Slightly different. Good evening. I'd like to call the March 6th, 2025 meeting of the Westfield City Council to order. Roll call please. Madam City, clerk Matthews Kane, She will not be with us this evening. Meow. Here. Morgan Alley. Here. Oniskey. Here. Sullivan. Here. Adams. Here. Allie? Here. Bean. Here. Beltran. Here. Burns Here. Fanon. Here. Figgy. Here. Harris. Here Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States America stands Nation under God in the Liberty, Liberty, justice,
Reading of the record of the meeting of February 20, 20, 25. Councilor Bean. I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes without reading. So moved. Second. Second. Motion made. And second. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Now comes a portion of the meeting for public participation. Uh, anyone wishing to address the city 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 total of 30 minutes. Um, I would like to remind you that anything that's on the agenda for a public hearing, we do not discuss during public participation because you'll have that
opportunity during the public hearing. Anybody wishing to address the council please? Step forward. Come on this big room. Boom. Nobody's coming up. They're all here for public hearing. Alright. Great. Public participation is now closed Communications from the mayor. Item one, Councillor Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. Requesting immediate consideration, acceptance of a grant in the amount of $37,283 from the Massachusetts Executive Office Economic Development Massachusetts Military Task Force grant program to the Westfield Barnes Airport to start a pilot program for noise mitigation,
sound installation program and to complete a land reuse plan for pro properties previously acquired for noise mitigation purposes. So, move second. Motion. Made it seconded for the discussion. Counselor? Yes. Thank you. Um, if this sounds familiar, it is because on February 10th we accepted a $37,283 12 cents grant from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division for the Barnes Creek Airport for the same thing. So this is the second and the final piece of the puzzle for that grant that has come from many, many different areas.
So we need to accept there's no city match on this. So I recommend we approve Anything further? Councilor Ky. Thank you Mr. President. If I may, this is, uh, gonna be used for noise mitigation. Sound insulation. So the program's gonna be starting up again soon. And in the, in the past there's been a lot of home takings, but this will be focusing on sound insulation for those, uh, areas, uh, near the airport. Thank you. Anything further? Seeing none will call Madam City Clerk. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes.
Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Be Yes. Bill Trendy? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Thank you. Item two, councilor Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. Please add Madam City Clerk items two through 15. Refer to Findings. Second. Motion made it seconded. Madam City Clerk Two. Appropriation the amount of $250,000 from free cash to the health insurance benefit account to cover increased cost to healthcare, including increases to the city's health plan premiums. Three. Transfer of $5,671 and 20 cents from the Department of Public Work Stormwater division.
Fiscal year 25 construction account to the Stormwater Division. Fiscal year 24 construction account to pay a prior year bill owe to JL Rainmakers. Four. Transfer of $2,891 and 50 cents from the Department of Public Works Water Division Fiscal year 25 purchase of service account to the water division. Fiscal year 24 purchase of service account to pay for prior year bill owed to Sigma Water Safety. Five. Transfer of $1,800 from the Department of Public Works Water Division. Fiscal year 25 purchase of services account to the water division. Fiscal year 24 purchase of services account to pay a prior year bill owed to Scanlan Associates. Six. Transfer of $1,634 in the Department
of Public Works Sewer wastewater division. Fiscal year 25 supplies account to the sewer wastewater division. Fiscal year 24 supplies account to pay a prior year bill owed, owed to Carlson Systems LLC seven. Transfer of $1,491 and 67 cents from the Department of Public Works Highway Division Fiscal year 25 purchase of services account to the Highway Division Fiscal year 23 purchase of services account to pay a prior year bill owed to Goms Construction. Eight. Transfer of $1,430 and 67 cents from the Department of Public Works Water Division Fiscal year 25 construction account to the Water Division Fiscal year 24 construction
account to pay a prior year bill owed to Gomes Construction. Nine. Transfer of $1,357 from the Department of Public Works Highway division fiscal year 25 purchase of service account to the Highway Division. Fiscal year 24 purchase of service account to cover your prior year bill owed to Northeast Overhead Services. 10 transfer of $1,159 from the Department of Public Works Highway division fiscal year 25 purchase of service account to the Highway Division fiscal year 24 purchase of service account to pay prior your bills owed to the Den County Sheriff's Office. 11 transfer of $302 and 25 cents from the Department of Public Works Sewer Wastewater Division. Fiscal year 25 purchase of service account
to the Sewer wastewater division. Fiscal year 24 purchase of service count to cover prior year bill owed to Canon USA 12 transfer of $204 and 80 cents to the from the Department of Public Works Waste Collection division fiscal year 25 instate travel account to the Waste Collection Division fiscal year 24 instate travel account to pay prior bills owed to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Pay by Plate System. 13 transfer of $130 from the Department of Public Works Water Division fiscal year 25 purchase of service account to the water division Fiscal year 24 purchase of service account to pay a prior year bill owed to Sarat Ford. 14. Transfer of $73 and 75 cents from the Department of Public Works Water Division fiscal year 25 purchase
of service account to the water division fiscal year 24 purchase of service account to pay a prior year bill owed to Micro back 15. Transfer of $20 from the Department of Public Works sewer wastewater division, fiscal year 25 purchase of service account to the sewer wastewater division. Fiscal year 24 purchase of account to pay a prior bill owed to Cranes 1 0 1. Thank you. Motion was made in second send to finance. Any discussion? Yes. Council Morgane. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, just want to uh, point out that there are 13 prior year bills here and we talked about this at the last meeting about prior year bills. I certainly hope that the Department of Public Works will be held fully accountable to explain
how all these bills are now just being paid for the last fiscal year, which ended nine months ago. Mm-hmm. I understand that some bills come in right at the end of the fiscal year and they, they should be paid soon, you know, within maybe three or four months after not nine months. And there is one on there from fiscal year 23. Mm-hmm. So I, I thoroughly expect the committee to, uh, uh, to invite them to explain, um, in great detail because I am interested as well as the taxpayers of Westfield and all of that. Thank you.
Anything further? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now in the hands of finance item 16, councilor Oniskey. Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to suspend the rules. Make a motion to suspend the rules for immediate consideration for item 16, second 17. Second. Motion made and seconded to suspend the rules. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now under suspension counselor. Thank you Mr. President. Item 16 is submitting a resolution to accept a gift donation of eight pieces of gym equipment from Planet Fitness to the Westfield Fire Department. Second. Second. Motion made it Second.
Further discussion, sir? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a, uh, a generous gift donation of like new gym equipment from, uh, planet Fitness to the fire department. And it will replace older gym equipment in the fire department and, uh, be divvied up into two locations. Any further discussion on the donation? Seeing none, roll call. Madam City Clerk. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Ion? Yes. Vicky. Thank you. Yes. Councilor, do you need the resolution please?
Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, resolution by title only is a resolution of the city council of the city of Westfield for acceptance of a gift to the Westfield Fire Department. Thank you. Any further? No. Okay. Thank you. Item 17, still on under suspension. Vote on 16. We did vote. Did, we just Did. Yes. Thank you. Mr. President. Uh, still under suspension, uh, submitting a resolution to accept the FY 25 quarter two donations received by the Council on Aging to be used by the community. Served by the Council on Aging. Second
Motion. Made it seconded for the discussion. Counselor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. The donations, uh, include, uh, $20 monetary donation as well as looks like about 15 pieces of, uh, usable equipment for, uh, for the senior center. Uh, so donations in kind. Thank you. Anything further on this item? Seeing none. Call Meow. Yes. Morgan. Ellie? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes.
Fanon? Yes. Gie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Thank you. Would you read the resolution, Sir? Yes. By title only. It's a resolution of the City council of the city of Westfield for acceptance of FY 2025 quarter one. Monetary and Inkind gift donations made to the Council on Aging. Thank you. Counselor. We get a motion to return to regular order. Uh, so moved. Motion made, return to regular order. And seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Not back in regular order. Item 18, councilor Fanon. Thank You Mr. President.
Um, request for the city clerk to read items 18 and 19. And motion to refer to license committee. Second. Motion made it seconded. Madam City, clerk 18 requesting approval to print 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 Whip City Brewfest fundraiser managed by Amelia Park Children's Museum, Inc. 19 requesting approval to permit the serving of 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's Fast Flat 5K Road race
organizers and the Office of Community Development. Thank you. Any further discussion on sending to license? Seeing none. All in favor? Opposed. Now in the hands of license item 20 Councillor Harris. Thank You Mr. President. Please ask Mad Clerk to read 20 and refer to the Personal Action Committee. Second. Motion made it seconded. Madam City Clerk 20, submitting the appointment of Angelica Korea two 13 Valley View Drive as an alternate member of the zoning board of appeals for term to expire in March of 2027. The second alternate position is currently vacant and was previously held by Jennifer Gilbert. Okay. Motion made it second. And any further discussion on sending to PAC? All in favor.
A Opposed Now in the hands of PAC petitions, remon, and other papers. Item 21 Council Morgan Alley is a continued public hearing on a petition of the city council to amend the zoning ordinance relative to battery energy storage facilities. Public hearing is now reopened. Council, the floor Is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, good evening Counselors. Uh, we'll continue this. Um, I, I, I would like to start with just a, um, a synopsis of what we did, uh, in when this public hearing was opened. Um, so I, I did, uh, I did mention
all the different, um, prohibited uses for, uh, businesses that are in the aquifer and also, uh, for industrial, uh, areas. And, um, the reason this, uh, ordinance is, is coming, uh, in front of us this ordinance amendment is because lithium batteries, as we all know, are, uh, very toxic, uh, and can be dangerous when they catch on fire. Um, people's cell phones blow up cars with lithium batteries in them sometimes do that. Uh, a battery energy storage system
or storing a large number of lithium batteries in a warehouse, or perhaps having a recycling unit in Westfield that takes lithium batteries in and, uh, dismembers them and recycles them in some way. All those things can cause some problems. Um, and especially if, if they catch on fire or the, um, uh, that's one of the, one of the biggest, uh, biggest dangers of this. So the, the ordinance that is in front of us, um, is
for section, uh, two dash 20 Of the, um, yeah, lemme just get that. It is, uh, section two dash 23 dash one, 30.3 and three dash one 70.5 of our zoning ordinances. And what this would do is to add Benner battery energy storage systems. It would give a definition for that, which, uh, we may want to add, uh, just, uh, warehousing or storage of any, uh, large amounts of batteries. Uh, if you have one small battery that's not like that's gonna close down your city,
but, um, in some of the news, uh, with some of these, uh, systems that are out there, and then with car fires and that kind of thing, there's a lot of toxic chemicals when they catch on fire. Um, so a standalone use of land consisting of one or more devices assembled together capable of storing energy in order to supply and distribute, distribute electric electrical energy as a future at a future time, not to include those necessary. Uh, those accessory systems designed primarily to power non bests principle use or use in accessory to it
and not the electric grid generally. And that's section two dash 20. That's just the definition and the two sections that we want to, uh, uh, looking to amend. Section three dash one 30.3 would add battery, battery, energy storage system provided any structure storing or generating energy. So it does say storing or generating energy or other electrical grid related operations with no other occupancy type is located at least 150 feet from any property line,
and that would be by the city council. And then, uh, one 70.53 dash one 70.5 would be battery energy storage systems as a prohibited use, uh, for the water resource, uh, protection district. Uh, the first, uh, section I read was the special permit only for, uh, for the industrial with that buffer and the planning board, as you recall, they, they wanted to increase the 150 feet, make it a thousand feet. Some communities have done, uh, more than that, uh, quarter mile, third of a mile, um, in, in their, uh,
um, in their ordinances for where battery, uh, lithium batteries can be stored or where these energy systems can be located. Um, so I'm just gonna summarize very quickly, um, toxic chemicals, when they catch on fire, uh, they're okay just sitting there by themselves, but as we know, they can just spontaneously combust. Uh, the chief, um, uh, councilor rally brought this up at the last, uh, meeting. He talked with the chief and there's really, they're concerned about the safety issues. 'cause there's no way to put these fires out.
It's a chemical fire, really doesn't need oxygen to keep going. It's just a chemical reaction. And it's going to burn and burn and burn and, and, uh, emit toxic, uh, chemicals. Not to mention they burn very hot as well. So, um, there's been moratoriums, uh, Escondido had a moratorium on battery energy storage sites. Uh, there's been evacuations from fires, there's been school closures. I'm not gonna go through all the details on everything we already talked about. Um, but I want to thank the, uh, the public that, uh, came and spoke the last time. And Mr. President, if I may, I would like to get a, a show
of hands of who's here for this particular, uh, continuation of the hearing, please. That's a lot. That's pretty much everything. Um, so I, I think just some instruction. Okay. So this is, this is for an amendment to our ordinance change for the city. It really has nothing to do with, with any, um, particular business or any battery energy storage system, uh, that's been proposed or anything like that. It's simply because it's a new technology, we're just learning about it. We have no way of putting out a fire if it happens. That's, that's really big, a big concern.
And, and when they do catch on fire, there's a lot of toxic chemicals. Um, so when it comes time for the, uh, uh, there can be some questions of fact, but we, we did answer a lot of those in the, in the first part of the public hearing. The, uh, object tonight, or the objective tonight to, uh, for this continuation is hopefully we can close the public hearing and then, uh, it will go into a committee. It'll go into the zoning planning and development committee and also to the law department to make sure that this ordinance, when it is written, that it is legal and it cross the t's, dot the i's and everything's good.
Um, and then it will be added to our city ordinance. Um, and then we can build upon that. Um, and we can change what I've read tonight. You can change it a little bit, but it, we can't change the, um, uh, change it in a big way. But we can do some things to it to expand it a little bit to include anything that perhaps, uh, stores lithium batteries. A lot of lithium batteries, uh, if there's a warehouse wants to come into Westfield and they want to, well they, they, it, it can only go in certain areas because, uh, and, and you know, there was talk on the planning board of, of
banning it all together because, uh, not having large amounts of lithium batteries in certain areas in, in Westfield, because we, we don't know how to put the fire out yet. And if anything did happen, that's a huge concern, as I mentioned before. So when it comes time for questions of fact, you're welcome to come up and ask a question of fact and I'll do my best to answer it. Um, when it comes time for the for and against which, uh, our council president will, uh, motion for, um, you wanna speak in favor or for the amendment? Uh, if you, uh, want to see our, this added
to our amendment, uh, if you think that they're fine and they should just be put anywhere in the city of Westfield or, or that lithium battery should be stored anywhere in the city of Westfield, that's, um, then, then you would be against the, uh, the amendment. Okay. Um, so I guess, uh, that's, that's real. I don't, I don't wanna spend too much time. We did a lot at the last, at the first part of this public hearing. So just to, just to let the public that's here know and everybody watching on tv, what's on the agenda tonight is not an application
for a battery facility. It's strictly about an amendment to a zoning ordinance. So we're not gonna be talking about safety of the batteries, we're not gonna be talking about the application for the batteries. 'cause that's not what's on the agenda. I know most of you here would like to hear some more about that. This is not the time for it because it's not in front of us. So say that being said, I'll open up the floor for questions from city councilors. I know Councilor bean, counselor Allie For Us, if you don't mind, it'll be a quick one. 'cause I, same question Councilor Morgan Alley from, from last time. Do we have any indication that adding this within the ordinance
and changing it, which I think is a good idea, will prevent a battery storage from coming into Westfield? Because what we've been hearing is that the state is circumventing a lot of the public permit. Uh, I'm not permit, I'm not gonna entertain any questions based on any proposed project right now. Um, if you're asking me if we strengthen our ordinance to prevent storing lithium batteries here in Westfield, in large numbers in any capacity, then we're protecting our residents period. And we're protecting our firefighters and first responders from a potential hazard. So we don't know yet that a state project
or public, or I say public project or a private project by instilling this into our ordinances, will prevent a particular project from happening. Has there been any legal, although I know we're in the kind of information gathering, so I mean, so No, there hasn't been any legal conversation yet From what I understand. Like, uh, um, for instance, a a utility company perhaps may, may get exemption from local ordinances, but, but we need to do what we need to, we need to do our job. We need to do what we can do as a city council to protect our residents.
Yep. Okay. Doesn't matter what anybody else is gonna do. We need to do what we can. Councilor Alley and then Councillor Melo. Okay. Thank you. I might Sure. Councilor Alley, This is questions. Yeah, question. Can I have something to help me councilor? All we are, we're just gonna do questions about the actual amendment. Correct? It has To be a question of Fact. Yeah, yeah. Well, exactly. You hold Yeah, hold that up please, if you don't mind. So, so it's, yeah. So it's been, it's kind of dangerous that way. So it's been suggested that if we make the, uh, zoning, uh,
too restrictive, um, the companies would be forced to file for exemptions from local ordinances from the state. Um, in our ordinances right now, it's new technology. I mean, no lithium battery facilities, reclamation centers, nothing's listed. Um, and in the, um, in the application, uh, to the DPU in that process, um, the rationale for seeking exemptions, I dunno if you've, have you been able to go through the, uh, the, the, uh, application, but just the rationale for seeking exemptions
to either allow construction or the operation of, of a project? Um, just the fact that it wasn't listed as a permitted use was enough for them to file, um, to the DPU. Um, and that included, uh, just the fact, uh, that it was, you know, a best project with transmission lines. Right. Um, but that the use was not listed in either one, a zoning or in the Water Resource Protection District, the project. And that the project does not meet required setbacks on the side of the rear and does not meet the
standards for site approval. So even if Westfield were to allow all of these conditions, right, um, as a special permit, would that make, uh, Westfield any safer? Um, As part of the, their application process, also, an applicant must provide, um, five lo provide locations either alternatives or, um, alternative sites. And when you hear that, you'd think, well, it'd be somewhere else. Right. Um, let's counsel, let's stick to the amendment process of it though.
Okay. Right. But I'm just trying to Okay. You know why we need to probably think of this as maybe even a prohibited use in both. I appreciate the answer. Okay. Thank you. Alright. Um, because I want this information to be in front of the committee when they actually discuss, and that's the only way to kind of do it. Um, and so the interest, one of the things in their application was, is that when they looked at alternative sites, they only looked at five parcels within a quarter mile of the substation. In other words, their only interest was in the fact that they, the substation was there in this
particular case for this thing. Um, and that there was only one connection. So they were looking at the bottom line. They wanted to run transmission lines to this one thing. So they were only concerned with not any other industrial things. Right. And given any kind of fire, whether it was reclamation, but there was a state of the art reclamation, uh, site in Kansas that two months later burned to the ground, um, where in any other industrial area a would we want this? Okay. Um, and I, I say there is none okay. For, for any kind of fire.
Um, so the other thing that we need to consider alright, is that, um, as, as, uh, council just said, this is a new technology. Um, this is actually the MO landing fire. This was only just a few weeks ago, right? This burned for five days. Okay. Um, when it comes to zoning, that's one thing. Okay. We've, we've got a delineation there, but realize that, um, Westfield, um, is not the only place that would be affected by a fire, um, in any one of these types of f facilities.
But the surrounding cities is part of the Connecticut Valley. Both our based in the, I'm sorry, the Connecticut Valley River Basin are connected by low elevations ranging from 54 to 248 feet above sea level. This region is surrounded by the Holyoke Mountain Range averaging 900 feet. The Worcester Hills to the east averaging 600 feet, and the Berkshires to the west averaging 1200 feet and going to 1700 feet. Um, these connected low lying areas bordered by mountains trap in the valley and contribute to weather inversions, which worsen air quality.
This effect is a contributing factor to the Springfield areas ranking among the highest in the nation for like asthma and other respiratory illnesses. A thermal runaway event in any lithium facility could result in a fire lasting two to five days. This other one just kept, keeps igniting. Alright? The resulting toxic smoke, poisonous gases and heavy metals would not be confined to the proposed site. Okay. But the fumes from a lithium plant fire can travel 35 to 50 miles. So due to the valley's topography, smoke and air pollution from such an event would spread across
the surrounding areas. Counsel, We're, we're getting, uh, we gotta stick to the focus on the zoning part of it, Right? So wrap it up because I I don't wanna continue with the, there's no application for this in front of us for the batteries, correct? We don't, so we're not gonna talk about that Well, Of these types of plants. Right? So when they burn, it's, It's, so if you have a, if you have a question or something to say about the actual petition that's on the agenda, Um, a number of on the actual agenda, um, To zoning ordinance is Right. Relative to batteries. That's It. Well, there's a lot of due
diligence that gets skipped by in this whole process that I have an issue with. Okay. And like I said, I wanted to be able to introduce those If I, if I may. Um, and I, I think the point that, uh, perhaps you're trying to make Councilor Alley is, um, that these fires, they, they burn for days and they, they really expand the toxic smoke. The chemicals are more than just a thousand feet or 150 feet. And that's, so if anything, uh, perhaps when, when the committee looks at subcommittee, if this goes to subcommittee and they look at this ordinance, uh, they may decide to even expand that even further.
Right. And I think that's what you're getting at, is that what distance is really safe when you're talking about a fire like you saw in the picture. Yeah. And one Of the things have to realize, do you have a question for me though? Is there any question in this? Well, I, like I said, I just wanted to be able to introduce this so this can be a conversation. Because the thing is, is that what really makes us unique is the low elevations. Okay? Half of, um, mass, which is also connected to us by the valley, half of UMass is at 54 feet above sea slope, all those fields and leading up to where the towers are and where we drive in. Um, and so it's the entire area.
I mean, we we're talking basically from, uh, Southwick to the, you know, Springfield Southwick to, uh, um, mass about Northampton, whatever. So it's a, it is a much larger area Okay. Than what we're talking about. Right. We're not gonna confine it. So I just wanted to be able to present that because when we consider it like, you know, restricting something or making it, I don't think any special permit would make it a safe use. Right. We would like to see us consider it as appropriate to use for these very reasons. So you guys have a, a copy of the report and that sort of thing. Yeah. So, but I want to be able to have that information submitted
So it can be considered and if, if and when we have an application in front of us to deal with the actual batteries. Well Even just considering the ordinance, whether it be like a, um, a permitted use with let's say a special permit or even making a prohibit use in both the, uh, Right. And and that's, and that's something that gets handled in committee. Correct. But the information has to be submitted so the committee can actually discuss it. So thank you. Yeah. Any other questions from the council? Questions, questions, statements? I figure you doing question from? I have a question. I Just a minute. Councilor Melo was next up. Come up. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, first of all, for the counselor across the way,
page one 16 of the council share has information that he was asking, asking for. Um, second, I don't know if you can hear me over there, but, uh, that's the answer. Um, I'm looking at the actual wording of the ordinance and I'm worried, uh, I'm worried because this says that the battery energy storage system, um, are only for those things that are, uh, connected to the grid and for power only and not to any other use. So does that mean we could pass this and they could set up a system like this?
For the data center? For the what? For the data center. Oh, okay. Um, yeah. I mean, if, if it's going to provide power, I think this would cover it. We could expand that part of the, uh, I think that part of the ordinance without changing it too much. Uh, I mean, our city planner, Jay Vinky ISS here, you might be able to enlighten us on that, but that's why we're gonna refer, uh, when this gets referred into committee, hopefully tonight, uh, we can send it to law and they'll make sure that if they say, well, that's really out of the purview of, of this ordinance, or this is or this isn't, when the committee deliberates on
that, we're, we're gonna make it as strong as possible. And like I said in, in the, the first time we held this hearing, is that going forward in time, we can continually add as, as the news shows different things about lithium batteries, um, and their, and their dangers. We could certainly add things to this. Um, I mean, I I just don't understand how, how we would, we would, uh, allow large amounts of lithium batteries in in Westfield without the proper fire su suppression technology. And it doesn't exist yet.
The, the chief said we can't put these out. They just have to burn themselves out. So anyway, council Me, did you have something else? Uh, who else? I was just wondering if the city planner could answer the question. No. Is that He could clarify maybe, uh, Mr. Minski on, um, just how, how much is each section of this, can it be expanded for the aquifer and then for the industrial zone? How, how much latitude do we have in if He could Answer, Miller can answer. If he could answer my question first, that would, I'd appreciate that. Okay. Uh, Jayski city planner, this was
crafted for this specific type of use. Um, not considering like backups for a store or a data center or anything like that. So Walmart might have some backup batteries that power, power their stores. It's excludes as it's drafted now excludes those types of accessory uses. So this is really just for the standalone facilities like that are in the news right now. Certainly that's another issue that could be explored, but it wasn't envisioned in this amendment. Okay. So if we wanted to add that, we would have to do a whole other public hearing again and rewrite it.
Um, I mean, kind of wanna stay within the parameters of what the original notice was proposed for. So we would Yeah. Um, you could certainly later add or expand, expand that to include accessory uses. Like I, there's some scale where you probably wouldn't be worried about a, a small battery system that operates Right. Some facility as opposed to maybe the data center, which is, I would imagine would be much more expansive. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And then just a councilor bean's question. So just generally a zoning ordinance will apply
to any future, future a project that does not already have its permits in hand. So once it's been noticed and advertised as this has been, any future system will have to con conform with whatever comes out of this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Vinky. John Councilor Fike. Thank you. Um, my understanding of the continuation for this meeting was 'cause we were looking for input from Westville Gas and Electric. Mm-hmm. Have we received that input as how this would affect them? 'cause that was the only reason we kept it open. We're ready to close and move forward,
but we needed that information. Yeah. So I think your chair has some information. Councilor Fanny. Thank you Mr. President. Yes. I did reach out to, um, Joe Mitchell, the assistant general manager of West Ho Gaston Electric. I did, um, let him know that there was a question raised about this proposed ordinance and how it would affect the West Ho Gaston Electric. And he said that they were fine with the way it's being proposed. Yeah. It, it really, I mean, if, if, um, if a, if a battery energy, if something was coming to Westfield that had, that was going to be used for power purposes, um,
you know, it probably has to go to the grid for that. I don't think they're gonna charge any batteries from, um, from Westfield Gas and Electric, but it's, I guess it's possible. And, you know, at some point, uh, they, they may get their, I Just wanted electricity from west, from, from our municipal. I just wanted to make sure we didn't step on their toes and over it something. So I'm glad we were able to get the information. Thank you Chairman Fanon for getting that. So I'm ready to move forward. Any other questions from counsel or At this point? Um, we'll open it up to the people in the, in the, uh, chamber. Again, we're not talking about the environmental impact.
We're not talking about fires, we're not talking about only the actual amendment to the, the order. So if anybody would like to address that, Please step forward. If there's something you'd want to see in the amendment that now's the time to mention it. If there's something you want added to the, the, the amendment, the two sections that I, I mentioned before, I'm Ken Peters, uh, shaker Road. Uh, I want to tie what Dan was saying to the ordinance. This ordinance protects not only Westfield, but surrounding areas. Mm-hmm. Correct. And if we, if we fail to protect Westfield, we fail to protect the other areas as well.
And I don't know what liability that afford what comes back to us, but I think that ties Dan's point to the ordinance. Thank you. Please step forward. Go ahead. You can get up and just state your name and address for The council. Hi, my name is Ken Te Hasek. I live at 1 49 Glenwood Drive. Um, I'm not here to speak for or against the rumored application, uh, of one of these facilities coming to town. Uh, I am here to speak in favor of the proposed amendments,
um, to the ordinance with refinement. I also just sitting here now I, and remembering a letter that was sent by the developers of the rumor facility. Um, I would encourage that maybe we do, we could do both, which is the amendment and a moratorium. The amendment. And because the moratorium, the notion that we can't put this fire out, the notion that the industry cannot control these facilities, it seems
foolish for the state or the federal government or a local government to proceed until those questions are answered at least. So I can't imagine that a moratorium, a reasonable one is not justifiable. Um, the developers last week sent an open, and this is the only reference I'm gonna make to that project, specifically as it relates to the ordinance. In their open letter to Westfield last week, they acknowledged that there are fires and fire problems in other facilities around the country. And they all but acknowledge that they don't know what
to do about this one. So it seemed to me the developers themselves are all but calling for a moratorium. Um, on the ordinance, Westfield has got a, it's a great place to live and to run a business. Part of the tools that make it such a great place is a sophisticated zoning ordinance, sophisticated staff professionals, uh, environmental regulation at the local level. Those documents, um, have to be updated on occasion as the technology of business and living in a town change.
I'm sure when the ordinance was first written, everybody was up here arguing about blacksmith shops. But now it's time to consider new technologies that we don't consider when we don't address it at the municipal level. Then the federal government and the state government, state government in this case with the facility siting commission takes over. And of all the things in Westfield that are wonderful, mostly it's 'cause of local control. And whenever we've been overridden by federal
or the state with things like the facilities sightings commission, that's what we've gotten our problems. They don't know us, they don't have any roots in the ground. And, and I frankly take great offense that the state would even consider that. So, but it's important that this be fair, um, that it not be, if it's too narrow, then we'll be accused of targeting this proposal. It's just something that we would need to do, whether this proposal came along or not. I think that's all I got.
Um, but thank you very much. Thank you. Thank You. Councilor Bobinski, These are, and these are que questions of facts still, Mr. President? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. I, I think I'm addressing the ordinance. We'll see. Okay. All right. We'll take a vote after I'm through. Are we supposed to sign something here? Okay. Um, I, I think I brought this up the last time, but I just wanted to address, uh, because if I'm in favor of adding this as number
18 to, uh, this water Resource protection zoning, uh, did I give you my name and I'm sorry, Maryanne Budinski one 14 Rogers Avenue. Um, and it would just state in here as it does like number 17 as what's prohibited uses. That's three dash 1 75 and it lists a whole bunch of 'em. We're up to 17 already. This would become 18 cemeteries is number 17. Uh, and then number three is self storage businesses.
This is, I just wanna know, my question is how protective is this going to be? I'm guessing it would be protective if the best that you're trying to prohibit here is completely over the aquifer. But if it's only partially over the aquifer, because we know that's true. I'm using that as an example. Self storage is prohibited in the water risk protection zoning. But we put in an applicability item on the first part of the water resource protection zoning that allows,
however, a special permit to be issued by the planning board or applicable permit granting authority may allow for exemption of any portion of the property not within the Delineated Water Resource Protection District from any provision of section three dash one 70. And I know having been involved in going to many Bay Pack meetings when that was first introduced into our water resource zoning, they did not approve of that. They did not like that in there because they're saying we're being foolish
because we ignore. And in their own words, which they submitted, and this is in April of 2017, under that applicability section, ensure that where, uh, partial is partially within the Water resource district, the ordinance applies to the entire lot and remove the possibility of a special permit exemption, which weakens protections. The zone two area is determined through modeling and not actual pumping of groundwater. So while the modeling provides an important sense
of the area locations just beyond the zone two drain into the zone two. So what I'm just saying is if you're gonna be following through on this, is to think about other things that may have to be done to strengthen this. You wanna prevent these facilities to be not in a area that's near the aquifer even, or partially or partial, that's partially over the aquifer or so many feet from the edge of the aquifer. If you wanna find that, what that edge is. So there's, I think that there's other things that have
to be considered because somewhere down the line, we know special, uh, uh, self-storage units were not allowed. But when this came in, all of a sudden we've got a bunch of self-storage units that are being cited on partials that are partially over the aquifer and close to the aquifer. So if you wanna strengthen it, I'm all for that. But I think there's other language that might have to be changed in here or, and that might be considered at the next step or if you're gonna send it to other committees. So that's my thank you. Is There, is there anyone else that would like
to get up and ask a question of fact? Uh, my name is Dan Murphy. I'm from Westfield, 1 36 Franklin Street. And I'd like to thank, uh, whoever the counselors were that are bringing this amendment forward to the zoning laws. I think it's very important to the city to, to do what's in their power to protect our resources. Um, and I do have a question as, uh, when you're reading the different paragraphs of the statement, could you just clarify what the distance was again, that would be in that? So the, the um, first section
that I mentioned was three dash one 30.3 industrial a district. So in that district, it would be a special permit that you'd have to get a special permit if they, if, uh, you wanted to store, have a bunch of lithium batteries or have a a, a battery energy storage system there, um, you'd have to get a special permit. Uh, there would, there was no, uh, buffer for that. Uh, but the, uh, the planning board, uh, mentioned a thousand foot buffer group. Okay. They, they, um, they would like to see that the water resource, um, uh, aquifer, uh,
district, it was a prohibited use. So if it was, uh, on it, it was a prohibited use. Okay. Did I get that right, Jay? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Okay. Does that answer? Yeah, Thank you for that. And I, I would, uh, question if that prohibited use just within that area, if there was some additional buffer, because we all know that, you know, water would not stay in a certain area. It could run off further into the area if it's prohibited in that area. And I'm not questioning the current battery application,
it's my understanding that that is like not on top of the aquifer, but in it, I would assume it's still in the prohibited area. But if things could be a far away from our water resources as possible, I think it's a very good idea for the city to do what they can to protect US citizens and yourselves from any contaminants in our water. I'd also like to see that this be expanded to standalone energy facilities that are not grid scale as they could also contaminate our water. And additionally it could be a facility that
is not necessarily storing batteries for in a warehouse, but if you had, let's say, an Amazon warehouse that came in and all their trucks are running on batteries, that could be an, an additional concern. Uh, but I'd just like to say that I think it's very important for the city to do what it can. And at this time, moving forward, we can't go backwards, but let's get it right. Yes. Yeah. And that's why we have these public hearings because that's, that's a good point. If there was a, a facility that came in that had a bunch of electric vehicles and they were all parked against each other at night,
one catches fire that the rest of 'em are all going, that fire would spread very quickly. So that's, that's another, another thing to consider. Yeah. 'cause the council had, uh, had submitted this with 150 foot buffer, uh, to the aquifer, but the, the, um, to the aquifer. But the, the, um, planning board wanted to make it a thousand so outside of even, you know, prohibited within the aquifer, but then, uh, it has to be at least a thousand beyond that as well. So I did see a hand up in the back previously. Yeah,
That your pass door. Hi. Um, you mentioned, my name is Abby Taylor. Um, I live at 80 White Street, apartment three. Um, you mentioned 150 feet from a property line or from from the aquifer or the property? Any property line. Sorry, I heard something. Okay. So there are, there are a few numbers we're dealing with here. The original draft, um, sets 150 foot property line buffer setback, the idea, I guess, to, you know, contain anything as much as possible within the site. So the original proposal did not talk
about the aquifer zone. Um, the planning board suggested adding a buffer in addition to that property line set back a thousand foot buffer from the aquifer district. Thank You. Um, I'd also just like to second that, um, I do appreciate, uh, any counselor's efforts to put forward an amendment, uh, to try to protect us. Um, I do wanna be fair to, um, and not to talk about any proposals, but anyone trying to bring clean energy. Um, but obviously there are risks
and, um, yeah, I just wanna see that people are protected and just what he was saying, like, as much as we can, um, as far of a buffer we can do, um, I would like to see that. So thank you. Thank you. Hi, Ken Traver, one 12 driver road. Um, my question is, uh, you mentioned a, a lot of batteries. I guess would you, would there be clarification as to what a lot is, and this applies to commercial scale, this excludes residential and, you know, solar panels on your roof
and carry over the night, but, you know, short term battery backup for a house or something like that, that, that's not, that's outside the scope. Right? I'll answer that. Yeah. So, um, no, that's, that's a, that's a, I'll Just say I'm in favor of amendment with the clarifications. Thank you. Did he give his name? Yes, he did. Thank you. Um, so yeah, that's, it's another good point. Um, some people, you know, I, I think there's systems out there that can be used for a home instead of a gas or diesel power generator, rather. Uh, it could get a, a lithium battery generator,
they charge the battery and then there it is. Um, and, and how big is that? And that, that's something we didn't, we didn't look at for this, but that, that's, again, it's something that going forward all these things, and thank you for mentioning that. That's another aspect of lithium batteries coming into our city that we have to consider. And I think we're gonna keep building on this. I hope we are over the course of the next several months, um, to, to, to strengthen this and to keep our residents. Hi there. Um, my name's Chris Foley. I'm from 13, went to Green, um, here in Westfield. And I'm new to the area. I'm not a local, maybe my accent.
Um, I do know a lot about aquifers because I come from central mass. My grandmother owned a farm on top of an aquifer. And the state took her property by eminent domain because the importance of keeping that water clean and protected on the Stillwater River for the chu and essentially Boston. So I was not allowed to build a house on that because a house would've ruined the aquifer. So I guess what I wanna say is, being new to Westfield, reading about the water issues we have already with pfas and issues that we're doing as a city to clean this up
and the investment that's being put behind that, why would we put a lithium storage battery with all the essential safety issues and hazards from chemical aspects and the drainage into our water system, and then end up with a brownfield situation? Because in the end is the company that's coming in gonna be responsible for a very quick remediation of that property. And then the devaluation of people who live in that area's, um, property values. So we need to protect our city. And I want to say thank you. Um, it's my first time doing this and you can see 'em. But, um, I do appreciate, I, I, I don't know much about the amendment.
I would just say I don't want it here at all. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else have a question of fact? And, and just a, a side note for the amount of batteries, that's something we'd have to talk about. I don't think I answered that question, but we have to really look at, well, how many and how many are really dangerous for the fire department. Like I said, we, we can't put 'em out. You just gotta let them burn out. So The question on the amendment, Uh, yes. Uh, my name is Fred Connor. I'm from West Springfield. Uh, I, uh, would not be opposed to, uh, the amendment. Uh, I would not be opposed to a moratorium as it was brought up. Uh, the question I would have is, um, uh, short of short of
that, uh, could a, uh, could lithium batteries, uh, by themselves be excluded from the, uh, the amended ordinance, uh, except perhaps by a special permit, uh, for maybe specific, uh, accessory, uh, uses only, uh, as, um, that, that, that's my thought there. And, and, uh, it's not, not, not to be viewed as, as too restrictive necessarily because, uh, there is a battery on the market with a system level capabilities, capacities rather similar to lithium ion and with the ability to operate at elevated temperatures.
I speak of the, uh, manganese liquid solution battery com, commonly referred to as a liquid metal battery. It's only, it is the only low cost, high performance, non flammable, um, wide duration storage option capable of replacing lithium ion batteries in urban areas with high roundtrip efficiency, long cycle life, low self charge and wide duration. This liquid metal battery provides a single solution for short, medium, and long duration energy storage needs. Uh, it's a, uh, battery of minimal degradation.
It's got a 20 year life does not produce or emit gases and there's no possibility of thermal runaway. So, um, that was my thought hearing resolution, I mean, as it as if this was not the only one to look at. There are other products in the market, how competitive they are. I'm not, uh, here to, you know, have the qualification to gauge that, but they are safer alternatives to lithium. I speak of site pumped hydro storage, gravity storage, mechanical flywheel storage, just to name a few. So, uh, yeah, I'm in favor of the resolution, uh, with some,
uh, maybe caveats. Thank You. Anyone else before we, And, and I'll just say on that, you know, the, the ordinance, so just says battery energy storage system. So it could be lithium, could be some other technology that comes along in, in the next several years or months that's also toxic or dangerous. Uh, so this kind of covers that, um, in that sense. 'cause it's very general allow us to look at it. Question on the actual ordinance, correct? Yes. Um, I promise if I sound stupid, I do apologize
'cause I can't understand some of the things I read, but my name is Roxy and Bradley. We do it all the time here. 10 Wintergreen Lane. Um, did Bess already put an application in? It's, is, is that battery storage already kind of in the works? It, it is. Well, we're, we're really not gonna talk About No, I just, I it's a, the chair question. The chair can do that though. Yeah, That's not your job. It's a question. Thank you. Um, I don't agree with it. I don't think that facility should be here at all. Um, especially when those batteries can reignite after they're out. But that's not why. And on February 23rd, 2024,
there's an article that I found in Pittsfield, and I think it's similar to Bess coming in and maybe backdooring a little way in and buying property, and no one checking who bought the property and what it was for. So my question is, is can you read that article, because I don't really understand it, but it sounds like to me that the city tried to put an ordinance in to stop certain things, but it was too late. So my question is, is I hope that, no, that's not a question. I hope that's not the actual case here, because this isn't going to work and that is gonna create a lot of problems. But anyway,
Thank you. Thank you, Thank you. Question about the ordinance. I, My name is Barbara Rokus, 2 7 2 Lock House Road. My question on this orien ordinance, we seem to always be trying to fix our ordinances around the aquifer. Why don't we pass an ordinance that says no building whatsoever over the aquifer in any recharge area, we're putting money ahead of our safety and our waters quality.
Let's pass one jet. We don't have to think about this anymore. No building period. Thank you. Okay. Again, anybody have a question of fact before we take? All right. Um, Jessica Britton, 36 Sier Street. My question of fact, um, I'm in favor of having some type of regulation given that this is new technology. And as I've asked before in a public hearing in or stated how the longevity of these storage facilities last anywhere from like 10 to 12 years,
which is kind of coinciding with that whole 15 years of taxes, they'll be paying. Um, and then, you know, the technology outdate as quickly as your iPhone is. What I'm finding out from the people talking in Moss landing, um, that pretty much after three years, they're outdated and they're, and who is gonna inspect them? Who is going to regulate them? But my question is, you know, how can we in conjunction with this ordinance,
strengthen it and, um, use our home rule jurisdiction to claim our standing, to enforce our municipalities regulation, zoning and permitting? I know this is probably more in like the legal forte as Councilor Sullivan would, might know, but, um, we need to figure out how we can basically outsmart the state on some of their regulations in regards to, um, these battery energy storage systems. And one other thing that I want to know from you guys
is can we look at imposing some type of moratorium as we're seeing now in Orange County? Um, most recently the board of supervisors, because they're all counties in, in towns, and what we're seeing is a lot of these best organizations are coming in where you don't have a municipality or an organized government. So they can kind of sneak in and circumvent, um, the rules without people really understanding the risks. So I want us to see what else we can do
to put a moratorium on, to stop any of this until we at least see what the outcome is. Over in California with Moss Landing and with the California Public Utilities Commission, who are also looking to enhance the safety for battery storage unit systems. So my question is, I would, I want us to find more ways to regulate this and put a stop block on it, and actually use the power
and sovereignty in our municipality to stop this, because there's nowhere in Westfield that it's safe and it's good for us. Thank you. Okay. Council, and we've, we've heard moratorium a a few times tonight and, uh, I, I'll be happy to, you know, once this, uh, ordinance, uh, hopefully comes outta committee and is written well and maybe expanded upon and, and does have more protections in there and, and more specifics, uh, we can, we can perhaps, uh, uh, I'll be happy to bring forth a a moratorium on these things as well, um, on any lithium battery storage
for particular size, uh, we can, we can name that, um, be happy to do that. So, any questions? Other Questions? So, at, at this point, um, usually it will ask for people to speak in opposition or in favor of this application. Um, I'm pretty sure that there's one question. Okay. By May. Yes. All right. I am for this, uh, one thing with the moss landing. The, uh, California, you know, has taken it upon themselves to take a better look at what's going on after this fire.
So my question is, they have suggested prohibiting best facilities of 200 megawatts or greater within 3,200 feet of sensitive receptors, et cetera. Have we considered taking a look at what California is proposing to do and maybe add it to this ordinance? Thank you. Thank You, thank you. And that, and that's what this is all about. So now that you mentioned it, we will consider all that in, in committee as given this goes to committee. Any other questions or statements from the council? I, I have one. Yes, Mr. President. It, it was me.
I'm fully in support of this. Um, and you know, it was mentioned how this plume or the, the smoke can travel many miles. Has West Springfield or any other cities, are they proposing something like this? Not that I know of. Uh, Well, Councilor Connor, do you know if West Springfield just a yes or a no? Do you have it in your Not to any details. Okay. There's, there's a little one in West Side. So West Springfield does have it. I'm not, no, he said not yet. Not yet. Oh, okay. Alright. And, and some communities are very rural
and don't have, you know, industrial areas or, you know, uh, so they, they don't even really have to do a lot sometimes. Yeah. Well, it's gonna be important not only for Westfield, but for the surrounding. Absolutely. Yeah. The wind, the wind blows where, where it wants to. Right. I Did have a conversation with the mayor today and he told me that he is in, in contact with the surrounding communities. Excellent, thank you. And if I may, Yes. So I also met with the mayor today and he, he's exactly right. Um, we also agreed on a report which talks about the connected low lying areas of, of this area, um,
that all the city councils, select boards, planning boards, uh, for about a dozen different communities will receive this information. I wanted to talk to him before I actually did, did it on my own and that sort of thing. Um, but he's seen it and approved it and that sort of thing. And he's gonna handle the mayor's. He's meeting with the mayors has been meeting with the mayors. Um, there's a number of things going on. Um, some of the, the actual actions that, uh, California's taken, they are working on legislation now and that's gonna be proposed in the house. Mm-hmm. So there are things behind the scenes, you know,
they that are going on. Obviously we can't talk about everything, but, um, we're doing everything we can, you know, all of the above approach. And I think you're, think everybody, so, Alright. So at this point I'm going to, uh, because there's so many people in the room, I'm gonna ask if there's anybody in the room that wants to come up and speak in opposition of this amendment, in opposition of the zoning amendment With tomatoes in here, it'd be A very brave, that's kind of what I figured. So at this point, um, we're gonna, because there's so many of you here, people
that are in favor of this, we have a, a sign sheet that the city clerk has prepared, because I don't wanna have everybody come one after the other. We'll be here till midnight. So anybody that wants to, uh, be in favor of this can sign the, the, the sheet. You can pass it around. Okay. You, You take another comments? Yes. You, I just, I just have one. I'll be out supporting this to go to committee and more than likely supporting it coming out, I would just ask the committee to ask the law department if this is in fact to restrictive.
We have run into this problem in the past mm-hmm. Whether we're talking marijuana or we're talking adult bookstores or other things where you totally prohibit it anywhere in the community, that it therefore strengthens the hand of the applicants moving forward. So while the current applicant, who I know we're not talking about filed, was referenced in an earlier statement, uh, because it isn't necessarily a specifically allowed use. So that's the reason they're there in front of the citing board. Now, if it's a totally prohibited use, have we actually strengthened the hand of the applicants
to have the state citing board overrule it? Mm-hmm. So all I'm asking for the law department is to give us the opinion that the ordinance amendments are gonna accomplish the purpose that I think everybody in this room wants. Um, and we don't create the unintended consequences of actually strengthening the hands of the applicants because we've basically banned it. Um, So I just would ask the law department to check that. So Councilman Morgane did, he was going to refer this to law As part of Well, that was referenced. That's the only reason I brought it up here.
Absolutely. Okay. So once again, and I want to do this until we are on the record, but a show of hands in here, everybody that's in favor of this amendment being put together, just give us a show of hands. Okay. I think that's everybody. That's good. So, uh, you can sign the sheets and then if you'd like, uh, I'm sure that's all everybody's here for, so I don't know if you want to hang around and you can take the sheet outside or whatever. We can get it signed. Yeah. I mean, unless somebody has a specific thing why they're in favor for it. But o other than that, I think, I think the people have spoken. Yep. I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight.
This is a great, a great showing. Alright, with that we'll look for a motion. Motion to close the public hearing. Second, second, second, second. Motion made it seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Thank you everybody for coming. We really appreciate you being here. Thank you. Thank you. Council Morgan. You're Welcome. We gotta refer, refer. I'll do that. Okay, go ahead. Counsel. Motion to refer the item to the law department and the zoning planning and development committee. Second. Motion made it second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed?
None. The hands of ZPD and law. Yeah. Recess. Yeah. We're gonna take a, uh, two minute recess to clear the room out there. You Solar Energy Association Recommends us Oh, Call the meeting back to order all those guys. Were there This to go. Okay. Hi Andy. You got everybody? Here we go. You Councilor Adams? Yeah. Motion to take 24. Uh, move it up on the order. Second, the gentleman is here. Um, we don't, he's been here for a long time. Second.
Motion. Made a second to take an item out of order. Item 24. Councilor Adams, Uh, I'm not gonna try to pronounce that name. So, um, so owner submitting an application for limo, license for wind limousine for trucks ride LLC 29 Dana Street. So moved. Second Motion made it seconded. Counselor, Motion to set up the public hearing at the next meeting. I'm not sure what the date is, but at our next meeting. Next meeting is March 20th. What is it, Kate? March 20th.
March 20th. The March 20th meeting. March 20th. All those in fine. Excuse me. Excuse me. We don't need Thank You. You good? Yeah. Thank you. Sorry. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Now on for public hearing. You gentlemen can go if you'd like. We're here for a class. Oh, We're just educational. Alright, that's perfect. Welcome. We're in the right spot. We learned a lot tonight. I'll tell you that. Councilor adds you Bring us back the regular order. Motion back. You guys. Motion made. Its second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Not back. Your regular order Item 22, councilor Fanon. Item
22 is a public hearing on an application for a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to allow for accessory dwelling units and increased housing capacity. Second public hearing is now open. Mr. Vinky, Uh, Jayski city planner here for the planning board. Um, so try to keep this concise, but basically last summer the state, uh, adopted a new housing law that statewide kind of allowed accessory dwelling units,
which is like a secondary living unit to be constructed or developed on a, basically any property, um, where you can do single family dwellings. So it's, it's kind of an end to single family zoning in Massachusetts. It's a statewide issue. Um, the idea is to address some of the housing crisis matters. Um, So it it really necessitates us updating our zoning ordinance to comport with what the state requires. The planning board first looked at this
and I think in December, uh, looking at the legislation and kind of drafted what, um, what they thought would fit in since that happened. The, uh, state agency, which was charged with putting out regulations, uh, which is kind of unusual for zoning. So we've got the law and now we've got these separate regulations, um, that were a pretty, I'd say a pretty liberal interpretation of the state law as to what we can and cannot do and how it might apply. I think you have a copy of those. Um, so this went through a few iterations
as those regulations were developed and the original application filed in January. Um, after that, the final regs came out and the planning board report, which you should have further amends some of the original language just to make it all fit with what the state requires. So that's kind of how we got here. Um, the, the big picture is accessory dwelling units can't be prohibited or unreasonably regulated. We can't require special permits or any discretionary approval. Um, can't require more than one parking space.
Um, we can't prohibit them from being rentals or, or limiting to family members or something like that. Um, and then there's certain other protections involved with, uh, some undersized lots, some grandfathered lots. The, um, There's two petitions before you this and the next item. The only reason there are two petitions is because there is also a state law last year or 2023, which changed the voting thresholds for zoning ordinances from two thirds majority to a simple majority for certain matters.
And these are mostly matters related to increasing housing capacity, like, like ADUs, accessory dwelling units. So that kind of forced us to split the all these matters into two separate petitions. They're kind of meant to compliment each other, but the first set, the petition that this hearing now is about the A DU matters and other, other types of things that would potentially increase housing capacity. Um, so I guess I'll, it's kind of hard to separate the discussions, but basically, um, what you'll find in this part is the A DU regulations, um,
some changes to, Um, Some reasonable regulations that go along with those. And, and it requires kind of a lot of language changes throughout the ordinance just because the way it kind of throws a wrench into how the whole ordinance was designed. And when we use the term dwelling unit, um, kind of takes on a different meaning because we can't apply lot area requirements to it. We can't, we can't apply the same parking requirements. So there's a lot of word updating throughout, uh, the ordinance that would go along with this,
but it's, it's the driving force is the accessory dwelling unit. Um, addition Councilor bean, quick question on the accessory dwelling unit. This is the one that, and forgive me, but was up to 900 square feet, but then half or half of the dwelling square footage. Right. So, but there was a max of 900. Yeah. So if you had 900 square feet max, um, but no bigger than half the size of the principal unit. So if you have a 1800 square foot house, you can put a 900 square foot accessory unit. Uh, it could either be like a separate house in the
backyard, it could be within, within the main house, um, or attached to it. And we can't regulate which goes how it's developed. Can I follow up on that please? Thanks. Um, so then you're not, you're not, you don't have to deal with any kind of additional driveway. Uh, you don't have to deal with frontage. All that stuff is gone. Correct. So it would be still off the main houses driveway and frontage that these houses are doing Well that, that kind of bleed into the next hearing a little bit.
Sure. Because we do wanna limit driveways. Um, but in order to do it, we kind of have to do it like for everyone. Yeah. I can look not just ADUs. So because that doesn't increase housing capacity that moves into the second category. Um, but yeah, that the, the, the attempt here is to make, make them fit in as much as possible. Not make them look like little mini flag lots in everyone's backyard with their own driveways. Council fige. Yes. Thank you Mr. President. Jake. The, the separate units, are they gonna separate utilities?
Um, I where Well, they clear separate, sew separate water. Yeah. We can't require, we can't require that. Um, certain utility connections or, or city connections. So whatever, whatever was needed to meet the utility system. What, what about septic systems? They're gonna have to meet Title V, right? They'll have to meet all the, those things. And obviously on a very small lot, it, it may not make it feasible. Okay. As long as we still, if it was, yeah, if it was attached to or within the main house, then it's probably a lot simpler. Councilor Melo. Thank you Mr. President.
Um, how are we working out the impervious surface? If the, if I understand that if the, the A DU is like, um, like the upper floor of the house and you put a deck on or whatever, maybe the impervious doesn't change right? Because you've got the same roof, but if you're adding another unit or you're adding an addition on the unit is, is there a place where the impervious surface for a lot and the, like, the coverage of the lot and the A DU are gonna butt up against each other? So we, we only regulate impervious coverage in the aquifer district.
Mm-hmm. Um, so that would, would still apply. So if it triggers that a certain limit, it would trigger a special permit for that, that feature of the law. Okay. And is the, is the, I'm sorry, may I please, please. Is, is the, is the discretion of the permit granting authority still apply or is that sort of overruled? Um, well the discretion is limited to the, the matter at hand, which is the impervious and how that would affect the aquifer district. So if and likely on a residential use, it would be easy
to show that they won't be having a major impact. Thank you. The other districts, we, uh, Regi Reg, uh, regulate building coverage. So not specifically impervious but building coverage, Councilor Sullivan and Adams. So this is just kind of a very broad question and I'm not looking for perfection 'cause I'm certainly not gu not asking you to guarantee there can never be a lawsuit. However, are you professionally confident that nothing that you've proposed here either prohibits in terms of regulation or is unreasonable
and complies with all the, all of the regs that have been produced by the state, which are pretty intensive, um, in terms of all the things that you can't regulate and say no to because of, are you, are you professionally confident that you're compliant with all that state guidance? Yes. Yes. And it has required as the state draft came out. Mm-hmm. And then the finals change, it required changes to, to follow that the law department should, has been kind of in the loop for the past few months with this as well. So, um, it hasn't been just been looked at
by the planning board. Great. Thank you. Councilor Adams? Yeah. And Jay, and maybe, maybe you said it, so the accessory building, I mean, I get it when you're attached to a house, but the accessory building becomes sellable, uh, separately Or does that, if somebody were to sell that, if dwelling, does it have to be sold with the original house So that, um, so you can't divide up the lot unless it's big enough to be a, a separate lot. So kind of the question is, could these become condos where
basically someone owns the main house and they sell the back house as a condo to someone else? Um, the regs are strangely silent on that. I think the state probably didn't want to touch it. Um, a lot of earlier versions of this throughout other communities did prohibit condo conization. So it would have to maintain, uh, common ownership for the parcel? Yeah. No, no. I i it would be, I own three and a half acres and I could build a 2000 square foot house on my property and could I build that
because I don't have five acres to be a flag lot. I guess build that and sell As a separate lot. Sure. I Mean, yeah. I mean it'd be no different than carving out any other house lot. Well I need frontage for it. Yeah, If you wanted to carve out a lot. Yes. If it was just the a DU, you don't, it doesn't trigger any frontage. You have to be careful. We build a structure that's pretty good size. It's a house and then it gets sold. How does it get sold if somebody wants to sell it, I guess would be my question. So the A DU has to go with a main structure. It can't just be it's accessory to something.
So there's a main house. Yep. Just first the A DU is a secondary unit, so if the lot were big enough to make it into two lots anyway, it wouldn't necessarily need to be an A DU, you could just carve it out and sell it as a sec. Second house lot, in most instances, it's probably gonna be not a big enough lot to split, in which case the house and the A DU are kind of one entity. Okay. Councilor Sullivan, Just a follow up. And I know I don't believe you can regulate this, but the A DU does not need to be owner occupied. So it can can in fact be a short or short term
or long term rental. We cannot regulate the occupancy, right? It can be rented. Right. Uh, we can regulate or prohibit short term rentals and that is in for the A DU and that's included in, in, in some of this ang in the language. So Council burns. Yeah. Thank you Mr. President. So Jay, I guess my question here is, I, I don't guess my question is, um, are we talking like a, like a tiny house, like on tv? Is that what we're talking? It Could be, yeah. But there's no minimum limit. It's a maximum limit. So I mean, does it have to be, it's detached obviously.
Doesn't have to be, but It can, it can be a in-law apartment to type Right. Separate entrance. So Like a shed? Yes. Wow. So this is basically just to increase housing capacity. I mean, is there any like restriction, like this has to be like affordable housing or No, there's no restriction. It's basically just to be able to create. Yeah. The idea is, well it gives more options to a landowner, um, to conceivably build these and off, you know, address the housing issue. Councilor Me. Thank you Mr. President. I'm sorry.
I just had one of those thoughts that, you know, um, so what happens if somebody wants to put one of these and they have a septic, but the sewer runs in front of their house and they haven't connected to the sewer, do they put an A DU on the septic that they're, that they, that that previous regulation that was revoked in 2021 would've had them connect to the sewer? Or is there, is there like a loophole of making things worse in here? I think so. Or if you're gonna put an A DU on a house that's on septic where the sewer runs in front,
are they gonna be required to connect it to the sewer? So that's not really a zoning question. Whatever um, utility requirements would apply apply zoning wise. There are larger lot size requirements. If you have septic on the onsite septic, that's the only. Okay. But it's not addressed in this. It's not, It's not regulated by zoning. Okay. Thank You. If there was some other ordinance or requirement that you have to connect to city sewer, it's outside of the zoning. Yeah. We used to have council Ky Thank you Mr. President, uh, JR only
or there's only one A DU per lot is that's how it goes? Or can you have several ad for a lot? We you have to allow one. We can, we have the ability to add a per special permit to add more. Is it possible just to only allow one Yes. Without special permit? Yes. And we don't, um, I, I would suggest that mm-hmm. That you know, when it goes to committee that you only allow one. That would be my, That that's how it my fault. That's how it's drafted now. I think except in a multi-family district,
I think there's a special permit provision, uh, to allow additional. Okay. Now are the setbacks, the current setbacks applicable for the A DU as well? So many feet from the sidelines? Yeah, that, that I think the state really overreached on because they said you can use an accessory structure setbacks. So if you could put a tool shed at six feet from the property line, you could apply that to an A DU. So what we did, or what the planning board did in the latest, and this came out in the final regs, it wasn't in year versions. Um, the planning board did is update all the accessory
structure setbacks, um, with, with ADUs in mind. So, uh, a larger building would have a, a larger setback than the six feet for a shed or something like that. So that's a change that doesn't increase housing capacity. So it goes into the second part of the hearing. Okay. But it's intended to kind of address the a DU setback issue Is what is the requirement for an A DU one bedroom? One bath. One kitchen. Is there a definition for a DU? Um, it's a definition
of there's a single housekeeping unit, cooking facility, sanitary, all that. Yeah. There's no re requirement as to bedrooms or Anything like that. Can you, can you build a 900 square foot or an 800 square foot garage with on top on the top floor of the garage? A 100 square foot bedroom kitchen. And that would be okay. Yeah. Six feet from somebody's house. Yeah, we, or property line, they, they took out in the, they took out the garage space as counting toward the floor area as the regs evolved.
Say that again, I'm sorry. I didn't hear. Um, an earlier version of the regs said the building had to be 900 square feet max and that counted garage area. They took that out. So now the garage doesn't count. So it could be a big building still, but as long as the A DU itself was smaller, uh, could, could go in there. So theoretically you could have a hundred square foot A DU with a 800 square foot garage attached. Well, you could have a thousand square foot garage 'cause the garage is excluded from the calculation. Okay. So that has to be,
that would be covered under the existing zoning rules. The garage would be, The accessory structure is regulated. Yeah. Mm-hmm. It would count Okay in there. Yeah. They redefined floor area from how we use it throughout ordinance. So that's another thing we kind of had to change our floor area definition. So it, where we talk about floor area with other thing businesses and the like, that it means what we intended it to mean Short term. My concern is just that somebody's gonna want to build a, you know, huge garage in their backyard and call it an A DU, that that would be allowed.
Well, I mean you can build a garage in your backyard anyway, But by Right, Right. And now you'll be able to add an A DU by Right. Thank you. Council Morgane. Thank you Mr. President. Thank you. Thanks Jay for being here. I kind of think we were kind of a ahead of this a little bit because we looked at flag lots, uh, and that ordinance a while back, uh, a few years back and we, and we, we added the ability to have a, a unit on there now. So here's a scenario. You've got, uh, a, a couple that has aging parents, uh, you know, and, and they, they wanna both live on the, uh,
let's say you got six acres out back and you wanna build a unit over there for one of the parents, a unit over there for the other parents. So they could be right there and you can take care of 'em. Allowed, not allowed. Um, it's two units though generally not allowed. 'cause that would be more than one unit. Although in certain districts you can get a special firm to convert to a two family dwelling. Uh, but not, not under, not as an A DU. And, and my my next question, uh, so you, this this does not include, you can't do an Airbnb home away. You can't rent this for that purpose. Yes. Or well, we are proposing in the ordinance
that you can't, you can't rent out a detached a DU as a, as a short term rental. Okay. And we don't, we don't need to prohibit that. But that prohibition is included in the draft. And, and, and my last thing is, uh, councilor Figy will like this one. Nowhere in here does it say it has to be a human occupying the house. So you've just given us the ability to put a chicken coop, pretty elaborate. One on every property in Westfield. The state does no. Yes. Expensive chicken. It doesn't say it has to be a human living there. It just says occupancy.
I think that'd be a stretch. But Chickens are people too to some people. So they're family. I mean, they got their chickens, right? They are enlightened me with, with an answer. Chickens, right? We're getting outta trash, but not that It's inclusive of cooking facilities. So chicken, I don't know what they'd been cooking. What's that? It has to include cooking facilities. So That's all right. As long as you're not cooking eggs stove There. I think They're okay with that. Alright, At this point, council all said, I want to open up the floor. Anybody in in the, uh, chamber have a question of fact for the applicants.
Doesn't have to be used way over. One way over there. Barb, Barbara Stove. Put it in. Don't have to plug it in. Barbara RO is 2 7 2 Lock house Road. Um, I just wanna clarify, this is a detached building and you're not restricted, it does not have to be a relative that is occupying the property. That's right. Correct. Thank you. You said detached or attached, right? Both. It can be detached, detached or within. We can't require one or the other.
Anyone else have a question of fact? Come on up please. Am I able to speak in favor or I know this is state mandated kind Of. Well, we're gonna do that in a minute, but, um, if you have a question for him, name And address. Okay. Um, I don't have a question, sorry. Okay. Just give us a minute and we'll get you right back up. Anyone else have a question? I do have Councilor Morgan. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I, I do know of a facility in where that has, um, they have a, uh, uh, it's a, it's, it's a separate unit. Okay. But they put a bathroom in there
with water and a, and a toilet. That's a composting toilet. Would, would this, would, would a composting sanitary toilet unit be, be able to be used here and, and a, a water unit by pump? Um, without attaching to anything And it would be, would be self-sustainable dwelling unit? Would that be allowed? I'd say by zoning, yes. I'm not sure. I mean, there's health and building codes that need to be met, but I, I don't think, I don't think the health department would, would go for that. Okay. It would meet the definition under the
zoning use. Yeah. Okay. At this point, anyone like to speak in favor of this application? Speak in favor. Come on up. She was before her time. Yeah. Um, I'm definitely in favor of this. Um, speaking as a young person, um, a lot of people my age can't afford, um, their own apartment. I'm able to do that and I feel very lucky. Um, I think that's rarity. And so, um, we need as much housing as we can, um, to give people dignity, to move out of their parents' homes
and to, you know, live their own lives, um, in any way they can. So Could you just state your name and address again? The, Sorry. Abby Taylor. Uh, 80 White Street, apartment three. Westfield. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? Mrs. Rokus? Yes. Thank you. This is a great idea. As a realtor, I just had an occasion where they wanted to put one up for their mom and it wasn't in the works yet and mom had to go to the nursing home. But this is wonderful for people that have the ability
to have their parents still living with them. I'll have to tell my boys. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor of this? Anyone? I, uh, John Bowen, 38 Pinehurst Street. Um, this, this whole amendment is a, uh, result of the state saying that you are going to do this Westfield, whether you like it or not, this amendment is so Westfield can have a little bit of oversight on what happens. So Jay spent a tremendous amount of time going through this
and checking the maze and making it should be and things like that. So Westfield has the ability to control this a little bit. Otherwise, you know, the, the way that Massachusetts wrote this, people could do whatever they want. This gives us a little bit of control and I, I'm, I'm strongly in favor of it, and, uh, I thank Jay for all the hard work you did. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor of this? Anyone like to speak in opposition? Can I ask a question? Come on up. 1335 South Hampton Road on the, uh,
dwelling units of Affordable Housing Act. On page 33, section 10, it talks about each lot requirements of 10,000 square feet area, 75 foot frontage and located on a single family zoning district. Is that also part of that? So we do have some limits of what it is? Yeah. Um, I, I think what you're referring to is, uh, grandfathered lots that are commonly owned, um, that are undersized. So that's, that's a not really an A DU provision.
It allows those lots to be built on. It's not specific to ADUs, but that is included within this. Um, Anyone like to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none. Counselor Fanon A motion to close the public hearing and refer to, um, ZPD and law. Second. Second. Motion made it second. Any any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion is closed. You ready for another one? Sure. All two. Item 23. Councilor Fanon 23 is a public hearing on an application for a petition
to amend the zoning ordinance to update other housing related and miscellaneous matters. Public hearing is now, open floor is yours, Mr. Divinsky. So, uh, again, this, these are the matters that, uh, we feel don't fall into the category of increasing housing capacity or, or, or the like. So they require a two thirds vote to approve and we can't combine the two items in one vote. Again, that's why it's two separate petitions. Um, so this one, so this one addresses that voting issue, which our ordinance currently says zoning needs a
two thirds majority vote. This adds that you can do a majority vote in, in, uh, these certain circumstances. Same with special permits. The special permit threshold was reduced for certain matters. Uh, it updates the zoning for that. There's some definition tweaks, um, that can go along with adu, but they don't specifically increase capacity. Um, certain requirements, some new regulations for some multifamily dwellings, open space and things like that that aren't specifically increasing capacity. Um, and, and then a lot of updates to some language that,
because it's so fun to go through these zoning changes anytime I can, you know, clarify something or, or fix some grammar or throw it into the ordinance. So there's a lot of changes like that. Um, home-based businesses and ADUs. Um, this prohibits ADU from being used as a home-based business. Um, It's not more than one homebased business on the property. So again, that's, it's related. It doesn't increase capacity, but it's a regulation we're adding. And then some changes to the site plan. Approval process.
Uh, I neglected to mention on the first one for the single family district's residence, a rural residential, um, the board is recommending site plan approval for any detached ADUs that are constructed, uh, on a single family lot. So it's not a discretionary approval, we can't deny it, but it at least, uh, provides a public hearing for neighbors to weigh in. Conceivably there could be conditions about screening or fencing or location driveways, so things like that. So that updates some of the site plan issues,
but, um, the meat of the changes were in the, uh, the previous hearing Questions from the council, council Or misskey. Thank you Mr. Pre, can you give some examples of the special permit that used to be the super majority and now just goes to majority? Um, they mostly have to do with, uh, affordable housing and certain mixed use developments. Um, Just proximity to transit because mostly Boston area things, but there's language in the state law that says for this type of use, uh,
you only require a majority special permit. Okay, thank you. Um, And sim similar to the zoning amendment, if it's increasing housing capacity, um, like adding ADUs, that's a simple majority vote. So we're just folding that language into our ordinance. Thank you. Council's good? No. Anyone in the audience here like to get up and ask a question of fact regarding this application? Questions of fact. Seeing none. Anyone here like to speak in favor of this application?
No one wants to speak in favor. How about in opposition? Anyone want to speak in opposition to this and seeing none? Councilor Fanon Motion to close the public hearing and refer to ZPD and law. Second. Motion made it second. And all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much sir. Have a good goodnight. Item 25. Uh, Madam City Clerk, uh, if you wanna read this to go on file, Um, 25 Eversource energy submitting Western mass yearly operational plan for the 45 day public notice, review and comment period. Motion To place on file. Second.
Motion made it second and place on file. Any discussion? Seen none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Reports of committees finance. Item 26, Councillor Sullivan. Thank you Mr. President. Finance has met and on a three zero vote, uh, I move to leave this item in committee. Um, it has to do with, um, obtaining a opinion from the law department with regards to the council's, um, obligation, um, with regards to the, um, lawsuit of city of Somerville versus Somerville municipal, uh, employee association as well as, um,
the inspector general's, um, report leadership failures in UNE police contract and how that should impact our work. Bottom line, looking to see how, um, uh, what the council can and cannot do in terms of asking questions when, um, collective bargaining agreements are brought before this body. Um, so it's still pretty unclear on what we can do. We have to approve 'em or not, but, um, what we can ask. So that should have been discussion, but I move approval. Second. Motion made it seconded to leading committee. Any discussion? All in favor. Opposed?
Item 27, Councillor Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. Finances met regarding an appropriation of 100,000 from the Department of Public Work water division undesignated fund balance account to the building's account for the rehabilitation on existing metal frame building removal of asbestos siding. And on three zero vote voted to remove the item from committee without action. Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, counsel? Yeah. Since UN designated fund is at a zero balance, this is not any immediate plans
of the water department to do this. Frank Keane has requested this item be removed with no action, with the plans to possibly move forward in the future. Anything further? Motion to remove without action. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Item 28, councilor Bean. You're Up. Thank you. Mr. President Finance committee has met with a three zero approval requesting the acceptance of a grant in the amount of $50,000 from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to the Westfield Gas and Electric for six electric vehicle charging stations at
the Westfield Gas and Electric Operation Center for 40 Turnpike Industrial Road under the Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Incentive Program, public Access Program. Second. Motion made and second Further discussion Council? Yeah, this grant is going to, uh, construct six, uh, different charging stations at the operation center. Um, pretty straightforward. Currently we have two others at the big Y and that's what the next motion's for. But these are additional charging stations. They will be open to the public, but they are located at the Operation center.
Anything further from the council? Seeing none, roll call please. Madam City Clerk. Meow. Yes. Morgane? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Faye? Yes. Harris? Yes. Thank you. Item 29. Councilor Bean Finance Committee has met with a three zero approval of requesting an acceptance of a grant in the amount of $14,407 and 32 cents for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to the Westfield Gas Electric for two public electric vehicle charging stations under the
Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Incentive Program. Public access program. Second Motion made it seconded for the discussion, counsel? Yeah, the these, uh, uh, this money is actually gonna be used for replacing two existing, uh, charging stations. Both are located at, uh, the two big Ys here in town. Um, they will, um, um, just be replaced. Nothing new has changed as far as, uh, the location and open to the public for obvious reasons. Yeah, I was just gonna say that there's no cost to the city. Um, and they will be charging for the electricity. So there's not a subsidy there.
It was my understanding that the two at the big wire are already in service. So they are? Yes. Sometimes. Okay. Anything further? Roll call. Madam City Clerk. Meow. Yes. Morgan Elli? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Ms. Bean? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Daniel? Yes. Vi? Yes. Harris? Yes. Thank you. Item 30, councilor Figgy. Thank you. Mr. Frozen Finance committee is met on a three zero vote. Vote. Recommend an appropriation in the amount of $50,000 from free cash to the school department. FY 25 land
and building capital Project Accountant per shredding of documents at St. Ners Church and storage of documents at Avenue Gibbs School. Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, counselor. Thank you Mr. President. The city has a buyer for the old church. Before we can settle, we must clean it out. Shredding of all documents will cost $30,000. That to set number. The final 20,000 or so will be for relocating all the records needed to be saved. It will go to Avner Gibbs. There's not a specific amount assigned as there is not a known quantity of what will need
to be relocated. The the thought of the superintendent and the mayor is that 20,000 or more than covered the cost of the relocation. There are both school and city records stored at St. Krick. The school does not have the money in the budget this year. So the reason for free cash, the school, uh, committee voted Monday night, the surplus of property. Once the property is sold, the proceeds will go to the general fund in the city. Coffers it. The mayor stated that he's more than optimistic that the sale price will more than cover the $50,000.
So anything further? Roll call. Member City Clerk Miller? Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Beam? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fan? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Thank you. Legislative in ordinance item 31. Council Oniskey. Thank you Mr. President Ele O met on, uh, March 5th and voted to leave this item in committee, which is an ordinance amending chapter 13. Article five, division two, wetlands protection. Second. Motion made it seconded.
Further discussion, counselor? No. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Personnel Action Item 32. Counselor Harris. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, 32 is the reappointment of Jennifer Gilbert 65 Prospect Street as the first alternate number of the zoning board of appeals return to expire in February, 2027. Second, Motion made and seconded further the discussion Counselor? Yes. First appointed in 2021 Reappointed 2023. She's a registered civil engineer in Massachusetts. Has been employed by Ty and Bond in Westfield about 15 years.
She graduated from Worcester Polytech and she belongs to the American Society of Civil Engineers. She's worked on wastewater projects, water resource projects and transportation projects with DOT coordination, including evaluation of existing utilities bidding and contract awarding. At her initial appointment, she stated there would be no conflict of interest issues as she had discussed it with her supervisor. Councilor Figy and Sullivan. Etta last reappointment both stated that her credentials were great and that she has highly, highly qualified. Thank you. Anything further? Seeing none. Roll call. Madam the clerk. Mellow? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes.
Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Ion? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Thank you. Item 33. Councilor Harris. Thank You. 33 is the appointment of Dylan Sweeney, 76 Court Street as an associate member of the planning board for a term to expire in February, 2026. Replacing the vacancy left by Bernie Za second Motion Made it seconded further the discussion. Please. Yes. He's a IT professional with over a decade of experience in IT management, ERP systems, cloud solutions and CRM platform implementations.
He spearheaded cloud migration projects, improving system security and directed high performing teams by recruiting, training and mentoring technical staff. He has a BS degree in business administration in computer science. Uh, all counselors have received his very detailed specific skills in regards to it. He states he believes that his technical background and analytical skills, uh, can help provide insight when evaluating future proposals for Westfield. He has over the past few months been actively learning about zoning law, subdivision regulations and building codes. He states that he is eager to contribute his knowledge
and time to support the board's efforts in shaping the city's growth chair of the planning board. Bill Corrals totally supports this was at the meeting and states that his appointment to the board, uh, he believes will bring an in-depth technical skills, um, that is not, uh, present in the board at this time. Anything further? Seeing none. Roll call. Madam Sin Clerk Mellow? Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Bill. Randy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Gie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Thank
You. Item 34, councilor Harris. Thank you Mr. President appointment of Leonard Sia Jr. To the position of facilities director for a three year term to end in March 20, 28. Second motion Made it seconded further the discussion. Council? Yes. Thank you. He's been managing and directing different types of facilities for over 25 years, including large scale buildings and construction projects. He holds cer certificates in Just like to congratulate Mr. Swing. Yeah. Thanks guys. Thanks for Absolutely. Sorry for The interrupt. That's that's alright. Uh, he holds certificates in property management,
project management, uh, HVAC and a construction supervisor's license, OSHA certification, forklift certified and lead paint certified. Uh, um, PRP, is that correct? Mr. PRP Sure. And Master Builder certification. He's been the director of facilities and construction and security managed payroll at many well-known establishments. Encompassing responsibility for multi-millions of dollars in construction costs and employing, uh, licensed trades painters, electricians, carpenters, HVAC specialists and have an effective communication skills with people
inside and outside of projects such as Jacob's Pillow, Wadsworth Museum, AutoZone, and McLean Village in Simsbury, Connecticut. His performance management style is to assert that the goals assigned are directly aligned with the goals from the strategic and business plans of the organization and further to analyze and identify what knowledge, skills and abilities are needed to achieve those goals. For our city, this means that he will work closely with a supervisor that is our mayor to achieve the goals and will work with other city department heads and employees that will effectively and economically benefit our city.
Um, Mr. Councilor Fige stated it's nice to have somebody with a HVAC background that we have had some trouble in that area and Councilor Adams stated that, uh, we never put money towards buildings, so it's great to know, uh, he'll know what needs to be fixed. Thank you. Anything further? See none nor call Madam City clerk. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. If you can get the air conditioning to turn off Adams. It's running now. Alice, I'm frozen. Yes. Beam? Yes. Belt. Randy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanny?
Yes. Vicki? Yes. Harris? Yes. Thank You. Item 35, councilor Harris. Thank you Mr. President Reappointment of Carissa EY as a superintendent. Buildings. Return to expire in May 20, 28. Second. Motion. Motion. I might mention also that we voted, uh, to, to recommend all these appointments and reappointments. I didn't say that at the beginning. Okay. Re Okay. So reappointment. Do I have a second? Second. Well, she made it seconded. Uh, further discussion, Counsel. Yes. She's been the city superintendent since 2016. Um, before being appointed here, she was 11 years the city
of Chicopee Construction inspector, local building inspector and assistant commissioner. She was also certified as a building official through the International Co-Counsel, which ensures the safeties of our buildings and structures within our city. Um, she has many years experience as a zoning enforcement officer. She asked Mayor McKay for a reappointment and our, uh, acceptance of that reappointment based on her knowledge of the position, her experience, her work ethic, and her dedication to her job for nine years. She states she does her job in a fair and consistent manner, enforcing the provisions of the building code, mass journal laws
and applicable ordinances of for the city of Westfield. Uh, this year she's reevaluating the permit fees to continue them being fair but updated and she's also exploring and implementing permit and code software and online permit with the IT department. She stated many, many accomplishments were were given to all counselors. Um, in her resume. I'll be happy to go through each and every one of them if you would like. Um, both Counselor Adams and Fige said, uh, she was good at her job and it's good to have her. Tammy Teff was there.
She also said she supports Carissa, the planning board chair. Caris was there and said that she is invaluable for her answers to questions, um, that the planning board has. That's it. Okay. Anything further? See? None. Roll call please. Mellow. Yes. Marelli? Yes. Osky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bead? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. KE. Yes. Harris? Yes. Item 36. Councilor Harris. Thank you. Mr. President Reappointment of Carrie Hildreth.
Uh, Alici. 57 Wildflower. Circ was a member of the Board of Health for turn to expire February 20, 28. Second Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, Counsel? Yes. Uh, first appointed in oh 1 23. She's an asset to our health department as she has a professional and mental health issues and strengthens our board to be, uh, uh, versed in all related manners. Uh, matters. She's looking forward to continue being on this board for over 20 years. She's worked in the Westfield Public School System as an adjustment counselor social worker. She's been a member of the district crisis
response Team member of the student assistance team, Westfield High School Crisis team and mentor and a member of the Westfield's Drug Task Force. She's a licensed MA social worker and has a Master's degree in School Adjustment Counselor and social work Professional license. Her background in mental health and substance abuse brings an important perspective to our city's board of health. She has signed a disclosure form stating that this will not interfere with her position as school counselor. Thank you. Anything further? Seeing none. Roll call please. Meow. Yes. Morgan? Yes. Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Beam? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon?
Yes. Vicki? Yes. Harris? Yes. Thank you. Item 37, council Harris, Mr. President uh, reappointment of Jeffrey Siegel, 56 Wilson Avenue as a member of the fire commissioner for term to expire February 20, 28. Second Motion. Made it seconded. Further discussion. Counselor? Yes. Uh, first appointed oh four 19 and reappointed in 2023. He has an extensive background in law, which all counselors received his original, uh, resume years ago. Uh, stating how many years of practice he had been in and all the, um, law endeavors he's been, uh, involved in. He's with the law firm of first Bloomberg Allman,
north Hampton after an approximate 10 year employment as Vice President Legal Affairs for United Bank. He has, he is or has been an adjunct faculty or lecturer for Clark University, Westfield State University, a IC, university of Phoenix, Yale, and other institutions. He's admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court and the United States Supreme Court. He has authored many law articles. He stated he wants to be involved in community service, thus his initial appointment and now his continued interest in serving on the fire commission. The difficulties that the department experience was completed before his appointment. And he believes that he has represented the city fairly
and with professionalism and is highly aware of the legalities and parameters he must adhere to while being a fire commissioner. Thank you. Anything further? Scene none. Roll call please. Mellow? Yes. Marelli? Yes. Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Beam? Yes. Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. And finally, item 38. Council Harris. Thank you Mr. President, the reappointment of Johnny Graney. 58 Ridgecrest Drive as a member of the council and agent for a term to expire February 20, 28. Second
Motion made it seconded. Further discussion. Counselor, Uh, very quickly at his initial appointment, judge Graney shared with counsel that he's so humble that he stated that he was a lifelong resident of Westfield and a member of the YMCA and on the board of the Noble Hospital. What he didn't say is that he is wasn't the highest court in the state. Um, very well respected. Um, and he's a very kind and compassionate individual. I think that's all we need to have on him. Thank you. Anything further? Seeing none. Roll call please. Madam City Council. Meow. Yes. Morgane? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes.
Bean. Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Thank you. Natural Resources Committee item 39. Councillor Meow. Thank You Mr. President. Uh, motion to suspend the rules so that we can handle 39 and 40 without sending them to LNO. Second. Motion made and seconded to suspend the rules. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now under suspension, councilor Melo. Thank you Mr. President. Um, uh, natural resources met on February 27th and when the vote from two to zero voted to approve an ordinance amending chapter 18, article two,
division one, division of water sections 18 through 28 through 1828 through 1835. So moved, Seconded. Motion Made and seconded. Further discussion counselor. Thank you Mr. President. Um, so we met on the 27th and engineer Staton and attorney Bristol met with us. Um, these ordinance amendments are changes that happened through the state that we now have to propagate in our own ordinances. Um, because these are about changes in our water
registration statement, which is the way that we are allowed to produce water from the aquifer because the water doesn't belong to us, the water belongs to the state. And rather than getting a permit to remove the water from the ground, we have a registration statement. Um, and there are other municipalities that have this statement. And when, um, there's this drought task force people and now when they do a drought decree, we have to respond with certain restrictions and those are different than the restrictions we used to have in our ordinance. So our ordinance has been updated
by water in the law department to match the new restrictions that the state has given us. If we do not make these changes, um, we are out of compliance with our registration statement and that would be a very bad thing though. This is not as much of a choice as you might think it is. Um, law and water have updated our ordinances to match accordingly. Um, and they assure us that it does not actually need to go to l and o. And I did speak with the chair of l and o who concurs. Okay. Thank you. Anything further from the council? Council
Sullivan? No, I would, I will support this for sure. Um, just for the public, you know, they can expect that the state, um, like we're still technically in a drought, as hard as that might seem to be believed. And it's gonna really restrict the amount of water that will be able to be used, which is more as the counselor across the way indicated more than has happened in the past, which is also then going to decrease the amount of water that the water department is selling, which is going to adversely impact rates because that is how they raise their revenue. So this is gonna be a vicious cycle. Um, so I will absolutely support this,
but there will be significant changes in terms of water usage moving forward. Councilor all then Councilor Burns? Yes. Thank you Mr. President? Yeah, just pray for rain. Okay. I burns. Dunno how I'm gonna follow that up, but thank you Mr. President. Um, yeah, this is the first step for the state to take over our water systems because that young lady stated over there in the corner when, when she came up from Worcester, from Worcester, just, that's exactly what it is. It's gonna happen. It's gonna happen sooner than we think. This is just the first step. So Solomon
Said, councilor Morgane. Thank you Mr. President. Um, well from what, what the, uh, council to my right mentioned, I guess we, we have to vote for this. Um, it will be out of compliance. Uh, I, I do have a question, uh, a comment. And then my question would be, uh, what does that mean if we vote no on it? Um, but my, my comment is, you know, we don't live in Arizona or New Mexico. This, when we have a drought, it eventually rains and our reservoirs fill up again, it snows. Um, this is a complete, um, hijacking
of our water system. This really has nothing to do with public safety and water supply and all that. Um, and, and, you know, I I, I am not for the state again, once again, first of all, telling us that we have, you know, we now have to come up with an ordinance for a dwelling unit. Now we have to do this because they're telling us we have to do, we'll give you money for complete streets. This is once again, beacon Hill telling us how to run our city. I am completely against this whole thing. We live in New England. It rains, it snows it. When we just had a drought, it was declared.
It was pretty, pretty significant back in August and September. I have not seen a drought like that at all, all since I moved out here in the mid nineties. That was the worst drought we had. And it's been raining and snowing. And I'll tell you what, it's, it's probably not gonna carry over into the summer if we continue to have a wet spring, and we'll be fine. And if it does, then we'll probably get a hurricane next fall and everything's gonna fill up and, and it all, I'll be good. Um, if we stay in a drought, we don't stay in a drought very long here in New England. Um, so back to my question. I, Mr.
PR through the chair, if I may please, I would like the question answered as well. What if we do vote no on this? Then what does the state, what, what do they do then? Councilor? Uh, well, attorney Bris, attorney Bristol did not really give us that option to talk about voting. No. Um, you're welcome to vote no if you would like to, but, um, e even if the water isn't completely free of PFAS, we still need it. Uh, and so I will be voting to comply with what the state has authorized. Um, but you're welcome to vote no if you'd like
and find out what happens. Councilor Burns. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I mean, you can vote no if you want Councilor, but, but state's going to the state's mandating this and you know, I, I spoke with, uh, Heather actually, and she said that we need to pass this. They're gonna do it anyways. The state's gonna mandate drop. It doesn't matter where you live, any part of the state. The tip to the end. Alright, Councilor Melo, then we're gonna move. Um, thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add that the water department is working on some public information, um, to disseminate
and for us to help share. Uh, the state was very clear that producing food farms, producing fiber for livestock, all of that is exempted from any kind of drought restriction. Um, I did ask in the meeting whether or not someone was gonna check and see if I was watering petunias or tomatoes. They haven't quite worked that out yet at the department level. And there would be an appeals process for whatever kind of ticket you might receive. Um, it is the lowest possible, you know, penalty that we hand out for anybody. This is not anything severe. Um, and,
and we will be getting out public information so that everyone knows there's just a small change, um, with the number of days watering if drought gets severe, very severe. Um, but it does, as the ordinance is written, it does still allow the water commission to have, um, what discretion they did with, um, increasing restriction, uh, independent of the drought task force. If they don't move it, Westfield still can, if we need to, if they need to pull a well offline or whatever, they still have their discretion. Thank you.
Okay, so this is a first reading by title only. Councilor Morgane. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. And, and, um, you know, the, the, um, drought, US drought monitor are the ones that put out drought. And this says that it's, it's going to be the, uh, secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs that is going to declare what level drought we have. And then we will get fined based on what, how much water we use during those times. And, um, it just seems like it's another tax on our citizens, another way to get money. And, uh, and it also seems like that, you know,
they're gonna declare a drought. Um, doesn't say, you know, we've always used the US drought monitor to monitor our drought. They, they've got monitoring stations all over the country and they say where the severe drought is, where moderate drought is, where a slight, you know, uh, uh, level one drought. Uh, and now we, we have a, a another person or a group that's the secretary, that's one person. They're gonna get to determine this whole thing. Counselor first reading by title only. Yes. Uh, Mr. Make a comment. Can No, I'm good. Oh, you are? I'm sorry. No, no, no, I'm fine. I'm, I'm fine. Okay.
Don't want to debate the point. Okay. Do you want him, Mr. Secretary, please make a comment. Okay. So motion for first reading by title owners Second. Motion made it seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Would you read it please? One, one. Opposition. An ordinance amending Chapter 18, article two, division one, division of water, section 1828 through 1835. Thank you, Counselor. Aye. Motion for second reading and final passage at our next meeting. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now on for second reading. Thank you.
Item 40, councilor Melo. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, natural resources met on February 27th and a vote with a vote of 2 2 0. Voted to approve an ordinance amending chapter one, section one dash 9.1. Non-criminal disposition and penalties. So moved. Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, counselor. Thank You Mr. President. Um, this is the penalty section of the ordinance we just spoke. It just changes. Um, who is allowed to write said ticket and who has said authority? It just matches everything together.
Um, so I move for first reading by title only. Second Motion made it seconded. Any discussion? Just a quick question. Yes. Do we know how many tickets have ever been written? I, I don't know. Is there any ever had I asked about the process and it was still being determined? Yeah. Thank you. 10 minutes. So first reading by title. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Counselor. Thank you. And, and more. And Amening chapter one, section one dash 9.1, non-criminal disposition and penalties.
Thank you Councilor. Uh, motion for second reading and final passage on the next meeting. Second. Motion made it seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Now on for second reading. Any announcements? Motion to adjourn. Second Councilor Harris, you taking or I just didn't want another announce. Had to do the thunder here. There must be a soccer game or something. My apologies, counselor. That's all right. Second. Motion made it second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Good night everybody. Thank you. Thank you.