Good evening, everybody. Good evening, everybody. Hello. Can we start the meeting? Good evening, everybody. Good evening. Can I get a show of hands who's here for the data center moratorium discussion? Here. Okay. On our agenda, the City Council is asking the planning board for a recommendation on a moratorium on data centers. We're not here to discuss the actual data center. If you have specific questions about the data
center, I suggest you address them to the board during public participation, because it's not on the agenda tonight. Keep in mind, public participation is strictly adhered to. You have three minutes to ask your question, state what you want. Okay? And after 15 minutes, our public participation is over, and then we'll start the rest of the meeting. So we'll go from there. Good evening. Today is Tuesday, June 16th. We are calling the planning board meeting to order. Okay. First on the agenda is public participation on
any matter not subject to a public hearing. Anybody have anything they want to discuss? If you do, please come to the microphone, state your name. Throw me over. State your name and your address up at the microphone, please. Hi. Can you hear me? My name is Judy Lamott, 251 City View Road, Westfield, Mass. I have a lot of questions about the proposed data center. Number one, where's the water coming from for the initial fill-up for the closed system? Our aquifer is already kind of depleted because we're really low, so I have concerns about that.
How much water is minimal amount? Because they wrote a letter to the mayor and said it was a minimal amount. Well, how much is that? Two liters? Three liters? 100 liters? What is minimal? That was the other question I have. What is the environmental impact of the data center? By how many degrees will the data center heat up the environment and for what distance? And what would the effect be on the aquifer, on the environment, on other people who are around it, and animals? And what about system failures? Are there emergency plans in place? Who's responsible for cleanup? So those are my questions.
Thank you. Now, Counselor Mello has a yellow notepad over there if you want to give her your questions. Okay. She'll write them down. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have anything they want to talk about? Please come to the microphone. Come forward. Good evening. My name is Kathy Labree. I live at 47 Big Wood Drive, Westfield, Mass. I have lived in Westfield since I was 25 years old. I am proud to say I raised my two children in Westfield. I am very pleased with the education, family values, and safety my family has been provided these past
50 years. My children loved Westfield so much they chose to raise their families here, as many of you who sit here before me have done the same. Most of you I know personally, and you know me and my family. I have coached you in baseball, met you in church, community events, supported you in your political endeavors. I stand here before you today to beg you to please continue to respect and protect our community. I'm very disappointed in how the AI data center is
supported and passed approval for Westfield. This has been in the works since 2021. The project was paused so that better tax incentives could be approved by the state. It did pass this year with the help of lobbying from some of you who might sit here before me. Thank you, Service Star and West Mass for supporting and contributing large sums to lobbyists. West Mass played significant role in securing Westfield's approval of the
pilot agreement in which Westfield and Service Star negotiated payments of a long-term, approximately of $352 to $360 million over 40 years. This allows municipalities to offer tax breaks on land designated blighted. It also exempts them from property taxes on expensive computer equipment, qualifies for a 20-year state sales and use tax exemption.
Boy, I'd love a 20 years tax exemption. It is a perfect example of the playbook used by data centers across this country to get the best deal for trillionaires and billionaires who are running these AI data centers. The process and players involved behind the scenes, setting the framework, and NDAs for an AI data center in Westfield quietly and without our input. Now, another pause. While they clear
and implement any obstacles that the data centers do not approve of, tech companies frequently force local economic development councils to sign NDAs. How many NDAs have been assigned by our political- Ma'am, that's your three minutes. Okay. Okay. My husband will take the second three minutes. Great. Richard. Richard Labrie, 47 Bigwood Drive. Husband to previous speaker. The concerns against that we have are many, especially with the non-disclosure agreements.
Evidently, the public does not have a right to know everything. The water supply usage, the concerns we have with that, as you know, Westfield has had water shortages for the last several years. We don't have enough water already. To be pumping more water into a private concern of this capacity with no guarantees that it will be large consumptions, even though they say they have a closed loop system. Closed loop system hasn't been proven to be effective anywhere. They're going to tie into the city water to begin with for emergency purposes. Who knows what they call an emergency and how much water they actually will
consume. There'll be wastewater that'll have to be taken care of. These reservoirs have to be pumped and cleaned periodically. Heat, air, noise pollution, diesel tanks with regard to during construction, infrastructure while clearing and building the site, wildlife impacts. All data centers will be used to collect data on us. There are a few many concerns. Whether Westfield is selling for short-term purposes our wonderful community, poor tax agreement, and last of all, or not last of all, but certainly
job creation. Job creation is minimal. These data center runs with somewhere between 10 and 12 people on a permanent basis. The only jobs will be the construction jobs. Most of those construction jobs will go to people from outside of Westfield. Westfield doesn't have the capacity to provide all of that construction. More importantly, a lot of promises are made by big companies. In this case, they often shadow companies represented in the back by larger companies, Amazon, Google, Meta, some of the others. There's no guarantee that they'll live up to these concerns.
Typically, in a construction project, you require performance bonds. Most of contracts with the city require performance bond. I would suggest, since this already appears to be a done deal, I understand that they already have a building permit. Having so, they could start construction tomorrow if they have a building permit, regardless of zoning. And so moratorium on zoning may in fact be meaningless since the city's already signed contracts for everything. But I certainly would urge the city to include a performance bond to guarantee that what they say they're going to do, and the harm
that they say they're not going to do, is in fact have leverage to guarantee that performance or non-performance. Thank you, sir. We'll go on to next. Hi. How you all doing? My name is Jordan Booten Cooper, 55 Bates Road. I've lived here for four years. I'm an unlikely person to be standing here talking about this. I've worked in tech for over a decade, been around computers my entire life, and I know what it looks like inside of a data center. These places run with a skeleton crew. The jobs myth is just a myth. Even the people pushing the project only promise a few hundred permanent positions for a campus of 10 buildings and
2.7 million square feet. The idea that local businesses need hyper-scale data centers next door to them to survive, I don't really know where that came from. Facebook and Square running a few milliseconds closer to us is not worth what this will cost, if they're even going to co-locate any of their technology there. We are in another speculative bubble. It's the same people that told us that crypto and NFTs were our future, and asked our towns, and businesses, and our government to bend over backwards for it, to shovel our savings into coins and back their 401Ks with them, and now it's this. Real technology, AI,
machine learning for medicine, for research, and for discovery is being used as a cover to sell a speculative gold rush, and we are not obligated to subsidize their gambling addiction. Thanks. Now, data centers don't belong in Westfield. I understand that there are limits to what the city can do, but I promise if you go to bat for the city, its people will go to bat for you. It's not a partisan issue. These things don't care if you're a Republican, or a Democrat, or an Independent, and there is a movement across the country to pave over acres and acres and acres and
acres of land for these campuses. But there's a bigger movement of people standing against it, and there are more of us than there are of them. Thank you. Finally, people are watching their wells and their water go bad everywhere they go up. Beverly of Morris, Mansfield, Georgia, was interviewed, and she showed off the nasty water that she can no longer drink. People talk about the noise during construction, and ongoing humming, and something she said really struck a chord with me, and I think it captures how many Americans feel today about any number of issues that we're facing. You really feel like you're up against a huge wall that you can't
penetrate, that there's nothing that you can do, and that they don't care, and this is her talking about a Meta data center. To anyone who feels like that, that this is insurmountable, to anyone who feels like they're not being heard, if we organize and we fight, we win. The easy thing is to go along, but what we can build when we stand up is worth the trouble. Whatever we're being sold is not worth what we give up, and if you take anything from my words today, I want it to be that the people can win. The best way to preserve our rights is to keep exercising them.
We cannot be passive, and we have to participate. So please pass a moratorium or ban data centers altogether would be my preference. Thank you. Anybody else have anything they want to say? Public participation. Jessica Britton, 36 Casimir Street. I guess what I'm really just wondering, and I've posted this out there, is we saw the information come out posted from the mayor, and I guess I'm really just trying to understand why we would be meeting with an applicant that was dissolved, not
only with the Massachusetts state, but also with the Connecticut state, they were dissolved. And I don't believe it was on good terms. So why are we meeting with an unregistered applicant to discuss a permit that's phasing out that nobody wants? Wouldn't that be grounds to terminate the permit for the data center that's currently granted that will be running out in October? Since when do we approve data centers
when the applicant doesn't exist? I would say it's an easy-peasy situation right now that that application can get pulled because the applicant doesn't exist. Thank you. Anybody else have anything they want to ask? Anything to do with the city? Okay. Next on the agenda is review and approval of previous meeting minutes. It's my understanding the 5/5s are not final. Yeah, they're on the share drive, but I didn't send them out. Okay. Just the 19th. So we can approve 5/5 and 5/19. Well, you probably haven't seen 5/5.
I'm sorry. Say that again? You probably haven't seen the May 5th ones. Okay. Okay. Then let's approve the 5/19s, and we'll worry about 5/5 next meeting. I'll make a motion to approve 5/19 minutes. I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. Looking for a motion to adjust our meeting to take our ANRs first because we will have a long public hearing. I'll make a motion to adjust the agenda to approve our ANR. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Next on the agenda is review of plans not requiring approval under subdivision control law. First is 183 and 0
Loomis Ridge. Thomas. So this is a pretty simple adjustment of a side lot line between two lots Basically looks like to accommodate the driveway. No change in frontage. Any questions? I'll make a motion to approve the ANR. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. Next on the agenda, 504 Holyoke Road. Devin. Another pretty straightforward ANR carving out those two, lot one, lot two, house lots from that larger parcel. You'll see there's adequate frontage. I'll make a motion to approve ANR for Holyoke Road.
I'll second that. All those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Next on the agenda is our public hearings. As I do every meeting, I will read a little so everybody understands where we come from. Next on the agenda is our public hearings. Today, we have only zoning, special permits, and/or site plan approvals. After the applicants present their 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 the public to speak in favor of
or speak against the motions. And if you come up for the questions of fact, I will require you ask a question, and public opinions, there will be a separate time. 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 your comments civil and positive, remembering we are all neighbors working to move Westfield forward. While you are free to express your opinion, ultimately and legally, the board can only deliberate on the findings of fact, not yours or our personal opinions. Good. Can I get a motion to amend
the- Back to normal order What? Make a motion to return to normal order. Actually, I'd like to take the moratorium first. Okay. That way there, anybody... So, by the way, we have a very busy evening tonight. So, time is of essence because we have a busy schedule, and we will shut public hearing off at 10:00 sharp. So, do I hear a mo- So I'll make a motion to go out of order and do zoning amendment as the next issue. Do I hear a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. First on the agenda, petition of the city council to amend the zoning ordinance to impose
a temporary moratorium on data centers. We can access the full petition at the city clerk's office or at cityofwestfield.org applications. For this hearing, the chair recognizes Richard Saloy as a voting member for Jay McGary. Is the applicant here? I feel like I'm robbed tonight. Good evening, members of the board and Chair Dallas. I am Kristen Mello, 27 Mosley, chair of NRC and city councilor at large, representing the city council in this matter, which I've never done before, so that's new for us, too. Usually, I'm just speaking for me.
So, before you tonight, we are asking for your recommendations on a proposed zoning amendment, one that defines what a data center is using the state's definition, and two, establishes a temporary moratorium on data center development in the city of Westfield. So from my understanding from conversations with the city planner and the law department, there are certain criteria we need to meet to have a moratorium, and the first of which is a rational basis. So what we are asking for is a 12-month pause
so that the Natural Resources Committee can review environmental, public health, and infrastructure impacts so that we may develop a permanent zoning ordinance. Specifically, we need to have a very specific scope. That would be 12 months. Am I over three minutes already? That would be 12 months for the committee to meet, including other members of other bodies, should people desire, to answer the questions, where can the city support this land use? Without impacting public health, drinking water, and air quality. And what conditions or performance standards, if any, would we need to
impose in order to mitigate any impacts that we find? So you might ask, some people have, why now? The reason is in response to resident concerns and in response to the battery energy storage system moratorium. Because if you were to have a data center application come through right now, it couldn't include battery energy storage at all. And if that were the case, how would you power it? And if you're powering it with fossil fuels, how much emission
would that be? And given the shape and the size and the water underneath our city, we need to take special consideration. And so the council is asking for a 12-month moratorium for NRC, because it was our idea to find out these answers, so it is our responsibility to meet with experts in the area and ask the questions. Researchers and professors from both UMass Amherst and researchers at Harvard University have agreed to answer our questions. They've agreed to also ask other colleagues to
answer our questions. If they don't, we will need to get a consulting meteorologist. If we can't get Counselor Morganelli to do so, there are some others we can ask. Can we look at the pictures? So, you may say, what is the difference between a not-in-my-backyard kind of thing? Is this moratorium really necessary? Well, it is. If you look, the first image here is the lidar image. Is that right? Yep, that's the lidar image. So that's elevation, right? So everything that is darker, and the darkest green is the lowest elevation. And so when you look at our city, you can
see that we are surrounded by mountains, and we have a bowl shape in the center. And when you get air pollution, the people living in that bowl suffer more. So if we can look at the next one, Jay. We're going to zoom out. That's the same picture, but more of the valley. Okay, and the third picture is the water. That is our aquifer and transmissivity. Now, transmissivity is measured in how many square feet per unit time, per day, things that go into the ground,
that soak into the ground, can move with the water underneath the ground. And so if you look at the next picture, that's with the aquifer that you normally see from the state laid over it. Okay. And our municipal drinking water wells are there as well. So the question is where can we put this kind of land use where emissions won't get redeposited and end up in our drinking water? Or if we had a closed-loop system and it was geothermal, how do we know that it won't end up leaking like has happened in other communities, and one of which DEP was
investigating is in Nantucket. So the question is where could it be placed where it isn't going to affect the air and the water? So if you go down one more, MassDEP granted the city and a local nonprofit everybody knows about some air monitors. And everybody's heard about how Springfield is the asthma capital of America, right? Well, this is August of 2025, and we were worse off. Those are real air monitor numbers from DEP air monitors. So the next slide shows our environmental justice communities.
You can see people who live near the airport and people who live in the bowl of the city are more adversely impacted by the pollution in our town. And if you look at the next slide, thanks to Counselor Babinski and another person with a pretty loud mouth that we all know, the state of Massachusetts just recently changed their cumulative burden scoring to include the Northside residents at the end of the airport runway. It did not include anything north of the Mass Turnpike before Westfield residents started yelling at every single Environmental Justice
Council meeting there was. So thank you, Counselor Babinski. So why Westfield? Why do we care? Why do we need this? Are these people really burdened? Yes, they are. The next slide shows health disparities. The first set is from the Massachusetts Environmental Public Health Tracking. Blue is Westfield, green is statewide. These are not the kind of contests we want to be winning. This is heart attack and hospitalization in the first chart, asthma in the second, which I guess if you're a guy is good, but for women, it's not so great. Pediatric asthma's bad for everybody.
A couple years ago, the Department of Defense allowed the community members of the Restoration Advisory Board to hire an expert to tell us about the health impacts of the PFAS contamination here. So if you look at this, anything over 100 indicates that the community has a higher level than the state. So the first chart is both males and females And then the next chart is just females. You can see for yourself what's over 100. Breast cancer, kidney. It's not good for us. But the CDC also has health, so if we go down another one to the dark
purple, Jay. One more maybe. Yeah, there we go. CDC has a place called Places, where you can go... This is asthma. See how these are just as bad as Springfield, and you kind of have to get toward East Longmeadow to have anything any better. And if you scroll down again, you can see cancer rates in Westfield, which are just as bad as anybody else. And then if you scroll down again, you can see what happened when the ATSDR came and sampled Northside residents' blood to see if we had more PFAS in our blood than the average American. 92% of participants had more PFHxS than the average
American. The half-life on PFHxS is 35 years. So for the level of PFHxS in my blood to go down by half, it will take 35 years. They found that people who lived here longer had more PFAS. They totally demonstrated that past exposure impacted the level in our blood. They found direct correlations. Our population has been exposed to toxins. They deserve our protection. We are asking for 12 months to have local scientists who are experts about our aquifer and experts about air currents and experts about air pollution to help us
find out if it is possible to safely zone these here. And if it is not, then that information goes to the Board of Health, because we, you, and the council we're not allowed to ban anything. That's the Board of Health's territory. But if there is a way to do it well, and that is a pill that I am willing to swallow no matter how it tastes. If the experts tell us it can go here and it can be safe, then we need to know that in order to protect our residents who you clearly can see already have too much
environmental impact affecting their health. So the moratorium is on the share, and you can read it for yourself. It's just 12 months. It's maybe a page. Applications would be paused, permitting would be paused. Everything, just the pause button gets hit. 12 months to figure it out, ask all the questions. If at the end of 12 months the Board of Health decides that it is a public health mandate to keep the moratorium, there is an option there for them to extend it. Not us, not just because we want to drag our feet. We're not banning.
We're going to investigate, and then we're going to make an appropriate decision when our due diligence is done. That's what we're asking for, and I'm happy to take any questions. All I'm going to say, it's well written. Thank you. This is my first one. Will the city accept a hard date as opposed to a 12 months? So say on your Thursday meeting, you approve it. We do a June 12, 12 months from the date that... So in other words, I'm looking for a sunset clause. So in other words, you know you have a deadline to get all
your stuff in order, all your research done, as opposed to an open-ended 12 months. But if I remember our conversation with the law department correctly, it would be 12 months from the date of effectiveness, right? So from the final- Yes. This was one of my comments to the board. Right now it says 12 months, so it depends when you're reading the ordinance. So are you nine months in? It makes it clearer for the reader if you just converted that to a- 365 days from- No. Well, that could be what council, when it comes out of committee or a first
reading, that's when you could decide what actual date you want to- Sure. Well- ... put in. It doesn't affect the substance of the- Yeah, I'm happy to make it a date instead of a 12 month, but I don't know what that date would be until... Right? Because if it goes to the mayor and he doesn't sign it, then we have to check and see if- Right ... the council wants to override. Right. So I couldn't predict what the date would be until- No, as long as we could write a date in- Mm-hmm. Happy to do that ... I think that's a little, it makes it a little more, gives it a little more teeth. I love a deadline. Yeah. Other questions from the board? So while I'm speaking, my other comment, I just thought the definition was a little broad. A building or series of buildings that contains any kind of
basically server or anything, and maybe just adding as a principle use. So this wouldn't impact some firm that wanted to expand their server room or put in a small kind of computer building. So you're saying more definitive? Is that what you're saying? Just calling it as a principle use. It's not like just any kind of server thing. Tighten it up. Yeah. But I don't think you'd want to inadvertently capture anything that has to do with a computer. But if the main purpose of the facility is one of these data centers as we think of them, that's the principle use. So those are just my two thoughts. We can bring that back to committee and ask the law department.
I don't know how much change, right? If you keep it exactly what the state has, then nobody's going to argue about it. But I'm happy to, a principle use and not principle use. We can duke that out? I don't think... Is that a huge enough change that we would have to come out? No, that's the intent. I think these are just my nitpicky stuff. But yeah, so neither of these are substantive changes. Yeah, happy to thrash that out. Okay. As long as it doesn't require another public hearing. Yeah. There's definitely a difference between a data center and a bank's computer
operations. Sure. And nobody intends this to ding WG&E for having two floors of servers. Right. Right? We know that they're operating with city fiber in there. That is not what this is intended to talk about. Right. But on technical read of the way it is, it could say that, so that was my concern. Okay. Any other questions? Anybody in the public have a question of fact that they would like to ask about the moratorium proposal? Please come forward. Please come forward. These are questions of fact. Question of fact. When you vote, we'd
request a roll call vote. We'd like to record who votes yes and no on the moratorium. Thank you. Anybody else have a question of fact they would like? Please come forward. You need my name and address? Name and address. Ron Ruth, 79 Woodlawn Road. Just the context to the question is, there was a lawsuit over excessive noise for a data center in Michigan that was a 30-megawatt data center, and descriptions from the planning board meeting minutes in October of 2021 described a hypothetical data center that has 10 buildings,
12 diesel generators per building, so 120 generators, 120 acres. So my question is- What... Okay, go ahead. Yeah, that's right. So my question is, with schools a half mile away, Bailey Drive a quarter mile away, will there be an opportunity for analyzing or investigating sites like the Lowell facility that is also a 30-megawatt data center or other facilities that are as large as something that could be built in Westfield, and seeing what this actually looks and sounds like?
I guess that's the whole purpose of the moratorium request, is so they can analyze data and situations and things like that. Thank you very much. Anybody else have a question of fact? Jessica Britton, 36 Casimir Street. Question of fact: are you aware that 14 states, not cities or towns, have enacted a moratorium on data centers, and that's just nationally, not globally. And there have been 111 local cities looking at data center moratoria, and 77 are currently active.
Are you guys aware of this? Anybody else have a question of fact? Come forward. Yeah, come forward. I saw your hand up. Thank you. Good evening. Name and address. Oh, yes. Sorry, this is my first hearing. Mary Lanza, 868 Southampton Road. So the first sentence on the planning board webpage states, "The planning board department is focused on fostering the appropriate use of land while ensuring responsible growth and development, protection of the city resources, and the enhancement of our neighborhoods," unquote.
I believe that a moratorium is necessary to accomplish those goals. AI campuses across the country are being built faster than towns, states, and federal government's ability to research, create, or amend their policies, ordinance, and legislation. On the city level, Mayor McCabe's June 12th Facebook post regarding an update on the proposed data center stated, quote, "My administration is carefully reviewing the information we've received, consulting with Westfield Gas and Electric, engineering professionals, and other technical
experts. Our responsibility is to make sure we understand the facts and provide residents with accurate information," unquote. Is there a question in here? Uh- Because there is a time for speaking in favor of and speaking against a motion. There's- I am in favor of the moratorium. Well, yes, but right now we're on questions of fact. So- I'm sorry ... it's okay. Like I said, this is my first time. We'll give you a chance to come back up. You'll gather in- All right. It's all right. It's all good. Sorry. It's all good. I'll come up another time. Anybody else have a question of fact, please come forward.
Hi, Jonathan Erickson from Sugarbush. I would like to know if a moratorium, if the city passed it, would affect data centers which have already made agreements with the city, such as the project on Near Service Star Road. That's my only question. Thank you. Anybody else with a question of fact? There's one more. So the answer on the last one is, the moratorium will not affect anything that's already been approved. No, it won't. No. So, oh, hi. Lisa, 43 Washington Street. If the moratorium passes and there is
time for, one side to do all of the, not just you, just in general, but a lot of people tag teaming to do this. If there is time for The opposing, for the people favoring the moratorium to investigate what to do. The people that oppose the moratorium or want to proceed with the data center, are there going to be rules implemented by the city to make sure that they're
keeping up with what they're actually saying that they're going to do, that it is going to be clean? I bring this up because there is an award-winning documentary that A More Perfect Union put out regarding Memphis, Tennessee, and how Elon Musk had put a big Groq data center there without it being in the blueprints. They ended up- Okay ... illegally putting in fossil-fueled generators there. And I just want to inquire if that is going to be something that there's going to be fail-safes in place.
Are you talking about the specific data center that's already been approved? Right. I'm talking like will there be- Yes, but are you talking- Yes, with the one, the Service Star data center ... is your question about the data center that's already been approved? Right. So is- Okay ... will there be fail-safes, things like that to- That has nothing to do with the moratorium. Okay. Okay? That has nothing to do with the moratorium. Okay. That has, I guess, more to do with the building department if they ever pull a permit. Okay. Okay? But we're here to talk about should the planning board recommend a moratorium to the city council.
Mm-hmm. And the city council's asking for a one-year moratorium. Okay. Okay? Appreciate it. So then- Go ahead. So then just quick question, has that meeting already happened for the building? That has nothing to do with the moratorium, so we'll stick with only the moratorium questions. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have a question of fact about the moratorium? Moratorium request, please come forward. Donna Leacey, 287 Shaker Road, Westfield, Mass. My question is if you vote against the moratorium, does the Board of Health have plenary power to reverse that
decision and protect the residents here in Westfield? Thank you. The answer to your question is how the planning board recommends to the city council is only a recommendation. So if we recommend that we approve the moratorium, okay, city council could approve or not approve it. If we recommend that no, we don't approve a moratorium, okay, we think data centers should be built on every street corner, okay,
the city council can accept that, or they can turn around and say, "No, we think the planning board's wrong." But at the end of the day, city council has final say. We are only making a recommendation. So I think perhaps to the speaker's question, perhaps Counselor Miller can address the Board of Health's role as it's drafted now. So at the moment, the Board of Health can, if the moratorium were to be approved, the Board of Health can extend the moratorium 12 months only if they deem that the
public health is, it's mandatory to extend it to protect public health. But aside from zoning ordinances, the Board of Health in Massachusetts, they have a plenary power that supersedes any ordinance that we write. And so if they were to decide on their own that it were absolutely impossible, they could take actions that is within their own authority, but they can't make a zoning ordinance happen. That's a legislative, it's a separation of powers. Any other questions of fact, please come forward.
Yes. Name and address, please. Michael Flenty, 23 Summit Drive. Did I hear from, you're the attorney for the town? Did I hear from you that- By no means. What's that? I'm sorry? By no means. Okay. Anyway, I'm a little confused as to what is going on here. Am I understanding correctly that this moratorium that we're talking about right now is not extending to any approved project for a data center? And if so, is that Service Star data center that everybody's up in arms about approved? Does this moratorium cover that? I kind of was confused about that. I don't know. So the answer is no. That was approved in 2021
and still has- So that's going on? Well, it has a valid permit. A zoning ordinance can't apply retroactively, so. Okay, so this moratorium is not concerning that at all? As long- That's going forward as far as we're concerned? As long as their permit is valid, they can exercise it, yeah. Okay. All right. Interesting. Anybody else have a question of fact, please come forward. Hi. I'm Sophia Vecchia. I live at 98 Pine Ridge Drive. So this was approved, question of fact, this was approved in No. The Service Star data center was approved in 2021.
We have not approved any moratorium. We have not recommended any moratorium. Right. Okay. The plan to build And question of fact, are you all aware that since 2021, the existence of data centers all throughout the country have been met with resistance and displeasure by the populations of those cities and towns? It's been in the news. Yeah. I'm just new to this. I saw it three or four days ago. So- The question of fact, this has already been approved.
It's going to go forward unless there's a 12-month moratorium. The current data center everybody's talking about was approved in 2021. They have a valid permit. A 12-month moratorium, okay, would not apply to that, because they have a valid permit. So, question- Should their permit expire, okay, then they don't have a valid permit. So question- But right now, as of today, they have a valid permit. So question of fact, did the public have a say in 2021?
Yes. Yeah. They had, I think, three or four opportunities to say. But we didn't know enough about data centers back then, and now we know more. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so everything's different. Thank you. Anybody else with a question of fact? I have a question. Please come forward. Excuse me. Judy Lamott, City View Road. I want to know who is going to make the decision on whether that permit is extended or not. Is it this board? It should be back before this board if they need an extension. Can I express my concern and ask you not to? Not here. Okay. Not now. Okay. Okay. At that meeting, you can.
Thank you. Do you know the date the permit will expire? It has nothing to do with- Is it a 20-year? It has nothing to do with the moratorium. Yes, please come forward. Thank you. Hi, Lisa again. If the moratorium were to go into effect, would it affect the permit? The answer is if the permit's valid, they have the right to begin construction. The moratorium will not affect a valid permit. Yes. Mary Lanza, 868 Southampton Road. I think I have a question of fact. We'll see
if it passes, mister. Regarding the permit, we don't seem to know, it hasn't been identified who the developer or the representatives are. The last known fact- Are you talking about the current project? The last known fact I had was it was Service Star LLC. It is- Is that correct? How does this affect how- It affects it because they haven't reapplied with the secretary of state as a corporation, so it- How does this affect the question about whether the planning board should recommend a moratorium or not recommend a moratorium?
Right. I guess my question is, if the corporation is not registered with Massachusetts, doesn't that invalidate the permit? It has nothing to do with the permit. Should we recommend a citywide moratorium or not? It has nothing to do with a specific project. But to follow up, there wouldn't be a need for a moratorium if that were the case? Sure, there would. It still would? Sure. Okay. Because somebody else might want to come in and build a data center. Okay. Thank- So we're talking about future data centers. Thank you. Go ahead. All right, anybody on the board have a question of fact? Anything you want to discuss? Is there any way I can just point out one part that's in here to help?
Sure. Just to clarify, where it's written right now, any pending applications. Any pending application for a data center should be stayed during the moratorium. So the questions have been raised about that, and it is stated in here, so that will be in part of that moratorium if it gets approved. It's not a pending application if it's approved. What's that? It's not a pending application if it's approved. Correct. I'm talking about any future- Yes ... that's what it's saying here. But what's at stake now stays as is. But it had been brought up several times. That's why I'm-
Yeah ... restating it. Okay. Any comments from the board? Okay. We'll open up the floor for public participation on whether you're for or against the planning board recommending a moratorium, a one-year moratorium. Our recommendation will go to the city council. So anybody have a positive or negative recommendation? Please come to the microphone. Jordan Budin-Cooper, 55 Bates. Please recommend a 12-year, 12-year 12-month moratorium on data centers. Right?
So, thank you. Name and address again, please. Judy Lamott. Please give your name and address even though you've been up. Okay. Judy Lamott, 251 City View Road. I am for the moratorium, and 12 years would be great for me. Is that a big change? A little bit. Hi, Rebecca Liberati, 20 Darby Drive. I'm also in favor of a 12-month moratorium. Thank you. Jeff Lander, 14 Mill Street. I am also in favor of a 12-month moratorium. Lisa Miranda, 43 Washington Street. I'm in favor of proceeding with a 12-month moratorium. 12 years if we can get it.
Mary A lanza, 86A South Hampton Road. Is this the place to continue? You can, yes. I'll continue where I left off. Now is the time to do it. Thank you. All right. So to continue, I was talking about the mayor's post saying that it's our responsibility to make sure we understand the facts and provide residents with accurate information. On the state level, on February of 2024, Governor Healey signed an executive order number 629 to establish an AI strategic task force. On May 28th of this year, at a State House press conference,
Governor Healey stated that she, quote, "Directed my team to develop a framework and guidelines for Massachusetts." In addition, House Bill 83, filed on January of 2025, is an act establishing a special legislative commission to study load growth due to AI and data centers. On the federal level, on March of this year, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ocasio-Cortez proposed Senate Bill 4214, quote, "AI Data Center Moratorium
Act." In conclusion, I hope and believe that the planning board will support the moratorium like I do. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak in favor or speak against? Ann Mello, 58 Vadnais Street. As a registered nurse, retired with over 50 years experience, well aware of the health effects of living in this city through my family and friends and neighbors, I support a moratorium for as long as you could possibly get it. My name is Terry McNeil. I live at 250 Steiger Drive in
Westfield. We've moved here in August of 2022, so this thing happened before I could have any input. But I am very much in favor of a moratorium for as long as you can get it, but 12 months if that's what the recommendation is. Anybody else, please come forward. Richard Labrie, 47 Bigwood Drive, and I'm in favor of 5.32.1 moratorium. There shall be a 365-day moratorium on the permitting, construction, expansion, conversion, establishment, or operation of any data center in the city
as written. Anybody- Sophia Vecchio, 98 Pinewood Drive. I'm in favor of at least a 12-month moratorium because I want to keep Westfield safe and beautiful. Anybody else, please come forward. My name is Colby Hoffman, 22 Darwin Drive. I'm strongly in favor of a 12-month moratorium. And hopefully, the more public attention we bring to this, hopefully people who are trying to do the ServiceStar data center will realize they've waited four and a half years, and maybe they'll wipe their hands and decide not to move forward and let that permit expire. Kenneth Mendoza, 25 Kellogg Street.
I'm in favor of this 12-month moratorium. It just baffles me that in 2021, there wasn't too much research on this, and now we have it. This should be all null and void because there wasn't information about it. Now we have the information, what a negative impact it creates in our community. So I'm in favor of 12 months moratorium and cancel the whole thing. Alexandra Cross, 110 Lockhouse Road. As someone who lives within a mile and a half of this proposed data center, I hope that you vote to extend this moratorium
because of the moratorium period, because I can't imagine the effect not only on the health of my neighbors, myself, my animals, and all of us. So thank you. Thank you. Karen Hatch from 12 Pilgrim Drive in Westfield, and I am definitely in favor of the 12-month moratorium for all of the reasons that I think all of us here are. So thank you. Thank you. My name is Donna Lisi, 287 Shaker Road, Westfield. I'm in favor of the 12-month moratorium. Additionally, I have a petition that was circulated,
and I only have 26 signatures here, and I am asking the group if the rest of this is circulating around to please give it to me. It would be in blue ink, because there was actually 141 signatures. So I can hand in only these 26. Do I give it to you? Who do I give the petition to with signatures of people that support the data center moratorium? You should probably hold on to that for the city council meeting. Right. I actually have
all of that for them. But what I'm saying is I had two separate copies, is that one mysteriously disappeared. Sure. I'll take it. All of it from the city council? No. The 26? No. Just whatever- Okay. Okay? We'll just make sure it gets entered into our record. Anybody opposed to the moratorium? Bill Strozak, 71 Barber Street. Live pretty close to that data center that's coming in, so I am definitely in favor of this moratorium. Thank you. Is there anybody opposed to the moratorium? No. No. See, you have to listen to all of us. Jessica Britton, 36 Casimir. I am in favor of the
moratorium, and I will give you what's going on in the neighboring town in Holyoke. Just a few days ago, Holyoke City Council subcommittee just voted four to one to advance an amended measure to include both a temporary moratorium and a potential ban language on data centers to be brought to city council. I quote, "The revised orders removes warehouses from the definition of data centers as an acceptable use. Councilors said the moratorium would have given the city time up to two years
to research issues like electricity use, water demand, environmental effects, and safety concerns. During that time, a special committee will gather data and report back with recommendations." Seattle, Washington, just passed what is considered one of the most potent DC data center moratoriums yet in an article that was just dated June 9th. Seattle is the biggest city so far to pass such a measure. According to a site called the US Data Center Moratorium Tracker,
which should be noted that the project is connected to a hedge fund, but they, as I mentioned before, have over 111 local data center moratoria tracked and 77 are currently active. Two years. I think we can do better for Westfield. Yes. Good evening. Mary Amabinski, 114 Rogers Avenue, and I guess you're knowing, some of you know, I hope you know, all the discussions that's happening about these data centers. It's an ever-changing project, and there's lots of cities and states, as you've heard a lot of information already
today. So I want to believe that this body and the city council cares very much about the health and welfare of its residents and wants to protect its natural resources. So I think you'd do yourself a favor and us if you approve this moratorium for 12 months and give yourself a chance to investigate and get the right information to make an informed decision going forward. So I am in favor of it. I hope you are, too. And I want to say that we know that there's other things happening at the state level,
too. Give yourself a chance to find out everything that's going on, and this decision will help us do that. Thank you. We'll take three more, then we have to move on. Dan Coach, 559 Montgomery Road. I am in support of a 12-month moratorium, and I encourage all of you to look into Erin Brockovich, what she's doing on data center research, and everyone here to look into it. Thank you. Anybody else? We have two more slots. Okay. Thank you very much. One more. Oh, what, we have somebody? Okay. Hello. My name is Suzanne Paquette. I live on Summer Street.
I've just moved to Westfield. I did some research before I moved here, and I visited, and I really like Westfield. I was really impressed, and I moved here, but I have to say it's breaking my heart because I never would have moved here if I knew the data center was going to be here. And aside from the environmental problems and the health problems and issues, there are issues with AI itself that are being addressed that are just beginning to be addressed. It's said that the G7, their concern is that they want to know, they're worried about
America's situation with AI. And Goldman Sachs' CEO just issued a public warning to AI investors. Elon Musk is trying to bring his AI public, and it's not going so well for him. There's a bubble that's about to burst, and I don't know what Westfield is going to get out of this AI center, this data center, but how are we going to clean up their mess when it all bursts and we have this huge data center just sitting there? What are we going to do with their coolant? If it goes forward, what's going to happen afterward?
That's something we have to think about, not just the immediate future. And I don't think that a year is even enough for a moratorium. I just want to leave you with that, that there's more to it than just this immediate problem. Thank you. Thank you. Did you already speak? I did. Sorry. She didn't speak in favor. She just spoke- Yeah. Can you just- Did you speak in favor or against? No, I just wanted to follow up. Go ahead. Thanks. Sophia Vecchio, 98 Pine Ridge Drive. What Ms. Britton talked about, Seattle, I hope that you're aware that Amazon, Adobe, Microsoft, I think at one time Google,
maybe Google now, this is like the tech capital of the United States, along with Silicon Valley. That says a great deal that they have a moratorium on data centers. They know it. Okay. We'll end with the mayor. Good evening, planning board. There seems to be some confusion as to whether or not I would sign a moratorium that got to my desk. If a moratorium comes to my desk from the city council, it will be signed. So there should be no question. Okay. Board, we have any discussion off the board? I'll state this right up front. I am in favor of a
12-month moratorium, although I do think 32.3 should be stricken, okay? Because I believe it will not hold up in court, and I believe that it's just going to cost the city more money to do that. There is a valid permit out there, okay? Moratoriums, and it's all over everywhere. Moratoriums are not retroactive. But the rest of this I think is great. I love the idea of no BEST approval, okay, for any moratorium, because especially anything over... BEST cannot be over the aquifer.
It should not be over the aquifer is what I should say. So I'll state right up front that I think we should, a 12 month with a hard date from the date it's been approved and kicked out. Anybody else? So where are we? There's no public hearing to close, right? So we can vote- It's not closed. We can discuss anything we want. It's not closed ... because I'm in favor of it, so. You are? I am. Okay. So I'm ready to vote. Anybody else? I'm ready to vote. Okay. Yeah. Do I hear a motion? I make a motion to close the public hearing. No public hearing. Is that a motion to take out 5.3? Oh, I thought this was 5.3.
It's a motion whether to approve the moratorium or not. As it stands. Okay. No. Mr. Britton. She's got a good point. Well, if you're asking me, I think it should be stricken. Can we speak to that? Not until the board has discussed it. So just to be clear, state law is pretty clear. It can't apply retroactively regardless of what it says. Right. So- Whether they approve it or not, whether it stays in or not, I don't think it'll hold up in court, so I think city council should take that into consideration. Well, there's other parts of the ordinance that say it won't apply retroactively to a permitted use, so
regardless of what it says. Yeah. So then I'm good with it. So this is going forward. Going forward. So it could still apply construction going forward, but not for someone who already has a permit. Right. So I don't know that you'd necessarily need to strike it. Then I'm fine with it. So I'd like to make a recommendation to approve the moratorium for 12 months for a data center in Westfield. Do... I'll second. Sorry? I was just waiting for a second. Second. Do we need to close the public hearing? Yeah. Well, no, probably, but it's helpful. Okay. Do I hear a second? Second.
Second. Okay. So you can approve it as drafted, or you can make recommendations, 18 months, two years. You can recommend whatever you want. The date certain you mentioned, I don't know if the board wants to recommend that change. So we can go two years? We don't have- The other condition- Well, you can recommend whatever you want, and city council will work it out. The other condition, I think it should say as primary use, so we're not excluding businesses that have a bunch of servers. So a hard date, which city council can work out whenever they bring it
out, and a limit to principal uses. Any other recommendations? Kristen, you're okay with that? I want to make sure that the law department, there's no unintended consequences, but I'm happy to bring it back and discuss it. Yeah. Was your other recommendation of the exact date of when we start? Yeah, that's out there. It's date certain. So, all right. Okay. Any other recommendations you can make? So, we have a recommendation for a positive recommendation to the city
council, including a date certain and a recommended primary use clause. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. Bernie, are you in favor of? I'm in favor, yes. John? Yes. Phil? Yes. Rich? Yes. Cheryl? Yes. Ray? Yes. And I am a yes. Okay. We have a positive recommendation. months, date certain. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you. I do want to thank the public for participating. It's nice to see government in action. It really is. Thank you. And I think we're done. I guess we'll see you all Thursday night. Next on the agenda is... Where are we here? Continuation off-campus housing.
Everybody, please take your discussion outside. Hey, everybody, please take your discussion outside. Next on the agenda, continuation off-campus housing LLC for a special permit for zoning ordinance section 4.20.2 to divide five Clark Street zoned residential B into two building lots by lot size averaging. It is my understanding that Ray St. Hilaire has invoked the Mullen rule. All right. Is the applicant here? He was. What? He was. He was. He's right there.
Give me my home. Not approved. The real Clark? The real Clark. You sure about that? You're up. He'll be right here. Can we move on, Mr. Chair? What? He'll be right here. Oh, he's gonna be right here. We're waiting for Mr. Levesque.
He went to go ahead and ask me to answer all the questions. For this hearing- Am I correct? Thank you ... the chair will recognize Richard Sollohub for Jane McGarry, who was absent. Do we want to go to the next one and take this out of order? Yes. Oh, we're here. There we go. Sorry, guys. All right. Which one's first, sir? What's that? Which one? Clark Street. Okay. Sorry, I just ran up the stairs. No worries. It's all good. Good evening. For the record, Rob Levesque from R. Levesque Associates. We're here for Clark Street. We had a
previous public hearing. We requested a continuance to try to work on some of the questions and concerns. Also, the proponent is here this evening. So they are the owner and operator of the LLC that we all talked about last time. So, I thought it would be valuable for them to be here this evening. So any questions related to logistics, rental practices, et cetera, they can certainly address. But we did provide a revised plan where we show more than ample parking. We did look at the residents of the adjacent property. So not only... Oh, I'm sorry, of a portion of the property that-
Is that door open? ... already has a building on it. It's fine back there. It's closed. I'm going to check on that, Ken. Do you have it? Go ahead. Sorry about that. No problem at all. So yeah. So basically, we're here tonight with a revised plan. We're able to provide a significant amount of parking. We're still under the thresholds for stormwater, and we'd be happy to discuss the adjustments to the plan and answer any questions through the proponent. Rob, do you have a new diagram of what the building's going to look like, or is it the same? I think we do. That we saw last time, that plan.
So the front is the same? Yes. Yep, just 230. I'm looking at this new plan, and I see you have a proposal. On unit one, you have a proposed walk and a porch on the left-hand side and one on the driveway side. And on unit two, you only have one on the driveway side. You have no secondary entrance into unit two. I think that's- Yeah, there's two walkways here, and then there's one just to off the front porch. Yeah, but there's no secondary entrance into unit two. Yeah, there will likely be an entrance to the parking lot.
Okay. So unit two, you have that, right there, that side entrance for that walkway. So that's the entrance to go in, correct? That's correct. Yep. Okay. But there's no secondary exit or entrance. So he's saying there's two on unit one, correct? Yeah, there's two entrances in both buildings. On the old building, there's two entrances also. Right. But you only got one entrance on that unit two. Correct. Yeah. No, we're showing one entrance. What I'm saying is there would likely be another point of egress. There'll be a point of egress on the backside? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Yep. I'm just curious that, I don't know how many bedrooms these units hold, but there's 10 parking
spaces, so it's throwing me off a little bit because I'm trying to figure out why there's 10 parking spaces. Sure. You want to talk about your game plan? I would. Yeah. Dave Briggs, 25 Birch Circle, Chester. I guess it all started with years ago, we rented to a handful of college kids in town, hence the property we bought at 5 Clark Street was under off-campus housing. We have since changed our plan quite a bit and have transitioned to a lot of families, and we are, not that money is an issue for you guys, but to try to put the cost of everything to make any type of little bit of profit,
because we had a lot of college units, they were four or five-bedroom units. So we realized when we transitioned to families, there was a big need for five-bedroom units because there wasn't a lot of them out there. So we're looking to build two five-bedroom units, but for the family aspect. We brought it to Rob's office, and to be honest, I don't want 10 parking spots, but I guess I wasn't at the last meeting, and there was some questions brought up that if we rented to college students, there was an issue with parking, so therefore, we designated all these parking spots.
I'm happy to make four parking spots, two per unit, for a mom and a dad and leave it at that and transition into more yard space. But that is the reason why there's 10 parking spots. So it was left there because your intention is college students. Well, because of the name of the property is Off-Campus Housing, which I get there's a MO that it's going to be college housing. The unit at 5 Clark Street now was college students in the past. It's now being converted to families. July 1st, I have a family moving into the first floor.
July 15th, August 1st, depending on when the renovations get done, I have a family moving into the second floor. So currently, right now, this is 5 Clark Street. This is the lot we're proposing. The parking ends just about here. And I would maintain that. I would have to create all this parking at 5 Clark Street now because this is an eight-bedroom unit, four per floor. Is there college students in there right now in the one that's in the house right now? No. Okay, because you have an overabundance that I see of parking here. So I'm questioning this only because what we saw
in the last meeting where it was advertised for college students, and then you've got all this extra abundant parking. So I'm just trying to figure out which direction you're going in. Well, again, because I have a website that had showed a handful of my properties being rented for college students, but to be honest with you, the college is declining- I'm sorry ... the college is declining in enrollment, which is dropping the need for off-campus housing. The turnover for me personally is a frustration as I get older in my years
because it's an annual turnover. I'm looking for stability to create these, and I take pride in the properties that we own and to make them nice, and it's frustrating to see them taken advantage of from the college kids versus giving them to a family that's in need of these units So, this currently had college students in it last year. We have not re-signed any of those leases. We're completely renovating the property, and like I said, I already have leases signed for the first floor and second floor for families to move in there.
And I don't want to create all this extra parking, but it was under advisement to show that because of the name, if I came in with a name that it was Dave or Chad or my business partner for the owner of this property, I feel it wouldn't have arose or rise so many questions for the college community. Like I said, I don't know how to convince you because the name is what it is, but that is the reason why there's 10 spots in all this parking, because this is a eight-bedroom, and this is a 10-bedroom unit that we're proposing. So the parking spots were made to accommodate for
that because I guess there was questions at the last meeting to say, if college students lived here, there'd be an overabundance of parking, and there'd be not a place for it. So this was created to s- keep- So can we do something similar? Because you own the property over here on Court Street, correct? No. You don't own that? No. There was a big miscommunication there. Some of the community- Okay ... a lot of properties were engulfed into what they think we own, which is not true. Okay. My apologies. Now we're guilty by association for what is going on for other properties. So I guess my question, and I apologize-
Yeah ... is if we eliminate some of these parking spaces, because if it's a two-family here, you don't need 10 parking spaces. So if we did something similar to what they did on Court Street, where they opened up more green space, and I believe, if I remember correctly, and the board can correct me on this, that they put in a little landscaping area for kids, if I remember correctly, on the Court Street. Well, I'm not looking to put in a playground. It's going to be a person's property to do what they want in the backyard. It's a two-family home. But you could create more green space. That's what I'm saying. Correct. To be honest with you, I would take this section here, turn that
all into lawn. They would come in here. They would each have two parking spots per unit, maybe an extra one for a young girl or boy that's old enough to drive, because a lot of these families we're renting to actually have a mom and dad, and typically an 18-year-old son or daughter that is working too, that's still... It's kind of like the ADU unit, where they need this people to work together to support the income, but that still have the ability to live at home. The young 18, 19-year-old graduate needs to live at home, still
needs their own room, but they can have their vehicle and generate some income towards the rent. And same over here. I would take this, and I would dissect this down to these four spots. All this would remain green space that it is now, and they would each have two units. I know people don't want to say you can park on the street, but there's plenty of people that have two parking spots and that's it, whether it's a three-bedroom, four-bedroom, or five-bedroom, that's all they get. And if they have to have an overflow on the street because one person comes over, it is what it is.
So if we- Never mind this entire driveway that you could park behind each other. There's no law that says, in the city, you would stack them in there. The family I just rented to at another property is happy to just be able to get off the road. You could fit 15 cars in there. It doesn't matter to us if we have to- No, I don't want to want to see it ... back up over because you have to get out in the morning. We take that as a convenience. So here's my other question. I actually like the idea of creating more green space. The other question is, when we leave the other parking spaces, would that be a couple additional parking spaces for visitors?
If you got one on one side, that's six. So it'll be two parking spaces for each unit, and then you'll have two extras. Would that be for a visitor? Same with the other side. And the only reason why I'm asking, because I've seen a lot of places where they have actually visitor parking. So that would- I think you're getting minorly confused with an apartment complex versus a two-family home. There's not going to be handicap. It's just going to be this unit and this unit. They each have two parking spots. If there's six, then I guess call it a visitor, call it an 18-year-old son, call it a 22-year-old daughter that still lives at home. Some of the people who rent it do
have a mother or father-in-law that they're housing with them because they can't afford to live on their own, so they could have a vehicle. Make it four. I don't need all of it. It's just extra, to be honest with you. Again, they have all of this to park. If they have to move their vehicle to leave in the morning, that's irrelevant to you and I. There's plenty of off-street parking. So there is the possibility, through the chair, there is a possibility of banking some of the parking. So we've done that in the past. Yeah. So, again, we don't want to create more than we need. We responded to the questions and concerns that were raised last time by
the abutters. Talked about parking on the street. They talked about college students. We've looked at the website. I think we have a little bit more information tonight. Dave was nice enough to come along, explain exactly what's happening, what they're transitioning to. So I would agree that what we're showing is probably a little bit over the top. We'd love to pull back from that. So if we were to bank, I don't know if it's half, but if we banked these four parking spaces, they create lawn. There's a place for kids to play back there a little bit more, a little bit more space. Same thing on this other unit. I don't know where that number is
that's a comfortable number for the planning board. But as far as we could bank it, it could be part of the special permit, and if it ever needs a look back provision or something like that where there is a problem, or if they have A tenant change and they end up needing that, that it could be re-figured. I'm just trying to figure out, Rob, are we getting families in? Because it's almost like you're taking parking spots, but then you're going to create another problem by allowing vehicles to park all along that roadway. So I'm just trying to figure out, is this for families or are we going for college
students? Because I don't want to be shifting vehicles and then running out along the roadway like he's saying, "Oh, there's extra parking along that stretch." So it's like you're creating another problem. So I think you're assuming that families won't have cars. Say that again. I'm sorry. I think you're assuming that the families won't have additional cars. You could have a family that has the same number of cars as a group of college students. That's very possible. I think it's a tenant-by-tenant basis. Is that fair to say? Yeah. Correct. Oh my goodness. So you might need the parking. You might not. It depends who rents.
And the crystal ball's only so clear on that. Okay. The thing that I found last time, and I found again this time, 5 Clark Street is still listed on the Westfield State University as a rental for college students, that house at Fifth and Five. Now, you tell me you're converting that, but right now it's still listed on the website for Westfield State University for college students. To be honest with you, I'm- That's what started this whole thing. To be honest with you, I'm just old and un-tech savvy to even get to the point to remove that. I'll be happy to get that removed tomorrow if
that's what it takes. I just- Well, I'm just trying to get a handle on it because you have been renting it to students. Yeah. It's still on the website to rent for students. This is the first I've heard that you're converting it over to a two-family from where it was, from a college rental. You said you're redoing it now and going to turn it into a two-family. And you're going to rent the other one to two families, and you're going to get out of that business that you were in because it was on this site before. I have six other ones that are still on that site that have been currently rented to families now since last June. Okay, so you're shifting over to families on all your sites,
all your- Correct ... housing at this point. I'm getting older and the yearly turnaround, and the headaches from the college students, and with the housing market what it is, I'm getting actually less money from the college students for more headaches. Instead of providing the beautiful place to these families that are literally crying to me to move in because they're so nice, that they're so thankful to give them the opportunity. And as I continue to look at investments to buy, it's embarrassing to go there and they sell it as rent-ready. Okay. And I can't believe that that's what someone is willing to rent, knowing how
nice the effort I put into the properties that I own. Because I know the biggest complaint from the neighbors was the fact of the college was going to go in there, and the problems that they bring with them. And that was one of their main complaints. If there are going to be more families to go into a family neighborhood, the neighbors had no issues with more families going in there. So that conversion to families makes a big difference to how we look at what you're doing here. Oh, I agree. I think the other big issue is whether I rent to college kids or not is who the landlord is and how they care about their property, because
there's plenty of people that rent to families. Well, but the landlord's not there 24/7. But there's plenty of families- So when you've got a bunch of college students in there, you can't watch them all the time. Or if you have family in there, it's a different atmosphere. So going to a family-type place makes a big difference in how you look at putting something like this into a neighborhood. If you put it in- Correct ... as two families, that fits right in with the neighborhood. There's a lot of two families in there. It's another couple of families or four families into the same neighborhood,
where it makes sense. To make it a boarding house in the neighborhood, that's where the issues come in because the neighbors are not set up to take the boarding-type atmosphere. Now, you see, tonight is the first night we've heard that you're going away from that boarding house atmosphere to a family-type response, which is a good thing from- No, I agree ... our standpoint because we see it as fitting into the neighborhood better. I agree. Again, hence the downfall of the name of the property that it was purchased in. If it was a different name, none of this would even have been relevant in the last meeting. And again, back to whoever the landlord is, if I
rent to a family that I don't vet and they keep the place up and it's trashy, I personally would have four college students that have respect for themselves, minus a little bit of party, and then five broken-down cars and trash all over the driveway that I see quite a bit in town. So- And I wouldn't want to live next to that ... if I can, you weren't here for the last meeting. Parking was certainly an issue, but college students was a big issue, and changing the name of your company is not going to change the stories we heard about people having college parties next
door or across the street, or cars all over the place. I'm thrilled to hear you say you want to put families in here. You asked what you could do to make us believe that that's going to be the case. Can we put it in writing that you're going to exclude college students? I wouldn't be opposed to that. Can we do that, Jay? You can. We did the last time. So you've gained- Would we be able to work on- ... a lot of leverage with that. Would you be okay with eliminating a lot of this parking to- Sure. I hate that ... because again, I don't want to do all that. I don't like that layout either. Adding more green space and put into the trees, yeah.
So you can say, I don't know what the number is, provide five spaces per lot and- In the future, if the board determines there's a need, you could require them to build the additional whatever. Well, I guess how many two-families have more than five parking spots? I guess why would there be a condition to have to add more parking? Okay. Or not. You can just have a reduction. Well, I guess from an investment standpoint, the more conditions you put on the property as it moves forward down the road, it somewhat doesn't help my cause either. I'm just trying to understand why,
when some two-families have one per unit, some have none. Well, right now, your parking's gravel, right? This is all paved all the way back and around, and then we had added extra gravel parking lot on that side when we previously rented to the college students. I want to make sure I heard you correctly. You'd be willing to put in writing that you will not rent to college students? I would be fine with that. On this lot here. And it's not that I don't even want... Because again, if I had my work phone, I would call the gentleman who's going to move into this property, and the other lady. Because at this particular time in my life,
as I get older, I don't want the headaches. It's unfortunately a business that I chose 25 years ago, and the need was ginormous in this town, and whether we like it or not, Westfield brings a lot of money to this city, and there needs to be a place for these students to live off campus. Whether you like living next to them or not, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You want all the benefits of the college, there's going to be a handful of people, whether it's the 2:00 in the morning coming home from the bar, there's going to be negative aspects of any renter,
college student, family, whoever it may be. There has to be a give and take for everyone, which in my opinion, goes back to how the landlord takes care of that property and reprimands their tenants, whether they're college students, a family, or whoever it may be. And it's unfortunate that you're going to put restrictions on there because of that. But if that's the way that it's got to be to not have college students living there, if that's what gets me a lot to produce more rental property and tax dollars, then I'm willing to do that.
And how do you- But I still think it's unfortunate. And how do you reprimand your tenants? Do they have a pipeline to you? Do the neighbors have a pipeline to you? The building we approved over here, they had a direct number they could call 24 hours a day and say, "Hey, your tenants are creating havoc." Do you- Well, I guess that would go back to every landlord in town. What would be relevant, whether it's that property or another two-family, that the neighbors should have access to call the landlord? But you just said that it all depends on the landlord. So I'm asking
what protocols do you have in place where if the neighbors have a problem, okay, because they do have a right to a peaceful existence. Oh, I agree with that. So, what protocols do you have in place that the neighbors can act upon if- Well, in years past, and the police department has not acclimated or has done this, but I used to work with Sergeant Dickinson all the time. They would get a police call to my property. He would either call me or email me, so I would be aware of it,
and then I'd be able to take action. It's as simple as if the tenants are being unruly, whatever it might be, if it's a husband and wife in a fight, is the neighbor supposed to call me and I'm supposed to go down there? It doesn't make sense. If there's an issue, you call the local authorities to deal with the problem, then the local authorities should get ahold of the landlord. And I can guarantee if you call the police department, because I've been doing this for so long, for good or bad, mostly bad, it's very easy for them to call me. "Hey, there's a couch on the front street of your
property." I go buy another house, it's there for three, four weeks, and nothing's done. But because I've been working with the community for so many years, they all have the contact info. I've had the same properties for all those years. It doesn't take long for them to get ahold of me to resolve an issue. And again, I take pride in the properties I own, and I find it embarrassing. I treat them like I would want to live there. If I was made of a million dollars, I'd make them all perfect, but there still has to be a give and take on what you do with a rental property. And I'm creating a brand-new building on the street.
All it's going to do is increase the value of everyone's property on that road, minus the potential of, in theory, college kids living there, and again, I get they could keep you up, but that's, again, not the route that I'm looking to go. I have another property on the street. It's beautiful. Again, this property is beautiful, and I'm not knocking anyone else that lives on the street, but there's plenty of properties on that road that are bringing my property down. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Yeah. I'm still wondering, the question was when you asked him on the existing house that's there,
is that two families in there or college students? I don't remember you giving an actual answer. That's why- July 1st, I have a family moving into the first floor. If the painting and renovations get done on the second floor, July 15th is the scheduled date for a lady and her three daughters to move into the second floor. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Any questions from the public, please come to the microphone. We are talking questions. I'm sorry. Kenneth Mendoza, 25 Kellogg Street. I have a question. If they say they want to veer away from the college students or whatnot, why are there websites, like
he mentioned about it, still up? And not only that, there's a second website that I'd never seen before, and it looks like it was done recently, with their same information, same addresses. And so I'm curious about that and why they have an Instagram still up catering to the students. That baffles me. They say that they're going to transition away from students, but yet they're still advertising in this new website as well. They say they're not very tech-savvy, but I have a 91-year-old great aunt that knows how to
get online and figure things out. So, I don't know. I'm skeptical about that. I guess I'd be curious what this other website might be, because again, I don't believe it's mine. I'll pull it up. What we'll do is we'll ask questions, and the board will decide which questions we want answered. So please come forward, ask the questions. Hi, my name's Sheila Tenerelli. I live at 38 Claremont Street in Westfield, and I'm the one that sent the letter, I believe. Everyone got my letter? Yep. Yes. It's been sent out to everybody. Okay. All right. So my question has to do with the selection
of why, if lot size averaging is the title of the ordinance, that is an approach that works to balance neighborhoods. It's a tool that's used. There's a relationship between if you have smaller lots, you're offset by maybe that larger lot. So why when the 60% ended up being 17 properties, why were those chosen and the 40% omitted? The other question I have is, does anyone ever review
a petitioner's work? I found some errors. I don't know if anyone ever does that. So if I could just have an answer to that. Okay. So those comments are on your shared drive. I think they came through after the last hearing. But, the method is use what we've always done. I do check them, and my calculations are on the shared drive as well. Slightly different number comes out, but nothing that would affect the project. Other questions? Jake, the city has a no more than four unrelated people, correct?
Ordinance. In a dwelling unit, yeah. Okay. What's the ordinance on that? I'm pulling a blank on it. If you go to definitions of, I think it's common occupancy, is the term. So section 2-20, let me just check here. Common occupancy. So a single housekeeping unit shared by four or fewer non-transient persons. Got it. Questions? Board, comments? From the board? Mm-hmm. I would like to still eliminate some of those parking spaces and have another drawing that I've got green space, so
more trees there. Same with the other one. So the applicant brings up a good point that I don't know if it matters how many that there are. Sorry? I don't know if it matters how many parking spaces there are. He'd prefer to have grass. Well, it does matter. They have to have five by law. Yeah. 2.5 per dwelling unit. And he's got 10. I meant more than that, but- Well, two per dwelling unit. So four- Per, yeah ... required. I'm well aware of that. What I'm saying is on this side, seven, eight, nine, 10, change that into green space and add some more trees.
You also have that down here. You can add more green space and add some more trees. So if that board's amenable, that's something you could condition, or you could condition a revised site plan be submitted before building permits or whatever. Or if you need to see the plan, you can continue the hearing. If I could, through the chair. The parking spaces are numbered, so if you wanted to condition them on each lot, which ones get omitted, whether there's banked parking or whatever the solution
the planning board comes up with, I think you could refer to them specifically so they could be eliminated. And obviously the drive aisles would be there, but the parking could be omitted. What's snow removal like here at this place? I'm assuming the same contractor does both. Again, it's a pretty simple, straightforward shot, to be honest. Another recommendation, I don't know if this is... Because I wasn't at the last meeting, is they're requiring a fence between the driveways, which is, again, in my opinion, not even a dollar amount, just ridiculous to have two driveways
and a fence down the middle of it, because they were concerned with the college students backing into each driveway. I don't know what the reason was at the time. Again, I wasn't here at the last meeting, unfortunately. I would love to have that eliminated. The 5 Clark Street, all the snow goes straight down to the end on both sides. There's plenty of places to put the snow, and I understand the concern of the college student. Again, if that needs to be in place to make this work, then I have no problem doing that. But I think the common
sense and the normalcy of what a property should look like shouldn't be... Because when you talk about snow removal, you're either going to push it up against the house, or you're going to push it against a fence. You can't just scoop it down the driveway. So the house is going to get damaged, or the fence is going to get damaged every year because of the recommendation to put a fence down the middle of the driveways so the neighbors can't be neighbors. You're assuming they're going to, I don't know. So if we could eliminate the fence, make normalcy out of this, have five parking spots per lot, and simplify the whole thing. You want to put the condition that no college
students, there's already a law that's in place that says you can't have more than four unrelated people living in a unit. So regardless of whether I made 10 bedrooms or 15 bedrooms, I'm breaking the law if I put college students in there. So I don't even find that to be necessary, but if that's what makes everyone happy here, I'm willing to do that. But I think the simplicity of making this work, families to live in this neighborhood, is to have, not a common driveway. I'm willing to put two driveways in, but wide enough for each one to be considered their own.
And if the neighbors fight, then it'll be up to me as a landlord to put down the property line and simplify the whole project. It's just been steered in the wrong direction, unfortunately, for what it truly is going to be. I'm not sure that fence down the middle is a requirement, and it's more of a suggestion, I believe. But I'm not sure. I'm not the engineer. Was it a requirement or just a- Someone had asked for it. Not sure, again, I wasn't here last week or the last meeting. My opinion is, today is 180
turnaround difference from the last one. There was this many people last time terrified of having more college kids on that street. And I understand that. Again, I have a family. I can relate. I've been doing this for two decades now. I know what the turmoil that these kids can do to the neighborhood and my property, hence why I'm steering away from it as I get older in age and choose not to deal with that headache. But unfortunately, there's still a need. There's still going to be properties out there that have to deal with that to an extent, which again, still comes down to how the landlord
deals with the scenario. And I could go around town with all of you, and I could point out every college house because it's in my field of business, and it disgusts me that that's what people are renting to. And to be honest with you, it somewhat is a challenge to get all the kids to even rent certain places because the kids want to gravitate towards that. So as I put my foot down, my properties become vacant from the college students because my rules are stricter than the other ones. Refresh my memory. Is that the only house you own on the street, or do you own
another one? No, I own another one down the road. That same on Clark Street? Correct. Is that a college house? Well, it currently houses four post-grad students. Okay. So again, what you call- You're leaning away, which is good. Yeah. Again, I find the problem to be more in enforcing the headaches. And to be honest with you, in the years I've done it, 20 years ago, they would party Thursday, Friday, Saturday night. Now, the sad part is these kids don't drink. They smoke a lot of weed, they play a lot of video games, and they stare at a computer in each room and do almost
nothing. It's really come a crazy difference from what it used to be in the college community. Of course, they're going to have their let loose nights, but the partying has immensely dissipated with the video games and people staring at their phones. It's really not what it used to be. These kids are not into it like they used to be. And I'm not complaining. I do still know they do it, but it's not the ages of 20 years ago. Bridget. Can you come forward? Yeah. Come forward, please
Are we still in the question section? Oh, yeah. And will there be people allowed to speak pros and cons? Yes. Okay, my question is, at the beginning of this meeting, the family that lives next door was here. I'm sorry, say again? At the beginning of this meeting, the family that lives next door was here- Mm-hmm ... at this meeting tonight in front of planning board, and they stayed through most of the public hearing, and they had to leave. Mm-hmm. I can't answer if they're going to like a lot of parking spots or more green grass. I have no idea. So I'd like you, because they were here, they were scheduled to go first, and the schedule was changed.
I'm asking if you'll consider keeping this meeting open, so that they can weigh in on this new revised plan. And I'm asking specifically because they were here, and if the agenda had gone the way it was supposed to, they would've spoken first. So, that's my question, and I'll save my comments for when people can speak about the pros and cons. Thank you. And you're talking the immediate residents? The immediate neighbors who are here. The immediate abutter. Say that again? The immediate abutter, correct? Yes. I guess the immediate abutter. Okay. I have a question. Yeah, please come forward. Kenneth Mendoza, 25 Kellogg Street.
A very important question, because over the years, they've been renting to students, which had basically their boarding houses on a residential B zone. And they have more on Orange Street and the surrounding neighborhoods. Do they ever apply for boarding house permit? Because if they didn't, they're not grandfathered in anything, and they're operating pretty much in, I don't want to say illegal, but they've never applied for a boarding house permit. I don't know. Have they ever applied for a boarding house permit? That's the question.
If they didn't, then they're in violation. And, I did submit an email to the fire chief and the building inspector, never heard back from them to check if they're in compliance with boarding house rules. So I just want to know if they applied for a permit years ago for any of their properties. Thank you. Next. Jane Oxen, 341 Steiger Drive. I do always watch water, sewer, and trash, and it really upset me when I saw that house with four trash cans, four recyclables all opened all over the place. And the councilor had
mentioned the design of the building, and I don't know, you call them pop-outs or something. And the older house here does have the pop-outs, and that's where they were parking their trash cans. So if you had eight trash cans, they're sort of hidden on the side of the house, but that pop-out is hiding them. The new design, two-family, it should have two sets of trash cans. That's four. Where are they going to hide the trash cans? All the way to the back? Is there a shed?
There's no shed. There's nothing to hide them along the... Not in the front. So along the sides. Are they always going to be in the back, would be my question. Also, I'd like to know if this house is going to be restricted on the number of Westfield Gas and Electric meters. How many meters are on the older house, and will the new two-family just get two meters? Thank you. Is Rob here? Yeah. My name, Pablo Lopez. I live on 13 Clark Street. And, my question is,
right now, in the place we're trying to build another house, they're having big parties in here, and they invite some other kid to come over for a party. And you can see my street full of car all the way down when they have a party because they invite another kid for a party, and they stay over in the house. Because right now in the front of my house, they do the same thing. They invite another kid to come over, they stay over. You can see the street full of car. Right now, I got a picture here where they park. Right now, it's full.
Where they're gonna park? That's my question. Because right now, this the only one house. It's full. The children here with no car. But why I got a picture with car parking in here? Thank you. Rob, can we talk about the meters and the trash cans, maybe hiding them? What are you going to say? Well, clearly there'll be two meters on the unit. I'm not sure why there would be more. And the trash cans, I was unaware that there's a city ordinance that says you got to hide your trash cans. Is there a city ordinance that said you have to hide your trash cans? Only
dumpsters, right? So I'm not sure why that's relevant. Again, back to my, if you look at the property on the corner of Clark Street and Orange Street- Just looking for an answer What's that? I was just looking for an answer. Yeah. Well, I'm not sure why there was a question for it. Where would you propose they put the trash barrels? I guess it would go behind the unit. I was going to say, if it were your house, where would you put the trash cans if you were living there? Or if you were the neighbor next to them, where would you want the trash cans to be? You've got to remember, this is a residential neighborhood for other people, and I understand that. Again, I understand that. My question or concern is, I rent the property to what I consider to be a normal family.
I vet them very well- Mm-hmm ... and they move in. I want them to keep the place nice, I want them to keep up the yard work, to keep the trash out of the property. In my head, I'm not sure why where they place their receptacles would be a concern, if it's not overflowing with trash. Which it is. I'm sorry. Please don't do that again. I'll ask you to leave. I will do it again. I will ask you to leave. Please do not- This is not proper. Please do not- This is BS. Please do not comment from the gallery, please. Again, I observed the property at the corner of Clark Street and
Orange Street today, a big brick property, had the same concerns that this gentleman behind me has. I understand that. I'm not trying to promote it. I'm only a landlord that can enforce what I see. If you go by on a regular basis and there's a problem, it's picked up, it's taken care of, and there's no issue. The problem comes down to when they don't take the trash out for one week, and it compiles over a two-week period. It's not that they overflow the trash. It comes down to complete laziness, whether it's a college student or a
family, and I've encountered it with both. I think maybe, the board could take a step back, and this is really about a lot size averaging dimensional issue. This is a neighborhood that allows two-family dwellings by right. There are plenty there. Any of them can have trash issues or too many cars. The question really before the board is: Is this smaller lot size adequate for this two-family? So, I agree with what Jay just said, and I also agree with Bridget that a lot of the people that were here a month ago aren't here.
They were here earlier. They deserve to be heard. I think we have to hold this over and continue. So, if I could, through the chair, with regard to that, so we also had to wait. I had a public hearing last night in Agawam. Didn't get on till 11:00 last night. Public speak is a new thing for everybody, right? You have to let people talk for three minutes. Yesterday, they had five pages. We waited. We are here. This is a public process. We already had one public hearing. At the last public hearing, if you remember, I respectfully requested a continuance so that we could address these items.
We went back, we redrew the plan, we did address these items. What was requested, the fence and additional parking, now doesn't seem to be as much of a concern based on the use. The proponent has absolutely suggested that he is willing to accept a condition related to not renting to college students. That is the big issue here. The rest of this is a two-family in a neighborhood, and you're going to have all the same things. As far as Dave's concern about-- Dave thinks about this from a tenant standpoint. Where are you going to put the trash receptacles? Okay.
Say he spends an extra $5,000 on this and creates an enclosure for those receptacles. What's to say the person's going to put it inside the enclosure? So he deals with the real world. We all deal with the real world. So while the delay suggested would seem logical, we are here for the second time on a pretty straightforward lot size averaging. I believe we meet all the criteria, as Jay had mentioned. I believe we meet the requirements. Understandably, people live-- This is their backyard, or this is their neighbor.
But they don't own the property. They didn't buy the property, and we have a housing crisis, and this is a solution, a very small part to the solution to the housing crisis. So we would respectfully ask that this doesn't get tabled so this project can move forward. The things that have been said are related to operational, one, and two, neighborhood issues. It's not related specifically to this issue because I think the planning board even said we'd like less parking if it's not college housing. So let's pick a number of parking spaces that you guys are all comfortable
with, and everything else meets the requirements. If you need a place, frankly, for the trash receptacles, we could certainly pick that. It would be logical, out of view, behind the building. If there was a condition that that was the requirement, I will tell you, I live in a very expensive neighborhood. I'm a lucky guy. I work a lot. And my trash receptacle, one of them's out in front of my garage, believe it or not, and the other one is inside. So no one's perfect. And there's covenants in my neighborhood, and there's no requirement, or maybe there is, but no one enforces it.
No one has come to my house and said, "You need to move your trash receptacle." So there's some reality to it, especially when you have a tenant. And these guys do keep a nice house They are both contractors, skilled laborers, contractors, and have taken their other businesses, and they've parlayed it into this business. And they are getting away from the college folks. So, we would respectfully request that you make a decision tonight and that you approve it. Thank you. Okay. Anybody want to speak in favor of or speak against, now is the time. Please come forward. Name and address, please. Kenneth Mendoza, 25 Kellogg Street. Mr.
Rovinski, can you pull up this web address for me? WSU. It's all one word, so WSUoffcampushousing.com. WSU Off Campus. In the meantime, can we- Yeah. I'm going to- Okay. If we can't get it, what do we want to say? All right. We got a long night here. Nope. We all do. All right. I have a statement here. Let me put my cheaters on because getting older. All right. Good evening. My name is Kenneth Mendoza from 25 Kellogg Street, Westfield. My concerns are not about the appearance of any building or any individual
tenant group. My concerns are about land use, zoning compliance, occupancy intensity, and cumulative impact in a Residential B district. Under the Westfield zoning ordinance, Resident B is primarily intended for single family and two family residential use. My concern is whether the current pattern of high occupancy rental development is consistent with that zoning intent, or whether a functional shift in use is occurring over time without adequate cumulative
review or planning analysis. Under Mass General Law, including Chapter 111 and Chapter 148, the Commonwealth recognizes and regulates lodging and boarding houses, classification based on occupancy and use characteristics. These regulations can trigger additional inspections and fire safety requirements when dwellings reach certain thresholds of unrelated occupancy. I am not making a legal determination tonight, but I am requesting clarity on whether
any properties in this area have been evaluated for whether they meet thresholds requiring additional regulatory classification, inspection, or enforcement. I also want to address patterns and cumulative impact. Publicly available marketing from Westfield State University Living and similar developer websites consistently emphasize off-campus student housing tied to Westfield State University, with multi-bedroom, group-orientated
rental properties designed for high occupancy. This suggests a consistent student-orientated rental model in this geographic area. My concern is that when multiple properties follow this model in the same neighborhoods, it creates cumulative impact, including increased parking demand, traffic congestion, higher turnover in occupancy pattern, and strain on neighborhood infrastructure. This is particularly important because this neighborhood is identified under
Massachusetts environmental justice criteria, which requires consideration of cumulative environmental infrastructure and public health impacts in planning and permit decisions. I also want to note for the record that I contacted the building department and fire department approximately a month ago, requesting review of occupancy and enforcement concerns, and I have not received a response yet. I am requesting clarification on whether inspections or occupancy evaluations have been conducted and what the
findings were. Finally, I am asking the planning board and city official to evaluate this not as isolated project, but as a long-term land use pattern issue, and to clarify how the city is ensuring the development in Residence B districts remains consistent with zoning intent, enforcement capacity, and cumulative impact review under both local ordinance and Massachusetts policy. And this new website that I just pulled up,
it has his information right there with his phone number. And if you scroll, you see one to 15 bedrooms apartments. You keep on scrolling, and it has all the addresses that he intends to use for that purpose. And not only that, they also have an Instagram page and another page, if I can pull it up. It's the last one we did from last month. You can do another window in there, plus sign window. But you can see all the properties they own. They own over 20 properties in the area. The other one is WSU Living, L-I-V-I-N-G, and-
Totally not a microhome ... .com. Man, you're missing the point. Shut up. Excuse me. Hey. Hey. He is speaking up also. I'm trying to let him- Shut up. Shh. It's public information. If you scroll, it shows all the other properties that he has. Yeah. And where it shows the pricing, it states that basically trying to convince the students that they're better off renting off-campus because there's less rules and regulations than living on campus, which in other words, it sounds like he doesn't really care about our neighborhoods, because
I'm sure he wouldn't build a transient housing in his community. So, to be fair, we're human beings. I'm a veteran, 14 years in the Army. I served this country. I invested in my neighborhood that I actually grew up in and live in, to live a better peaceful life, and we all deserve the same thing. So, and top of that, adding to a dead-end street, when the trash comes to pick up, it's going to be more difficult to add more houses in that particular community. And these properties, proof is in the pudding,
has all their information there, his worker's information in there. And so that's why I'm skeptical that they're going to rent to regular families. Where's the proof of the new apartments that he's going to rent to families? That should be made public so we can know that, "Hey, okay, we believe him." So we need proof and make sure that if he's actually going to rent to families from now on, because I don't see that happening, because I live right across from one of those student complexes, and I'm requesting the city to investigate if they're in compliance and if they actually have
permits, that per Mass general law they need for transient housing for boarding houses. That's an actual permit, and I'm sure a lot of you understand what that means. Thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak in favor or speak against? Yes. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to interrupt for one second because obviously the discussion is getting a little heated. I would like to reiterate that the proponent, regardless of his other businesses, regardless of other locations, has agreed to not rent to college students. That would be in the condition, that would be enforceable by the building
department. So, any websites, and again, you could go on the web and you could see a public hearing from me from probably 25 years ago. I had hair back then. But that doesn't mean I'm doing that now, or I have hair now. Thanks. Hi, Sheila Tenero, 38 Claremont Street. I don't live on Clark Street, I live on Claremont Street. We had a college house across from us. Dan and myself worked to change some language because we found that we spend all this time talking about college students and all, I'm the first one to admit I hit the ceiling, what are they doing? But when you pare it all back, it's usually a
policy, a procedure that's broken. In that case, it was language. We were using late 19th, early 20th century language. Here, and the question I asked about the land lot size averaging, I look at it as apples and oranges. I think that's broken. I think you have a system that is supposed to be a proponent of a balance, and then you choose your percentage, which you have in your
ordinance, and it's something that doesn't relate back to that at all. And that's what you're using to determine lot size. So you can see my math brought that, in the first version, this is different tonight, but the first version of that, I don't know if it's the same size, I don't know. But it would not be able to be built on that lot when I took the average, and you saw what I did. I listed them all. I took off the upper outliers, the
lower, instead of just the most dense. Because what is that most dense going to do? Push and push and push a neighborhood to what density? Have you capped it? You're creating two more lots that are tiny lots, and yes, you can say that area has small lots, but at what point you're choking that area? What point are you, to say, it sounds corny, but are you letting an area breathe? And I think that system is broken, and I don't think you can move forward with anybody's request until you fix that.
And so I would be not in favor of that, because that could happen in my neighborhood. It could happen in anybody's neighborhood. Thank you. Hi, I'm Bridget Matthews Kane. I live at 81 Court Street, and I'm here as the Ward 3 counselor. As you know, the residents are really upset about this proposal, and I think for good reason. And I have concerns. We have the special permit standards for reviewing, and we have to make sure we stick with them. And at this point, for the infill application, there's two questions that have been raised about the calculations and if they're fair.
I trust Mrs. Tenero's calculations and that her concerns should concern you as well. I had also brought up the issue that the box that has been proposed Does not exactly match the house next to it, and it certainly doesn't match the houses next to it further down the road. And one of the findings that you have to find is that the proposed dwelling is consistent with the architectural style, scale setbacks, and character of the immediate neighborhood. Not just the house next to it, but the immediate neighborhood. I personally do not feel that the box that has been proposed meets
the neighborhood standards. But the most important thing you have to think about is, if the use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood. And I think it goes beyond the college students, yes, saying that college students couldn't live there. But the argument about the density, it's going to make this neighborhood even denser. And we talked about at previous meetings that it's a dead-end street next to a park where parking is already very difficult. This increased density, even with the parking, is going to cause problems for the neighborhood. I hope you really think this through.
Although, I think not allowing college students to live there is a step in the right direction, I don't know if that's enough. And I hope you'll also consider keeping the meeting open so that the residents, the immediate neighbors who were here at the beginning of the meeting, get to have their say. Because they were here to be here and speak. The agenda was changed. I think it's unfair to them. Okay. Thank you. Bridget. If you don't mind, one of the things I'm struggling with is, on the corner of Clark and Orange, it looks like 55 Orange, the frontage there is
132 feet. Orange and 4 Clark Street, that combined is 132 feet. So going down the street, the applicant's two lots are 132 feet. Across the street, number 6 and 8 is 132 feet. Mm-hmm. Okay? Next door, number 9, and across the street number 10, 166 and 168 feet of frontage. and 12 are both 66 feet of frontage. And then at the very end, you have 106, and then you have three lots,
but two of them equal 106, and then there's that extra triangle at the end of 40 feet of frontage. So it looks like maybe back in the '20s and '30s when this was originally there, there should have been another building there. So that's part of what I'm struggling with right here, is the frontage is exactly the same as across the street. And I don't know how to handle that portion of it. Okay? So- Because of the... I understand about the style. Mm-hmm. Okay. But the frontage, and I'm throwing that out and I'm giving you the opportunity.
Okay. If you don't mind. So I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I think density is about more than frontage. It's about how much of the lot the house takes up and how much green space is there. Can we go back to those plans where we're looking at it from above? That. So to make that work- Mm-hmm ... you have to have a gigantic parking lot in the back, which is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The new one that's being drawn, there's very little yard there. I don't believe that's consistent with the neighborhood. I'm just concerned that we are squeezing it in, and it's going to affect the quality of life in the neighborhood.
I think it's more than frontage- That- ... because you're thinking about how wide the house is based- Right ... on the frontage. That road is tight. I've been down that road a number of times since the last meeting. Mm-hmm. Okay. And I have a small car. Mm-hmm. And one of my concerns is, as Phil mentioned it last time, is a firetruck going to make it down that road? Or are they going to have to run, what are we looking at? 200, 300, 400, 500 feet of hose to get to the last house. That is a concern. So. Thank you. Just to note, we did just get some updated house plans. I guess they weren't. Say that again. Rob just emailed some
updated house plans that I guess were not previously sent. Oh. They're on the shared drive. It's the AI data center. Yeah. That's my fault. It probably got lost in my email, so I apologize for not having that to Jay sooner. Anybody else want to speak in favor or speak against? Go ahead. Odette. Yeah. Good evening. Odette Wells. I live on Orange Street, very near this location. My concern is, to piggyback off of what's been said, is the aesthetic of the house. And I am unaware, I've lived in that neighborhood my entire life. I purchased a home there because that's where I grew up
and wanted to invest in the neighborhood. I'm not aware of any property that has five bedrooms, two-family or not. So, and my thing is the, they won't be renting to college kids. How do you enforce that down the line? How is that enforced? Who's going to police that? I'm sure that he's not going to rent to college kids now because the market is down. There's ample housing. Enrollment is down. But what if that changes? Because we all know that the reason for this is profitability. It has nothing more than to do with profit.
So, I'm just concerned that this The proposal doesn't meet the aesthetic, and you are cramming this into this already tight neighborhood. And that personally brings my property value down. I take a lot of pride in my property, and this doesn't work well for the residents who have their actual homes and are raising their families there. Thank you. Carlos Mendoza, 25 Kellogg Street again. You mentioned about the plans when Bridget was talking up here. It was what, 18 what? What year was it, about?
I don't know. I just made up a number of the year it was built. Yeah. What- I know it wasn't built last year. Okay. We'll say 1881 or something like that. Whatever. Back then, what type of transportation they had, horses, carriage. And a lot of those houses, they had barns. So they- Yeah. No, you are correct. They- You are correct. But if they had built a house back then, you would have additional cars, and additional neighbors, and additional everything else that goes with that neighborhood. That lot was designed for a house on it, okay? But- Whether it was in 1880, 1920-
Was it? ... or 1960. If you look at the plot plans, it matches up exactly. What's on the lot right now, where they're trying to build at? What's on the lot? Well, it's vacant because somebody bought a double lot. No, no. Was there, like, a garage or a barn or type deal? Yeah. Yeah. So, it's a barn. Sure. So it was meant to keep a horse and carriage in that old barn. So at that time, they didn't build that to make a house. It was to keep a horse and carriage. Because if you look at it, it's an old barn, and that's what they used it for in 1800s. So now we have big vehicles.
We have trash trucks coming up and down those streets where sometimes they got to back up all the way, and they can't do, really, a 360 turn or anything in there, or 180. They can't. It's impossible. And the same thing with the emergency services. It'd be difficult adding another house. Like I said, there was a barn built there for a barn use. It wasn't meant to build a house. In all due respect, I understand what you're saying, but back then, that was a barn. True. It wasn't meant for a house. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We do have a draft condition, special permit, subject property, 5 Clark Street, which is the parent
parcel. Draft conditions. One, the lot shall be created, laid out in general conformance with the submitted special permit filing plan prepared by Arlaback Associates, revised 6/4/26. I think that would be updated, correct? Two, the new dwelling shall be constructed in a style and size generally conforming with the submitted design, showing a covered entry facing Clark Street by McCann Architectural Drafting. Three, to compensate for the loss of green space, at least one shade tree, two minimum caliper at the planting, shall be installed and maintained within
the front yard area on each lot. Trees in the adjoining street right away with city approval shall satisfy this condition. Four, we talked about a fence, but I believe that's being taken out. But my understanding is we would be including an agreement that the property would not be rented to student housing. Five, the rights granted by the special permit to, four, creation reduction of the lots for which this permit shall have been deemed
to be substantially used upon recording of the lot plan at the Registry of Deeds. Such plan shall describe the book and page in which this special permit is recorded. B, new dwelling construction commencement, of which shall be the subject to a three-year time limit for action as pursuant to the general conditions. So you also- Then we have our normal draft conditions. Yeah. Mr. Chair, you also talked about reducing the parking. And we talked about reducing the parking. So perhaps, I'm going to say eliminate
parking spaces 6 through 10 on each lot. Yep. One only goes up to nine, but... So that'll leave five, plus the driveway. Can I ask a question on that, though? Sure. If that will go in one of the conditions, will we be able to get a new update of what that would actually look like? We've done this before where it can be shared. If we add the green space in there, I'd like to see some trees in there so it looks a little more... Yeah. It's simple enough. I think it could be handled in a written condition, but if the board wants a plan, it could require that submitted administratively.
John, question for you. The fencing, what's your idea on that, when he was questioning that? I'm sorry. I can't hear you. I'm sorry. I was just curious of your idea of the fencing that he was questioning. I have a shared driveway. At first, I wanted to put up a fence when I first moved in, and now the unfenced shared driveway was far more convenient than it would've been if it was fenced. So, I don't think it needs a fence, but... Is your neighbor a renter? No. He's a property owner. Correct. Okay. So, at first when you mentioned the fence, I was like, "That's a really good idea." But makes snow plowing virtually impossible.
And that is exactly true. It makes it impossible. But what a shared driveway does allow is multiple occupancies, and it allows people to drive across lawns into the other people and come back around. And since it's a common ownership, it's really not trespassing. So, I'm thinking, is there a way of considering the snow plowing, but preventing shared driveway usage? Because what a shared driveway usage does do, is it gives the visual approval of more additional parking space.
Now we'll have a sign, no student on one agreement, but not the other house. So, that's my thought. So Westfield does not allow common driveways. It's the only- In spite of what I say. Well. There you go. It doesn't allow chickens either, but. All right. But you could pave a driveway against another, so it's effectively one driveway that straddles the line. But these are two independent properties, so I don't think... And then- Let me see if I see that item. I think there needs to be some kind of break between the two driveways, a grass
break or something, just because of the fact they are two individual properties, and you can't guarantee they'll have the same owner forever. Mm-hmm. So you need... The one driveway doesn't make any sense to me, even trying to do something good with that. But I think if you had a two-foot grass strip down the middle, that would satisfy the separation we're looking for. It does show that, yeah. And it shows that on the plans. That should satisfy that separation that you need, because you've got two separate lots.
Yeah. I mean, if you need- And you can't guarantee common ownership. If you needed to beef it up with an arborvitae or two, that might- Yeah ... kind of punch it. And that's what I'm wondering, is if we can get a couple bushes in. I don't want to plant a tree in there just to have a snowplow kill a tree. Okay? But maybe a few bushes. I don't mind bushes getting killed. Well- But just something to prevent common usage by everybody across all driveways. Yeah. Here's my question on that one, though. Yep. Then maybe we should just leave number four because if salt is being used, it will destroy those trees. Mm-hmm. So I wouldn't put trees in because it is going to get destroyed.
Right. I think we're getting a little too micro-managing. Yeah. I don't know why we're wrapping ourself in the guy's landscaping. Okay. That's fine. I'm just throwing it out there. Yeah. Good. All right. Do we add in there, too, the conditions, no college students? My understanding is we're adding that. Sorry? We are adding a condition, no college students. Do you want to specify undergraduate? Yes. Allow undergraduate? No. Mm-mm. No, I'll specify- Prohibit- ... allow graduate students- ... undergrads and allow- ... not allow undergraduates. Right. Yes. Jay, are you comfortable with the lot size averaging calculations? Because I have three emails that are questioning
it. Well, my calculations are on there. Like I said, they're slightly different, but not enough that would affect the- And your sample is what it should be? Yeah. I've done it how we've always- Okay ... done it. The ordinance I think could be improved, but as I read it, that complies. Okay. Do we want to close the public hearing? Do we want to continue to allowing the butter, direct the butter? When's our next meeting? A month. July 21. Vacation. All right. I'm just going to be right out. Council, you might be a little upset with me, but I'm on the fence with this for the fact that this is the second hearing we've had with them.
And personally, I've been at meetings where I've had to sit long hours to get through and to get them parked. I think we should proceed with this tonight. I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel, that they can then wait another month, even though we have heard from a lot of the neighbors that live there in the first meeting, and we heard them loud and clear. I just don't think it's right to extend it another month. But that's my personal opinion. Anybody else want to make comment? As I stated before, I think the biggest concern I heard from the neighbors
was the tenancy, and I think that's been taken care of. As far as the lot size, if you look at the GIS map, which I know is not the end of the world or the final word in anything, but you look at it and the house that's there is on 5 Clark Street, and the one next to it is on 9 Clark Street, which means there's a lot in between there, which is 7 Clark Street. And that was intended to be a lot, and apparently whoever bought 5 decided he needed double lots and bought both of them and made it into one.
So the original plan for that area was to have two lots there, and they're the same size as all the other lots. So that infill makes sense because that was the original design of the area. The fact that we've got it so that you're not changing the flavor of the neighborhood with the tenancy, I think those were the big problems, and I think they've both been solved. Rob, we have an agreement to put in writing that they won't do student housing. Yes. Does that apply to just one house or both houses? You okay with both houses being included in that agreement?
Again, I guess my concern there is, I agree that I'm willing to do that if that's really where you guys need to go with it. I find it not necessary and unfortunate that you're going to put that on me because of this lot, because I find it not relevant to the lot that we're requesting. That's an eight-bedroom unit, four bedrooms per floor. It should be relevant that you can't rent to more than four people, so it shouldn't be an issue with college students.
And the fact that you need to put a condition on that to get me this building lot, I don't find it fair to me that that's how you're going to do it. So the answer's no. No. I feel that's not right to do. There's no reason to do it, I guess, because that unit meets all the criteria to legally rent to college students, whether I choose to or not. Rob, I have a question whether that's even legal. How can you dictate who someone rents to? I don't think it's legal. Correct. If they- If I rent to a family of 13 that are all related,
is that any less of a problem than what you're implying? If they're all related, they're a family. But- Okay. I got my answer. I asked a question, got my answer. All right. We have a draft approval out there. I need a motion to close the public hearing, or leave it open and continue. What do we want to do? That's a hard one. You can take it off. It's all right. What did you ask Andy, what you said, Bill? See where we need to- I want to move on to the next hearing, okay? So we can close the public hearing and either vote or continue and vote. We have 90 days to vote,
or we can continue to allow the abutters to come in. But I'd like to move the meeting along. But we can't close the public hearing. If we're going to close it, somebody else wants to speak. That's right. So if we close the public hearing, then we can deliberate amongst ourselves. We cannot take in any more information. Nobody else can talk other than us. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, what's going to change in a month? I'm just waiting for the board to make a decision. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing. We have a motion to close the public hearing. Do I hear a second? To agree? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed?
Okay. Public hearing's closed. We have our draft conditions. Do I hear a motion on the draft conditions? Again, we have up to 90 days to do this, to vote, but we do have our draft conditions. And Jay, that includes a no student agreement, right? What was the other one? Yeah, no undergraduate rental and, eliminate- Removal of parking spaces ... eliminate those six, seven, eight, nine, ten numbers. And also the updated house plans. And the updated plans. Reference that updated version. And anything else the board wants to condition.
So say that again. What's on there again? Well, there's a new house plan, so we'll just reference that. But the two additional conditions were, instead of the fence, no undergraduate students and eliminating the parking spaces. On both sides. On both lots, yeah. Okay. Are we removing the fence? We're removing the fence. Okay. So that's good. Do we need a motion? We're looking for a motion to approve or not approve it. I'll make a motion to approve the special permit with the updated additions that Jay has set forth. I'll second it. Okay. We'll start with Ray.
Yes. Phil. Yes. Cheryl. Yes. John. Yes. Rich. Yes. Bernie. Yes. And I will be a yes as well. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, while Rob's up here, I think he has a couple continuances out of order, but in case anyone's- Yeah, my understanding is we're not on till the other public hearing. It sounds like that's going to be a long one. I literally was at a public hearing-- I didn't get home till 1:00 last night. Talked to my clients, they're fine with us continuing, if that's okay. Which one? Both. Which one? Okay. I'm sorry. We have one for- 10- ... Southampton Road 1026 Southampton Road, and
21, whatever, The Jug Handle. Okay. Yeah, we're working with MassDOT on The Jug Handle, so that's kind of pending. And the other one, my client and I were here, but it's late night last night, so thank you. And the building- K-Roos, What's that? Yes, sir. Can you ask them to take care of the tagging on the front of the building? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, jeez. I didn't know K-Roos-- I'm sorry, these guys are here. I'm sorry. Okay. The other one I'm continuing. Do you guys want to go or not go? We want to go. Are we before the other one? No, instead of not continue. Yeah, that's great. Yes. You still want to continue? Yeah. No. You're continuing one of them, though, correct? Yeah, we'll do them both.
Okay. So you're not going to continue. Yeah. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Lack of sleep. Thank you. Okay. All right. Espresso. Time for coffee. Yeah. Ugh. Next on the agenda is Ashraf Hussein for a special permit for zoning ordinance Section 3-120.33 and 3-177 to allow motor vehicle sales at 962 Southampton Road, Zone Business B and water resource. For this public hearing, Rich Aloi will be the voting member for Jay McGarry. I was there the other day. I can figure out a way to put 51 cars in there.
No. Oh, Shawn was saying- That's how I was right there. Big guy. I was thinking about that. Me too. Thank you. Thank you. Get smacked. Free sample? It's a pleasure to be with you guys again. Last time we were here, we decided to do a continuance, so that way we can get signs, and also the parking lot layout. Here, we have about 42 spaces in the front paved parking lot, and in the back we have 16, which will be reserved for employees and customers. And on the other
side would be overflow or sold cars, things that need to be addressed. For example, an oil change needs to be done on there or something, it's waiting to go to its appointment, up the road or in town. And also, we were able to also add an extra handicap in front of the building with this layout. So the parking lot originally had one, we're able to add a second one. So Can I take this home? Yeah. More than welcome. Are those two trailers in the back staying?
What was that? The two trailers- Are the two trailers in the back staying against the fence? They are going to be getting moved by the landlord. He was here last time. Yeah. So they probably won't be there long. Okay. He has to move them behind the fenced-in area. So he already told me he's going to be moving these here. Those are his property. It has nothing to do with me. So. On the sign, we ended up going with, if approved, a backlit four-by-six
sign, and on the bottom would be a four-by-four digital sign that would be almost like a PowerPoint, show sales, show cars on clearance, but it would be, I think, 30 seconds- Static ... or a minute or something like that- Mm-hmm ... it would take before it moves to the second one. It wouldn't be like- Rapid succession. Yeah. Rapid or anything like that. So, that requires a separate special permit. So as of now, that hasn't been requested. So- Okay ... they can do this, and it can be one static message per
day. If you want to change more frequently than that, you can come back for another- Okay ... permit. Okay. Okay, and then on the front of the building, just so people can see, it would say Wood City Wheels, and on the side of the building, it would be also Wood City Wheels, and there's already lights on the building. So we wouldn't need to back light it or anything like that. Just be simple, normal letters. Yeah. So for the soaps, we were asked about soaps because it's in the water
table area. We looked up a bunch of different products that were bio-safe, and we brought some samples here today. We also ordered a big jug of some of this as well. It was kind of too big to bring here. But basically, we provided a list of some solutions in terms of soaps that are applicable for this solution. And we recognize the importance of protecting the local groundwater resources and municipal water infrastructure. And all the cleaning activities will use biodegradable, environmentally responsible cleaning products that are safe for use within the water resource protection areas. And the dealership will implement best management practices to
prevent contamination of the local water table. And in addition to that, we were asked about if we had any plans for having electric cars on the site. We did reach out to the Westfield Fire Department in terms of a fire plan or anything special that we have to follow for electric cars. We did get some responses from the fire prevention officer, and they basically said that there shouldn't be a big concern for what we're looking to do because we're just doing a used car dealer. We're not modifying or doing any service to any electric cars.
We're not doing long-term storage for any electric cars in the building or anything like that. And they said that... These are some proposals that we've come up with. So any electric vehicles that are present would be stored mainly outdoors. We're not going to have any battery repairs, replacement, or electric vehicle servicing on site. And vehicles displaying signs of battery damage, fire risk, or collision-related battery concerns will not be accepted for indoor storage. And the existing building occupancy classification will remain unchanged as vehicle sales.
There won't be any repairing or body shop or anything like that on the site. And, yeah, we have adequate room for emergency access, site layout with room for fire department, things like that. So, we'll also be having fire extinguishers on site in accordance with applicable fire codes and inspection rules. And any kind of emergency procedures, evacuation protocols, reporting of any fire hazards will also be posted and trained to staff and that kind of thing. So, but yeah, we reached out to the town fire department already, and they said that there wasn't really any major concern there.
Any questions? We hope we were able to get everything you guys asked us for last meeting. I like it. I think you guys did a good job. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. I agree. Thank you. Any questions from the public? Anybody in the public left? Anybody for or against this, please come forward. So, my only question for the board is if you accept the gravel parking surfacing for the
required parking, customer parking. That's for the overflow as well as the employee/visitor parking area, right? Well, per the ordinance, your required parking, which would be your customer parking, needs to be on bituminous concrete Or asphalt concrete or its equivalent. So if you can consider this an equivalent, then fine. I know we've kind of had this discussion before, but. I went over there. It's pretty hard packed.
It is. I think it's equivalent. I was wondering if it looks... It almost looks like it's milled product, but I could be wrong. Yeah, it's probably millings. What's that? I think from a business perspective, they don't want the client parking in the back of the building. They might want to convert the- Well, that's a different thing ... They might want to convert the six right up in front of the building and put the other six cars in back there. As a former used car salesman, customers are going to have trouble driving by the door because they're going to think they're trapped and can't leave. So you might want to think about making some of these cars in the front customer parking spaces.
Okay. You know what I mean? Okay. And put some display cars in the back or on the side over here a little bit. Okay. Yeah. Right. We'd be more than happy to switch them. You willing to make that change? Yeah, for sure. Perfect. For sure. No problem at all. I told you. He mentioned that. I told him, but- See? Yeah. I said we can always change it, but yeah. So what are we doing, John? I'm sorry. Moving some of the parking against the building to the other side so there's customer parking there just so they're going to go inside. Balance it out. Do you want to pick a number? Uh. Three? No, the front four, I would think that would be the good
ones to move next to the handicap. Okay. Yeah. So four spaces for- Yeah. Move them over ... four paved customer spaces. I think you'd only need one handicap by ADA. Okay. So one handicap and three regular, and then overflow is available in back. Yep. All right. I guess if Walmart came in and said, "We're expanding and what we're going to put in are required parking, and it's only going to be gravel," what would the board's reaction be? Walmart's not here. Yeah. All right. We have a draft condition, special permit, motor vehicle sales,
subject property 962 South Hampton Road. These are our draft special conditions. One, vehicle display storage and parking areas shall be consistent with the submitted site plan. Okay. Which would be today. Yeah, it referenced that. Two, no hazardous materials, chemicals, paints, coatings, pesticides, engine oils, or fuels associated with this use shall be stored or used on the premises except in normal household or vehicle quantities. Three, no vehicle repair, maintenance activities, oil changes, et cetera, is permitted on the premises.
All vehicle preparation, detailing, and the like shall take place indoors except that outdoor car washing is allowed provided soaps are environmentally friendly as consistent with today's specifications provided. Then we have our normal draft conditions. And you may want to just clarify with the sign that without additional permitting, it's got to be static per day- Okay ... for 24 hours or whatever. I agree with that. Did we come up with a number for number one, how many cars on display? That's the plan date, I thought. I'm reading that as the plan date.
Okay. Or is that wrong, Jay? Is that the number of cars? I thought that was the number of cars. What are we looking for? Number one. It says 42. Oh, the condition? Yeah. How many? Because when I came in last week, last time it was 51. Now it seems like it's like 43 or something. It says 42 right here, 42 display car. It's referencing the site plan. Okay. So it says this is your site plan, except we wanted to add that switching out those four customer spaces. Okay. And you could add, I guess that paving extends a little further back. You could add a couple more display spaces. Yeah. But I'm looking for a motion to close public-
Well, a question. Yeah, a question. Oh. Yes. Yes, reach out and grab it. Come forward. Come forward. I didn't... Marian, I- You can't hide behind the law now ... Marian, I didn't see you hiding there. I was hiding. Excuse me, I had to step out for a minute. There you go now. Marian Evidenski, 114 Rogers Avenue. You know what part I'm concerned about, water resource protection. Bay Pack used to take care of this, so I didn't hear what you said about that. Show them the stuff. Show her the- So who took care of that? Here's the soap. That's the soap? Yeah. Yeah. Environmental. Eco soap. Ecologically friendly. It's here as well. No, that's protecting the water resource protection. Is that what you're telling me?
No, there's not doing- It's a friendly soap ... any repairs or anything here. Oh, okay. All right. Sorry. That soap is what they use to wash the cars with, and it's biodegradable and environmentally friendly. I know, because there once was somebody who wanted to put in- We know. That person ... a car wash up there. And they were going to do all kinds of things internally and everything, and they were denied that, if I remember correct. But that happened, so I don't know what changed. That was for a bunch of different reasons. I don't know what changed in the meantime. So they're going to have lots of inspections and that taken care of. Because I'm not very comfortable with how we're dealing
with water resource protection since we don't have Bay Pack anymore. Thank you Make a motion to close public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. Do I hear a motion on the special permit? Make a motion to approve the special permit for, what number? 960. 960. 960 Southampton Road. Second. Okay. We'll start on that side. John? Yes. Cheryl? Yes. Phil? Yes. Ray? Yes. Bernie? Yes. Rich? Yes. And Naomi, yes. Congratulations, guys. Good luck. Thank you guys so much. We really appreciate it. Do we have to read it to you? No, you don't have to, but...
Well. You don't have to. Yeah, we have to. One way or the other. Congratulations on getting your special permit approved. As the applicant owner, you cannot utilize the rights granted in the 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 city clerk signature on the decision,
and you must record the special permit with the registry of deeds. This will be spelled out in an instructional sheet mailed to you, 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, city state code allow for various means of enforcement. Should your non-compliance rise to our level, we reserve the right to revoke your special permit. We appreciate and welcome your willingness to do business in our good city and ask that you cooperate and respect its citizens and procedures. We look forward to your success and hope to see you again as your business
grows and your needs change. Thank you. Nice job, guys. Thank you guys. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Thank you. You guys have a great night. Thank you so much. We appreciate you guys putting the extra work in. Thank you. Yeah. No, no. Thank you very much. Good luck. I guess next on the agenda is TV Realty and Development Inc. for special permit, site plan, stormwater permit for zoning ordinance 3744610 and 4-110 to allow multi-family 44-unit development at 0 Lockhouse Road, Parcel 245-1, Zoned Resident C.
Again, chair recognizes Rich Soloi as a voting member for Jay McGarry. Great. Thank you. For the record, Jeff Squire from the Berkshire Design Group, partner there. We're a civil landscaping firm in Northampton. I'm here on behalf of TV Realty and Development. As mentioned, the property we're looking at is 0 Lockhouse Road. It's Parcel ID 254-1. It's a 16-and-a-half-acre parcel. As you noted, Zoned Resident C. It is bound by railroad tracks on the south and west sides, as well as the Powder Mill Brook on the west
side. The north side is bound by an industrial use, residential and commercial properties to the south on the other side of the railroad tracks. The property fronts on Lockhouse Road just below the intersection with Arch Street. And so, if you go to the next slide, Jay, just sort of a close-up of the parcel. There are resource areas, riverfront area in the back portion of the parcel, the western portion of the parcel, and then two smaller isolated wetland systems in the interior of the site. So we do have a notice of intent in front of the Conservation
Commission at the moment, and that is currently being reviewed. And we also have submitted a stormwater permit, which is, I understand, under their jurisdiction, so that has been also submitted. Next slide. Again, just highlighting sort of the interior developable portion of the site. What you see highlighted is the riverfront boundary on the left side of the sheet. Wetlands and buffer zones are in the center of the site, but no other resource areas are present. Next slide. And then just further out toward Lockhouse Road, you can see Arch Street just to
the north. There's also a wetland system across the street, so fall into buffer zone associated with that, but that's all conservation jurisdiction. This is a view, street view, just looking into the current site. There was a road that went in there that had an enforcement order, so no work has been extended beyond that enforcement. But it's a wooded site in the back. The proposal is to develop 22 duplex units, so 44 units total. It would include an entry road off of Lockhouse Road, and then- A
cul-de-sac style development in the back of the developable portion of the site. These are all very similar modular units. They're roughly 1,500 square feet each, three bedroom. They include a one-car garage on the lower floor, which would be accessed off the main road. So in addition to the interior parking garage space, there's an exterior space that would be associated with each unit, and then there's two additional lots on the top, and the bottom central area that would serve for some of those residents that don't have parking between the units and for overflow.
But we're just over the 2.2 parking requirement per unit for multi-family housing. There are 44 garage spaces, 46 surface spaces, so that nets out to just over 2.2 spaces per unit. 2.3 maybe? I guess next slide. Not sure where that went. Storm water system. Again, just highlighting some of the major elements, but this is mostly a subsurface detention infiltration system. There are systems proposed in between each of the units to collect roof
water that is all infiltrated. These are really good gravelly infiltrating soils, so taking advantage of those opportunities to larger systems underneath the parking or the drive lanes to deal with most of the surface runoff from the parking lot, and then an infiltration basin on the upper right-hand corner to address the stormwater standard requirements for infiltration. And then I think at the front of the site, again, just addressing water runoff from what is a roundabout proposed off of Arch Street or off of
Lockhouse Road. Part of the proposal includes an improvement of the northern part of Lockhouse Road to facilitate two-way traffic. So this would allow residents to enter in from the northern part of Lockhouse Road, enter into the development, and then exit back out to the north. And then similarly, vehicles coming in from the south would have the opportunity to turn into this development. But there would be a no-right turn leaving the roadway. I guess you can continue on. Lighting, we're trying to maintain a really residentially scaled
development, so there are a handful of light poles to light the streets and the vehicle passageways. These are just 12-foot poles. These are all full cutoff dark sky compliant lights. And then each unit, there are two sconces proposed on each duplex over the garages. But those would provide some additional lighting in and around the parking and drive lanes. But the goal was to not over-light this. This is just highlighting some of the areas where snow storage could
be provided. Recognizing that obviously during the larger storms, they would have to truck it offsite, make arrangements to remove large piles so as not to impact traffic lanes, vehicle passage, and resident parking. But there is some space on site to push snow, and yeah, throughout various portions of the site. Landscaping, again, provided a pretty extensive landscape plan. These are all native plants. A combination of woody trees, shrubs, a variety of native plantings.
There's some lawn area right around the use areas associated with the units, and then beyond that is a more diverse pollinator mix- Yeah, there it is ... in detention basins and whatnot to provide some variety there. There they were. And again, just some examples of some of the material that is being proposed. But this is all native material that would be well-suited to this site. Again, just some slide of the proposed unit. So as I noted, these are long, narrow duplex units.
Single car garage in the front. Living space on the first floor, and then three bedrooms with bathrooms on the second floor. They each have an entry from the front and then an exit in the back to a small personal or private patio space. Whether that be paved or grass, but it's designated private outdoor space associated with each unit. I think that may be the last slide. So, happy to answer questions. Didn't want to drag this out too long, I imagine. We did see staff comments
come in. Also saw comments from engineering and other departments, so we'll certainly plan to address all of those accordingly. But didn't have enough time, obviously, before this hearing to provide responses to all those. But we are prepared to answer, and I know Jay made a number of staff comments, suggestions in terms of sidewalk improvements or extensions that I would certainly agree with. So, I don't see any major issues with at least a lot of the suggestions that were made. But yeah, happy to answer questions. How many structures is it? 22?
There's 22 duplexes total. But on your lighting, there's 23. So yeah. So I apologize. The lighting plan, it went to them prior to a slight shift in the units, so there are the outlines of 22 units- There's 23 On the prior one. Yes, on the one underneath. And then on the zoning application, it says 23- 22 units ... well, it says 23, and then on another part of the application it says It should- Yeah, I think it's scaled back from the original. I'm just curious because- Yeah ... it's all over the place. Yeah. No, there's 22 duplexes.
Okay. There should be 22. There's 44 units total. I think it started out as 23. We had some round table discussions, probably some design tweaks, and- Yeah. I just- ... settled on- I just saw the inconsistency- ... 20. 20 ... so I wanted to question it. Good question. Looks like a flag. I have a question on the entrance. Yeah. Do you have a plan B if the city doesn't approve the two-way on Lockhouse Road? No, not necessarily. My understanding is that there's been conversations with the DPW and city departments to facilitate that design. That was something that came
about as a result of those conversations. Very unapproved. What's that, Bill? Yeah, I think the traffic commission has signed, plus the design, but we'll need an ordinance change at some point. I'm looking at the drawing LC161. It shows all the houses, all the duplexes, and then there's a picture of a rendering of what they're going to look like from the front. Mm-hmm. Which one's- That one there. And what I see there is a driveway leading up to the
houses where they could park the car outside of the driveway. Yep. But I look at the drawing themselves, and the front of those houses is right on the street. Right. So the- So in other words, if they don't park either in the garage or as they're coming out, they're backing right out into the street. There's no back out into a driveway. You come out of that garage, you're right on the street. Right. Which is not a very safe thing with cars running up and down the street or kids or bicycles running up and down the street, because you have no view coming if you're backing a car out of any one of those garages. You're backing, and where you got the houses facing one another,
you get two of them backing out at the same time, there's just no space. It's tight. Very tight, and very dangerous because, like I said, you're backing right out onto the street. That bothers me a lot. So, modern backup cameras are pretty good now, but- Yeah, but if you got a car that doesn't have one, it doesn't do you any good. And a lot of older cars don't have them. A lot of newer cars don't have them. You shouldn't come out of a building right onto a street. It just shouldn't be done. I don't see anything, playground accessories, bike racks, things like that.
So we did provide, there is a gazebo and a small community space provided just to the right as you come in at that first intersection, that first fork. Yeah. I see the gazebo. Yeah. Is there a bike rack? Is there- I imagine bike storage would be in the units themselves. I'm not sure- Okay ... this would be a- Any grilling area and things like that? Is that all- Well, so there's that public- Okay ... sort of community space would be at that gazebo. There's some usable lawn space and a small parklet space there. But each unit then also has a
private patio space outside. Okay. Snow removal, you get two, three inches of snow, you're going to be removing it, correct? There's really no- There may be. Yeah. Yeah. What'd you say, maybe? Yeah, depending on what's available and what's... Right. If there's nowhere to stack it, it would have to be removed. There's not something. Right. Is there a provision for bus stop for kids? There hasn't been any discussion of one. We are bringing a sidewalk out to Lockhouse Road to facilitate safe pedestrian circulation. So if there's an opportunity for a bus stop or something, that location, that would
probably make the most sense. I would imagine that's where pickup would occur, but... I'm just curious. Do you only need one fire hydrant for all of those buildings? I just see one, I thought it was- I think we've got two. I'd have to confirm, but I think there are two. I would imagine there would be two. I am on LC171. Mm-hmm. That's why I was looking to see if I'm missing something. We're still waiting on stormwater, right, Jay? And- Well, we did get comments back. They're on the shared drive. It sounds like they're going to address some
issues, so- Mm-hmm ... I don't think they're looking for a- You guys looking for a conclusion? Solution tonight. I think so, yeah. We certainly need time to address some of those comments, and felt this would be a good opportunity to hear the board's questions and concerns. Do you have anything specific we want them to address? I think a bus stop is important, and a bus isn't going to go down Lockhouse Road because it can't go over that bridge. So, I mean- The kids are going to have to wait out on Archer Road. Why? Yeah, I don't know the bus routes are, but I would think if there was a need, it would be at the roundabout or out on Archer Road.
Well, the bus stop at the roundabout, if the bus doesn't go down that street, it serves no purpose. Well, if there were students to pick up, they'd come into the roundabout probably, and then back out, or more likely just on Archer Road. Let's see. Okay. Yeah, certainly the ability for a larger, we did run traffic movements to see that you get a larger vehicle down from the north side of Lockhouse Road and around that roundabout and back out to the north. So if a school bus did need to come in there, they could do that. Is there a common place where they would have to pick up their mail? Would there be a big mail thing or that there's just-
So we are showing, it doesn't show up in this rendering. We've got a location just next to one of those larger parking areas for a larger mailbox that would serve the development. Thank you. I missed that. So the fire hydrant, did the fire department look at this? Because I just think it's odd for just one hydrant. So I didn't know if they approved it or not. Again, we did have a roundtable meeting. I don't know if fire was there. But they would need to meet any requirements. What's that, Jay? They would need to meet any requirements the fire department had, so.
It's just a lot of units. If they required 18 hydrants, that's something they could address. It's not- I just can't see them having one. That's why I'm questioning it with all those units. Yeah, we could certainly add one if there isn't, yeah, one to the back end, but it's- Well, like I said- I would imagine there would be two. Yeah, that's my question, if the fire department looked at that and if they needed to put a second fire hydrant in there. It just seems odd to me to have one for that many units. Jay? According to residential C, and this may not apply because of what these are, it says you've got to have a 25-foot setback on a house. Now, obviously- It says- ... this is a different system.
It says between multiple family structures. So technically, as we define multiple family, is three or more units. So these are different. Where does it say that? I'm just trying to get myself... Residence C. I think he wrote it. Talking this right here, right? No, I'm looking at the zoning here. Yep. And- Something ... and it talks about the setback from the road of 25 feet. But- But yeah, this isn't a road. The road is out at Lockhouse,
near the roundabout. This is just a site driveway. Okay. So it's not- I- There's no zoning setback that would apply to the- To this? ... development driveway. Okay. Because I'm really having a problem with that no setback on these houses. Well, there's a setback, but it's from the property lines, which are quite a ways away, generally. Have you been down to Florida? This is what they do down there. That'd make it right. No. But it's really common, and you're seeing more and more of that, the way that this is designed, I saw it all over down in Florida, where
they're putting new developments in. So I get a little wiggy when I'm down there seeing that. Yeah. The nice thing is it preserves big swaths of green space around it. So even though it's a relatively compact development, it's surrounded by natural areas. So if it was just a big driveway, it wouldn't have trash, it wouldn't have snow, it wouldn't have... If it was just a big driveway. If it's not a road, if the road is Lockhouse, so the city wouldn't maintain snow removal- No ... or trash removal. This is all private. This would be all in HOA, right? HOA, yeah. Yes. I read that. Yeah. They're on their own. Anybody in the public have a question of fact? Please come forward.
Yeah, I just have one. Oh, go ahead. Before we get to the public. There doesn't seem to be anything there for amenities, like at all, and there's nowhere to sit, walk, stand, grill, play, nothing. It's just like a desert. Well, each unit does have private space behind it Those were shown on the building plans. And then there is green space around the units that isn't designated. Is there any kind of a patio or anything? That's right. There's a patio behind each unit, and then there's a larger community space where that gazebo is, that is open
lawn and tree plantings that would serve the larger development, larger community. Yeah. I'm just having a hard time with this plan. It's just not all on one page. It's scattered here. Yeah. So I'm Mike Ventress. Hi. Wyvern Road, Westhill. This is my project. We have 16 acres and we're using three of them. So there's plenty of land, there's plenty of space. Okay. Maybe in this picture, you're just looking at the road and the housing and things like that. Right. But there's 16 acres here. We're using three of them, minus the road.
So if you wanted to go for a walk, there'll be somewhere to walk. You got 14 acres, or you got 12 acres to walk around, do whatever you want. In the very front, on the road, there's a two and a half acre field in the front that we're not even touching at this moment. Well, it seems like you're limited to what you can do because there's all kinds of environmental stuff going on there that you can't build on. We're not building on. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. And Phil, it doesn't quite show up so good on the rendered plans, but if you look at the detailed plans, there's the gazebo area and the common
lawn space at the center of the site there. Yeah. What plan is the gazebo on? I keep hearing about it. I haven't found it yet. If you look on the application on the actual design drawings, like LC151. It's right here. It doesn't really read well on this plan, but this area is the common- And LC121 calls it out specifically, with the sidewalk connection shown going to it, and then that leads out to Lockhouse Road. Hmm. Yes, Barbara. Barbara Rokas, 272 Lockhouse Road. I do have a few concerns about this property.
And I'd like to know, on my realtor site, I have a property on 0 Lockhouse Road for 77 units for sale for 1.5, and it looks like this property. This is not your- Property. So this is not your property. And you did say that, so if you're going up Lockhouse from Southampton Road, you would take a left, and there's a dry bridge that you have to go over to come on Arch from Lockhouse. So I know you're saying that there's
not going to be a right-hand turn if you come out of your complex, you won't be able to go right. Go right, right. However, if the town and if the city's already making that part of Lockhouse a double lane, a two-lane, I'm concerned about somebody now being confused coming up Arch, taking a right onto Lockhouse, continuing over the dry bridge. Do you know the roundabout at Westfield Glass? I'm sorry. The roundabout at Westfield Glass. You know where Westfield Glass is? Yeah. It's the roundabout right there. Same setup.
You have to come up to- You can't go right. It's a big circle. Well, but you're telling me that- Well... So I'm concerned about the safety, and also, Westfield is always fighting traffic problems up around the turnpike. Mm-hmm. This project, so you've got 40 units. Everybody's going to get up to go to work. You've got Commercial Road. Arch Road is commercial. Now you got everybody coming from Lockhouse, up Arch, to go to the turnpike. Now you're going to have people from this development
coming down and merging with... It's dangerous now if I come up Lockhouse onto Arch, and if you now have traffic two-way, I see a problem with the traffic from this. And if you're talking 44 units, you're talking possible 88 people getting up, going to work at the same time. I think that's going to be a hardship on the people from Lockhouse that use that. traffic now, because it's going to be confusing for them to now have possible
44 more cars merging into that traffic. Because they'd have to come off Lockhouse and curve around and come up Arch, when all the traffic from Lockhouse is coming up Arch to go. I think the traffic pattern is going to create problems. Thank you. Agreed. The other side of Lockhouse is going to be the 77 units? Oh, all right. Well, that's not going to be me. Okay. But it's not yours- It's not mine ... okay. Because according to my plot plan- Good ... it looks like yours. I don't know. Okay.
Thank you, Barbara. Okay. Thank you. I want to kind of piggyback on what Barbara just said. I agree. You could see 88 cars coming out of there on a given day. In my opinion, looking at this, it looks like you've got all this acreage that you talk about for the folks who enjoy it, but you're jamming 22 buildings into this. 88 cars, I just think it's just too much. And then they have to do something with that dry bridge, because that dry bridge is only one lane. Okay. Thank you, Barbara. I'm not convinced it's going to be- Thank you ... two lanes either. The bridge isn't- They said that it's already two. Okay. I heard someone else told me it's not.
The bridge won't be changing, and the bridge will remain one way, northbound. I'm sorry? No. Oh. Well, speak at me. Jay. What is it, Jay? I said the bridge won't be changing, and it will remain one way, northbound. However, if you're making that street, Lockhouse from Arch, if you're not going to make that two lane, someone's going to get confused, and somebody's going to go up Lockhouse and go over that one lane bridge in the wrong direction. Mark my words. Mm-hmm. You looking for a continuation? We are looking for a continuation. Okay. Next month? That's fine.
July 21st? Yeah, I think as long as we can gather any comments and- Do you need anything from us? No, unless there's other comments or things that you feel that we need to address. But, I think we've certainly addressed any of the comments that came in and- You picked up what Bernie said earlier, right? About traffic. In the... Yeah. And I just want to say, I know you have 2.2 parking spaces per unit. There's absolutely nowhere for overflow. So Thanksgiving, or a birthday party- Hmm ... or graduation, they can't park on Arch Road. Right. They can't park at the motorcycle shop.
There is some additional surface spaces. Not a lot, but I think we've also got 24-foot-wide roads. So what happens with a mother, a father, and a 16-year-old that just got a car? Where do they put the third car? They'll have to figure that out. That's right. Well, there's going to be parking constraints, obviously, with the development. You don't buy an apartment. You don't get a condo. You got to figure it out. That's a bad answer. Well, I'm banning it, that there's going to be limitations as to what the site can provide. Well, you got 16 acres. I think you ought to be able to figure out something. So, yeah. Just to be clear, so the 2.2
per unit is the requirement. I don't think they quite met that. Requirement means minimum. Right. But they're under that, and that was one of my comments. So, my honest gut impression of this, you got bang for the buck for sure here on how many units you squeezed in here. It really doesn't seem practical to me. You need more parking. You need more open space for people to have their little community. I think you can do better. Do I hear a motion to continue to the 21st of July? Phil, you got anything else on this?
No, I must be at the clock. I need some sleep. Okay. Do I hear a motion to continue to the 21st? I'll make a motion to continue 0 Lockhouse till the 21st of July. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. And you have a general idea of what we're looking for? Yes. Perfect. Yep. Thank you. Next on the agenda is... Well, we have a request for a continuation for Sovereign Builders to the 21st, 1026 Southampton Road. Do I hear a motion? Wait, both of them? Next on the agenda is Sovereign Builders, Inc., to amend special permit, site plan,
stormwater permit, granted 71624 contractor shop. They've asked for a continuation to the 21st. Mm-hmm. Okay. Make a motion to give them their continuation till the 21st. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Next on the agenda is, last on the agenda is, and I apologize, Carouse Realty LLC to amend a special permit, site plan, and stormwater permit, granted 4/6/21 For a convenience store fueling station regarding site layout changes at 2133 Southampton Road, Zoned Business B.
For this hearing, Chair recognizes Rich Sollohub as a voting member for Jay McGarren. Gentlemen, thank you for waiting. Thank you. Good evening. Rob Levesque from R. Levesque Associates here this evening representing Kyrou's Realty. To give you a little background, these parcels were part of a number of parcels up near the Jug Handle that were purchased by Bob Buldock, or the lease was purchased by Bob Buldock, like a hundred-year lease. That was a couple decades ago. I think you guys are familiar with the different projects that have come along. Specifically, we had permitted the...
What do you call it? The Starbucks and Hot Table. Thank you. It's getting late. I'm very tired. So we had permitted that a few years ago. At the time, we were working with MassDOT. We worked with them related to traffic in that area. Generally speaking, we communicated also with the city. You guys permitted a project on this site for Bob Buldock at the time, Pride Stores. Pride Stores were then sold. This property was retained by Mr. Buldock. Mr. Kyrou's, Johnny Kyrou's, is in the process of
purchasing this lease from Bob Buldock. We are in the process, and we have a kind of a timeframe, a ticking clock, so to speak. We really are looking forward to redeveloping this area, getting rid of the Friendly's. That seems to be an eyesore and seems to be a maintenance issue. And what we're going to do tonight is present to you some changes that we've made, not only to the site, but also we've incorporated back in 2022, spoke with Mayor McCabe regarding the idea that the city had related to roundabouts. I don't know if the planning board has seen
that. This may have been discussed in the traffic commission or other places within the city. I'm not sure exactly what you've seen, but basically, there's two roundabouts, and while we're not showing them because they're not part of our project, we have provided space to accommodate those. So in the event that the city does look to affect those roundabouts, specifically at the Jug Handle, at the exit entrance, and then also on Holyoke Road. So there's three locations that they're considering. If those come to fruition, they would need space.
So we've also adjusted our plan accordingly. So the reason we're here before you this evening is that there's a new proponent. We just recently received for the new proponent, we received a license to store permit, which is essentially for the gas tanks, and we're here for minor revisions to the plans. Some curb cuts have changed, and a lot of that has been in concert with our discussions with MassDOT District 2, as well as with the city. So I don't know how well you can see that screen. Probably not that well, so I'm going to stick to the color for
these purposes. You folks in the cheap seats. So you can see here that, and if you remember, I don't know if you recall, and I probably should have brought a comparison, but- It's in here ... the convenience store is very similar in location, and in size. I think it might even be slightly smaller. Generally speaking, we have Friendly's way here. There's this, they call this the east-west roadway. I think that's the name of it. I don't know if it really has an official name. These are kind of internal roadways. There used to be, if you remember, and is right now, a north-south
roadway that kind of comes through these two properties or two parcels. That will be eliminated. We had some discussions about that. One of the big concerns from MassDOT was related to kind of the traffic coming off of the Jug Handle and how that happens. It's kind of not your natural movement. So if you see this green area here, we have accommodated and kind of truncated our site to accommodate, should there be a roundabout someday, a roundabout in this particular location. There also was something proposed here.
We relocated. We had a kiosk. We had met early on with Kristen Mello years and years ago, and she had requested that maybe there was some sort of gateway visitors type of kiosk, and we incorporated that into the site. That was part of Bob Buldock's agreement or discussion, and we carried that through to today's plan. The pump islands are right in front as they were before. Parking around is generally similar. By eliminating that roadway, the north-south roadway that exists now, by eliminating that, we were able
to kind of enhance how the circulation works on-site. And then we've restricted movements and taken information from MassDOT and essentially have an exit only to get out onto Friendly's way. We have an entrance only to get in from Friendly's way. But if you notice, there is no left turns in that particular area. That was one of the big concerns from MassDOT. As part of the section findings from MEPA, they wanted
a light, a signal there. We wanted to essentially eliminate the need to do that, so we were able to part with that movement. The other movements are generally what we've discussed with MassDOT, and as I mentioned, we're here this evening for these amendments. So it is an amendment to the original submission, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have through the chair. That said, and I We do have a timeframe that we're dealing with. Mr. Bolduc, there's an agreement between the parties, and there's a permit in an entitlement stage in this amendment.
As part of that, there's also some components with MassDOT that we're resolving. So the clock is ticking, and not to rush anybody, but hearing that there is not a meeting for another month is concerning because that, I believe, will push into the due diligence period where they cannot get out of this project, and that would be a concern for them. So not that that's necessarily your concern, but just letting you know the realities we're dealing with. So happy to answer any questions you have. Okay. Rob, I'm driving from Boston to go to Lee
for lunch- R225 ... and I have to stop and get gas. I see how to get into the gas station. How do I get back on the Mass Pike? Well, it's a lobster trap. Yeah. It is. I couldn't figure it out today. I'm sorry. Give me the movements again. You're driving- So you're coming off the Mass Pike. Okay. You go in there and get gas. I see a whole bunch of ins. Yes. I don't see any outs. There's outs. So there's an out here. There's an out here. So the concept- There's an out here ... The concept- An out here ... Hold on. Sure. The concept would be on the left, go out, and you can't go left there. You can only go right
because there's that island right there. This one? To left, more left, down, that triangle. So you go out that street, you have to go right. You can't go left. That's correct. That's a current, I think, restriction. So all of those driveways, the one that goes back to the highway is an in, not an out. So you have to show me how you do that. I'm sorry, just that- So the out is actually right here. So if you're on the lot here- What are your favor name, please? Yeah. Suneet Sharma from K. Ruiz Petroleum.
Is there a picture on- So when you're leaving the lot, this is your out here, and then there's also an out in the back here. So both of these will be your exits out, and then you'll come straight across onto the Mass Pike. So that top one is an out. Correct. This is an in. Is that out and in or just out? This is just out, and this is just in. Okay. Thank you. Similar to the other side. Yeah. In, out, and then in. We would've actually liked some additional movements, frankly- Or MassDOT ... but MassDOT is here. So similar to the other side. I'm sorry? There was something similar to that on the other side with the
other two- The Starbucks ... in the triangle. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Similar flow. Yes. Thank you. You're welcome. Yep. You're welcome. Okay. Let's go back to that again. I'm coming off the turnpike. Okay. And I come- It's like a joke ... straight up onto Friendly Way. Except Rich wants a coffee. Okay. Oh, I'm as confused as you are, John. You come up straight up onto Friendly Way. Mm-hmm. Now, to get into that lot, I've got to go all the way around the whole piece, right? Yes. You cannot take a left on Friendly- I cannot take a left on Friendly Way into there. Got it. I've got to go up and around- Heading eastbound on Friendly Way, you cannot take a left
... down the- You need to- I got to go up, go over Owen District, come down the other side, and then get in from the other side, correct? No, you'd need to take a left on Southampton Road. Take a left on Southampton Road. Yeah, you can take a left at the light. Take a left and then- Yeah, you take a left on Southampton Road, and then take a right into the property- Right here ... or you have to go up around the rotary and come back around the loop. Yep. Okay. All right. That's all right. You're going to need somebody to put a sign on the left side that says, "90," and point them this way because they're going to want to go out and think that they can come down, take a
left, and jump onto Southampton Road. They need to understand that they have to go up, around, around, around, and down. Mm-hmm. Certainly, we can handle any signs or suggestions on site. Obviously, the other offsite signs will be regulated by DOT, but good suggestion. It seems that you've got some tractor trailers there now that like to spend the night or two there. Is that still going to be allowed in that spot? I know you have the tractor trailer fueling, but will they be allowed to stay? No, that would just be for fueling. There's a lot just up the way, actually. I don't know if it overflows to this.
Those aren't obviously scheduled. I think it's just lack of attention right now, unfortunately. Yeah. No, I figured that. Yeah. The lot up behind the hotel? Yes. Yeah. Correct. And that may fill up. I don't know. But those, I think, are just folks that found a spot. Yeah, Santorini are there. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So Rob, are you suggesting that you're looking for an approval for a minor change here? For a change. I don't know- Okay ... what the definition of minor is. Whatever you can get away with. Well, they- De minimis ... they're here for a hearing, so it's not an- Yeah ... administrative minor change. Yeah. It's a formal
major change, I guess. Mm. From what the chair told me, Rob's got six minutes to impress us. The rule only says you can't start a new hearing after 10:00. Ah. So we can- Speed round's over ... we can continue all night. I'm almost asleep. Question for Rob. I didn't see, the building plans have not changed? The prior- Yeah ... decision references the- Yeah, good question. We'd be happy to share the build- But there's a different branding, slightly different... We would be certainly happy to share those plans, as a condition, either with the board. We're not overly concerned about those components.
It's really just having entitlements in place before we turn into a pumpkin. Is the building size about the same, or is it bigger? I feel like it's a little smaller. It's 57... I truly cannot remember what the old one was. 5,700 square feet. I think it's almost the same. Okay. Hang on. Is it? Yeah. The old one, 54. Yeah. The old plan's on the sheriff file, but... Yeah. 5,400. Okay. So we're a little bigger? The old one's 54. Okay. Yeah. So 300 square feet bigger, but just about the same.
Rob, on the top part of the two-thirds of the way up, you have a couple islands. One designates between the trucking area and the convenience store, the very top portion of that island. Yes. These brown island right here? Yeah. Yep. So there appears to be a walkway going up through. That's correct, right? That's correct. So cars are going to come up, they're going to fuel, they're going to go take a right, go up out onto Friendly Way, or they go left, up, and they're going to be able to take a right turn at the top, go over, and come out onto Friendly Way. Am I correct on that?
So they come up the left side. Nope. Yep. Go up. Yep. Up and down, that way. They can do that, correct? Yes, they can make that movement. Okay. Yeah, this hatched area, we anticipate that truckers will want to get convenience goods. There's no curbing or anything there they can... Nope. Okay. No curbing. Just to delineate for pedestrian safety. Okay. Any other questions? Anybody in the public have questions? No. So I will note, since the last approval, you've kind of adopted or clarified your landscaping and shade
trees. So, this wouldn't meet your planning board rule about an average of one per 50 feet. It's a rule which you can waive or reduce, but just to know, to comply with that, they'd need to beef up the shade trees a bit. If there was a condition of us being required to provide either in lieu of payment or trees in an alternate location, we would certainly be... That would be reasonable. Okay. Let's see. So you mentioned the kiosk in the bottom right. Is there still something, a plan for something like that?
Yes. That's in our current plan. Yeah. I don't know what will go in there, but that was a discussion. Something. Maps, because we all use maps still. Right. Oh, gods. I think the original permit had a condition they come back with that. Okay. Once that's known a little more, come back with that plan. Would this be a good time to mention the maintenance at the existing building with the broken windows and the- Yes ... graffiti on the front that we don't want to look at anymore? Yes, it would be, and I did relay the last time, because I think the last time I was either here on that item or another item, it was raised to me at
one point. I did communicate. Mr. Bolduc does still control the property. Oh, okay. I did communicate with him. Okay. There was some sort of broken window or something. I think they boarded it up. I do believe they boarded it up. There's a smashed-out window. Okay. I was there today- Okay ... and I was afraid there was somebody in there when I was looking inside. Okay. And then the one right next to it is smashed, but not broken out. Okay. Was he at the planning board meeting tonight? What's that? No, I'm just kidding. It would be nice to actually clean that place up, because it's just a sore spot to see every day, and then people coming off. Yeah.
And with graffiti all over it, nothing's kept up. Yeah. To let you guys in on a little inside baseball, we're working with MassDOT to try to really make this happen. And this step is a prerequisite for... MassDOT wants you to have your local entitlements. I fear, as a resident of Westfield, truly, I fear that if this proponent goes away, that because of some of the MassDOT vision for this area, it will be very hard or impossible for someone to develop this site in the next decade because of
these roundabout plans and how you dovetail into or fit into that process with the state. It's not so much the local, but the state. So it is a complicated effort, and we do have support, which is great. But we're working, we're trudging through that process. So can you do this construction in conjunction with the potential rotaries that are maybe coming? We would plan on doing this- Before ... in a perfect world, before. As I do. And we would be accommodating the area needed.
This business would then, and they're aware of this, would need to limp along while the roundabouts are being constructed. We're aware of that reality, but that is really the only way that that would work. They need to be able to be prepared to have some construction going on. Because I don't think anything would actually move or change in that area. I think it would be snuggling in where they are- Exactly ... right now. We're snuggling those roundabouts. Right. But- Good way to put it. Yeah
... if Friendly's way goes away while they're doing construction, you're in a jam. No, Friendly's way would go away while we do construction, so we're going to take it away. I'm sorry, not Friendly's way. Oh. North, south. You mean Friendly's way? Yes. Oh, yeah, yeah. Friendly's the road. Yeah. I can't imagine they would be... I think as typical- It's the only way in ... with these projects, it wouldn't go away, it would be narrowed, and there would be a traffic management plan, all those types of things. Every green dot up there is a tree? Yes, sir. Or a shrub if they're smaller. I just don't want this to look like... It's the gateway to the city. I don't want it to look like a concrete jungle. I don't want it to look like North
Main Street or East Main Street. Do you know how many trees were short, Jay? Is it a couple? I didn't calculate the footage. One per 50 is not exorbitant. I would say the- Yeah. We need to fit them. We could probably fit them. Just, it is a- I would say the Starbucks hot table landscaping is less than robust. So hopefully this could be a little more beefed up. Can you agree to that? Robust landscaping? Yeah, much more robust landscapes. I think so. I don't know how to define that, but sure. It doesn't seem like it'll be very hard. No. I can't picture the trees right now.
Yeah. No. We would be happy, as mentioned, we'd be happy to either pay into a fee or landscape. Just we could work out administratively where to put whatever extra trees are required. Yeah. Again, your standard is one per 50 feet. If you want to bump that up, not require as many trees, you can. I'd like to see little trees in there, but not to a point where it can end up being a safety hazard. But again, it would look nice if we had something a lot nicer to look at when you're coming off the ramp or driving downtown,
aesthetically pleasing. So as a condition to a potential amendment, we would be willing to resubmit a landscape plan. I would suggest more robust shrubs that we can hopefully keep low-lying. There's a lot of turning movements, but we could certainly incorporate trees, and then if the planning board wanted to see that at a future date, at least we would then hopefully have our entitlements, and then you guys can make sure that we have robust landscaping. Yeah, but we also don't want it to be the concrete jungle too- Yeah. Right ... with different big trees in there. No. I agree. Yeah. No, I agree
totally. Okay. I could agree to that. I like it. One of the things I do like about it is the cars are actually contained inside the lot as much as possible. Yeah. You know what I mean? Because Friendly Way can be a pretty busy area. It can be a really busy area, and to get to the turnpike, you really don't want them going out on that east-west road, that service road, and taking a left onto... That's reserved for me taking that left. You can't take a left there. You can't? Since when? Oops. Since always. Put it in four-wheel drive, I suppose you can.
So I kind of like it. All right. Any comments from the public? We do have a draft decision. It's really not that long. Special permit, site plan approval, stormwater management permit. This is an amendment. Subject property, 2133 Southampton Road. Our draft findings, special conditions. Having reviewed the site plan and layout changes proposed, the findings described and said original special permit are hereby reaffirmed and its conditions shall remain in full force and effect except for the following conditions which shall be revised as follows.
One, the... This is not it. One, the site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved revised site plan titled "Proposed Commercial Development," sheets C1, C2, D1, and D2, dated 2-10-21, and C3 through C7, revised, and D3 through D6, revised 5-21-26, as prepared by R. Levesque Associates, Inc., Project 251013. Signed and sealed by Robert Levesque, RLA, or Philippe Gravelle,
PE, and with the submitted photometric plan, Pride C Store, revised 11-9-20, as prepared by LSI and constructed in general conformance, exterior appearance With the submitted architectural plans prepared by Pride G.A1.1. So- That's going to get changed, right? We can change, we can add a second condition or additional condition. They submit the building plans, your usual- Okay ... submit the plans later condition. Plan modifications pursuant to sections
3-10246D, and planning board rules 5.8. Shade tree shall be added to result in a total quantity of one per 50. I guess we're amending that one as well, right, Jay? Well, it's up to you. That's your rule. That's our rule, and they need to come back and submit a landscaping for us. We can say the board may administratively reduce this requirement upon submission of an alternative- Sure ... landscape. An alternative- Yep ... beefed up or whatever landscape plan. And do we have anything for the second one, B? Or are we good?
Well, if the board wants any other changes, I don't know. Yeah. Does the board want any other changes? After expiration of the appeal period, paper and digital PDF copy of the site plans incorporating any modifications, hearing conditions shall be submitted to the planning board office prior to making application for a building permit or commencing the subject site construction. And then we have a 10, maintenance and inspection. Maintenance of the stormwater management system shall be in compliance with the submitted long-term operation and maintenance plan, Appendix G of
the Stormwater Drainage Report prepared by Arlo Peck Associates Inc., revised 5/21/26. Inspection reports completed not less than once annually, shall be submitted to the city stormwater coordinator, DPW. This condition shall be deemed to constitute an operation, maintenance, and inspection agreement binding on all subject owners of the land. I'm remembering sign plans too on the older plan. So we can include the updated sign submission with the updated building- Okay ... submission as well. Can I ask another question?
I thought about this when he was reading the thing. In the back, you've got your tractor trailer handling, and the front is for your cars. Are they going to include some gas pumps in the back for RVs and housing? Because an RV is not going to get to the front pumps. The guy pulling a trailer is not going to be able to get to those front pumps or a big gooseneck. We- We can't make those turns. They could. I think we haven't talked about that operationally, but we could... It's not a bad comment, actually. You know, you- We could look at it. Yeah, the plan originally doesn't
include gas pumps in the back, only for trucks in the back. However, based on the spacing here, RVs or a truck pulling a trailer should be able to get in. But we'll confirm that. Okay, because you get somebody with a full-size pickup truck pulling a 30-foot trailer. Sure. It's tough to make those turns. Absolutely. Where if he could go into the back where the tractor-trailers go and pull up to a gas pump. A lot of those are diesel, so they're going to go back there anyway. Absolutely. But the guys that are gas jobs, to make that front turn and get in
there, especially if you got any kind of traffic going on, will be very tough for somebody with a big trailer. It's a good point. We'll take a look at the calculations for the measurements for the turning radiuses and incorporate that- Yeah, and- ... into the plan ... and seriously look at putting some pumps in the back, gas pumps in the back. One station anyway. Sure. Because I know that the station here in town, they have a diesel pump, and they also have gas pumps connected. It's the same pump. Correct. It's all four on one. Right. At least one station out in the back for that, I think would be necessary. Especially being right off the turnpike, people are going to hop off
there to fuel up with a rig. And I got to admit, some of them are very amateur at driving. We see it every day. So that would be a very good addition in my mind. Good comment. Thank you. So we have to condition that? I think we should. I really do, because more and more people are pulling big trailers, and they would not want to get into that mess in the front. I don't think we should. I think that's a business decision, but that's me. If there was a condition where we provide... I think it's a good comment. I really do. I would say we should look at it, and we should confirm, and we should consider it. So,
maybe if it wasn't mandated, but looking at it was mandated- Right ... and we provide that information in the supplemental information would make sense. Right now, it's a suggestion. Right. That's what I think. Yeah. I mean, you could- The lower your gallon, we can get, so... I think it's a good business decision. So, yeah. All right. Do I hear a motion? We need a motion to close the public hearing. I make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Do I hear a motion on the special permit site plan approval stormwater management permit amendment, 2133 Southampton Road? I'll make a motion to approve
the site plan on Southampton Road. As conditioned? As conditioned We missed the last one. And amend it. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. We'll start with Michelle. Yes. John. Yes. Bernie. Yes. Rich. Yes. Ray. Yes. Phil. Yes. And I'm a yes. Let's see. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. We'll see you back in front of us with the landscape. I will, as I did last time, I will communicate with Mr. Buldock. I believe last time I copied either the chair or the planner- Yep ... and I'll make sure at least the correspondence- I think you forgot her last time. Thanks, guys. Gentlemen, thanks for staying late. Thank you. Next on our agenda is
other business. Street acceptance petitions for Alexander Place and Daniel Ridge, referred from city council. So this is a, I guess, relatively newer 1989 subdivision. So more or less current standards. I ran on our worksheet, our scoring worksheet for our street acceptances. I ran these, and they score a seven, which favors acceptance. But the city council will look for your recommendation.
So there's no document associated with these. It was just the matter was just referred. So looking for a recommendation. Anybody? It's a new... It's much newer subdevelopment. I make a motion we make a positive recommendation for acceptance for these two streets to the city council. Yeah. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Unanimous positive recommendation. Next is review of draft 2026 open space and recreation
plan. So hopefully you all had a chance to review it. It's fairly lengthy, but it's been submitted to the state for approval. It does require a planning board review letter, and there's a draft of that on the shared drive as well. So, comments, changes, recommendations? Were there any significant changes from the last one? Yeah. Some things were accomplished since the 2018 plan, so some action items went away, some new ones came on. The goals and objectives are more or less continued. The broader big picture goals are still the same.
Hey, Jay, I got a question, because I'm wondering if this is similar to a war between my two neighbors for this situation. But when it has on 4-20.4, number 1, where it has accepted that yards may contain overhanging eaves, gutters, and cornices- Right ... of less than three feet in length, is that when somebody's corner house is over the neighbor's lot? Because the way I'm reading that- You can't- ... this happened behind me. This isn't the open space plan, but you can't trespass
a structure onto someone's property. That's why when I was reading this, it reminded me of what happened if somebody, when they built their house, they didn't actually look at the plans of the lots, and the eave ended up over their property, the neighbor's property. Okay. Do we want to work on the open space letter first? Oh, is that what we're doing? Yeah. Oh, I'm getting tired. I'm sorry. Sorry. So perhaps someone wants to make a recommendation to endorse the open space plan?
Looking for a recommendation. Who wants to make it? I haven't read it all. I didn't either. I started reading some of it, but I haven't checked it off. You were on the committee, right? Huh? You were on the committee. Well, we got updates, and I haven't had a chance to read all of them. Yeah. So, I think you've seen a lot of it as it developed. Cheryl, I think you approved it. Hmm? I think you approved it. I did? Because that'll get us out of here. That's a little while ago, wasn't it? Yeah. Okay, so I guess I should approve it, and I approve it. There you go. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Thank you, John. You're welcome. Jay just has the most confused look.
I'm trying to move it along here. And everybody bump this thing over here. I'm so sorry. John, do you mind if we punt down lot size averaging down the road? Well, I almost want to take it back because I reread- Mm-hmm ... the ordinance anyways. Yeah. And it goes down to 5,000 square feet already. Okay. I don't think anyone's going to ever ask for less than that. Okay. So I rescind my request. All right. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Wait, wait, less than 5,000 square feet on a new build? That's already the ordinance. Okay. Motion to adjourn. There you go. Second. All those in favor?
Me. Aye. I want this one. I want to thank these ladies. See everybody on the 21st.