to replace or upgrade. That's a title. Title. So could you, could you add this building
if it was close to your septic tank? But if you're adding bedrooms, yeah, that's the key. If you're adding bedrooms, So you need another septic tank. Yeah. So let's say you have a three bedroom house and it's got a system for three bedrooms. Yeah. If you put in another unit, another bedroom, you have to expand that system to accommodate that extra bedroom. You can have 10 bathrooms, doesn't affect anything, but if you add a bedroom, that's what causes, that's what triggers. So just just to clarify that. So if you, if you're, you're only putting 900 square feet on rubber sheets. If you put 900 square feet in your backyard
and you don't put a bedroom in it, could you use a septic tank that's not, could you use one of those toilets and not have to put a septic tank in? I just wanted to clarify that. You, you'd have to clarify that through Title five Because that might make a huge difference. Councilor Melo. Thank you, Mr. President. I didn't have a question until you spoke, but are you saying that you could put an A DU with a studio in it and because it's not technically a bedroom, you could have five people live in there and not change the septic? Well, if you, if you're occupying it and you're sleeping in it, then it's considered to be a bedroom.
Okay. So it, it's not like the walls and the windows as if you're occupying and you're sleeping. It's a bedroom. Okay. Councilor Morgane question. Go ahead. Yeah. And, And I know councilor fan with her reading it, I maybe I just didn't get it. So we're not opening up the door for more homebased businesses. They still have to go through the process, Correct? Correct. Okay. Home base Was, yes. Councilor Morgane. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. So I'm the one that voted, uh, no, because I really felt that, um, that if the, whoever's living in the a DU needs to have the ability
to have a home-based business, if that's, um, what they are planning to do. Uh, we had a young lady here that said that she's glad to see this because she, she and her friends, there's people that can't afford some of the rents out there. And, and this would give, give an option to, uh, to rent it a tiny home on a property or a small house, you know, on a, on an existing property would have a lower rent, uh, you know, in Supposedly. Um, but the, uh, so I have the language Jayski, uh, sent me the language, uh, that would have to be changed, um,
to, to allow home-based business for both properties. So if there was already one existing on the main, uh, property, you could ha add, you could still have one with the person living, people living in the A DU, then vice versa. If there's one on the A DU and not one on the, uh, main property, and then the person owning the main property wants to have now a home-based business, uh, they wouldn't have the ability to do that unless we change it to include home-based business, um, in this, in this, these economic times. I think we need to give people the freedom to do that.
That's why I voted no. And I, I entertain the, uh, possibility of, of changing that part of it. So I have the language here. You know, I'm, I'm, I'm kind of beat up tonight already, so I don't, I don't even think I'm gonna make the motion. I'll let someone else make the motion, uh, to change the language and I'll second it. Councilor, Go. May, may I ask a question about that? Uh, is the difference between a home-based business and a home based occupation vehicle trips per day? Uh, councilor Fanon, you know the answer to that? Yes. Yes. A home-based business. You, you would have customers coming and going
or as a home occupation it would not, you would not have customers coming and going. May I follow up? Please? Would it be possible for an A DU person who needed to have a homebased business if there was a home based business? It'd be regular dwelling. Like couldn't they just have a shared storefront at the one house? Couldn't they work together to, would that be not allowed? We didn't, don't have answer. Discuss that. Okay. Thank you. Anything further? This is for first reading by title only. All in favor? A. Aye. Opposed? Counselor.
Motion for second reading. Oh, sorry. Second. You wanna just read the, uh, first reading? You wanna just read the, uh, First reading in ordinance amending the code of orange, the city of Westfield, appendix B zoning adapted September 3rd, 1997 relative to housing related matters and miscellaneous updates. Thank you. And there's a motion for second reading. Motion for a second reading and final passage of the next regular scheduled meeting. Second. Motion made it second. All in favor? Aye. A. Opposed? Now on for second reading. Unfinished business Item 18. Council Melo. Thank you Mr. President. Um, item 18 is the second reading, final passage
of an ordinance amending chapter 18. Article two, division one, division of water sections 1828 through 1835. So moved. Second. Motion made it second In any discussion. Uh, would you like to hear more? We did discuss it in full last time. Nope. Nope. All we need to do Is vote then. I have nothing, sir. Thank you. Roll call. Madam City Clerk. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley. Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Beam? Yes. Bill. Randy? Yes. S Yes. Fanon? Yes. Vicky? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew King? Yes. Thank you. Item 19.
Councilor Meow. Thank you, Mr. Friend. Do I have to read it? The title? Okay. Um, item 19 is second reading, final passage of an ordinance amending chapter one, section one dash 9.1, non-criminal disposition and penalties. So move Second. Motion. Made it seconded for The discussion. No, I have nothing. Very good. Roll call. Mad City Club. Hello? Yes. Morgan Elli. Yes. Monki? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Me? Yes. Rey? Yes. Burns? Yes. Tanya? Yes.
F Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew? Gain? Yes. Thank you. Um, Councillor Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Councillor Sullivan on his announced retirement at the end of this year. I would like to for my day job, just so we're for his day Job, not council job, And ending to a long and distinguished career in public services. Sir, we say thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Any other announcements? Councilor Melo. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to offer, um, to the chair of CPD, uh, any help that you need personally,
professionally, getting experts for you. Anything you need to let me know? Thank you. I'll take you up on that. Okay. Anything further? Councilor Harris? Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion made it seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Goodnight everybody.