Like, uh, is that come across? What do you think? Like, you call the October 2nd, 2025 meeting of the Westfield City Council to order. Roll call please. Minimum KY here. Sullivan. He will not be with us. Adams here. Allie here. Bean. Um, He will not be with us. Beltran Here. Burns Here. Fanan Here. Fay. He will not be with us. Harris. Here. Matthews Kane. Uh, she will not be with us. Mellow. Here Morgan. Ellie Here Bryce for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance. States stands. Liberty Justice
Reading of the record of the meeting of September 17th. Councilor Morgan Elli. Motion to accept the minutes as submitted. Second. Motion made it second. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Now comes the portion of the meeting for public participation. Anyone wishing to address the city council may do so by stepping forward. State your name and address for the city clerk and we do this in three minute increments, which may be extended. You would like to address the council. Hi, my name is Mary Bo Danowitz and this is in relation to the rezoning effort in on Cycle Street. Could you just state your address for this?
Oh, sorry. Mary Bo Danowitz 36 Cleveland Avenue. Westfield. Great, thank you. Okay. And I just have a few questions I'd like to know, um, specifically if somebody can just explain the rezoning. So that's supposed to be done and, um, That's, that's on a public hearing tonight. Oh. So if you, if you wanna wait until the public hearing, then you can ask questions during the public hearing. Okay. Okay. Anyone else on something that's not on the agenda for public hearing? Thank you anyone. Okay. Seeing none, communications from the mayor. Councilor Ky. Thank
You, Mr. President. Uh, would you please ask Madam City Clerk? Well, first I'd like to, uh, propose immediate consideration for item one. Second. Motion made it seconded for immediate consideration. All in favor. A. Aye. Opposed? Now under suspension for immediate consideration. Counselor. Thank you, Mr. President. Would you please ask Madam City Clerk to read Item one, City Clerk One, transfer of $21,815 and 34 cents from the Reserve for future salary increases account to various accounts to fulfill the first year contracts of the ratified successor agreement between the city
of Westfield and the Westfield Municipal Employee Association for the period of July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2028. Thank you, council. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, this item is up for immediate consideration because we'd like to get some DPW workers hired, uh, before the leaves fall. And, and we do, uh, leaf pickup. Uh, right now the new, uh, the new contract calls for a new driver position. So you don't need to have a CDL license. You can be a driver for some of, uh, some of our trucks.
Um, this, the contract came in, it was created to raise the bottom entry level. It included a 4% raise. Uh, there are current, currently eight labor, uh, m Meos, which is, uh, operators, uh, missing along with three positions. And this will help get things going quicker. Uh, it'll, it'll save about three weeks in time for the, uh, for the leaf pickup. The mayor's hoping to have leaf pickup at the house or at, at your homes. But, uh, he's, he's aiming also for having it here at City Hall.
Any questions? Seeing none. Roll call ma'am. City Court. Oniskey? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bill Chandy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Harris? Yes. Mellow? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Thank you. Item two. Councilor Harris, while it's still under suspension. Thank you, Mr. President. Two is submitting a change to the job description for the position of superintendent of buildings. Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion. Counselor? Yes, there are two specific changes, otherwise all the wording is exactly the same.
The first is under supervision is removal of confirmation by city council. According to the ordinance, this position is not confirmed by the city council. I did sit with the personnel director. I asked her why all the years passed. We have had him come in front of us to be confirmed. She did not have an answer. She said whoever was the personnel director way back when. That's how they did it. Obviously not reading the ordinance. The reason the ordinance was, um, being analyzed this time was when the negotiations
for all the contracts came through. One of the new part of the contract was that she had to go through every job description and every job description has to coordinate with an ordinance. She did that. She cross-referenced it, and this ordinance does not exist. That says it should be confirmed by the city council and the mayor agrees. That's the number. That's the first one. The second one is under Essential Essential Duties and Responsibilities. There's a section that we are removing that has the oversight and the preparation of construction and repair projects. This item conflicts with the duties to inspect
and enforce the laws, regulations, and ordinances regarding the construction and repair of the buildings. She would have to inspect them herself, suggest, uh, what should be repaired. And then she has to, and her responsibilities, um, inspect them again. It it's redundant and it, it, it it is, uh, I'm sure Mr. Beltrani will confirm this. It, it, it doesn't, uh, it doesn't fit. That paragraph is, should not be there. The engineering department, um, Tammy Teff,
other departments should be involved in that. But it's a redundant, uh, paragraph and that paragraph is taken out. Any questions? 'cause I did meet with her, so if you have any questions, I can answer them. Any questions from counsel? Uh, Seeing none. All in Favor, William? Oh, Sorry. Could, would it be possible, Mr. President, could we get your opinion? 'cause I know you work closely in that department and I don't, this, This is exactly what needs to be done. It, it just ties the hands of the building inspector and, and forces them to do some things that can be done by somebody else.
And it just, it kind of cleans things up. That's really what's, Thank you for your opinion. Yeah. Three, three chair. Okay. Yes. Now I was over always under the impression that we, we approved this Person. We have, we have done the appointed for Her. Well, why would, why does that have to change? It is not in the ordinance. The ordinance does not say that the counsel approves this position. And as I said, I asked her, well, why have we done this In the past, she did not have an explanation except to say that the previous personnel manager had put that in place
and that's the way it was done. But even the mayor agrees. Some positions we have to approve. This is not one of them. It is not in the ordinance. Well, I can't, we're this thing is thrown on us. Immediate consideration right now. I can't vote for this. I want an explanation. If, if the personnel director can't give you an explanation and I don't get an explanation, then either, I, I think we should, I think this thing should go to committee. Ask me. Well, that is the explanation. Uh, councilor Burns the explanation is previous personnel directors put that in.
It was never cross referenced with the ordinance. And then it just continued on year after year. As far as immediate consideration, that's up to the president. Well, you asked for it. Yes, go ahead. Okay. You good? Um, yeah, I'm not gonna be voting for this Councilor. Fannie, Could the ordinance be changed to have the council, the appointing authority, The union has approved this, that it coordinates with the current ordinance and the union will not approve adding something else, which would be confirmation by the council. The union won't Add it. Correct. That is, that is the explanation. I have been given
Any other questions, councilor ask. So to clarify that if we vote no, where do, where do we stand? Do you know? Council Harris? We vote no. The, we can't hire a superintendent of buildings. We don't have a current job description. She can't advertise the job because she has to be able to give candidates an explanation as to what is involved in the job. Um, so it goes back to the mayor and the personnel department, I guess. Okay. Thank you Council. Thanks, president. So there's no record of like, when, let's say this job description was actually written. Do we have a date or how that came to be?
I don't have, I don't have the date. Um, Mr. All, Um, Yeah, I don't have, yes. Councilor Meow. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, is there any way that we could get a few more answers to questions or is there just No, there's just no answer there whatsoever. Even if I, I can't answer that question for you, but if you don't feel comfortable with doing it, then we can send it to committee and it's gonna have to wait a couple weeks. Sure. And that's just the way it is. That's Right. Cons burns. I, I don't, I'm kind of confused here
because there's an advertisement out there for this job. On, on, it's out there. So this isn't like it's out There. I, I do have an Explanation and, and counsel believe me, this isn't you. I'm not, this isn't. So let her, let her answer. Councilor Harris. Yes. I asked her that too. And she said that she posted a general description of it, but that when people apply, she has to be able to provide a proper, uh, job description as to exactly what the job entails. And she's not able to do that until this is approved. Whether it's tonight or another night.
Well, if I may, um, I don't think if you wanna hold it for two weeks, I don't think it makes a big difference because I can tell you that there are several positions in Western Massachusetts that are vacant because they can't find building inspectors. I have absolutely no problem. Keep putting it to committee. It's up to the, it's up to the council. This was an option. And, uh, it's up to the council And through, through the chair again? Yes. Why is, I mean, this can't wait two weeks. I just said we can wait two weeks. This Is Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, sir. Anything further?
So, councilor? Yeah, just an explanation. A a no vote would mean it would, so that be another vote to send it to, uh, BAC? Mm-hmm. Correct? Yes. Okay. I just wanna clear. Thank you Councilor Morgan. Thank You Mr. President. It, it is unusual that we have, uh, four counselors that aren't here. And I would like to see, uh, hear from them as well. So I I was actually gonna motion for that just outta respect for them not being able to be here tonight. And this is, It's not like you have an applicant waiting. Yeah. So, you know, if we wanna wait the two weeks, that's fine.
So we're gonna vote on this original counselor On the original. That will a no will be a no vote will be To send it to committee To Well then we'd have to have another vote to send the committee. A no vote would be no for me consideration. Right. And then we'd have another vote to send it to committee. Alright, so I'm ready. Let's do a roll call. Oniskey. No. Adams, no. Allie? No. No Beltran, no Burns, no Fanon, no. Harris, no. Meow, no Morgan alley? No. Okay. Okay. So a motion to, um, submit number two,
submitting a change to the job description for the position of superintendent of buildings to send to the Personnel Action committee. Second. Motion made it second. And any further discussion on that? Seeing none. All in favor? A. Aye. Opposed? Now in the hands of PAC Can I get a motion to go back to regular order Please? Motion to return to regular order. Second. Motion made it seconded for the discussion. Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Back in regular order, petitions were monstrous and other papers. Item three is a public hearing on an application for a gas storage license for the storage of 20,000 gallons
of Jet A fuel to be located at 44 Airport Drive submitted by Jim, Bob Aviation Inc. The public hearing is now open. Is the applicant here. Would you please come forward? Good Evening. I'm assuming you're Jim and Bob, right? No, They're definitely related. Could you, uh, my name is David Prothingham. I'm from Wilcox and Barton. I'm the engineer that designed the, the fuel system. I'm Tony cio. I work for Jim Bob Aviation. I'm the Director of Maintenance and Facility Manager. Okay. Why don't you give us a version of what you, uh, are intending to do here. Yeah. So, uh, general Body Aviation would like to install a 20,000 gallon above ground storage tank
to store, uh, jet fuel for the use in their aircraft. Um, at the rest field airport, uh, the system would be comprised of a double wall tank and then a pump system to move fuel out of transport trucks into the tank and out of the tank and into their aircraft. Uh, this system is not open to the public. It's for Bob use only. So it would be operated by trained personnel and employees of of Jim Bobs. Um, we have gone through the planning board and received our site plan review.
So now we report this board to get our license for the storage of the field. Uh, questions from the council? Councillor Melo, you're always there. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, can you talk to me about tertiary containment and, um, fire extinguishing options? So the, the system is proposed to be contained within a tertiary containment system. So it's, uh, the tank is, is set down in a concrete basin that's sized to contain the 20,000 gallons of fuel plus six inches of freeboard.
Um, and it is proposed with a canopy over that to prevent, um, as much rainwater as possible from entering that tertiary containment area. As there is no gravity drain out of that, Jim be, would have to remove any accumulated water, um, as it accumulates and it would inspect it before removing it. Um, there will be, you know, it will be installed per FPK requirements. So there'll be fire extinguishers at the pump skid. That's the pump system that moves and filters the fuel. Um, and then there are ones on the, um,
egress routes from there. Uh, there is no automatic sprinkler system proposed for this. May I please? Uh, and what are the chemical constituents of the fire extinguishers? They're required to be, what do they call it, 80 bc So it's a chemical fire extinguisher that is designed for use with fuels. I don't know exactly what is in those things. Um, if you're concerned about PFAS, those are no longer available for, for use for It's, there's, there you're saying
That they, I don't believe these are PFOS containing those foams that are, that are in that, those fire suppression systems. I don't believe those are available anymore. So this is a dry chemical. I, I don't know the exact com makeup of what's in the fire extinguishers. But NFPA is very specific about what is required for fire extinguishers at fuel stations. Right. And most of them are PFAS. So could you find out for us exactly what that is please? I, I can draw. Yes. Thank you so much. Any other questions from the council? Can I open it up to the public? Anyone have a question of fact for the applicant?
Anybody have a question? Okay. Seeing no questions is there, I have a question. Yes. Council, famous president. So are there other, um, facilities that you are operate at other airports around the country? There is Other facilities on our airport that have, uh, similar uh, tanks that we're supposed to put in on Here at Barnes. Here at Barnes. Right. But is this the only location that you operate on or do you have other For Us? Yes. It's the only location. Okay. Um, and these would be your planes or your fuel?
Our planes only, yeah. Okay. Um, alright. At this point is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the application? Speak in favor. I'll be in favor. Anybody like to speak in opposition to the application? Again in opposition. Seeing no one Councilor Adams Motion to refer to license committee and have an answer for councilor mellow's Question before we would at that meeting would be great. Second. Motion made it second. And any discussion on closing the public hearing? Councilor Fanny, are you closing the public hearing? Uh, do you want to handle it in committee? It's, I'm not unlicensed.
No, I'm asking Councilor Miller, are you comfortable with them handling that in committee? Sure. Okay. Then we can close the public hearing. Yes. All in favor Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Thank you gentlemen. Thank You. Thank you. Item four is a public hearing on a zoning petition of the planning board to amend or correct the map at Ridgeway Ave. Vicinity to resident c. Public hearing is now open. Mr. Devinsky, you have the floor. Okay. So the next, um, Good evening.
The next four items are housekeeping matters. Um, for the zoning related things, uh, the first three have to do with errors on the zoning map as it's published. Excuse you speak up please. Sure. The first three have to do with errors we've discovered on the zoning map. Uh, apparently depicted an error for 20 or so years, um, stemming back to when the map was translated from hand drawn into GIS around 2000 or so.
Um, so none of these changes to the ordinance or map tonight are anticipated to any kind of development change or any physical change. It's just a map update. Why are we doing this now? We, we publish the map every so often. Um, we're planning to republish the updated map in probably January. And just before we do that, I'd like to get these corrections made. So that's again, housekeeping matters. Uh, so the first I'll take these hearings,
I guess the first one is Ridgeway Avenue. Uh, it's that yellow area is, is what currently is shown on the zoning map as RC one, resident C one. Um, and it's believed that it is actually resident c uh, the difference between those for the neighborhood, it's immaterial, it's already developed area. There's, nothing's not really any land to build anything. So this really doesn't change anything you could do anyway. They're both residential districts. Um, I provided for council share several old zoning maps from, um,
87 59. I forget, but you have several of 'em on your share file. This isn't really a venue to roll them out and explain how these errors got made, but suitable for committee. Just we can look at that. But essentially what happened was, um, in 87, 88 we were kind of redid the whole ordinance and, um, everything that was resident C was mislabeled resident C one on the new 1988 map and subsequently was corrected.
I think you have a 2002 version. You'll see they were all the, those were corrected to be resident C but for ever whatever reason, two areas were missed or one area is missed. Um, which was this one, which they didn't correct on that 2002 map. So when they got translated into GIS, they copied that, uh, error into the GIS So, so this, this Isn't gonna affect the use of anything. Correct. It doesn't change anything other than the color on a map. Um, they're both residential districts. Um, I mean, I don't know how much minutia you want to get into this. I've been digging through old ordinances
through the city clerk's office, um, old zoning ordinances and the evolution of how these districts came about. I would, I won't bore you with that. Um, but we have a high degree of certainty that's just an error. So the, basically we want to turn that yellow RC one zone into the purple RC zone, which matches, um, to a budding areas which the council had fairly recently rezoned, uh, some vacant lands. So that's, that's that one.
Now I would say normally when I find small errors on the zoning map, I just administratively fix it. But just because this has been shown this way for 20 years, um, I felt, I didn't feel comfortable doing it and thought we should go through the ordinance process, uh, just to correct, correct the map. Ello. Thank you Mr. President. Um, can you tell me the functional difference between RC one and RC is, are there any, uh, rights or responsibilities that the residents will lose if this change is made?
No. In fact, um, there was um, a resident who wanted to put a garage addition or a new garage up. And when you look at the RC one zoning, it has a, a larger setback. So, um, he was unable to pursue that using the RC one zoning. Um, when we did the A DU update, we put some language in there that allowed, it allowed us to apply the res C to that. So that fixed that problem, uh, for him. But this would eliminate those. RC one is intended as a garden apartment district actually
as a five acre allot minimum. The idea is you find a piece of land, you would rezone it for garden apartments and that would give you a buy right ability to do an apartment type of complex. So this was clearly never intended here on an already developed neighborhood. May I? Yes. So by switching it, you are removing the apartment complex option? Um, no. Um, residency also allows multifamilies. Okay. So functionally for them, aside from the setbacks. Okay. Functionally for a developed neighborhood has no impact. They actually make them more conforming to the zoning. Okay.
Um, if there were to be apartments, say someone bought all those houses and made it vacant land, if they were to be apartments developed, um, residency is a little more stringent in that, um, it would require likely a special permit as opposed to residency one, which is mostly by Right. Okay. Thank you. Council Oniskey. Thank you Mr. President. Are there any other RC one areas in the city? Well, we'll get to that. There's one other depicted. Timing was good, But it's one. And that they always, when I started here, intrigued me
'cause they made no logical sense. Um, but in doing this research, I've figured out how things got mislabeled or came about. So, and on the uh, um, cycle street one, we'll discuss that. That's the other area that's labeled RC one. So the, the two areas that are RC one are both mislabeled and those are the only two areas that are RC one. So there'll be no, if this goes through, there's gonna be no RC one Areas. Yeah. And there never really was. Okay. Thank you. Any further from the council?
Any questions of fact from the public regarding this? If you'd like to get up and ask a question, come on up. You got name and address for the uh, city clerk please? Uh, Robert McKay 27 Ridgeway A. Okay. Uh, if this is gonna be changed to residency, what is it now? What's the uh, I believe it's C one, correct. Jay? Is that just, Yeah, so I will say it is currently residency by, by all accounts of history and there was never a zone change to residency one,
but it's shown as residency one. So the answer to the question is it's not legally changing what's there. It's changing the correcting the map. Okay. So, like I said, I, I would normally, if there's find errors on the map, restart the ordinance and fix them. But again, this has been shown in error for so long and it seemed like too much to do. So, sir, does that answer your question sir? Is there anyone else that would like to ask a question of fact? Sure. This will kinda just kind of clarify. So can You just Get through, oh sorry.
Jessica Britton 36 Cass Mere Street. Um, so you're saying like a, a resident C one isn't really a zoning that we have in Westfield that just got mislabeled because a C one would be like right away. You were saying is that how you would depict it? There is a C one district in the ordinance, but there were, I don't believe there were ever any C one districts adopted. No. That said, if you go into the history residency, C one C one used to mean something else than it currently does.
So it used to be like a commercial, semi-commercial residential district for medical offices or, or small things like that. Um, that just complicates. But again, this story, this isn't gonna change the use of anybody's property that's there now. No. Okay. So then are we going to keep a C one property in Westfield or is everything gonna get converted over to just c Uh, again, there is nothing actually currently zoned residency one. It's, so this is shown on the map, but it's wrong. This Is a map issue. This is okay.
No, I was just Clarifi. No, that's fine. Clarification on it. We will still have the, in the ordinance, um, we'll still have the residency one garden depart district. In theory, if someone found a piece of land they wanted to come before you to rezone the residency one that basically gives them permission to do a buy right kind of large residential complex. Did you have a question? I did. Come on up. Hi, Erica Matos eight Gold Street in Westfield. Um, to clarify what, um, Ms.
Mahalo was saying before, um, about like the apartment structure for, with the new mapping chain. So you're we're saying that it's just gonna be changing this altering this, um, mapping the coating or CC one to C and no apartment complexes are gonna be built on this land, but on Gold Street the map change that you guys have is, 'cause we live on a dead end is behind the final houses that are on our street. So what are, what are the proposed plans for that area?
Because it's wetlands. So why are we, why are we changing it if it's not really, I guess you're, as you're saying C one commercial, can You just that? Yeah, I mean, if, if council wants to talk about the Cycle Street Gold Street, um, as a separate hearing, we can, we can keep these separate. We gotta do, but again, We do 'em separately unfortunately. 'cause that's the way it is on the agenda. But that, that's Fine. But the answer for all these is nothing's proposed. Nothing's changing. This isn't proposed by a developer. This is the planning board. Um, again, as we look to fix the map
before we publish it, uh, again in January, Councilor me. Um, thank you Mr. President. So, uh, does the planning board, uh, and you, uh, also recommend updates to the zoning ordinance to remove the RC one? Or do you recommend that it stay? Um, I mean from a practical standpoint, I don't see anyone ever using it. Um, could be removed. Okay. But there's no ask for that to happen Now? No. Okay. No, again, this is driven by the, our plan is to republish the zoning map. Thank
You Councilor Melli. Thank you Mr. President. Thanks Jay for new diligence in this. I I have, one question I have is how did you discover these, the, this, this one and the other two items on the, that these maps were incorrect? And so how did you discover it and how did they end up being incorrect in the first place? Um, so on this one again, you, you recently rezoned the two properties that abut um, you rezoned those to re C. So when that came, came before you, I mean part of this residency,
one used to extend into that. And I had always thought this RC one here was odd 'cause it didn't make any sense the way it was crafted. Um, but when those pro zoning proposals were, uh, put forward, and the last one I think was just this year, um, it just, I finally took it on to research and figure out where this came from. And again, if you look at the old maps, you can kind of see how it, there were errors made and they were corrected, um, but they missed this property. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the public like
to make any more comments or have questions? Anyone like to speak in favor of this application in favor? Anyone like to speak in opposition to this application? Once again in opposition? See no one. Councilor Fanon. Motion to close the public hearing and refer to zoning plan, zoning planning and development Committee. Second. Motion made it seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? This hearing is closed. Now on to item five and five is a public hearing on a zoning petition of the planning board to amend or affirm the map at 2 65 Union Street as industrial, a
public hearing is open. Okay, you have the floor. So the previous one, Ridgeway was to, um, correct the map. Um, again, not technically a change. This one is to affirm the map as it's been depicted for the last, again, 20 years. So this is, I would say technically a change from what the actual zoning of this property is. So we believe it is a residence, a rural residential. Um, I traced back to, I think, I think I copied you on the ordinance. When the two abutting properties were rezoned
to industrial A, this was not included on that. There was no subsequent ordinances that actually rezoned this property. Um, it's, it's clear to me how this one, so this one happened when the paper map was translated into GIS, uh, based on the shape of the abutting zone, it was misaligned. Again, the nuances of this we can go over in committee, but um, it ended up making this zone bigger than it actually is. So the planning board discussed this. Uh, the idea was, well everyone thinks it's industrial A, it has been industrial a shown as industrial A for so long.
It's on a relatively major route, maybe less appropriate as the residential district. And so the board felt, um, it should be affirmed as the map has depicted it as a change to industrial a Questions. No questions from the council. Anyone in the uh, room have questions for the applicant? Once again, state your name. Sure. Jessica Britton. 36 Casser Street. So with this one it was zoned as, um, rural residential and we're gonna put it to it's appropriate use
of industrial a. Okay. And just like the other one, that one makes sense for, not that we're talking on that but other changes. How did, I guess kind of like what Nick was saying, like how did these come up that you noticed them all together or how were not maybe necessarily you, but how did it all come up that you guys like saw that these needed to be corrected? So this area and all the outlying areas were all one zoned rural residential. So all these colors that came in later, uh, were subsequent zoning changes after 1947 or so.
Um, so that's how these appeared. So it's a little easier to trace. Uh, was to trace this one. How this one was discovered was actually when a marijuana dispensary was proposed here. And I don't remember exactly but the assistant city engineer at the time, um, and I were going through some of the books, they used to translate the paper map into the GIS map and the correction was noted on the property across the street. Again, the shape of that someone referenced that to tie into
where this was lined up and it wasn't quite clear then. And we didn't do a lot of research. I think he had actually overlaid, uh, some maps and I think I have some in your share file as well, some of the older maps that show how it actually was. Um, so at the time I think I wrote a memo to the file that this is curious, uh, it wasn't quite clear. Um, but in further study, um, it is a lot clearer as to exactly how it happened. Council law. Yeah.
Thank you Mr. President. Isn't there a farm on this property? Yeah. Okay. Wait. So it's technically zoned verbal residential. The map has been displaying it incorrectly and you want us to think it's better zoned industrial A because it's next to industrial a even though there is an active farm on the property. So you can have a farm in an industrial a, um, that's not, agriculture is widely allowed anywhere, so it doesn't make that non-conforming.
I think there are some other activities that go on there that aren't quite residentially looking. Um, but we did, I mean we did have this discussion at the planning board and um, we sent a letter to the landowner, um, just kind of advising him that this is, you know, the approach we were gonna take. We didn't get any, uh, response or opposition. May i, may I follow up please. Okay. But currently right now on the property is a residence and a farm. Yeah. Oh, okay. Right. Thank you. But again, everyone including them I'm sure believes this it to be industrial A already.
Council Morgane, then Allie, then Burns. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, just for those that are watching, uh, or that see the video later or that are here in the audience, how does the, how does the map actually get amended once these changes are done? Who does that? Where does, how does that process go? Um, so the ordinance will say amend parcel so and so, or it'll have a map or explain the boundaries. Um, and every, so I give that to our GIS person who we farm that out. It's no longer in house. So I've been working with, um, someone at vo uh,
translating the GIS into the static PDF map again that we publish every so often. So, um, you know, between publishing the maps, we have maybe three or four zone changes. Um, so we just, you know, let her know, update these. They'll usually update 'em into the GIS, the online version right away. And then again, every so often we actually publish the official map that reflects the changes. And does it take days, weeks, months to make the cha to have the changes? No, I mean it's relatively simple. I mean, they usually may, again,
if you go on the online web GIS they're usually made as soon as council passes it. But we don't, we don't publish a new official map every, every time there's a change, we kind of, it's been about a year or every two years depending on how much changes. Councilor. Thanks president. Um, so yeah, I, I do farm at this location. Um, so when I saw this address come up, um, I was kind of surprised like whatnot. So I ended up, I did talk to the owner, um, it was always his understanding that it was industrial a,
um, and everything on that street, including this other houses that are in industrial a in that section there. Um, so it uh, but apparently it's one of those things where it was just basically mislabeled at one point. Um, but he's fine with it being industrial A and apparently it was industrial A so because I obviously I had a concern about that. Are you asking the question or are you good? No, I'm just stating the fact that I, like, I looked into this as well. I mean I actually work on that property, so, um, I don't think I, there's not a conflict
for me voting on this, I don't think, but yeah. But I did talk to the owner and he was, you know, under the assumption that it always was industrial light and It was me very well could be a conflict counselor. Yeah. Accusing myself only if you need my vote. Councilor Burns, did you have Something? Yeah, Quick question. Um, thanks for coming in today. Um, would this have made any difference with the marijuana store? What with the colors tonight? Conceivably, So that means, it, it, that means it's just not the colors. This means it's a zone change.
That's what this one, I, I believe would formally be a zone change because um, there was never a ordinance that changed it to industrial aid. So this is a zone change without doing a zone change. Well just change the color, right? Is that what We're doing? Well this is a zone change, so that's why we're having a public hearing and going through the so formal process as any other zone change was. It Was, it was, it was believed to be and I did that. He stated this twice it was believed to be rural residentials, I believe. Right? There's no, yeah, I found no evidence that that parcel was rezoned.
The, the two to the north ish. Um, I think I gave you, I think that ordinance is on your sheriff file. It, it just seems to me that all of a sudden this is coming in here now and it was what, three years ago? I believe maybe it was four. Yeah, well It was just caught by accident or was it? Yeah, it was me and the assistant city engineer at the time and I don't remember exactly but, but I, I'm not putting the blame. We did look into it quite a bit and I said there is a memo I wrote to the file, um, basically needed, either needed an interpretation from the building inspector as to what it would be, um,
or further research, which I subsequently did. And these are kind of back burner things that I just kind of, you know, I think we talked about it in, in the spring at the planning board. And as much as I'd love to come here, um, kind of putting this off until, you know, we could kind of package these all up into one, one, uh, one one hearing notice and save on advertising fees and all that and, and Just, I don't think it's just a, I don't think this is a house cleaning that was denied. So this is more than a house cleaning?
Well the, it's a housekeeping of the map. It's, it's, I mean 20 years has been shown this way and I and general consensus of the board was that everyone thinks it is, thought it was, um, that we wouldn't want to kind of pull this what would appear to be a switcher rule. Councilor Miller. Thank you Mr. President. Um, to sort of follow up on Councilor Burns's question, if this zoning change were to happen, it is conceivable that projects that were previously denied would now be
available to move forward. Well, and they probably would anyway because it's largely been presented as that zone. Um, it was not previously denied, it was withdrawn. Ah, right. 'cause that's a time thing. Okay. So are we able to keep this one open so that we can hear from the landowner and other people that maybe didn't understand exactly how much this, um, how keeping matters to them? Well, you can do whatever you want. If you want to keep it open and get more clarification, that's okay. That's it. Yeah, I Can we please hear from the landowner?
'cause the, is the landowner here? No, no. We again, we did reach out, um, several months ago. Any other questions? We'll move it along and if we want to leave it open, we can do that. So anyone have any questions for the applicant on this? Any questions? Anyone in favor of this application? In favor? Anyone opposed to the application Councilor Fanon motion to continue the public hearing to the next city council meeting? Second motion made it second. Any discussion on continuing All in favor? A opposed?
Thank you. Item six is a public hearing on a zoning petition of the planning board to amend the map at two and zero cycle street parcel 21 dash 32 dash one A to residential C and industrial a respectively public hearing is open council, um, not councilor Mr. Divinsky, you have the floor. Okay, so this is the third error. Um, this is the other, the only other zone shown on the map as RC one. Um, this is believed to be actually commercial A
And I think that 2002 map you, you have before it went into GIS shows that, um, and again, we can go through all the, the history of this, uh, I suspect, I don't know, but that probably when this, I think in 1949 was a change to um, kind of a commercial zone at the time, probably based on when the factory was operating. There might have been, I don't know, a lunch counter or barber shop or something on this corner. Uh, and that's how it was zoned to a commercial,
small commercial district at that time. And that's carried through, um, through the years. So again, um, the correct zone is believed to be commercial a and so we could have come here and said we'll just correct that to the commercial a that it originally was. But the board looked at this and said, do we really want a tiny two lot, um, zoning district that doesn't relate to probably what it did at the, at the time when it was probably probably commercially operated. And they felt well, we'll just split it
between the existing zones there. So, um, residency and the existing house and then that portion of that vacant lot that's already in, already zoned industrial just to fold that zone into, into here. So this tiny little zoning district would go away and it just come into the existing so that by that this would be a change. Again, I believe the zone to be commercial A this would be a change of the zones to the, to the abutting zones.
Questions from the council. Councillor meow, Mr. President. Um, so I understand the concept and I'm not so upset about the right hand side, the corner by the apartment building, right? It can be residence and that makes sense. But I'm concerned about the former location of the former residence turning completely into industrial a because I'm concerned about that corner. I'm concerned about that corner becoming, you know,
some kind of driveway where, where, uh, commercial vehicles come out and use Cleveland as their main route when it's supposed to be. Trucks aren't supposed to be on that street, right? So I'm wondering why that purple area isn't following the curve of that pink line and cutting through that lot, right? Because it's all owned by the cycle street people anyway, right? So why, why isn't that hot pink area? Why doesn't that curve follow it more
naturally rather than cut that lot that way to get to the curb? Like the, the fact that that pink thing goes all the way to the curb and the street makes me feel like that's gonna be a driveway for a whole lot of traffic for those residents. And that right there makes me bristle. But if, why isn't it, why doesn't it follow the curvature of the zone that's already there? Okay, so that is not actually a separate lot. It's part of this whole big lot. So I mean generally splitting split zones through a lot are
awkward for everyone involved. Um, Well except the above neighbors, right? Who used to have a house next to them, Right? But again, it's not, it's not a separate lot. If it, yeah, if it made sense, if it were already a separate lot that maybe maintain that, um, rather than, um, again this is a whole big parcel. That corner is a piece of that parcel. Lemme rephrase this. If you change that former housing lot into industrial a what potentialities does that open for? The residents who live literally next to that lot
when they used to live next to a house and right now they live next to an empty lot. Now they live next to a commercial, a zoned portion. Um, so that would allow a commercial driveway currently. Um, and then all the rest of the frontage of Cycle Street, um, it would allow any type of driveway. This has been approved for a self storage facility, um, previously. Mm-hmm. And isn't there like an issue with that lot in the driveway and the amount of space
because you can only have so much building, right? I, I recall this and I recall how those residents were treated. And so I'm very b bristly about changing that law. I am very bristly about that 'cause those residents were mistreated. And so what I'm saying is why can't that hot pink portion give more of a distance to those residents and protect 'em? Well, I mean certainly counsel could, um, you know, massage where these lines go in count in committee. Um, that certainly wouldn't in your purview if you think it should align differently. Um, I mean I am fine with leaving it as commercial aid.
Would that be a significant change if it were changed in committee? Well, I mean that's, that's for you to decide. I guess That's, that's why we're having a public hearing. So if you don't like it then we'll just have to deal with what it is. Um, again, I'd be fine. Just leave it as commercial A So I'll fix the map to say commercial A, which it actually is and you know, we could just leave that. Any other questions from the council? Council burns? You good? I'm fine. Go wait for the uh, Any questions from the public come on up.
Please state your name and address, sir. Uh, Carlos Lewis Motos. I live at eight Gold Street with my wife Erica Motos. Good evening, Mr. President and council members. My concern if I could approach the at Mr. Please. My big concern is we live off Gold Street, which abuts wetlands that are behind the, the bike trail. Um, the self storage facility that was proposed, they started altering Lands Stack here, um, really without us being noticed that alteration ended up flooding, um, a house
that right about here at the end of Gold Street ended up causing my neighbor's, um, basement to flood. They ended up coming back and putting everything back 'cause they were told to halt their, their alterations or whatever. Now what I'm being told I don't need to convey rumors is that they're gonna go off Gold Street, which is right here, which is a dead end street. It probably ends, um, probably 50 feet from my neighbor's house into a wood line and they want to make a two-way street to go into this commercial property. And I didn't buy a house on a dead end so that somebody can make a two-way street.
I don't care what you're building. So that's my big concern is that the residents here are being told everything Cycle Street or whoever owns it is, in my opinion, making a predatory movie trying to remove wetlands from there. And it's trying to be done on the hush hush. I talked to you the other day on the phone about this and you said there were no, I I forgot what your email said, but your email said something along the lines of they were unfounded groovers unfounded rulers are not untrue. And that's my big concern. Thank you Mr. President. Thank you. Anyone else have a comment?
Please come up. Mary Boams three six Cleveland Avenue and I have the same issue, which is that small vacant lot across the street from where I live. And there used to be a house there in the sixties. It was taken down so it was a residential spot at one time and it does a but a wildlife corridor, as you said, it's a wetland back there and I don't wanna see that destroyed, but I also do not want that turned into a commercial area. I don't want somebody drive, taking everything down, driving through that area and I don't wanna live next to whatever they plan to stick there.
And I know they're probably gonna build something there. So I really prefer it would go back to act actual residential area. I'd rather have a house built there and that's what it should be. This is our neighborhood and we wanna protect it. Thank you. Anyone else? Come on up. Good evening, Stacey Row. I'm at 52 Tannery Road. Um, my situation is not here. I don't live here, but as you all know, I had questions about zoning changes before and I hear a number of questions around the idea of how did this just happen to be found. And so I have those same questions for you as the residents,
um, because I know when my situation was raised, and if this is better put at a public hearing or the public time, please let me know. But I know that people had speculated maybe changing that commercial a of 23 to 25 tannery to better serve the needs of the resident who was trying to acquire, um, residential C within our residential. So I'm wondering if this is something new that's going to set a precedent for zoning changes when we happen to find random things. So those are my questions. I'm just kind of wondering if this is all of a sudden something new that we're doing. Thank you. There isn't
an application in place for that parcel. So I think our questions are general questions as to how we get to work where we are. Yeah, and this is why I've been avoiding this for three, four years because, um, it seems, I mean, it's just a editing of the maps. Um, this one concerns just these two areas, about three quarters of an acre. So whatever's happening on wetlands or off, it's irrelevant to this yes proposal.
Mad. You need to come up to the mic please. Hi, Eric Mattos eight Gold Street. Sorry. Um, I I I think I'm still, I'm, I'm sorry I'm not like a zoning person. So I I just need some clarification. I know you keep saying that this is just a map change but doesn't, if, if you're changing the zone, what's the implication after that? Like if it's not gonna be residential and it's gonna be commercial, isn't that gonna change the structure of that area, which means somebody can build something else other than a home for somebody else?
I guess that's my my thing. You keep saying it's just like a general thing of, of changing a map, but it does affect us over time. So the, the city is divided up into several different districts, um, residential, various residential districts, various business districts, industrial districts. So each of those districts have certain uses that are allowed or not allowed. Um, you can't do a or you know, a retail store in a residential district. Uh, you can't do residential uses in some business, um, industrial districts. So it, when we talk about vacant land, that's really
where it comes into play on this property. Two cycle street. It's already a house. Um, so nothing's going to change there. Um, again, currently it's zoned commercial a so they could in theory put up a, I don't know, convenience store there or something. Um, so by changing that to residency, that would lock that into only a residential use for that property, the property across the street here. That a, that um, is part of this bigger parcel again, was was Rezo proposed to be rezoned to match the rest of
that parcel. Again, we tried to avoid split zone properties. It's just, it's awkward for everyone. Come on up. All right. So mine is kind of like a question statement, a fact, uh, do I have to say my name again? Did I already do it before? I'm sorry. Do I have to do my name again? Did I do it before? No, you can do it again. Okay. Jessica Britton, 36 Casser Street. So statement of fact, this area was looking at being storage units and went under intense questioning back in April
of 2023. One of the key caveats was that it couldn't have climate control units. Um, statement of fact, the owners came back last fall and wanted to put in climate controlled units. Statement of fact planning board said you have to resubmit an application. That's not a modification. Statement of fact right now is we're looking at changing the zoning and cutting in some more of what would be, um, residential, commercial to now industrial A.
So what application for this property is in right now or has come in or is coming in on how they're going to use this property and how it will affect that parcel that's gonna be changed to industrial A So the project that's approved there has an approved site plan. Um, they're kind of locked into what they propose. If they want to tweak it, change it, they would come before the planning board, uh, for any changes.
So certainly the planning board looks at neighbors concerns and buffering and screening and all those types of things. So it's, it's not like, um, this is just opens up Wild West. Um, there would be for any physical changes, any development that would be, um, reviewed by the board. Councilor Mellow. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, so that would make sense to me except I was there when it happened and I know that there was material stuff left out of the application that made a very big deal. So I don't trust this at all. Number one.
Number two, when does that, when does that special permit expire? I don't have the date, but I believe there was litigation that would probably extend any Uhhuh, Any Deadlines. 2026, right? That litigation was over by the first of this summer. Yeah, I I don't know the dates on it Off hand. Yeah, this is, this is sketchy. Need to come up sir, if you want ask a question. Good evening. Chris McCreary 70 Maple Terrace. My question is, what, why not just make the whole parcel residential instead of splitting it between industrial and residential? Why not just make it all residential solves all the issues and then
Nobody could build industrial there. It just makes it a residential building. So again, if that's something council would rather see, um, turn that whole outlined area purple. Um, this, you know, so Just a question. Is there a project approved there right now? Well, on the, on the greater parcel? Yes. Okay, so not on this piece that we're talking About. Well, it's a piece of it. It's not a, it's not a separate lot. It's a piece of that big parcel. Okay. Can you come up please? Uh, Carlos Matzos a Gold Street. Now, I spoke to you the other day on the phone and like Councilor Melo said, this is sketchy.
You told me there was no proposed project on that property when I asked you if there was a apartments plan on there, which probably got mixed up with the agenda or whatever. But I asked you the other day, I specifically asked you if there was a project planned for that parcel and you said no, There is no no apartment project planned. There's that old self storage. I didn't ask if there's an apartment project plan Or any other project plan you sold. There's no project planned for this parcel Plan. There's an approved project, There's yes. Yeah, there's nothing new. There's An approved project there right now. Anyone else like to speak?
Anyone speak in favor of the project in favor? Anyone to speak in opposition to this proposal in opposition? Yeah, I'm opposed to it until we have more information and like some of the residents have talked about with flooding and wetlands, I think changing this to industrial a can cause more detriment to the community than benefit and it should go to just being residential zoning. Councilor Melo, I am vehemently against this change. This change affects an active project. It affects a negotiated projects that it affects
what can be done in a corner where the tightness of that corner has prevented action so far and protected those residents. And by changing this, we, we tie everybody's hands and send a bunch of EJ residents straight down the river. And they, just because they don't live on the hill does not mean that they should have their neighborhoods and their children. It, it treated like it's okay to live next to a highway. This, Jay, can I just ask you a question?
The project that's permitted right now is shovel ready. Correct. It's ready to go. So I think you're kind of stuck right now with an approved project. That project is in fact approved, but because of the site conditions, it has not moved forward. I think Mr. President, um, given the confusion and contention, I'd like to request a withdrawal of this application. Um, and then I will just correct the map to commercially. So you're, you're requesting a withdrawal, correct? Without prejudice or just?
Well without prejudice. With prejudice. Okay. But again, I Would I intend to correct the map to commercial A? Okay. So there's a, get a motion to, uh, motion to, uh, allow, uh, this to be withdrawn. Second. Motion. Made it seconded. Any discussion? All in favor. A. Aye. Opposed? Now, withdrawn with prejudice. Item seven is a public hearing on zoning petition of the planning board to deregulate Family Day. Daycare uses plus miscellaneous text updates
while MCC care is now open. Mr. Pinsky, you have the floor. So, again, more, um, housekeeping. Um, you should have a communication from the Department of Early Education. Um, basically there was a statewide zoning change a year or two years ago last year, I guess. Um, prohibiting communities from regulating family daycare uses. Currently Westfield requires a special permit for family daycare. Uh, we are no longer allowed to regulate them,
and so that is the impetus for this change, just to update our ordinance to comply with the state, um, the state requires. Um, so that's the language on that. And then again, this is an opportunity to fix some other miscellaneous updates. Um, none of these are substantial. They relate to name changes, some misnumber misnumbered sections, um, you know, the words bylaw instead of ordinance. Again, it's kind of just, um, wordsmithing things.
There was one, one is technically substantial change because when we did the A DU updates, the spring, um, inadvertently n the ability to convert to a two family in residential C um, we can convert to a three family or a four family, whatever. And just in doing the language, we that got dropped out. So this, um, intends to just replace that that was there previously. Um, so that's technically a substantial change, but it's just a correction to the way the ordinance was earlier this year. Questions from the council? Councillor Melo.
Thank you, Mr. President. Can you tell me more About this, uh, one that says where accessory to alcoholic beverage production? Yeah. So that was a, a couple years ago when, when, um, we were looking to allow tap rooms in the industrial, a district as accessory to a, you know, production operation. Mm-hmm. So processing or, or brewing. And there was a floor amendment and council, um, that, that mimicked that language through these other districts where it was not necessary because for one, you could already have, um,
alcoholic establishments there. So that just eliminates that last part that you kind kinda have to have a brewery operation in, in order to have a tap room. So like downtown for example, you can have a tap room. So this removes the, this removes the protective measure that council put on there because we're not allowed to have it or because it's getting No, it kind of what it, so the idea of industrial aid districts are, they're kind of, you know, for manufacturing processing, they're not really meant
to be destinations for like the general public. So when that change went in, it says you can have a brewery, but it's part of your brewing operation. Um, we don't want to say you, you can open a, a tap room downtown, but you have to have a big in Hauser Busch warehouse in order to, or brewing operation order to have a tap room. You can just have a, a tap room. So it removes the protection. No, No. Um, I think councilor or I, I could dig out the old emails back
and forth about the floor amendment, but the idea was, um, Uh, I think the idea was that it was South Broad Street and there were schools and, and Amelia Park and the Boys and Girls Club down there, and people were thinking, well, if you were coming in and sampling, you know, what's in the big, you know, I don't know what that's distill equipment, right? Like that, that, sure, you can go and taste in a tap room, but it's not a place where people go and drink because there are children right there.
Mm-hmm. Right. That was the, that was where we were coming from. Yeah. So what I wanna know is if this, if this line here that, you know, has a bunch of numbers and takes out this little phrase, like, does that have consequences that the people in this room are not? No. That, that phrase stays in for the industrial areas, which South, south Broad Street would be. So it's only Removing the phrase in areas where it cannot apply. Yeah. You'll still have tap rooms. You could be for, um, downtown business districts, um, where you
Already have Restaurants and bars. Yeah. Okay. Thank You. Yeah. You don't have to have a big, Uh, Production operation or to have taproom in those districts. Okay. Thank you. And if it industrial area, you can't just like open it up. Like it's gotta be more, I guess the primary purpose is your, your brewery, your operations, and you can have people come and taste it as opposed to the downtown and the business districts where it's more like a restaurant or, um, more kind of a retail face than a production face.
Thank you. Any other questions from the council? Any questions from a fact? From anyone in the chamber? No questions. Anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Seeing none. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the application? Once again, opposition Councilor Fanon. Motion to close the public hearing and refer to Zoning Planning and Development Committee. Second. Motion made it seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now closed. Thank you Mr. Divinsky.
Item eight, Councillor Harris. Okay. Less intense. Like I like to ask for immediate consideration for number eight. Uh, Westfield Police Department employee Tracy J plu submitting a disclosure form as a municipal employee of financial interest and a municipal contract per MGL Chapter 2 68. A Section 20 B to also serve as a part-time family outreach mentor for the Westfield Public Schools. Motion for that second. Motion to suspend the rules, if you would, for immediate consideration.
Mm-hmm. Motion to suspend, suspend the rules for a meeting. Consider Second. Motion made it second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now under suspension Counsel, Would you like me to repeat the, uh, item? No. Okay. You can just describe. So for, for number eight, um, we've done, um, we've done a disclosure form for Tracy Ploof many, many times. Um, this time it has been approved by the police Chief Pitoniak, and this time he wants to be an outreach mentor for the Westfield Public School System. He's been a resource officer and,
and a couple other positions. Um, it, one, this position does not interfere with his permanent full-time job. It's a 10 hours a week to start going up to 19 hours a week later in the school year as needed. They started on 9 24 and, um, he, he's a wonderful person and a fantastic, uh, fantastic role model for the, the kids in the, uh, Westfield school system. So it's simply to accept this disclosure form. Any questions? Roll call. Madam City Clerk
Onia? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Harris? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan? All Yes. Thank you. Reports of committees license committee Item nine. Counselor Adams. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, the license committee, uh, has met this evening, um, prior to our meeting and voted one, one to one. Uh, one yes. One no on an application for an annual Fortune tele license for our LU era to be exercised at 16 Union Ave in the Bismarck building submitted by Patricia Lowen,
beach 60 Montgomery Street. Second Motion made it seconded. Further discussion. Council? Yeah, I think Mr. President. Um, she's the founder and metaphysical er, um, since the past seven years, developed Womanology and transformed framework blending Monology Spiritual Science and Intuition coaching. She prided personal one-on-one coaching me metaphysical readings and energy alignment services tailored to clients unique cosmetic blueprints. Um, she's helped women overcome emotional blocks, rediscovering their power, and align with the true, uh, self
through exclusive high-end coaching experiences. She has a doctorate in physical divinity. She has a bachelor's, a BA in business administration and management. Um, she's highly qualified. She's done over 15,000 readings. She, uh, uh, all at for free. Um, she is understandable in what she does to a high level and her ethics. She understands ethically where she needs to be with people if they need, you know, more help and, uh, how to help 'em. Uh, which is very important. There's a lot of people that get into this
that don't really, I'm not gonna say understand it totally, but if I were to say somebody understands what she's doing, totally, it's Mrs. Beach. Um, she knows what she's doing and she's done it for a long, long time. Um, and I certainly would support a positive recommendation, uh, to giving her this, um, license. And she's not into the Ouija board thing. That's not what she's, you know, she's all about, so she knows, um, where to go with people and how to help people, which in these days, helping people,
um, when they have a problem is, is a great thing in my opinion. Any questions from the council? Councilor? All? Yeah. So I was the no vote, but, um, I wasn't impressed, Uh, by her, um, and her husband in that they, they draw a line, um, in terms of spiritual advice, um, and has counselor, um, Adam has mentioned, um, there was a request that maybe presented to her that really should be addressed by other professionals or other things of that nature. 'cause people would be asking for all kinds of things, um, and where she draws a line on
that, um, and that sort of thing. So I, I felt that that was important, so thank you. Anything further? Roll call. Madam City Clerk Ky. Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie. Okay. So how many votes does this need to pass? Why? 'cause we have like, like almost nobody's here. Oh. Seven. There's, Do we need seven? Mm-hmm. It's majority right? I'm gonna be no on this front. Okay. El Trinity? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Harris? Yes. Fellow? Yes. Morgan Alley? No. Seven. Yes. Two. No.
Good to go. Unfinished business. Councilor Burns. Item 10. Yes, sir. Mr. President, a motion for second reading and final passage of an ordinance entitled Chapter two, article four, division three, section two dash 3 0 6. Appointment of Chief Assessor Second. Motion made it seconded. Any further discussion? Counselor? There Was a few questions I think when first reading, but if they're still out there, if not, no, we're good. You got anything? It was answered, but thank you. Okay. Roll call. Madam City Clerk.
Osky. Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Harris? Yes. Mellow? Yes. Elli? Yes. My title only. Sir, you wanna just read the title? An ordinance Amending code of ordinances, city of Westfield, adopted June 17th, 1993. Thank you. Any announcements? Councillor Mellow. Could we just, uh, wish Councillor Matthews king, uh, get well soon, please. Yes, we can do that. Absolutely. Anything else?
Seeing none, Councillor Harris? Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion made it second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Goodnight everybody. Thanks. In common.