Good evening. It is seven o'clock. We are calling the June 17th, 2025 planning board meeting to order first on the agendas, public participation on any matter, not subject to a public hearing. Anybody have anything they want to talk about? Next is review and approval of previous minutes. We have 5 20 25 out there. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from, um, May 20th. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Next on the agendas public hearings as I do every, um, meeting. Next on the agendas are public hearings.
Today we have zoning, special permits and or site plan approvals. After the applicant's present, the proposal board members will begin asking their questions. We will then invite the public to ask questions of fact. We will have a separate time for, um, for the public to speak in favor of or speak against emotions. When we recognize you, please come to the microphone, give your name and address, and direct all questions and comments to the board, not the applicant. The purpose of our public hearings is to allow board members to collect evidence and testimony supporting or contradicting the published legal findings. We are required to make, to approve or deny an application.
We cannot act outside the bounds of the zoning ordinances, nor the stormwater ordinance were also sought. Please understand public hearings are not a community referendum nor a town meeting. We ask you to keep comics, uh, civil and positive remembering. We are all neighbors working to move Westfield forward. While we are free, while you are free to express your opinion, ultimately, legally, the board can only deliberate on the findings of fact, not yours or our personal opinions. First on the agendas, DL Holmes, LLC to amend the special permit that allows an infill building lot created from 2 5 5 South
Hampton Road Zone residence. A All set. Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman and planning board members, um, Rob Levek from our Leve Associates here this evening representing DL Holmes. Don Leland is here with me in the audience this evening. This is a special permit that was previously approved under the infill lot size averaging regulations that you have. Um, we had, uh, permitted this a while back and through Mr. Leland's communications with the water department, we ended up having some issues securing a water service.
As you are aware, uh, the prerequisites for your infill lot size averaging are to have water and sewer. Um, in, in anticipation of having water and sewer, we were able to secure a special permit. Uh, we still have sewer, however, um, the water department, specifically Steve Fernandez, had requested that we install a well as opposed to, um, the original proposal was for a cross country connection for the water, um, from South Hampton Road to the subject property, which would've been through the kind of the, the existing house lot
and then into the new infill, um, lot size averaging lot, which is right here to my left. So sorry. And Bernie can't see it. Sorry, Bernie. Thank you. Okay. Can you see that better? Good. Okay. Um, so the, this is the parent parcel. There was a house on the lot. This is Southampton Road here. The idea was that we were going to have a little easement through this existing yard to the proposed lot or to the new lot. I would call it the, the, uh, lot size averaging lot. The issue was that they did not want a cross country connection and also, um, Southampton Road being a, um,
a state highway as well as the work associated with, uh, cutting into the state highway. Um, the sandy soils that we have up there, we were able to secure a variance from the zoning board of appeals. We, we received a unanimous vote for a variance for the zoning board of appeals to allow, uh, the, the very, to vary from the requirement for water specifically. Um, and then we are now back before you, uh, respectfully requesting to amend the permit to allow them to do the exactly the same thing, same house, same lot, no changes to the dimensions or the use
or the programming, um, strictly just a well versus, um, the water. Uh, so we do have the variance in place and we're just requesting to amend the special permit. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have any question from the board. Thank you, sir. I actually have a few questions. My first one is, most of those houses in that area are around city and sewer, correct? City sewer and water. And the, the weird thing is there's no water water in Emerald Ave. So what the city was, you know, It's on the other side, Correct? It's on, um, forest. Okay. Which makes sense. I understand why on that one.
But the, the, the house that's already built there, that's on city water and sewage, correct? That is correct. It's a house that's not, that hasn't been built yet. That's what they're looking at putting the well there, correct. The new house behind the existing house does not have water service, but the, the existing house does. Correct. So did they, I understand reading this paperwork here, it would be a financial hardship for them in order to put the pipings in for city water and sewage. Did they not know this before? Correct. We were anticipating that we were going to, because water is available to that lot,
it's the same lot itself. We are anticipating that we would be able to get water service. So we had shown an easement for the water service, and the water department does not want to allow it that way. And then the approach would've been to bring a Maine up of em, um, up Emerald, Emerald Ave. They don't necessarily want more water Maine or cutting into Southampton Road. So they said we'd prefer you, you know, go get, you know, get a well in order to do a well, we needed a variance, so that's why we went to the ZBA. Okay. So most of those all, almost all those houses are on city water and sewage?
That is correct. Okay. So my next question is, when I went back and looked at the paperwork, when this was approved through the planning board, I'm just curious as to what it has as special conditions. Number six. It said that it's required both lots must be serviced by the city water system. And then in the findings, there's also a part in here, number six, the subject lot is located within a water resource. Um, the ordinance requires the lots be serviced by both Westfield public water and public, uh, sanitary sewer.
So I'm just wondering if, if it's kind of like an ordinance that has to be this way, you are asking us to bend in order for them to put the well in. Um, I think technically we asked the zoning board of appeals to vary from the requirements. So I think technically the, the ZBA is the body that would be quote unquote bending, so to speak. Um, and they, they did provide a variance from the requirement for water. I, I, so we're, so now technically with the variance we meet the standards, it's
because we, you know, because we don't, it's not required to have water based in this particular situation. But obviously the special permit needs to be amended As well. I, I do see that here, Rob. Yep. That they have to give that variance in order for the well to be put in there. But again, my question is it's because it will cost them too much money to put the piping in where it should be according to this. Um, you are asking us to put basically a waiver as to allow them to put a well in. Correct. I'm asking for an amendment to the special permit based on the variance that we received.
Yes. I think that, I think semantics. I think it's the same thing you're saying. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Uh, where does the sewer sewer line coming in? It's on emerald. Pardon me? It's on emerald. So the sewer line's, I'm sorry, it's on em Emerald Ave. The sewer line's on Emerald Land? Yeah, well they just, the sewer runs down there so they can just tie right in. But there's no water down There. Yes, sir. Correct. Okay. So Rob, if we knew what we know now, back when you pulled the original permit, it probably would've went through as a Well, I would assume if we had permission to do it Well, so technic Well, if we had gotten a variance first,
then we could have come to you. But we kind of did it out of order just because we didn't anticipate that truly. Right. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Yeah. Normal. Normally we understand the prerequisite is for water and sewer for the lot size averaging. So if somebody comes to the office, we typically would not tell them, yeah, you can do that. And we wouldn't pursue it, um, if they didn't have the water. But in this particular case, it was kind of a situation where they had received the lot size averaging and through the communications that Mr. Leland had with, uh, Mr. Fernandez and the water department, um, it became clear that that was, that was going to be an issue.
Um, and then we looked at solutions for addressing that and still hopefully maintaining the value of the lot. One and two, really having no impact to the surrounding neighborhood other than the fact that it, you know, it's really just the difference of a well for that subject property versus, um, you know, it doesn't really affect any of the surrounding neighbors. So, you know, the well is a, you know, it's probably a foot and a half off the ground, you know, cylinder, you know, and then the water line goes subterranean into the house. So it's really just where they're getting
their water specifically. But we do understand that was the req, you know, that is a requirement, nor it would, it's not a normal case by any means. Anybody in the public have a question of fact. The goal here is to keep another house going up, correct? Yes, sir. And that's, that's one of the things of our master plan is to get more housing. And this is a way to get another house in Westfield. Yep. Okay. We have a, um, draft decision conditions, all conditions, uh, this is special, permanent amendment infill and lot size averaging subject property
2 55 South Hampton Road. That's the parent parcel. And Emerald Ave conditions, all conditions of the original special permit shall remain in full force in effect, except for number six, which shall be amended to six. This permit shall not take effect until the subject variance has been recorded at the registry of deeds land court. The findings, the findings of the original special permit are hereby affirmed except for number seven, which shall be amended to seven. While the ordinance requires the lots to be serviced
by both Westfield public water and public sanitary sewer, the board of appeals granted a variance in finding a hardship involved with providing city water to the new Emerald Ave lot. And a private well will be installed there instead. The planning board, uh, finds no material effect by this change. Questions, comments, anything? I'm just Curious if you opened it for Questions. I haven't, but we have any other questions? No. Anybody in the public, um, for
or against want to come forward, state, Done. Come forward. Microphone forward naming that. Um, I just wanna say this is an undeveloped street. I mean, the street's already there. It just hasn't been developed. I mean, it's, I think it's just a perfect place for where some badly needed housing, um, can go in where it should be. Thank You. That's all I wanna say. Do I hear a motion to any motion to close public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Do I hear a motion on the special permit amendment?
I'll make a motion to approve the special permit amendment for 2 55 South Hampton Road. Second Bernie? Yes. John? Yes. Phil? Yes. Rich? Yes. Cheryl? No. Um, Ray? Yes. And I am a yes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next on the agenda is Kaitlin Manning for a special permit per zoning ordinance section three dash 44 1 To allow family daycare home at 50 Shaker Road
zoned rural residential. Yes. Good evening. Um, my name is Caitlin Manning and I live at 50 Shaker Road in Westfield. Is that my house? That's so funny. Okay. I'm here tonight to seek approval for a permit to establish a daycare in my home. Since I was 15, I've gained experience working with children through babysitting, caring for my cousins, and working in various childcare centers in many different roles. It has always been my dream to open my own home daycare. I'll be responsible for caring for a group of children from Monday through Friday during normal work hours. I have followed all protocols from the Department
of Early Education and Care. I also have received encouragement from my neighbors as well as fellow residents. There's a high demand for licensed childcare in the Western mass area. Many childcare centers have waiting lists, consistent staff overturn and not enough opportunities for play. By opening a home daycare, I can provide, uh, families with a more personalized experience with a set number of children. With this permit, I'd be able to succeed in my lifelong dream while offering the community an additional option for care. Furthermore, I'd be in a, I would ensure that I am not only obtaining the necessary state licensing
to provide childcare, but also complying with Westfield's policies. Thank you for your time. Questions? Questions? Did you say how many children you're gonna be planning on having? I can have up to six through the state. Pardon me, up to six children. Six. Mm-hmm. Infant through, uh, six years old. I think Army. I can have infant to like five years old, but then I can also do school age as well. As long as it stays under the six I'm out. So it's only gonna be one provider. Yourself? Myself, yes. Okay. I have to say that you wrote a very good proposed use project summary.
Oh, thank You. You said everything in there. It's well done. Thank you. I appreciate that. I, I agree with you. As far as the need for daycare, uh, here in Westwood. I have a, a couple of messages and otherwise they're trying to get daycare. This is a struggle. I understand. I'm very familiar with your property. Um, the only concern, I'm all for you, the only concern I have, uh, and I see from your, your, your notes here that it's not allowed. Parking has to be in your driveway. Mm-hmm. Because that street is so busy and you just, just have to make sure that that's happened. Other than that, I think, uh, uh, it's a great idea. Thank You. So
I hate to be that guy 'cause I'm in favor of this too. But, um, looking at Google Maps, I don't know if this is old. Do you have a fence around your property? We don't have a fence around the property, but the state asks us to have like a little fenced in area that's at least four feet high for the children to play in. And we just installed it with our neighbor's permission. Okay. So there's no access to the busy road at all. Perfect. Yeah. Additional questions? Anybody in the public have a question of fact? Anybody in the public wanna speak in favor of or speak against? What, what would happen if you have a demand for more than six?
Um, so you can't have more than six for up to the first year. And it depends on the spacing in your house. So if you have enough square footage, you can have more after the first year, but it only goes up to eight or 10. Well, 10 by myself, but it, it's with older kids mixed in with the younger kids. We're, we're aiming to stay at six. Okay. Yeah. We have a, uh, draft decision special, um, and I'll read it. Special permit family daycare, home subject property, 50 Shaker Road special conditions. The board found valid cause and authority pursuant to section one dash 50 dash seven
of the zoning ordinance to impose the following conditions of this special permit. One as proposed, the use is limited to weekday daycare of up to six preschool children. Two, this special permit is non-transferrable and shall expire upon the listed applicant as the principal practitioner is cing to reside in the home, the planning board and or their designee reserves the right to inspect the premise through the first year of use of this special permit. Are there anything else we want to impose? So I think it's drafted as preschool.
Did I hear you say up to age six? Is it I will. Yeah. For, it's just before and afterschool care for older kids Kids. So we could change that to up to age six, I guess. Okay. If that's, if that's, That makes sense. Agreeable. Yeah. Okay. This is gonna run year round, Huh? Year round all year? Yes. There's No real break for the summer, right? Uh, school vacations I was hoping to take off and, uh, during the summer next year? Well, I haven't started yet. Oh, okay. So you'll probably be reduced during the summer.
I'm hoping if I can make it Any additional questions, comments? Yeah. Maybe I, we should add, uh, at least a half an hour onto each end, because seven 30 to four 30 is not going to work for six different people. You know, some people, I mean, that's, Oh, they can drop off and pick up whenever they want. Like, I just worked at a home daycare and they had, uh, pickups and drop offs in like by 10:00 AM or like pickups by like 3:00 AM It's various. It depends on, We have to be like teachers at Munger Hill.
Otherwise you can't work with those hours. I mean, it's just, if you work in Springfield, you couldn't go there. You Couldn't. Well, yeah. I am flexible for changing rules. Alright, so the, the draft didn't specify hours. Um, but Doesn't the application, The application mentioned it, but we didn't Specify the decision doesn't, I mean, as it's drafted, it doesn't, if the board wants to add that, um, I thought, you know, shaker road's kind of a busy road anyway, so it's not like bringing traffic into a quiet neighborhood necessarily. So We do have a double wide driveway, and we did have eight cars
to fill our driveway last weekend for a party. So we can't fit a bunch of cars. I, I think we should leave the times off because, um, because it's private daycare, um, the applicant might be willing to make an accommodation if somebody needs to be somewhere much earlier in the morning or something along those lines by leaving the time off. I think it just makes it easier on the applicant and you, those parents Go with, Okay. Are your motion to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.
Do I hear a motion on the special permit? Make a motion to approve the special permit. Second. Okay. Ready? Yes. Phil? Yes. Cheryl? Yes. John? Yes. Rich? Yes. Bernie? Yes. And I am a Yes. Congratulations. Thank you. But I can't leave. Okay. Okay. Um, I do have to read something to you. Okay. Uh, this is post, post special permit instructions. Congratulations on getting your special permit approved.
As the applicant owner, you cannot utilize the rights granted in this special permit without having met all conditions and requirements of the permit. You have additional steps, which must be met before this approval becomes valid per state law. You must wait 20 days after the day. The planning board files a decision with the city clerk. This is a 20 day appeal period, allowing any aggrieved party to appeal our decision after the appeal period. You must obtain the city clerk's signature on the decision and you must record the special permit
with the registry of deeds. This will be spelled out in an instruction, uh, sheet mailed with your decision. Most importantly, you must continue to comply with the terms and conditions of the special permit throughout the life of the permit. If you are not in compliance, uh, city and state code allow for various means of enforcement should you non-compliance rise to our level, we reserve the right to revoke your special permit. So, but congratulations. Thank you. It's a good thing for Westville. Thank you Again. That concludes our special permits. Next on the agenda, we have no, a andrs.
Next on the agenda is other business review of building architectural changes, proposed restaurant building site plan approval 2 1 22, uh, to 2 31 East Main Street, Westgate Plaza. So, um, I guess Rob's got something, but this should be pretty simple. This was the Popeye's. Um, they reduced the building slot, building size slightly, and it's got a little bit of a different design. Um, so I just thought the board should take a look at the change, see if, uh, it's consistent. There's really no change to the site plan itself.
What he said. Um, again, Rob Levek, uh, Popeye's I guess is coming. That's what I've recently heard. So they have a slightly different footprint. A building is similar. It's gonna have a similar color scheme, same general footprint. Um, and until I hear otherwise, it sounds like they're coming. What Did the building sizes go from? Two? Um, it's slightly, I think it's slightly reduced. Uh, I don't know if I have it in my head, but I can check. Well, it's 64 by 36 for the total footprint,
and I can see if I have better Comparison on the safe plan here. So the, the building is 2268 and we don't really show a good comparison of the previous building, but it was a little bit longer, if I remember correctly. And it's, I think it's a little more stout and a little bit shorter. So what, three feet To longer? Um, I think it's shorter. I don't know if I have the Original's a little shorter. But basically I think the difference is made up by the addition of an outdoor heating area front. So Yeah, there is an outdoor patio proposed
Functionally. It kind of takes up the same amount Room, I dunno, these chicken selections. I know. Hey, Rob, can I ask you, uh, the address, 2 31 East Main Street shows Taco Bell. This is gonna be a separate standalone building, not replacing Taco Bell, right? That that is correct. This is not Taco Bell. This is, um, to the left, if you remember a couple years back. The other side of that driveway. Yep, exactly. Okay. Yep. That whole area is kind of all the same. Right. Parcels owned by bricks. More. Any comments? There's nothing really to talk about.
Nothing really to talk about here. I like the building. Yeah. So I guess the question is, does the board accept the building change as a minor? As a minor change? How, how much of a change, how many feet? It's probably in our request. I can, let me confirm. Sorry, I should have that answer in my head. Do we need to continue? Go ahead, Rob. Nate went out. Uh, it's Probably, I'm gonna guess maybe 10 feet shorter. Oh, here we Go. Wait. So back in 23 we had 20,
uh, 26 69 square feet. And the new one is 2268 square feet. So, so 400, I dunno if you have these on your, uh, so this, I'll compare. So the building, this is the proposed, originally proposed building, if you can see that a little bit longer mm-hmm. A little bit narrower. And the new one is shorter and wider and a little wider, but same general footprint. And they were able to add in the original we did not have the patio space, so they had a little extra wiggle room and added the patio space up front. Nice. I like the
Patio space. I think it's a minor change. I think it's a minor change. We all in agreement. Yes. Yep. Okay. I'll agree with it. But I think that 70 square feet, I'll love that chicken is over the top. Uh, all right, we're good. Next on the agenda, matter is referred from City Council Application for city council special permit for a truck terminal to be located at one 60 Falcon Drive and an application on or on an amendment to a city council special permit
to include trailer storage at zero North Road. So tackle these one at a time or together. So I'm not exactly sure why it was referred to you. Um, on the North Road one, you did issue a special permit for the common driveway. Um, I think it was a contractor yard in the back. And this is for trailer storage. They, they're calling it Amendment, I'm not sure. It seems like a kind of be a whole new permits. So different use, Is that the one behind CU Permit? Yeah. Okay. I, I guess the very first question I have is, what's,
what's City Council looking for out of us? Are they looking for an opinion? They looking for a decision? What are they looking for out of us Recommendation? A recommendation. It was Referred, uh, I guess if you have comments or, Okay. Yeah. Or not. Mr. Chairman, we, we have done a number of these city council special permits and have never been referred to the planning board before, but we are just kind of following their lead. Um, they also did just, so for your information, refer the Falcon Drive project to the water department as well. Mm-hmm. Um, so we're, we're gonna go there as well, I guess. Uh, but I, I'd be happy to kinda share quickly what what's going on and,
and, um, they are somewhat tied together. I can kind of give you the, the overarching story of what's going on and then Sure. Okay. Great. Uh, if it's okay, Jake, my 17 minutes Are gone. Bring up the GS Can I just ask a quick question? Did you just say that there's a tie, Rockway owns this, right? This property right now? Uh, the Falcon Drive property? Yes. Did you just say there's gonna be a correlation between what's gonna be built that warehouse and, and, Uh, there's a correlation between what's happening for the amendment for the North Road property and what's going on in the Brockway piece?
I'll try to connect them. Okay. I'll do my best. So, so this is the Brockway site. This is Falcon Drive. This is, uh, south Hampton Road. Um, so there's one site here that we're, we were talking about. Um, so that's the Falcon Drive piece. So that's currently Brockway. Right. So what happened was, um, there's a, there's a company I'm working for called the Spot Companies. Okay. The Spot Companies, uh, works with directly with Home Depot as kind of a logistical consultant for them. Um, and they are trying to resolve a problem
that they have in the city of Westfield with, uh, the parking of trailers. Okay. So they looked for solutions. If you are aware, and kind of aside from this, um, there was a property at 81 Service Star that was recently approved. Our, our company had done, uh, the work was just recent, oh, I'm sorry. Recently, uh, referred to subcommittee for, um, a, uh, trucking facility or a contractor's yard to be located there. That's displacing some trailers. Uh, in addition, you might be aware that there's a property on Madeiras way.
I don't wanna get into the details, but, um, maybe doesn't have a permit. And there's been some enforcement actions related to that. So there has been trucks stored in regard, I'm sorry, in this particular property, um, which happened to be from the Home Depot as well. There's a number of other locations in general, including their site, their own site themselves, um, where they're basically have empty trailers. Um, they are, uh, one of the biggest operations in the city of Westfield, and they're trying to accommodate these trailers. So the spot companies contacted me about the Rockaway site.
They were thinking, okay, here's a trucking site. We're gonna grab it, we're gonna buy it from them, and we're going to utilize it for trailer storage. Okay. Brockway would be out the tr uh, the trailer, uh, logistics operation of the trailers directly related to Home Depot would be located here. Unbeknownst to them, when they got into the purchase and sale process, they uncovered the fact that there was an expansion, um, that was done beyond what was originally permitted. There's a number of permits. I think there was two permits issued over the years.
Um, but there was some area that was expanded. So when we got involved, we reviewed the zoning, looked at what was, what was done. So the site is pretty much built already right now as is is already built out. So we looked at how to bring them into compliance, but also get them to utilize as much of the property as possible because they need as much storage space for, uh, the logistics operation that I had mentioned. So what we have done is we've submitted a special permit to the city of Westfield. One because it requires it, because it's technically a trucking terminal.
Uh, so that ci, city of Westfield City Council, um, would hear that or will be hearing that. Um, in addition, it's also over the aquifer. Okay. So, and it's a, it is a current use with a, what's called a ple, which is a land use with a higher pollutant load. Um, so over the aquifer there's a number of stormwater requirements that needed to be incorporated into the site to one, make it compliant, um, and two, improve over the existing conditions. There's also a very specific requirement for the amount of impervious surface that's allowed over the aquifer.
And as you can see, the site is completely built out. Um, and to boot, we had an endangered species polygon that it was fell within. So we had pretty much every permitting, you know, uh, related hurdle that you could, you could run into. So we started looking at it and we communicated with Kristen Mellow, one of the city counselors that's been very active with regard to water in the city. Um, we talked to her about the project, how to try to improve it. And one of the ideas we had was looking at using credit land for the offset for the impervious surface that exists here. So this site is already disturbed.
We are proposing to the city council that this gets improved by introducing water quality, um, drainage related water quality. Um, so state-of-the-art drainage system, treatment train based on the mass DEP standards, all the stuff that we talk about a lot with the projects that go before the planning board. Um, so in addition to that, we needed to figure out how to satisfy this impervious surface maximum. So it's a 70% impervious maximum over the aquifer. So we talked to Kristen about whether
or not we try to cut down the work, the work on the subject property that's already disturbed, or if we try to protect some other property that might be more valuable. So that's where I'm tying this in with the other North Road property. So the North road property, Mr. Hir here this evening, um, is a project that was approved by the city council, um, for a contractor's yard. So we are looking to amend that permit to also allow for the storage of trailers because there is a need. And as you can imagine, it makes a lot of sense to have,
keep it as local two, the Home Depot facility as possible one and two on previously approved or previously developed sites. So that's what we were looking to do as part of Mr. ER's project. He has a portion of land on what I would call the west side of the property. Um, if we could, Jay, is it possible to just zoom out, down a, or pull down that way? So Mr. Giler, um, has this property here. There was a storage facility built here a few years ago that we had permitted. I think that was through you guys.
And then the city council permit that was issued for the contractor's yard has a space approximately in here. It's not developed yet. Um, so the idea was that we would, in concert with these two properties being utilized for trailers, we would create, and I I use the term greenway, we're trying to create a greenway arm. Brook runs, if you guys are familiar, arm brook runs from north to south. I used to catch turtles out there when I was a kid. Anyway, um, arm Brook is intermittent in this area, but there's also bordering vegetated wetlands along it.
We delineated all of those as part past projects in the approval process for Mr. ER's project. We had suggested to, um, Kristen Mellow and others that there would be a logical, you know, area to protect along that corridor. And also we've worked for just about everybody on that Southampton Road corridor. And we talked about maybe trying to daisy chain together what I would call a greenway along that, because they have areas that people can't use, right. Or, or have limited use of. And it makes sense to try to protect that in perpetuity.
So in a previous discussion to the last discussion I had with, with Kristen, we had talked about that. So when we started talking about this new Falcon Drive project, I explained to them and to her that this made sense to us. It was a potentially available, because we were already working with Mr. Giler. So the idea was that this area could be protected. So there's a swath of land that as part of our proposal on Falcon Drive is technically connected to this one. It's not necessarily, it doesn't have to be this property and Mr.
ER's property does not need to do that to satisfy any requirements. But that said, they're generally communicating and have been working together on these projects. And the idea is that we would have some offset land, which is a strip of land along the backside of the property that would provide additional credit. Now, just to bore you even more, the city council technically can allow impervious surface above 70%, but we figured that that would be a tall order to try to get approved. Um, so we, that's why we communicated with them, one
for the credit land, and two, we requested the special permit, but we're just basically, um, requesting that that credit land be utilized. And that was a discussion that kind of came to light during our, I don't wanna put any words in, uh, Councillor Mellow's, um, you know, or you, you know, let her use her own words. But the idea is, um, that we would kind of work together and try to protect an area worth protecting as opposed to an area that's already been disturbed. The endangered species program came back and essentially said the same thing to us. They said the site's already disturbed, you know,
there's really no habitat there. And they gave us a clean bill of health. So, um, so I'll stop there and probably have some questions. Did, did you find a chance to say how many acres from the credit land you were looking at? I Don't remember. I think it's like 1.7 or two, something like that. I have it in in one of my files. I'm Just trying to get an idea of what you're looking at, how many trucks they're looking at putting in there. If they're, if this, it sounds like it's gonna be more like, uh, a shared space to alleviate some of the problems in Westville. That's what I'm understanding from you. Correct.
So I think, I think it's a good story to tell in that the, the non-compliant areas or some of the areas that the trucks were being stored will be more centrally located near the Home Depot facility, which is a need. Um, and we're utilizing Falcon Drive property, which is already disturbed significantly. Um, we're improving the conditions there because in order to secure a special permit, they need to meet all of these storm water requirements and all the treatment train as I had mentioned. So basically water quality, not dumping, you know, truck,
you know, you know, you know, um, grit and oils and, and grease from trucks. It, it's gonna have a collection system. The stormwater system, which is over the, you know, this site is over the aquifer. So there's a, there's a higher level of scrutiny that we have to meet in those designs. So we're basically improving that condition. We are also permanently protecting or protecting perpetuity, the land on Mr. ER's property. Should that suffice for the requirement for, um, for offsetting the impervious calcs. So, oh,
So how many acres was it? You said One point, I gotta see which plant. Uh, so under two acres, I think it's under two acres. Lemme just confirm here. The only thing I have is, um, I know the city council's gonna decide, you know, make their decisions what they feel is appropriate. But the only thing I worry about is especially being over the aquifer, the terminology of truck terminals kind of bothers me because it is very broad. Extremely broad. So I'm just trying to get an idea of how they're defining this. Because this could get from
storing trailers. I don't know if they're empty. I don't know if they're storing freight. I don't know if this is gonna be a place for truckers to sleep in. I don't know if they're gonna be washing vehicles. I don't know if they're gonna be fueling vehicles. This is such a broad thing. So this is what bothers me the most. But I'm just saying my piece. Yeah. City council, it's gonna make their own. And it, a lot of times when you, when you're saying truck terminals, it's used loosely, but it also can open the doors. Yeah. I don't believe it's opening any new doors. There was already a special permit granted for that use.
So what we're doing is we're actually amend, or I forget if we're amending or if we're, lemme just see here. I think we're going for a new, yeah, we're doing a new permit. Regardless, there's a permit in place for that use. They had just expanded beyond the boundaries of what had been originally approved. Um, but there the use is and, and was allowed on that site. So we're not, yeah. And the, the problem with the trucking terminal, um, I'd love to call it a storage yard 'cause that's really what this particular one will be. Um, the, the truck terminal. Unfortunately, the definition includes
anytime you store trailers. So we run into that quite a bit. Yes. We've kind of explained that to the city Council. That's, that's why I'm hoping city council will define it more so that it's not going to create havoc over a water district area. And that's the only concern I Have. Yeah. And they will be, um, they in general are empty. Um, they're empty trailers, you know, dry goods. Yeah. Okay. I'm not gonna say there's never gonna be something in there, but, but that's, that's what I've been told. Um, thank you. And I, I should be able to find that number in a second for you. And it's incidentally, the ZBA has kind
of established some case law on the interpretation of truck terminal and motor vehicle storage yards as they pertain to trailers. So It was a recent appeal. The other comment, all I'm Saying is I worked logistics for many years and I know exactly what can go on. Questions, comments, guys? Yeah. Rob, um, I have a question. Um, just double checking. This is not over the aquifer, correct? One Of 'em is, uh, north road is not Because you're at 92% impervious. Is that allowed in the, this area? No. So that's the credit that's based. So the credit land is based on that, um, those calculations.
So we're at 92%, what's the line is 70. We were at 92%, I believe it was application, the stormwater basin and the introduction of that reduces it. Um, and I'll, I gotta just gotta find those numbers. But, um, and then we provided a one-to-one credit on the, on the other property. So the, the, I find it, the requirement is no more than 70 i 78%, I believe That is correct. So, uh, well, 70%, however, on an existing, I think it's on an existing use
that's being retrofitted, you can exceed 70% with a special permit. Does that sound right Jay? Mm-hmm. So that's kind of part of our application to the council, but we're providing credit land to offset so that we get to that 70%. So can you provide credit to get it down to 70 Below 70? Yes. Uh, that's a possibility has yet to be asked for, but, um, yes, that is, that is a possibility. I'm not finding the number, but I'm, I'll find it on one of the plans. No, I I think it's 70 if, Yeah, at 70% for sure.
That's the threshold. But I know that we, I was trying to find the credit land number for, For Cheryl. I'll make sure I get it to you. I apologize. I'll, I'll have to find it. I don't, I can't, I'm not finding it. I'm sorry. 2.5, 2.5 is that much? I think it's, so Ryan says it's two point where are you finding that in The document? I have. Okay. So it's 2.5. Okay. So city council's just looking for our thoughts, that's all. Oh, it is. It's in the co narrative, Presumably. I, So there
is a requirement in the aquifer that, uh, things be referred to water commission conservation engineer. Um, planning board is not listed on that by ordinance. So you can, if you want to submit comments through the council, you can, I guess if you don't, you don't need to, whatever the board wants to do. So I, I kind of feel like we're making a recommendation on a moving target. If they get down to 70%, then it kind of makes sense to me. If they can get down to 75%
and then are asking for a special permit for that extra 5%, is, is that where we are? And it, I'm not sure that's been determined yet. Um, yes. So to clarify for the, through the chair, we are requesting that the offset of the credit land be included to get us two 70%. Okay. I found it in you, John. Thank you. I found it in the prompt, um, project narrative. Mm-hmm. Fourth paragraph down, that's when they were explaining it. Okay. Thank you. So technically there's no, nothing in the ordinance that allows, allows
that other than the special permit for the existing uses. So A moving Target, I didn't say how much more. Thank you. Explain the concept of credit land to me. So it's an alternate location, so not on site. Yeah. That is being utilized or being protected and we're taking credit for that offsite protected land to compensate for the fact that we're deficient impervious surface.
So not paved, but pervious Right. Surface we're deficient. If you look at the numbers, we're deficient impervious surface. So we're offsetting. So rather than take a site that's no really no matter what, most likely going to continue to be developed, continue to have trucks on it. So rather than make it just a little bit smaller and not really get the, the complete use of it, we're improving the storm water conditions and we're asking the city council to take, uh,
to take credit or allow, allow us to take credit for that offsite land, which is a, uh, a resource area with a intermittent stream bordering vegetated wetland forested and protecting that in perpetuity as opposed to, um, you know, having another, okay. Whatever the numbers are. So What one 60 Falcon Drive that is currently a Completely utilized as a Trucking facility, completely utilized facility completely paid? 92%. Yep. Okay. It is pavement. Yes, sir. And then it currently has, Well I I should say it's, it's, a lot of it is paved.
Okay. Some of it is, I would call it gravel, but yes. Either way Being utilized completely. Yeah. And there are a whole bunch of TR trailers on there right now. Yes sir. And it's over the aquifer? Yes sir. Okay. And zero North Road is vacant land and you are looking to put trailers on there Yep. With a strip of land on one side of it that you are calling credit land. Correct. Who owns the credit land? Mr. Er. Okay. So Mr, so all the credit land and everything is all contained within that one parcel?
Yes Sir. And it can never end up with an a and r or anything like that? No, coming before us. Okay. A declaration gonna Split that off and put another building in there or anything like that? It would be a dec There would be a declaration of restriction on that property, um, on that portion of the property. So, And that land is not in the aquifer, Correct? It is not. Okay. Wanna make sure I get And, and Ms, um, Ms. Meow also knows that, you know, yeah, it does have environmental significance and it does flow arm brook in that location does flow into the aquifer. Mm-hmm. Not too far from just downstream.
Okay, I understand. Got It. And, and again, this is all outside of zoning. Zoning ordinance doesn't allow explicitly permit that, so it's kind of a horse trading thing that council can weigh in granting the special permit to exceed the 70. If this were a vacant lot and they wanted to do 80% impervious, they, you couldn't make this argument. And so it's only because of that special permit. Right. On an existing use, we do have, we do, this is kind
of in zoning, it'd be called transfer development rights. And we do have a section of like, that it does not, doesn't allow for impervious trading. Um, but some other factors that never get utilized. Does, is it the same and, and I'm not leaning either way with this minute, but I just read about transfer development rights. Is it gotta be the same owner of two different properties saying, Hey, I'm going to leave this one alone on my other property? Or is it No, but they would both have to be encumbered
with the zoning restriction in this case. It won't be, well, I dunno, it's legally tricky the way it's proposed to kind of condition something on someone else's property if that's what counsel chooses to do. I think the way to explain it, or the way I see it, is that the council can issue a special permit for impervious surfaces over 70% on properties that were already developed. So, and you get, if you have new property, like Jay said, clean is a whistle, nothing on it there, there's no provision for expanding beyond 70%.
But because oftentimes businesses grow, I'm guessing that's why they promulgated those regulations. So when the businesses grow or there, there's a need to expand. It seems like they provided a special permit for that purpose, which is discretionary on part of the council. Our credit land is to, for lack of a better term, sweeten the deal, so to speak. Because if we just go in and say, Hey, we're over the aquifer, we just wanna plow through and do, you know, you know, exceed 70%, I could see that they, you know, it would make sense that they have concern. You're
Trying to keep a green space, so to say. Yeah. Yeah. So the offset is, you know, the idea, you know, 'cause, and I think, and I don't wanna speak for uh, councilor Mellow, but I believe when we spoke, she said something to the effect that, you know, you've already, you know, the land is already, you know, impacted. What about sa You know, what about sa She liked the idea of saving valuable land, like, you know, land with trees and, you know, you know, you know, this is, doesn't have endangered species, but it has all the white land resource areas that, you know, what you'd like to protect.
I just don't, my, my, I guess my only confusion is that a, an agreement amongst friends. It's like you want a piece of property and I'm kind of over on my hard top and I say, Rob, can you just leave it green and, and, and we'll sell that or we'll, we'll leave that green so that there's a credit. That's, that's what I'm, So it ties, yeah, so it ties it. So the special permit, if issued by the council, the special permit would refer and have a condition that a declaration of restriction be placed on the other property. So that other property would be, um, you know, so if that does not get, so if that declaration
of restriction does not get, uh, put in effect, then they would not satisfy the permit and they wouldn't get, they would, they would have to, you know, go back to the council or amend or do something or, or scrap it or whatever. Again, kind of legally tricky to condition something you can't control. But we'll let council deal with that. So Rob, what I think I just heard you say is by special permit we could allow you to do 92% today if we wanted to. I think the council could. We can't Counsel. Counsel. Right. The council could. Well I Think if this were before you, you could, I believe if it were a warehouse or something.
Right. In fact, I think with, uh, Al's Tire, I think maybe it didn't, Now he wanted to use somebody else's parking lot to do turnarounds. Yeah. So with this credit land, are you getting to 70%? Yes. Yes. We would be at, yeah. With, with, yes, that is correct. So Aside from this, uh, 70% is everything else in order. 'cause Yes, we, we don't have That. So Yeah, so, so actually the good news is we're improving the storm water drastically.
They'd be required to, to pave because some, as I had mentioned, some of the site is not paved. Mm-hmm. And that's actually, believe it or not, it's a bad thing. 'cause things can go directly into the aquifer as it is now. So this would, you know, seal things up, direct them into deep sum catch basins, and then to a water quality unit prior to going to a sediment four bay and then the basin. So it, it is a certainly added protection. And again, right now there's, there's trucks. I mean obviously there'll be trucks moving the trailers in and out, but you know, there's more of a trucking facility there now as opposed to in this,
at least for this particular user, um, would be, uh, empty trailers from from Home Depot. Right. Just to make, so this is what you were, were saying, they're looking at increasing the impervious on the, where the trucks are starting. Where the, where the Stored Right now we're actually, so on site we're decreasing the area being utilized for the trucks, but we're still not quite to the 70% on site after our improvements are made. So when we were, we're creating a stormwater basing and we're creating, you know, other controls
and that takes away from the impervious surface that exists there. Now the site is pretty much completely developed. You are going to, you are gonna compensate for what you're gonna do. Yep, Yep. We're gonna make it better on site. We're not quite to where we need to be for impervious. So we're gonna ask that we a green area that with a bunch of trees and some wetlands gets protected as an offset for not completely reducing down to 70% on site. Okay. 'cause that's what I was asking. Oh, alright. So I was thinking this, right? 'cause that's what I was asking earlier of how many more trucks they're looking at storing there.
'cause I think that's, I think, I think it's fair to say that the capacity for trucks being stored on site will be reduced just because of the storm stormwater improvements in the basin. Okay. 'cause they're updating that stormwater. Yeah. So we're reducing the amount of area on site. You'll lose space that's being utilized over what? Right, right now they're using pretty much almost, I would say almost everything. Okay. Thank you. All education. Looking for a recommendation to city council. So my, my thoughts are that because he can get this to 70, if they can, if they want
to approve it at 70 and we get the compensatory storage on top of it all, I think it's a good deal. 'cause there's our water treatment, which is helping the city, The site is, will still be above 70 this site. Okay. But with the additional, in theory, we can pretend it's 70 is kind of Yeah, what I'm Thinking, I mean, if the other site's not on the aquifer, I don't know if you'd really call it an equal trade, but, So right now if the property owner
of one 60 Falcon Drive turned around and sold it to somebody else, they could just keep using it the exact same way. Way. Correct. Right now? Yeah. Right now it's not in compliance. Yeah. So they, they uncovered a compliance issue when they entered into the purchase and sale agreement. Okay. So it has, so you're putting it into compliance. We are Trying to put it with, You're trying to put it into compliance with the credit land. Yes. It was expanded without permits basically.
Well there is a novel concept in this city. Yeah. So I, maybe an easier way to look at it is if we had not proposed credit land. 'cause that seems to be the complicating factor. Say we're 75 or 78, I gotta look at the numbers, but say we're 75% impervious, so we basically could go directly to the council and just ask for an additional 5% impervious. So, you know, technically we're, you know, we could ask for that without the credit. We were trying to sweeten the pot. But it seems to be complicated things. Yeah. So I, I'll state my opinion.
I kinda see everything here. Um, the preservation of open land in Westfield is something kind of, sort of trying to do, I would've rather had that credit land over the aquifer. Absolutely. Have that credit land over the aquifer as opposed to not being over the aquifer. Um, but I understand the concept. I'm not jumping up and down about it, but I think it's a pretty good alternative. It's the only way I could phrase it. I, I, I guess if they're looking for a whole hearty,
yes, I'm all for it. I can't give them that, but I can give them, I get a understanding of it. Um, you know, we, the planning board don't have the authority to do this, but city council does. And I get what they're trying to do. There is some preservation of land. Um, it's the best I can tell you. So Rob, if the city council doesn't give you even 70%, uh, what happens to the land, it's 'cause it's outta compliance. Something's gotta give. We would have to adjust, um, Make it smaller.
That's one option. Um, maybe different credit land, not that that's easy to find, maybe a little bit more credit land or maybe more credit land. Um, so I anticipate that we'll have those discussions, um, perhaps. And I, I see this oftentimes where, you know, there's language that's used by folks that don't necessarily have an objection to something but don't necessarily wanna support. I mean, you could, you know, I think of, you know, uh, a statement that there's no objection. You know, if that's how you feel,
it wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world. Um, I think realistically the council's gonna, I'm gonna have to explain this to the council and you guys are used to, no offense to the council, but you guys are used to listening to site plan stuff a lot more. So it's a little tricky to explain as you can imagine. So, um, we'll see how that goes. Go ahead Ray. I'm, I'm ready to make a recommendation, a positive recommendation. I'm gonna make a positive recommendation to city council for this particular, um, amendment to the special permit for the,
Do you want Me go to the names? The crediting the land credited Opposed Truck term one 60 Falcon Drive. Okay. Why should I be thinking about it that way? Pardon me? Why should I be thinking about it that way? Well, I, I, I believe that a, the, the pro, the Falcon Drive properties already developed and that adding some, some water treatment to it wouldn't be a terrible thing to have over the aquifer as well as the other property. The, the credit land property. It's a good idea to have some pervious, um,
land over there due to the fact that the arm brook feeds the Westfield River, which feeds West Springfield and so on and so forth, all the way to Connecticut River. So that's my opinion. Okay. Take it for what it's worth, please, This may be a little late in the game, but how many additional trailers are you talking about putting on the Rockaway property? How many additional? How Many? Well, how many planning on storing there, because that'd be additional. 'cause you're talking 80 to a hundred over on North Road. So the, the property's 20% more. So 20% more trailers, theoretically.
Can you say that again, John? They're at 70% right now. They're proposing to go to 92%. No, no, no. I think you're got it reversed. So we're at, they're at 92 now. We have to get back to 70. So we're introducing a stormwater basin. We're actually losing land. We to, to the per to the right stormwater stuff. So there is a re I would argue that there's a reduction. Um, sorry, lemme see if I can find that number for you. I, I'd agree. There's a work, there's a reduction in workspace and Yeah. And then in addition with, with storm, storm water treatment
or water treatment at that. So what I, what I meant to say is right now as it sits it, what I'm reading is you're at 42% impervious and you're proposing going to 92%. Am I reading that right on the application? I don't think so. Um, Did you Say 42? I thought you said 92. I, no, I said 70, which was totally wrong. 42% now going to 92%. So 180,000 square feet versus 400,000 square feet.
So it's significant. It's so 60 something's goofy. 42% doesn't make sense. The site is completely utilized right now. Perhaps That's paved as opposed to hard pack or whatever. Yeah, Maybe. But based on the definition of impervious surfaces for the city, it includes gravel. Right? So Yeah, I don't, it doesn't make sense. So I can check that number, but so I apologize. That's why I was getting confused. So the, um, the site is, I would say 92% would make sense. Um, the site is virtually, um, entirely impervious
with either gravel or, you know, compacted heart back gravel or, or, uh, bituminous. Is that GIS right there? 'cause it doesn't, it looks like about mine's different. This should be the latest aerial, I think 2023. I'm looking at the 2019 mass GIS imagery. Is that the wrong tab? This Is 2023. 1 23. To me, that looks pretty full. Yeah, I drove by. That's full. Yeah. So I'm curious How many more trailers you're gonna put in there. I got a total, that's what I was asking.
I'm gonna double check the numbers, but I, a total 2 86 I believe. 2 86. Yeah. I don't know how many are there now. I would argue that likely more. You're talking 286 more? No, no, two 80, I'm sorry. 2 86 would be the, the spaces that would be resulting from what we're doing. I believe there's more I have not counted on site. Well, If you, if you're reducing the land, right? There has to be more. Before we we're reducing the land, Reducing the usable land, there has to be more than 2 86 right now. Yeah. Yes. I, I would, I would think so, but I have not count.
Correct. But if you can, you can see it's entirely utilized. No, the land size is reducing. Right. So the but the, the, the trailers will be increased up to the maximum amount of 286. Well, the 286 will fit on the land. See, see this area back here? Hmm. That area, that area will be a stormwater basin. So we'll lose that back area. I don't know why we're, even If you look on the plan, Like Problem is, we don't know how many are on there now. Yeah. And I'm sure it's dynamic. There's quite a few. Um,
God, I'd say close to a hundred if there's not that, that amount, there's a lot in there. Well, I would think it's north of that. Yeah. Um, this is not our public, it's not a public discussion, a public hearing. Um, I guess they're really City council's gonna do what they're going to do. Um, Ray, I I understand your point. I, I understand your point. I'm not looking to create, um, precedents in the city, but I get it and I understand it and I can kinda get my mind around a
positive recommendation here. But again, I don't want to set precedent and I think if anybody else starts coming before us with credit land, um, I'll be thinking about that term tonight. Um, yeah, I'm not sure it's gonna go as well. Um, but I get it. Our jobs, our jobs is to make a recommendation. That's it. City council's got the trucking, That's it. City council has to decide whether they want more trucks up on the north side and whether they are allowing this credit land or not. I Mean, it's not necessarily your job
to make re recommendation, it was just referred to you. So this is, it's not like a zoning amendment. Um, So, but If you have comments that are, they might find helpful, Well then can, can we leave at that? If they want to hear how our discussion goes, they can listen to listen, watch the public hearing. I mean, watch our hearing. Or do we need to say, Hey listen, you know, we're kind of split, kind of iffy, kind of. How do they get the message from us if we're not here to make a recommendation? Mean What, what do you want to convey? I, Well, if anything, I'd like to prevent driving down the side of North Road
and Southton Road and seeing tractor trailer trucks parked there overnight. So finding a place to park these trailers at least is, is kind of important. Right now, we're overwhelmed with trucking in the city of Westfield and we haven't even built one that we approved or they haven't built one yet that, that's been approved with special permit. It's gonna be right behind it. So we, we have the place, we, we have, we can keep blessing these off, but we need to now think about where all the,
all the trucks are gonna go that have been allowed to come into town. So that's my piece. Let's give it back to council. Bernie. All good here. I agree with what you, you said here earlier, I had a nice little education from, um, get it. I like it. Okay. City council can do what they want. Uh, I guess I'll summarize it that, um, I will say that, um, the planning board accepts the idea. Okay. They accept the idea is maybe the way we should phrase it, and, um,
Accepts the idea of basically, um, correcting Yeah. Correcting, yeah. What Was not done properly and utilizing a novel way offsite. Right. But Compensation, albeit outside of the zoning rules, Um, but the goal is 70%, if they're utilizing a novel way of doing this, the goal is 70%. There's no reason not to get to that number Otherwise the board takes no exception to the proposals. We, we give a positive recommendation if they can get
it to 70%. Is that a determination? Yeah, I think that's good. I can look at that. Okay. Ray Cheryl Rich. Yeah. With, with the extra, with the piece of open ground coming in mm-hmm. I think it makes sense to do all of that. Bring this up to code, bring it down to 70%. We can do all that. Uh, I did a quick count on the trailers on that lot and I figure they're gonna add an additional 150 if there's, if there's 286 slots on there, there's about 130 trailers on that picture right there.
Mine. Yeah. Mm-hmm. So, you know, and like Ray said, we gotta find some place to put these foolish things. They're here. We gotta find a place to put 'em, you know, so I, I think if we can get something back again, the land, the 70%, I think it's, it is a situation where it's, we, it's not the best way to go, but it's a, it's a win for the, the city in respect that they're getting some open land and we're getting these things put away someplace where they're at least outta sight. Well, if that summarize
that still positive recommendation, it sounds like, Say that again Louder please. So the board wants to send a positive recommendation as those items we mentioned? Yes. So I'd just be concerned that we're going to, if this becomes a habit where we become a pre-hearing body for all their permits, um, it's not gonna be a, We're open to an idea to prevent that. So The the alternative is, is when they come before us, they say, Hey, listen, this is not our special permits, your special permit. Well, yeah, we've done that before
and we did try to amend the zoning ordinance to get everything here. Mm-hmm. And they didn't, they kept some things. So, I dunno, I don't know what position the board's in. So I understand your point and it's, I agree with it. However, this is a complicated one and sometimes we gotta, Well, I mean, We're a little bit better at this. Be Complicated. I just, and we spent more time on this than we did on the, our hearings and Right. You know, at least we got a better
understanding of what's going on. I mean, So I think in a situation like this, if it comes back again, we do what we did and if we feel like saying you guys figure it out, we, we have entitled to do that because there, you know, some of it's just making a decision. We yet to take in the facts tonight. Yeah. I I'm not looking to be a a a test ground for, um, or a pre-approval for, but then again, if they are asking for our opinion, okay, we should be somewhat flattered
that they're at least asking instead of stuffing it right back down our throats. Um, well, like the underwriters. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can request at least on our projects just to understand the, the process because we were surprised to have come before the planning board on this one as well. I do understand that the water department is, I guess before over the aquifer is, was was the planning board on the list for the aquifer stuff? No. So maybe I could talk to Caitlin Bruce who's, you know, really easy to work with and you know, maybe, maybe, maybe they just did it by, you know, just because they anticipated that.
'cause I know that there are a lot of other things that this, that planning board, no, for example, zone changes. We've had a lot of zone changes lately. So maybe they just, you know, figured it was part of the process on this too. Okay. Well we're good. I feel good. Good. Thank you very much. Appreciate Your time. Confused us all. I know, me too. Uh, LA last on the agenda is review of change to approve site plan 12 20 22 for Westfield River Elementary School for additional parking area. Um, so this was the, there's the, uh,
on your shared drive is the area where they're showing proposed additional parking, uh, or 20th. So cars toward the rear of the property, um, doesn't really impact the site plan overall, other than accommodating more parking for open houses or activities and the like. So, um, they first came to me and I said, you know, you wanna see that the stormwater engineering works out before we brought it to the planning board. So there's a chain email chain from the city engineer.
They worked out all that stormwater issues. Um, so it's just a matter of the parking area itself. If the board accepts that as a minor change, and again, it is a city project. Isn't these the parking spaces they were banking at one point? They, I think they maybe talked about that, but it wasn't on the original. Yeah. And it wasn't engineered or anything. So They were, they were saying that they had plenty of parking spaces up here in front, but they had additional ones back there. If they did, they elected to use them,
but they wanted to keep that as a open ground. I'm just trying to remember the story as it went. I don't remember all the details, but the gist of it is it wasn't approved on the original plan. So this is an additional No, rich is right. 'cause I remember specifically saying there's not enough parking and they said, oh, we got this bank. That's plenty. I still don't think that's enough parking. But especially putting in baseball fields and whatever this thing is here, I don't think it's enough parking.
But if, if this is all they're asking for, I Don't see a parking. Well, it's more, it's more than you originally approved. More than technically required by the zoning To me. Let 'em have it. Absolutely. More parking. Okay. So we can note that as a minor change. Sure. Jay, can we say, uh, approve as requested, but we strongly recommend they look at more parking and maybe make that field a little smaller? 'cause there's not enough parking there. Yeah, I mean, I think they've maxed out what they can. Okay. But we can, I can relay that.
I, I'm sure they know. I'm sure if they could fit 10 more spaces somewhere, they would do it. Okay. Anything else? Announcements, future agenda items? Motion to adjourn. Motion To adjourn. Do I hear a second, second. Second. Bernie second? No, you gotta say yes or no. What's that? Yes or no? No. You don't want no adjourn. Yeah. John? Yes. Oh yeah. Hi Phil Ray. Cheryl, you've asked me 75 questions. Rich? Yes.
Okay. We adjourned. Should have reminded me.