In New Jersey. No, she's a junior, but it's the last game of the season. She's with five seniors, two of them are her best friends, and one is her roommate. So it's a big game for her. It's a big game. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good evening, everybody. It is 7:00, and we are calling the May 5th- 6:00. I'm sorry, 6:00. It is 6:00. We are calling the May 6th, 2026 planning board meeting to order. First on the agenda is public participation on
any matter not subject to a public hearing. Anybody have anything they want to talk about in the city that's not subject to a public hearing? Next on the agenda is the review and approval of our 04/21 minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the April 21st minutes. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Good. Next on the agenda is our public hearings. Today we have only zoning special permits and indoor site plan approvals. After the applicants present their proposal, board members will begin asking their
questions. We will invite the public to ask questions of fact. We have a separate time for the public to speak in favor of and speak against the motions. When we recognize you, please come to the microphone, give your name and address, and direct all questions or comments to the board, not the applicant. The purpose of our public hearing 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 ordinance,
nor the stormwater ordinance where also sought. Please understand public hearings are not a community referendum nor a town meeting. We ask you to keep comments civil and positive, remembering we are all neighbors working to move Westfield forward. While you are free to express your opinion, ultimately, legally, the board can only deliberate on the findings of fact, not on yours or our personal opinions. First on the agenda is a continuation for Praba Corporation for a special permit for zoning
ordinance section 3-100.36 to construct a commercial building exceeding 1,500 square feet at 288 Elm Street, zoned core. For this hearing, the chair recognizes Rich Soloi for Ray St. Hilaire. That's all right. Is the applicant ready? Yes. Go ahead. All set? My name is Bradford Moyer. I'm an attorney in Westfield with an office on Broad Street. When things get a little tricky, they usually call the old guy in, so I'm here tonight. I wasn't here at the last meeting. What I want to do is walk the board through the history of this.
I'm not sure it was explained really well. Do you have that first... Okay.This is the plan that existed for the previous development there a long time ago. Some of you older people might remember there was a burger place or something else there. So this initial plan, this is where Pasquali's is right now. This is the boundary. This was the only easement that was reserved here.
Then there was a really not well-defined easement from Orange Street, just the north. No parking, no anything. So this was the only right of way, and the other one was from Orange Street. You have the next one, Jay? This was the deed, Pasquali, and it was this right of way, Elm Street, that little corner. So that was the only legal way he had in. He had no way to get to where his pizza place is. And then if you go to the second page, Jay. This is the easement that was described from Orange Street.
It doesn't give any dimensions. It just says, "For ingress and egress through Orange Street from the westerly concrete apron up to his building." So again, it gave no parking, and this was really vaguely described. Do you have the next? This was a survey done of what existed on the ground. This area ended up in a land court case between Mr. Shaw and Mr. Pasquali, just to define and correct all these encroachments and easements. So what happened was, his building on the side just about hits the boundary where his pizza is.
This was the only way in, so there's no parking. So these were hatched. There was planters over, there was other things on each side, so there was a lot of encroachments. You have the next. What happened then was an agreement for a judgment, this land court case, which was crucial for the next development. So what it did, can you scroll down a little? Prava, which owns the Gulf station, granted plaintiff, who was Pasquali, a non-exclusive easement beginning on Orange Street, 20 feet wide and running across. Okay?
So one, he couldn't put signs, he couldn't put stuff. So we clarified that. So non-exclusive easement. We're not talking right of ways, we're talking mutual easements here. So can you go down a little too? And then there's a plan at the end. Then Prava also gave an easement at the back of the property. So if you were looking from Elm Street at Pasquali's, all in the back there was owned by the Gulf. So we gave him an easement for parking so he could park way in the back for his pizza place.
He has a right for parking, sole obligation to pay for, create, do all that plow, everything. Then because of that triangle that came from Elm Street, they gave him no real access to his pizza place. The court case involved what are called easements by prescription and all that kind of complicated mess. So they gave him a 15-foot wide easement for ingress and egress from Elm Street to the area in the back, purposely to get to the pizza easement. So plaintiff and his customers' agents have the right to use a portion of this land to the extent
necessary for his vehicle. So 15 feet of plaintiff was Pasquali. The agreement was, yeah, he can punt to our land if he needs to if cars are passing. So we gave him that right, too. But then Prava also had the right for ingress and egress and the right to temporarily obstruct, because his gas trucks come there. And he had that. So we also had, you can go down a little bit. There would be no parking signs. And then what was really important, in front of the restaurant, the east side, there'd be no parking on the Prava land. Okay? He also had to remove the planters.
And then, let's see, if we go down. Then he also had to change the pizza door from facing to the... He had to go to the west side. We don't want anybody coming out into any of these right of way easements. And then the door on the east side of the restaurant was only going to be used for emergency. So all that was done so that the goal was to have pizza parking in the back, allow for ingress and egress mutual from Elm Street and Orange Street. And then there was a plan at the end. It was attached
to form the basis, and everybody signed it. So this formed the basis. So what we did, instead of the triangle, here's the 15 feet, then here's the 20 feet from Orange Street, the parking in the back, and then changing the pizza door to the other side, getting rid of this door going out, using this for emergency only. And so that was the package deal. And the agreement told everybody that Mr. Shaw was going to apply to have a convenience store with a drive-up. And then the next one, maybe.
Oh, there's an app. Sorry. Yeah. So when we went for a zoning determination while Clarissa was still here, we said, "Look, we're going to have 2,592 square feet." If you go to the next page, Jay.We're going to have a convenience store and drive-through. And what did Marisa do? She says, "All we need is a special permit site plan from the Board of Appeals, no planning board." But again, this is just the background of this case. So it was our position that because this was a Zoning Board of Appeals decision
on an application to alter, change, or extend a non-conforming use, that it alone had the authority over that use. The more vague question was the planning board with the more than 1,500-square-foot building. So, we want to get this approved. I think it was important to just see the background, the fact that what's created now are really mutually beneficial easements and access. Safety, we've changed the doors, we changed the pizza. Some of these things haven't quite been done yet, but this is an enforceable
agreement. So when we looked at this, we decided, look, for some reason, a decision was made to apply because someone felt the board had authority over a 1,500-square-foot building. I am not sure if that's the case, but I'm happy to present to the board, and we ask for you to approve it, and Mr. Levesque will explain a little bit more. But does anybody have any questions for me about the background, any issues, access, et cetera? Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Brad. For the record, Rob Levesque from R. Levesque Associates. I wanted to thank the board for the bit of information
at the last public hearing. We did hear what you had to say, and we incorporated a number of those comments and questions into a revised plan. So the plan that you have before you, and I think Jay has some information related to the building that we can certainly share. We might have some more updated information since what you've seen. But basically, to my left, and maybe if we could bring it up on the screen, we have the revised site plan. There was comments from a number of individuals at the last public hearing, certainly specifically related to the drive-through, the amount of
stacking that was available, how it worked, whether or not it was independent from the rest of the site. So, back to Brad's comment, obviously, the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a permit, pre-existing non-conforming use, issued a permit for the building and the drive-through. We're here again this evening for you to grant a special permit for the building in excess of 1,500 square feet. What we were hoping to do, and expect to do, is hopefully get a blessing from the planning board in general on the revised plan that we have. We would be happy to go back before the ZBA as appropriate,
whether informally or if the plan needs to be amended formally before the ZBA, we would certainly do that. But we wanted to come back tonight and talk to you about the merits of what we had changed, and then get into really the building itself. Vinnie Shaw had done a number of iterations and research on the building based on the branding that he has for a Gulf station, as well as your typical convenience store. And we do have some additional information, last-minute information to show you. Because of the nature of the CORE district and the materials that were originally
being shown on the Gulf, we do have something to hand to you this evening that's actually a brick building as opposed to the other materials that were being used, which we think will potentially be more in keeping with the CORE district. So we'll show you that tonight, too. But just to review the site plan-related changes. So what we had done is reconfigured the dimensions of the building. It was a little bit more stout and wide originally. We increased the depth of the building and truncated the width, which allowed us to get the square footage, generally the square footage we need.
We had a minor increase in the square footage. The drive-through, we were able to create that independent nature where we have access that's independent from the drive aisle to the east or right side of the plan. We've incorporated a bike rack in the corner and also just some minor adjustments to the previous plan. So, the plan, I think in general, hopefully addresses a lot of the concerns that you have. I think it kind of stands on its own. Certainly would go back to the ZBA as needed. We'd be happy to answer any questions through
the chair that you may have, but we think we have addressed generally what you were looking to have addressed. And again, happy to answer any questions. Questions from the board. Comments, anybody? I just have one question. So I understand that there's three access points here to get in and out of here. If I see this correctly, two on Orange Street and one coming in or out on Elm? Yeah, that's correct. So there's an existing curb cut on Elm that will remain. There was an existing- Is it left or right, or is it just- Full service, yeah. Okay. There was a curb cut, also additional curb cut near the corner on Orange
right here. Okay. That will be closed. So that will be closed. The curb cut on Orange will be- Yeah ... shifted away from the intersection and will be aligned with our traffic pattern internal to the site. That hasn't changed since the last public hearing. And then we have, well, I don't want to say ever so slightly, butIn a minimal fashion, we have adjusted the curb cut onto Orange Street to make the drive-through work better and provide the dimensional changes that we needed. So that curb cut is slightly different, but generally in the same location. And then our drive aisle over on the east side, we have that independent
island, brought the building over, we were able to create... This is the big change here, which we think is a big improvement. Adds additional stacking spaces, as well as separating those movements. The only thing I worry about is the backup traffic. Yeah. I see this all the way through, but that is such a congested area down there, and I'm just curious how this is going to work. Yeah, it does exceed your requirements for stacking. Sorry? Although the ZBA has already previously approved the site plan, we would be going back with
these amendments that increase the stacking, and we do meet your requirements for stacking. So, from the pickup window and as well as the ordering kiosk, which have been adjusted as well. Other questions, comments? I was wondering if you have any information or any statistics from Gulf as to the traffic at their other drive-ups that mirror this, the number of cars per hour on peak hours. I do not. I don't think we anticipate this will be a Gulf-related tenant. We anticipate this will be a separate tenant.
Okay. So it would depend on the tenant. A Dunkin' Donuts would be different than maybe a Subway or something. Correct. Yep, and we don't anticipate this being a Dunkin' Donuts either. They closed the adjacent store. There's no discussions with Dunkin' Donuts. Given the other Dunkin' Donuts, and I do represent Dunkin' Donuts in this area. Given the other Dunkin' Donuts, this likely would not work for them from a stacking standpoint, as you can see from the Main Street store and the other stores. Yep. Well, you said you don't anticipate that. What do you anticipate going in there?
It's on spec right now. Uh... Mr. Shaw is working with tenants. They don't have a tenant for that. Okay. Or working to secure tenants, not necessarily working with tenants as of yet. All right. Well, it could make a big difference with the stacking as to who the tenant is. If it's something that you've got maybe four or five cars an hour instead of four or five cars every three minutes. I completely agree with you. I think I said at the last public hearing that the tenant selection and the coordination on that is important. Again, all due respect to Bob Bolduc,
his drive-throughs, I've never seen a car in them. The Pride stations. But if it's a Dunkin' Donuts, you probably need a lot more than we have. Right. Thank you. How wide is the drive-through lane? The drive-through lane is 12 feet. 12 feet. Okay. I like what I see, where you've taken and gotten the two 12-foot lanes going north and south or east and west, and where you've broken them off from the drive-through lane, which you didn't have before. So I'd like to see that. And as long as you get to 12 feet, you should be okay in there. The changes you've made, I like. Thank you. I like them a lot because they give you what you need, and they also give
us the clearances that we need or give me the clearances that I think we need to get in and out of there. So we'll make the curbs amountable as well, so that if for some reason, somebody takes a tricky turn, it's not like we're doing vertical granite curb here. It'll be a little forgiving on your rims, so to speak. The only concern I've got now is on the exit. When they come out of there, they're going to either have to cut back underneath the pumps to get out to the Elm Street exit, or they're going to have to make a quick cut to get out to that Orange Street, and that's going to make a tough turn there, but...
Congested area. Yeah. If they back up on Orange Street, you never know what's going to happen in there so. I'm just curious to see how this will actually work out later, when it's installed and having to back up, because there are times when you go downtown, and nobody can get out of Orange Street. And there's no light there, and it can get really backed up. And in the summertime, it's even worse because you have a lot more traffic. So I'm just wondering, is there any
talk about anything for the future if it gets really congested that you can't move to get out of Orange Street? So, I guess the short answer is no. The convenience store exists there now, although in a much smaller capacity. So the convenience store will be expanded. The gas station already exists. They're generally capturing pass-by trips. People that are already going that route to and from. They're going to look to capture additional pass-by trips.
I agree with you. I think we all agree with you that Elm Streetis a busy street, busy roadway. I think reducing the curb cuts near the intersection and moving the curb cuts near the intersection of Orange Street and Elm is an improvement over existing. Again, we have people going in and out. I really think the new introduction, obviously, is the drive-through. Right? So- I know it's not really that busy right now because I've watched- Right ... down there a lot where the gas station isn't used as much, and there's plenty of them around. Right. But once you put a building in, I think it will change a lot of things, and people will go in and out. So that's why I'm more worried
about is that congestion and what it's going to do because anytime... And you know, Rob- Oh, yeah ... it gets really backed up. Absolutely. Yeah. So I don't think we're going to improve the conditions, certainly on Orange and Elm. I think the movements might be a little bit better in and out of the site. That said, we're looking at what I would say is a reasonably successful tenant. You're not going to get a 7 Brew here. You're not going to get a Dunkin', frankly, most likely. Mm-hmm. So this drive-through would have to be something that has a few stacking. If you look at the Taco Bell on East Main Street in Westfield,
right? They very rarely stack beyond- I know it's- They very rarely stack. So you could be effective with a use, maybe a Yum Brands type of use, something that the ordering gets moved along pretty quickly. Yeah. So tenant selection is going to be important. The plan is much better, though. I concur. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Jay, can I ask a question about stacking? I read somewhere that our stacking regulation is 10 cars. Is there any stacking regulation in regards to the order kiosk versus the pickup kiosk, or is it
just straight 10 cars? It only references the window. Without window. So if there's an order kiosk, that doesn't count? Well, like I said, the 10-car requirement is in reference to stacking from the window drive-up service, so... Okay. And then my second question might be a Brad question. I think it's 3-106 prohibits a drive-through in the core district. Can you explain how that's allowed? Sure. Under the master general laws and under our
zoning ordinance, the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to alter, extend, or change non-conforming uses or structures. The purpose of that is this was a legal station years ago, and then zoning changed. So you can't penalize- Can you speak into the microphone? I'm sorry. Okay. Because there's people at home listening. So you can't penalize owners and say you can't do anything. So the standard is that you can alter, extend, or change non-conforming uses, provided that the change is not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. So when we went in front of the ZBA, and they're the only body that has the authority to do that, respectfully, the planning board has no authority to alter any non-conforming uses. So we went before them, and what we showed them was better. Now, the phrase substantially more detrimental means it has to be really major detrimental, the change. And this is a positive. The police were even in favor of it when we went out there because they wanted the curb cuts changed. They wanted it moved, and they want it eliminated. So Mr. Shaw did that.
So- The police were in favor of the curb cut change or the drive-through window? No, they were in favor of the curb cut changes. Okay. Yeah. I just want to clarify that. Yeah. They went out- Okay. Thank you ... a long time when we were doing this. So it's a broad authority, but it has to be there because you can't penalize people when times change. So the old service station that didn't have food, those don't exist anymore, those little stations. What exists are convenience stores with drive-throughs. And so that was the logical extension, and then the board clearly found it was not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, it was a positive on their neighborhood. So they have the sole authority to do that.
Did I answer your question? Sort of. So I understand ZBA granted the authority to do it. I get that. Yep. If that didn't happen, my question, I think, would be more valid because I don't think that... I understand when the gas station was built, it wasn't prohibited to have a drive-through. The gas station never had a drive-through. So you can't grandfather something that wasn't there. This isn't grandfathered. Grandfathered means it's a protected use. This is a change or an
alteration or an extension of a valid non-conforming use. That's a big difference. Grandfathering means what you have is protected. But if you want to change it, again, our zoning ordinance uses maybe a 10%, or it uses some figure as to how much it has to change before you need a finding, which is a special permit. So the difference between grandfather is this was protected, but since he wanted to change it and he did something more significant, he had to go to ZBA. So the ZBA has this broad power. So it has to be there
because if you took the approach that once it's non-conforming, you can't do anything to it, then it defeats completely their authority to alter, extend, or change non-conforming uses. So they have broad power. It's not used that much, and in this case, it was totally appropriate. The example I can think of, well, the only reason we're here, at least in my opinion, is the 1,500 square feet. And even that, again, it's fine. I think the board has some good ideas. I even am not sure if the board has authority over that, but I don't want to test
that. So that brings me to my next question. If ZBA has the authority to approve the drive-thru window, but they did not even look at the plans for the drive-thru window, who approves the plans for the drive-thru window? The ZBA does. They did, as far as I know. Yeah. They approved it. In front of them, we had all this information. We gave them a lot of detail for the plans, the whole bit. They also had the site plan approval. It was a part of theirs, so they did that, too. So I just want to make sure. So the difference between grandfathered means
it's legal. Extending, altering, or modifying a non-conforming use is a different finding. Okay? It's in the ordinance under the Board of Appeals, and it's in the statute, and it requires that the change not be substantially more detrimental. Now, it doesn't mean you could take a store like that and put a cannabis store there, because that's totally different. Okay? Okay. Thank you. Excuse me, when did the applicant buy the building? I'm sorry? When did the applicant buy the building? 10 years ago. 20... How long-
But you guys had- Could you please come to the microphone and- I've come ... name and address, please. Hi, my name is Vinnie. Mm-hmm. I'm the owner at 288, and I'm there under lease agreement with Getty Petroleum first, back in Then we leased it until 2013, when the parent company of fuel supplier, they went under, and we had no choice except buy or get out. So we decided they were kind enough, and we had an opportunity to buy this building. So that happened in October 2014.
Jay. And I agree with John, okay? I kind of see all sides of this, and I'm just not happy about a drive-thru window in there. I understand how 410 works, okay? I'm not quite sure I buy 100% into it, but I don't like the argument, I don't buy the argument that just because he bought it, he gets all those rights. So in 3-106 (5) , it says, "All uses which
utilize a drive-in/drive-up window are prohibited, except that the planning board may issue a special permit for such a facility for banks, drugstores where a facility is located at the rear of the structure in the lots, and for hotel porticos." And it goes on, "Where the board specifically finds that such facilities would result in a better project and be consistent with and maintain the intent of the core district." So if that clause was in there on day one when this ordinance was written,
I would say yes, he's entitled to those rights. But if this clause went in after... It's the other way around. If this clause was not in there on day one, either way, the point is when did he buy it, and when did the clause go in? Because it does make a difference. Well- Now, that being said, I like the plan. I think this plan is significantly better than the last plan. It cleans up a lot of messes. Rich, your point to the guys coming out, taking a hard right turn or going through the gas station,
I think at the end of the day, traffic patterns and traffic and getting in and out of there, people will figure out that I have to take a hard right turn, and I'm going to spend 15 minutes getting out to Orange Street. They might stop going through the drive-thru, or they might say, "Okay, I'll only go through at midnight because I can get out right away." Because I watch it in West Springfield that way as well. But my point is when he bought it really does make a big difference here, and what did the ordinance read when he did buy it? Well, see, the
non-conforming rights follow use, not ownership. So the use has existed there for decades, regardless of ownership. So as long as the non-conforming use continues, whoever owns it has the ability to alter or extend, and if it's a significant alteration or extension that falls to the Board of Appeals to decide if it's significantly more detrimental. And in this case, I think the ZBA wrestled a little bit with the drive-thru, but ultimately found overall
it was not substantially more detrimental than the existing use as it exists now, non-conforming. Okay. Thank you for the explanation. Tom.Again, as I said, I think this plan cleans up a lot of concerns we had with it. I think it's a much better plan than what we saw before. So anybody else, comments, questions? Anybody in the public have a question, please come to the microphone. These are questions, not public comment. Kenneth Mendoza, 25 Kellogg Street. I have a question.
What are they going to do about traffic going through Pasquale's and cutting out through Orange Street while the other vehicles are coming out of the new gas station at the same time? The road's already too narrow there, and you got traffic coming in this way from Elm to Orange Street, and a lot of people already do shortcuts through Orange Street. And of course, there's a lot of children up in that area. How are they going to stop people from being impatient and going through Pasquale's to cut out to Orange Street? Can we put a bump in there? Can we put a speed bump?
Sorry. It's a legitimate question. So to clarify, if I understand the question correctly, the concern is people traversing through the site to avoid the intersection. Is that fair to say? Yeah. So there's nothing there now to prevent them from doing that. So if anything, our changes are going to further define what's kind of undefined now. No one wants a bump or a speed bump or a hump in their parking lot. You wouldn't want it in yours. I wouldn't want it in mine. You got to plow. We live in New England. I don't think it's warranted. And frankly, we're required to keep that access open for the purposes
of allowing people to pass and repass based on the easement that Attorney Moyer had detailed earlier. So I would not suggest it. I don't think it's warranted. If they have an issue with that, the two owners can police that. But right now, I don't know if I see that happening although I'm down there quite a bit. Our office is in the core district. It may be an issue, but they would certainly address it from an ownership standpoint if it becomes an issue. May I go to the board to be more specific, though- Sure ... to point out to the board? Right. So
right now, there's people that still cut through Pasquale's to hurry up and go through Orange Street to get to Franklin. So you're going to have simultaneously vehicles coming through here, exiting here. You're going to have vehicles exiting through here out to Orange Street. Either they're going to take a left or a right, and you're going to have vehicles entering in here as well. So it looks like an accident waiting to happen, where you got multiple vehicles on a busy day exiting and entering these narrow streets right here. So that's what I'm-
I just want to show you something. So through the chair, if it's okay. So other folks can see. So there's a curb cut here right now. We're closing that. So that will eliminate the ability for people to cut across and do that dangerous connection to Orange Street. We're shifting the curb cut that exists there up this way. As far as traffic passing and repassing, people need to get in from both directions to get to the takeout window for Pasquale's. We can't prevent that. These are businesses that need to be able to operate. And same thing here. You see this light
rectangle here, kind of rectangle polygon? That's being shifted. The building will be shifted back, so there'll be more control and more access, so people that want to go in and use the gas station can do that. I don't think it's going to be any more inviting, if anything, a little bit less inviting to do that cut-through now. And if you were to try to eliminate that, you'd be eliminating access to, and frankly, going against the easement that was put in place based on the court case. Yeah. We can't put a drawbridge in there. We need to allow people to pass and repass.
I think it's a very good question. I think if cut-throughs occur, they're only going to occur at very weak non-peak hours, which are probably occurring anyways right now, because people will look at it. I think eventually time will take care of that. The island makes the physical appearance seem a little bit smaller. The space seems smaller. Okay. And a little bit of traffic and everything will take care of that. I think since they put that right-turn only lane right in front of that gas station
for Orange Street, that's eliminated a lot of that because I've never seen that back up in all the times I go through there. That usually just moves right around the corner. So there's really no need to cut through because that lane moves very nicely. Coming out of Orange Street's another story entirely, but moving into Orange Street off Elm, coming from the north side, that traffic flows very well with that right-turn only lane there. Anybody else with a question, please come forward. Hi. Good evening. My name is Odette Wells.
I actually live on Orange Street. I've been a lifelong resident of Westfield, and I've actually lived on Orange Street my entire life. That area, I feel what, number one, a new store, very nice front. It looks much nicer than what's currently there. But what they're downplaying is this area is so congested. It doesn't matter what time of day I try to leave my home, it's always congested. Traffic, foot traffic, bicyclists. I watch on a daily basis several instances where accidents could happenThe fact that they're putting
in bigger storefront with additional amenities just means additional vehicles stopping there. It increases the- Is there a question here? Well, the question is similar. What do they intend? They haven't answered what will they do about the traffic. And the right turn, that's not true. People take that lane and then have to stop. It cut traffic off in order to keep going forward. So there's already a traffic issue in that area. They haven't really given us a good answer other than the drive-through should
address it. I just feel that there needs to be something, a streetlight, something to address that, because it's not a safe intersection. Thank you. Anybody else have a question of fact? Can I make a comment about that? Yeah. I know that the next traffic meeting, there's an agenda item to possibly activate the traffic signal coming from the north side to break traffic for 10 or 15 seconds to let people get out of Orange Street or get out of 288 Elm Street.
So that's on the agenda for traffic. I think it's next month, but I'm sure they would love to hear your opinions on that. Can I counter that with John? Mm-hmm. So John, I'm glad you brought that up because they did do a traffic study on that area back in 2022. I don't know, did you read that? And for an idea of possibly putting the traffic light in, I was just curious why it never went in. It just seemed like it just stopped. So now it's back on the agenda. Is that what you're saying? Well, I think that road falls under DOT, so that's the problem.
Thanks. Anybody else have a question of fact? Anybody want to state their opinion on the project? Yes, please come forward. Good evening. I am Bridget Matthews Kane. I'm the Ward 3 city councilor. I'm here to comment on some of the things that have been discussed. First of all, I get complaints about intersections that are bad for bikes and pedestrians, and I get complaints about intersections that are bad for cars. I want to say, by a mile, this is the worst intersection in my whole ward. I get all my complaints about this. It's a real headache, and I've tried to have it addressed a number of
ways. One way I tried to have it addressed was I asked the city engineer, Mark Crosetti, to do a warrant analysis. As most people know, but for the people at home, you can't just throw a traffic light wherever you have the urge to put one. It has to meet certain parameters set by the state. And that warrant analysis found that we could not put a traffic light at the intersection of Elm and Orange. And I had forwarded the warrant analysis to the chair, and I think that's what you had been discussing. So we don't qualify for a light at that intersection as of four years ago,
and I don't think much has changed. But I want to highlight what the residents have said. It's a terrible intersection. If there's going to be a larger store there, it's going to be even more of a problem. Can we go back to the previous picture where we had the... The real problem with the cut-through that I see, because I live close to here and I drive through, is people who are backed up on Orange will cut through the front to get to Elm because they don't want to wait in the queue, and so there's a real bad cut-through problem. And now that we've moved the curb cut back, it will be even more accessible to people who are waiting in line.
So they cut from Orange across the front of it onto Elm. And I want to quote you from the warrant analysis that was done, and this again is from 2022. So the peak a.m. hour, there are 100 cars an hour that go through there, and the peak p.m. hour, there are 75 cars per hour that go through there. So it's not going to take a lot more cars for that to be even worse. If it even just is 20 more cars, if it's already backed up at 100, if there's 20 more cars, it's going to be a nightmare. And maybe it will be such a nightmare that it will meet the warrant analysis for a
traffic light, and that means that the city will have to spend a million dollars because traffic lights are expensive. So I think, based on the residents' comments and based on my own experience, traffic is the number one issue that I hope you'll consider when you're thinking about this, and I hope you'll read the warrant analysis and think about the implications of it. So thank you. Bridget, can I ask a question? Yes. Just to clarify what you said. Do you want me to point? Yeah. So people coming off Orange in front of the new proposed building, going out the other exit, taking a- Well, the real backup is it's not going on Orange. It's backed up here.
Right. People are queuing on Orange to take the left onto Elm, and this backs up badly. So first what happens is people are waiting in line here, and they cut through, and then they try to beat the traffic here. And yes? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And right now, this is, I think you said the curb cuts here, it's going to be moved back. So I think that's going to invite even more cut-through. But this is like 100 per hour in the morning when it's really backed up. If it's 20 more cars, I don't know what that's going to do to this intersection. So it's the line here, making a left is the real
headache. Did I answer your question? Yeah. You know better than I do. I pick up my Pasquale's pizza, I go to that exit, try to take a left, and it's agony. If I had to do that every day, I would go crazy. So- And even now it doesn't qualify for a traffic I don't know how that- No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the traffic light coming off the bridge doesn't do anything. It doesn't stop traffic or do anything. If they could make that break the traffic, it would make it easier for Orange Street and that
driveway to get out of. So you're saying the traffic light here? Yes. But that means that doesn't stop the people coming in this direction, so you're waiting for both... So it may not work. Agreed. I don't know what the people in the neighborhood think, but there's no easy way in or out. Now, even I have tried to get on Franklin and try to come up. That's just congestion. One at a time, please. One at a time. Sorry. Go ahead. So I think the break, whether it's 10 seconds, I don't know what the state's going to even allow them to do. Because right now, trying to get out of
Orange Street or that driveway, you have to try to make a break in the traffic and get through. So if that break exists, it will help going left. I don't know how to stop them from cutting through. That's a good question. Go ahead. And I'm just concerned, even if we stop them when they come over the bridge, there's still heavy traffic going from the Franklin Street area. So it's still, I think, even if they do change the light, I think it's still going to be challenging to pull out. It's just a really tough spot, and I've tried to have it addressed,
and there's no solution. Thank you. Thank you. Excuse me, Bridget. Bridget. Oh. Bridget. We can't downplay the cars coming off of Bartlett Street either, because they come off, they take a right turn, they flood Elm Street as well. Mm-hmm. It really is mayhem in there. It really is. Yeah. The other part that goes with this is, in a lot of respects, the planning board's hands are very tied in this one. They're
very tied on this one because of how the ZBA voted. Okay. And I'm not passing the buck, I'm just stating the realities of it. So I guess, I read Mark's traffic analysis. I often wonder if right turn only, that way there, it's an inconvenience for Orange Street people, I understand. But they get out onto Franklin, take the left onto Elm, and they're already here. Maybe right turn only at certain times of the day. I don't know the answer to it, but it is a problem.
Yeah. It is a problem. And no disrespect, but we do have empathy for it, but the applicant has in front of us right now. That's my comment. Anybody else opinion, please come forward. My name is Nelson Lopez, and I live on 9 Clark Street. I grew up in 13 Clark Street my whole life. Mm-hmm. 60 years. Orange Street is always, like I said, and everybody has stated, bad to get in and out of. My question is, what are you going to do for the safety of the children that are walking home alone without the parents?
That's our main concern, is the children who walk home unattended. If traffic gets heavier, what about their safety? That's the main thing I think we need to look into, is the children's safety. There are sidewalks. That's my question. Yes, there are sidewalks. I don't have an answer for that. But the children, all the children are not attended with parents. They don't have parents. They don't have guardians. Mm-hmm. And we all know the children aren't looking, so if the traffic's going to get worse, I would say we're going to expect more accidents
with the children. So, what are we going to do about that? Nothing. I- Nothing. I see that. Yeah. And that is going to be- Well, that's something that we need to be concerned about is the children. Not the business, not how much money this city's going to make, but the children's safety. Thank you. Anybody else have an opinion? I just have a- Yeah ... couple of observations, I guess I'll call them. There's no escape lane coming through the drive-through. So, if you're the fifth or sixth car in line and the number one car has a large order, you're in trouble. I wouldn't go there if they were giving away coffee, honestly.
Most of these types of facilities, gas stations, coffee shops, are located on the outgoings side of the street in the morning. And any exceptions like Starbucks on Main Street or the Big Y on Main Street, they have a traffic light so you can get in and out of there. But this, if you're heading north, this is impossible to get out of there. Another thing is snow removal. I don't know how they'd possibly keep that clean with the fence and landscaping and everything else there. But I guess those aren't reasons that warrant
denying it, but I don't see it as a good business plan, let me put it that way. Yes. I don't have an issue with the store. My name is Monique Lopez. I live on Clark Street. I don't have an issue with the store getting larger and them renewing it, but why a drive-thru? That is really what's complicating this whole issue. We understand that people go to the store already, and then with the improved store, there will be more traffic, but then you're going to add a drive-thru. Is the drive-thru absolutely necessary? And I understand that they say it depends on the tenant, but the board has no purview over which tenant gets selected to be in that particular area, which makes it even more dangerous.
So do we wait until there's some sort of an accident? Because you weren't sure who the tenant was going to be, and all of a sudden the congestion is just too much, and there will be a nasty accident there. And you say that, "Oh, what if you make it a one-way and they have to go down Conner Ave., and they could take a left so that they can go on Franklin?" Coming out of Conner Ave. to get on Franklin, that's also a danger. You are risking your life to get across that street during the traffic. So there's no actually good way to get out of there, but adding this store with a drive-thru is just complicating it. So I understand about the store, but what are we going to do actually
about the traffic? Suggesting things, and if there's no reason to have a light or we can't have one right now unless a new study is done, how are they going to handle the traffic? Do we wait until there's an accident, or do we really think about that now before we approve everything and can address some things? Having the store, for me personally, is not the issue. The drive-thru, though, that's just going to complicate things. Even coming out of Dunkin' Donuts further down the road, you're sort of darting across to get out the light at where the actual driveway is. So how are we going to actually address the traffic, which I think is important before this is actually approved.
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Yes. Is that okay? So we definitely hear all the comments and questions from the neighborhood. Obviously, these people live this area every day. I go by there, but I don't live there. Vinnie obviously operates a business there. And Mr. Pasquale just showed up, so that's great, too. I would like to reframe the discussion. Planning board has great ideas. Neighbors have concerns. Understood. But I think it's important to reframe the discussion. I know that Brad did a nice job of giving you the history. What I would like to do is reframe what we are here for this evening.
So we have submitted a special permit for a building in the core district exceeding 1,500 square feet. On the zoning permit application that we submitted to Carissa, it actually didn't even include that. We submitted this as a belts and suspenders approach to communicate with the planning board related to the building itself. It's the second meeting. We're probably most of the way through the second meeting, and we haven't really discussed the building itself. The building that we are proposing exceeds 1,500 square feet. It will be a convenience-style building. You've seen renderings.
In a discussion with Mr. Shaw, we did communicate with him and to see it would be more costly to do, but to see if there's a way to better fit it into the neighborhood. So to my right, we have a rendering of the building itself. That is generally what would be proposed. This is obviously an artistic representation of that. It would be branded with the Gulf logo. That's the company that they work with. So it would be a drastic improvement over what exists there. I've been in and outside of the building and, frankly, the surrounding buildings. It would be a great improvement for the building
itself. With regard to the city's traffic infrastructure in the studies that have been done, I think they speak for themselves. This is a small alteration and change to an existing building. We're not talking Walmart here. We're not talking about something that has the ability to add signals, especially when they're not warranted based on the existing traffic patterns. So what we're looking to do this evening is not to ask for your approval of the site plan. We are not literally asking for your opinion on the site plan. We understand that you have opinions, and we appreciate them, and we are going to
bring those opinions, hopefully with our new plan, back to the ZBA. We're going to go, and we're going to amend the plan if we get support from you on the building size. We are going to go back to the ZBA, which is a step that we wouldn't normally have to do, and we would be willing to amend the plan to include the improvements that we made since the previous project. We would like to put a building forward. Mr. Shaw is willing to do that with brick. If you have other solutions or improvements that you would suggest, I'm certain he is willing to consider those.
So we'd love to talk a little bit about the building. We would love to see if you... I know it's not a perfect scenario. I know that we have a lot of traffic down there. But hopefully, the plan is an improvement over what is already approved from the ZBA, and we would be willing to go back and amend the approval from the ZBA. If not, we end up with a 1,500 square foot building with a drive-thru. That's already approved. We don't have to come to any more meetings. The appeal period already lapsed. So we're here in a good faith effort. We had discussed potentially withdrawing. Vinnie is committed to trying to do this the best we can. Is it perfect?
No. Do we pretend it is? No. Do we need to make sure Mr. Shaw hopefully is committed to getting the right tenant in there for the drive-thru component? Absolutely, 100%. So I'll just leave it at that. Hopefully, if there's any thoughts on the building itself, we would love to talk about that for a second if we can. And then certainly, we understand it's not perfect, but we do think it's an improvement over the previous plan. Okay. We, the board, you know this, has an obligation to hear from the public. Absolutely. Okay? And I think one of the things the public is talking about is saying that Mr. Shaw
should make it a priority to help mitigate cut-throughs, because they do cause problems. People who are cutting through, and I know this for other reasons, people who cut through are in a hurry, and they're not always paying attention. And I think what the public's asking of Mr. Shaw is to find a way or to help mitigate it, or help slow it down, or maybe post a sign, something that will stop or give the police
teeth to ticket people, because it is an illegal act. Okay. I would agree. I think signage is a great idea. I think we don't want that to happen either. Yeah. We also don't want to just prevent people from going- Yeah ... and utilizing the convenience store, et cetera. Right. Yeah. Okay. I think we would be amenable to signage that describes no pass-through, and whatever legally we can say- Mm-hmm ... regarding the policing of that, we would certainly be willing to do that. Anybody else in the public- Rob, one quick question. Yes, sir. How big is the existing building? I don't have that off the top of my head, but I'm going to say it's less than 1,000- I think it's about- ... less than 1,000 square feet.
450 square feet. 450 square feet. Okay. And you're proposing 20- Okay. Well, I- That's not a minor change, is what I want to point out. You said we made minor adjustments. No, no, I'm sorry. We made minor adjustments from the previous submission. Okay. Sorry, I should have clarified that. The previous submission, I think we increased it by a few hundred square feet from the previous submission. But no, absolutely. It's a very different building. I like the new plan. Yeah. I just don't think it's a minor change. Yeah. Agreed. Yeah. I misspoke if I said it that way. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Please come to the mic. I noticed on that site plan- Name and address, please. Oh, Don Podolski,
Birchbush Drive. I noticed on the site plan there's a proposed bicycle rack on the corner- Mm-hmm ... of the property, more than 60 feet away from the entrance to the building, and making cyclists dismount and walk through the flow of traffic to access that facility. I would suggest closer parking for a bicycle rack. If you go to the plan. It's right next to the sign. So, right in the corner of Elm, and there you go. That's it. Yeah. Next to the building. Your planner would concur. Planner would concur. As would I. Mr. Podolski certainly knows bikes,
so I totally understand. I would agree with him. We just literally are struggling to find a spot to site it. We're open to suggestions, but I don't have a lot of room at the front of the building, and we were trying to accommodate the drive-through, the drive lanes that we talked about last time. We could go in the back, but then again, it's not close to the building. I kind of put it where I had a little space that we thought the bikes wouldn't get hit. In a perfect world, we wouldn't really want to forego a vehicular space. But yeah, open to suggestions, I guess. It's really just we didn't have a good place to put it, truthfully.
I have a suggestion. Get rid of the drive-through, you have plenty of space along the side of the building. Food for thought. I was offering my suggestion of getting rid of the drive-through, and you have- I hear ... or down the side of the building. Yeah. You're trying to maximize the space. You just said you don't have enough space for safety. Can you put one relatively flush against the building? I mean, close to the building. Right now, there's a handicap spot. So you really can't put it there, but... Yeah, we have a six-foot sidewalk with monolithic curb. I'm looking at planters we could potentially incorporate into-
It doesn't have to be a big bike rack. You know I'm getting one made that's J-A-Y? I'm going to put it in front of my building. Just kidding. No, but we're happy to try to accommodate. It just literally doesn't really fit well. If we eliminated a parking space, we would have 9 by 18 or 9 by 19 space- Right ... to put it there. But again, I don't know what the best solution is. But we understand Mr. Podolski's comment and agree with it. You have a suggestion, Ja- I think also the artist's rendition of the building, that there's- I'm sorry. Please come to the mic. Oh. In the artist's rendition of the building, there is a
landscaping to the right of the walkway, to the... Ah, there we go. Bicycle parking for two bicycles takes up about 10 square feet totally. So, it's not a lot of area, and it almost looks like that's about what's in that floral area. That's not actual. Unfortunately, that's an artistic rendering, probably remotely AI or something, and is not specific to the actual site plan. In truncating the sidewalk there, I guess we could technically truncate the sidewalk, and there just wouldn't be a sidewalk in front of that spaceAgain, we
want people to be... We're thinking we want to make sure we're doing what is appropriate. So if you think that that's a better solution, we could eliminate the sidewalk from in front of that space, but that would really probably be the only realistic solution next to the building. Thank you, Mr. Kowalski. Jay, you got a suggestion? I think it probably would mean moving up or eliminating a parking space. But I'm sure Rob could probably find a way to incorporate it. Just swap, put a parking space where the exit bike rack is. There's room there next to the sign, I think. I could shift it, but then the bike... I wouldn't want to invite kids, as the gentleman
mentioned, to be too close to that curb cut that's kind of in the corner. Are you okay foregoing a parking space if we have to? We would be willing to forego a parking space to accommodate a bike rack closer to the building, if that's more amenable to the board. Yeah, that's where I have it. But that's their concern. Any board members have any comments? Questions. Questions? Anybody else, comments or questions? I have a quick comment. Please come to the mic. I had a question earlier, but I have a comment this time. We live in New England region, correct? We live in Massachusetts, per se, and ever since they put the signs for 25 miles an hour around the city area,
not too many people are following that. So we're going to think that somebody's going to follow those signs through a cut-through? Let's be realistic. People aren't going to follow those rules. So I'm not trying to be funny that we live in the region of New England, but we're known for that. New England's known for that, people doing whatever they want. "Hey, you're going 80 in a 65. You're going 40 in a 25." So I don't think the sign's going to be enough deterrent for that. That's all I got to say. What do you suggest? Because I've been doing this long enough to know you
can't change behavior. Excuse me. Come forward. Come back. John's got a question. What do you suggest? Eliminate the drive-through, because that's more of an issue. Because if you see, say, Elm Street Dunkin' in the mornings, you see all that backed-up traffic, and sometimes they even block the driveways from the owner of the corner of that house there. What's that? Is it Westminster? I think that street right there. So we could have the same effect happening here on Orange. And we're already overwhelmed over there. So
yeah, eliminate the drive-through. That'd be my suggestion. Thank you. The gentleman behind, he's been waiting for a while in the orange. Yes. Rob, go ahead. Just a quick question. Yep. Microphone, name, and address, please. My name is Roy G. Lopez. I live on Clark Street too. I just want to know, we got so many officers here in Westfield. Why can't they just put one in the morning time and one in the evening? You guys know there's a lot of traffic there. So they can't get an officer, one or two maybe, to stop. Because I know behind the courthouse- Mm-hmm ... Maple Street or that, got a lot of traffic coming out of there. Then they go down all the way down to Connor Ave, and sometimes,
Kellogg, because I know. I see it all the time. And like my brother said, there's a lot of kids, and there's all the traffic up and down that street. If you were to put cameras down there, you'd get to see it yourself, how much traffic is down there, and it is a concern with the kids. So that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Tim. We have- Can I just note- Yeah ... when the ZBA was considering the drive-through and the site plan, I don't think we had any public testimony at that hearing. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Just one thing. Are we here to approve a
building that exceeds 1,500 square feet, or the impact that that building creates? Well, the trigger- Because if it was twice that size and it was housing, and they had enough parking, I'd be okay with that. But if it was a paint and wallpaper store like it was 50 years ago, I'd be okay with that. It's the drive-through. So if the drive-through is not impacting it, what are we voting on? Well, the ordinance says- A footprint? ... structures over 1,500 square feet. That's the way it's written. So with a special permit, you do have some bit of a roving
commission, but again- So Jay, let's say we approve this, hypothetically. It goes back to ZBA. All these people show up at ZBA and convince ZBA not to do it. It's a drive-through out? No. Well, they've already gotten approval for a drive-through. They approved it. So why are you going back? As a courtesy to the planning board to amend the plan, but it would be an amendment, so the original permit would stand. If the amendment fails, the plan fails. So they, the plan- So then I think you're back here again. No. Then we build a 1,500 square foot building.
Okay. The plan that you see tonight is not the plan the ZBA saw. So they didn't see the wraparound drive-through with the separated island and all that. So its site plan is different from what the ZBA approved, and you have the original one. I would say not terribly different, but when someone comes back to you for a minor or a revision, you determine if it's minor or if they need a new hearing. So there's a possibility that there's not a new hearing because it's considered minor. That's possible. Yeah. I wouldn't say it's a dramatic change to separate that drive-through traffic, which was already
there anyway. But that's for the ZBA to work out. So I would encourage you to focus on the building itself, so appearance, form, fenestration. So that means if we have to focus on that, that includes the drive-through. No. Well- Because that's all attached ... yeah, it's got a drive-through window. So could we just clarify, though, for the board, I think it's important to understand that your site plan approval process, under your process, a drive-through is actually a permitted use. Okay? Not specifically in this zone, so obviously there was a special permit that was
granted with a finding. But you do not have a special permit for drive-throughs. You have site plan approval. So provided you meet those 10 parking spaces, typically we would expect that that could be approved, or should be, or would be approved. In this particular case, we are not here for the drive-through, and I think it's hard. I understand it's frustrating or hard the way that it lays out, but just to clarify, the drive-through, you couldn't grant. I think legally you couldn't grant a drive-through. Only the ZBA could grant a drive-through because it's an extension of a preexisting
nonconforming use. The planning board does not have the authority to issue a drive-through in the core district, just to further complicate things. I know it's a confusing issue, but I think the easiest way to explain would be an example. Let's say there was nothing on this lot. Let's say I came in with a plan for a special permit for a gas station with a drive-through. You'd say, "Well, you can't do that. We don't have authority to do it in this district." And I say, "Well, but it's more than 1,500 square feet." Okay. Then you say, "But still, we can't allow a building that's not
an allowable use in the district." Okay? And this is a gas station, convenience store. The ZBA only has that authority. And if you look at 4.10.33, it says, "Any changes including an extension or alteration intensifying, increasing, or reestablishing any existing nonconformity or a change to a nonconforming use which is not substantially similar shall require a sole finding from the Board of Appeals that such alteration will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use, structure, or condition. Such finding shall be sought as a special permit." And again, respectfully, we're here, and again, I have my questions, but 1,500 square foot, but you have to read 1,500 square foot with your allowable uses. I can't just come here and say, "Well, I want to put a cannabis facility there because it's more than 1,500 square feet." You'll say, "It's not allowed in the district." That's where the ZBA can do this with an existing legal nonconforming use. It's grandfathered, but this is a different
standard. This is changing it. And you have to understand, it's an illegal use to begin with, so changing it means it's still illegal technically, but this provision allows it to be changed, and it makes sense for the owner. Otherwise, you're making poor Mr. Shaw keep a 400 square foot gas station, which does not work. When we looked around the city to see what was gas stations and convenience stores go together with drive-throughs. So I don't know if I explained it well enough, but that's the best example I can think of. If you don't have authority to grant it to begin with,
you have no authority as a board to change what the ZBA did as a nonconforming use, which is the drive up. And again, respectfully, that's kind of... But we're here because we wanted to get your approval. The ZBA can approve this if it's not that big of a deal change. And I think the improvements have made it better, too. So I don't know if I've addressed it. Any questions? No, but I will make a comment, and I understand that it is to the benefit of Mr. Shaw, but that's not our job up here is to figure out what's good for Mr. Shaw. Right. Our job up here is to figure out what's good for the city.
Right. Okay? And again, I understand all the aspects of this. Clearly, the public is looking for a solution to Orange Street. It will not come tonight. No. But they are also looking for a solution to the cut-through, and I think Mr. Shaw can help with that. I agree. But I also believe that the drive-through really never should've been considered. Okay? And I understand that the ZBA approved it. It doesn't mean I have to like it. Okay. Okay? But what's good for Mr. Shaw
doesn't mean anything to me. Okay? No, that's fine. So let's be clear on it. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Thanks. Anybody else? I have a question. Jay, who decides if ZBA determines this is a minor change? ZBA? Yeah. Okay. Or depending how minor it is, I could do it for themJust like something for this board. And Jen, I'm sorry, through the chair, just to clarify, we would be requesting an amendment. We wouldn't be resubmitting a permit. It would be the change, the improvement from what you
last saw, and we're committed to doing that regardless of the approach or procedure. So normal process for these kinds of things. For an approved change to an approved plan, someone comes into me and says, "I know I got approval for this, but I want to shift this over here." Well, they're- And if it's simple enough, I can approve it. If it's a little more complicated, I would touch base with the chair and see what he thought, and he could approve it, or it comes to the board. So the same process would follow with CBA. It just seems there's some overlap with, or a lack of
overlap, where it's one of these things. It's not us, it's them, and- Well, so I think we've kind of exposed a flaw in the zoning ordinance. It kind of intends to make one-stop shopping, so consolidate your permits in one place. So that's why it has language that the special permit gets combined with the site plan approval. But in this case, two boards need to act. So maybe, on our list of zoning ordinance changes, we might add something like when two bodies have jurisdiction over site plan approval, it shall defer to the planning board.
Mm-hmm. But that's not what it reads now. Jay, right now, if I understand it correctly, we have a condition about moving the bike rack. Okay? The applicant has agreed to give up a space if necessary. Yeah, that wouldn't necessarily need to be a condition. These are things you could communicate to the ZBA, for example. Okay. When they review the plan- That's- ... ask them to look at a more suitable bike rack location, or any other comments- Okay ... you want for the site plan rather than a condition related to the building. And I know Rob will look for a good spot for the bike rack.
Yeah. Well, just looking at it, I'm thinking flip the handicap spot to the other side and convert that to an island with a bike rack and maybe a little outdoor table. That's not a bad idea. Yeah. That's not a bad idea. All right. We have a draft condition. We have a special permit, subject property 288 Elm Street. Draft condition one, the building shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the submitted image and elevations. We haven't discussed the building itself. Two, we have a payment of a $50 continuance fee, 4/21 hearing shall be made. The draft findings.
The specific downtown site is an appropriate location for a building exceeding 1,500 square feet. Two, the building, while part of a non-conforming use, will not adversely affect the adjacent downtown neighborhood, as the use will generally continue in its current fashion, but in an improved facility. Three, adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for continued and expanded use of the property. Four, the plan, as approved, conforms to all the rules and regulations. Though the board notes that the site plan drive-through setbacks building height
are not consistent with division of the core district, but acknowledge that the Board of Appeals has approved these other substantive aspects of the property, which enjoys preexisting non-conformity protections. The submitted site plan revised 4-16-26 is acceptable to this board, but remains under the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals' decision. The continuance fee was paid, so you can nix that. Okay. So can we- And then if you wanted to add verbiage about the bike rack,
we could add that into your findings. Yeah, we should add that in there. And the only other thing, so we don't have elevations, but the original plan, which looks the same except for materials, it does show the Orange Street side seems to be backwards. I don't- It is, yeah. Okay. So there are windows facing the Orange Street as well, just so it's not a blank wall. So. Any discussions on how the building looks? And just to clarify, we had suggested the brick versus the stucco. Yeah, so this was the latest- And I'm assuming windows would be on the Orange Street side on that one as well.
I think it's the same elevation, just the material change. Yeah. Seemed like the brick went better. I do. I also told Rob I thought the fence along the front should be three feet instead of four, but... Which we're happy to adhere to. Okay. Comments out of the board? Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Thank you. Before we vote- Yeah ... any chance of doing white brick like Pasquali's building? No, you just closed the hearing. You just closed it, yeah. You can't. We didn't vote on it yet. We didn't vote on it yet. Yeah, but you didn't vote on closing the public hearing? We got a- Nope ... we got a question and a second. We didn't vote.
All right. My apologies. No problem. I thought I heard a second. So, well, the discussion should be on the motion, but go ahead. Do I hear a withdrawal of the second? I'll withdraw my second. Okay. We have a first only. So can I ask a question? Go ahead. What's the odds we can do the white brick like Pasquali's building? I would respectfully respond, knowing that Pasquali has worked long and hard, and hopefully he's going to retire someday- ... and that this building will likely be here for the next 30 years. To me, respectfully, this is just my opinion, I haven't even consulted my client, the brick seems appropriate for downtown,
some sort of red brick similar to the vernacular. Okay. Your planner concurs as well. Planner concurs with this one? With for brick, yeah. Do I hear a second on the motion? I second the motion. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Closed. I thought that was. No, I did. She already did. Oh, I didn't hear her. I'm sorry. No. Did she get a second on it? You did. Do I hear a motion on the special permit? I'll make a motion to approve the special permit with the conditions as written and amended. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. We'll start with
Rich. Yes. Sheryl? No. Jane? Yes. John? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Phil? Yes. Bernie? Yes. And I am a yes. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next on the agenda is Off-Campus Housing LLC for a special permit for zoning ordinance 4-20.2 to divide 5 Clark Street, zoned residence B, into two building lots by lot size averaging. For this hearing, Rich Sollohub will be a voting member for Ray St. Hilaire. Mr. Chairman, unless there's folks in the audience that are here for this,
I would be happy to forego my turn so that these folks could get done. I know it's been a long time. Okay. So, if the board wanted to take it out of order, I wouldn't mind taking a breather and giving these folks an opportunity to go ahead of me. Do I hear a motion to take it out of order? What's next? And you guys are from? Pro Ampad. What's that? Pro Ampad. Okay. Do I hear a motion to take Pro Ampad in lieu of Off-Campus Housing LLC? I'll make a motion to alter the agenda. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Come on up, guys. Good evening. My name's Mark Reed from Heritage Land Surveying and Engineer.
We're located at 130 Southampton Road here in Westfield. I'm here tonight to represent Pro Ampad on a project that is on Ampad Road. And with me tonight is Joe Moriarty from Ampad, and Terry Reynolds, the professional engineer on the project. So, this project is to create 15 trailer truck parking spaces that is going to be located on the property itself. And I'll probably take this and go over to the plan itself.
So, this facility is located at the end of Ampad Road. This is their existing warehouse that's currently at the site itself. Ampad Road is a cul-de-sac, and their access to their property is from Ampad Road office into the property, so that we are creating 15 parking spaces for proposed tractor-trailer trucks. What happens is a truck driver comes in, he stops, currently in this section here, communicates with the office to determine which bay they go
to, whether it's being delivered or pick-up tractor-trailer truck. And what happens is, if multiple tractor-trailer trucks come in, they queue back onto Ampad Road. So what this will allow is for a tractor-trailer truck to come in, parkGet instructions from the office on what bay door they go to, because there are bay doors on this end of the building and this end of the building. And eliminate any tractor-trailer trucks from parking on
Ampad Road. We've gone through conservation commission and received approval for the project for the work within their jurisdiction. There is an isolated wetland located on the, I'm going to call it the west side of the site in itself, and there's a 50 and 100-foot buffer zone. So we've already got approval for them. The excuse me. The storm water from the site would be directed towards the rear of the proposed parking area. And there is a biofilter swale
that is shown on the plans that would convey water through a grassy, it's all grass, into a culvert, and eventually getting down into the existing detention basin, which is located on the opposite side of the railroad tracks. One suggestion from the conservation commission, which we have no problem with, is to have a line of Jersey barriers so that tractor-trailer trucks won't back onto the grass, and they'll stop it. That's part of their condition, so that we have no issues with having the planning board make the same
condition for the project in itself. So this is really going to eliminate any tractor-trailer trucks from being parked on Ampad Road. I understand that there's some proposed future development on Ampad Road, and it goes against the city's ordinance for parking trucks on public ways. So this eliminates that. Today's weather didn't do my allergies any good. So with that, I believe that the city engineer corresponds that, Jay? Yeah, you have an email from the stormwater coordinator on this okaying the stormwater plan.
And a reminder, this is only before you because it's in the aquifer district for impervious. Right. The area of the impervious is 12,750 square feet, so anything above 10,000 requires a permit. Questions? Comments? Questions? Comments? Is there going to be any overnight parking there for trucks- No ... overnighting there for drivers in them and... No. Nope. 3:00. 3:00 PM. 3:00 PM? Microphone, please. Sure. Name and address, please. Joe Moriarty, representing Pro Ampac. Yeah, operating hours of that building are 3:30 PM we close, Monday through Friday and
occasionally on the weekends, but no overnight parking is permitted. Okay. Are these your trucks or? These are all third-party- Third party ... logistic trucks. So if they come in, if you're closed at 3:00, they come in at 10:00 at night, they're going to pull in there and park and sleep overnight and run their truck all night. They're not permitted to do that. I mean- Do you have a gate across there that's closed when you're not operating? We have a gate on the back side. We don't have a gate on the front side. But yeah, we've never had any problems with that. Okay. If we need to do that, it's fine. We have surveillance 24/7.
But yeah, I've never had any trucks sitting there. We coordinate the logistics, so we don't ship... It's only during the day, so I- So you schedule the pickups then. Yes. You know the truck is coming- Yeah ... you know what time they're coming. Yes. Correct. And they know what your hours are. Correct. So they shouldn't be- Correct ... there after hours. Yep. Is there anybody, I know you say you close at 3:30, is there anybody in the office that's there a little bit later in case there's a truck that's late? No. No. No. We have the 132 North Elm Street, which if we do any deliveries after hours, it goes down to
Elm Street. Okay. Thank you. Anybody in the public have a question or fact? Anybody in the public want to speak in favor of or speak against? I'll just note on your share file, there's a 1997 site plan approval with Phil's signature on it. Thank you, Phil. He wrote it with a quill pen. I was here in '89. Mm-hmm. We have a draft decision, special permit, stormwater management permit. Subject property, 175 Ampad Road. Draft conditions. One, the subject parking expansion work is limited
to that depicted on the site plan entitled Grading, Erosion, Control, and Utilities Plan, sheet two of two, dated 3/17/26, project number 25-0602, as prepared by T Reynolds Engineering, signed and sealed by Terrence Reynolds, P.ETwo, outdoor open-air storage materials and on-site washing or maintenance of vehicles, trailers, and motorized equipment are prohibited. Three, all non-salt de-icing materials shall be utilized,
which shall be restricted to the minimum amount necessary with sand and/or ecologically and water-compatible alternatives applied as appropriate. You mentioned there was a condition about Jersey barriers. Correct. You have the- On the back side of it, and we have no issue with making that part of your conditions. Okay. And do you have any issue with us making a condition of no overnight parking? Not at all. That's fine. Okay. Anybody else? Any discussions on these? Do I hear any mo- So what conditions did you want to add? There was a condition about Jersey barriers so that when they
back up, they don't get onto the grass. Okay. So those need to be installed. Barriers or guardrails. Yep. All right. And, we'll put in the condition of no overnight parking allowed. Okay. Would that mean trailers stored? How do you envision that, Rich? Trailers themselves wouldn't bother me as long as they don't have the trucks in there sitting there running all night with the live trucks running. So, the trailer being there probably wouldn't bother me. Would- Drop and go, you said? Yeah, unhook and drop. I could understand that. What I don't
want is drivers coming in at 2:00 in the morning, pulling in there, parking, and running their truck all night. How about no idling or something like that? Is that- I'm sorry, what was that, Jay? No idling. Yeah. No idling, no overnight. So- Truck tractor Tractor truck combinations. Yeah. That's fair. No overnight passengers or drivers- Yeah ... sleeping in. Not a truck stop, basically. Yeah, not a truck stop. We can make that work. Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing? I make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Do I hear a motion on the special permit? I'll make a motion to approve the special permit.
I'll second. Tim? Bernie? Yes. John? Yes. Jane? Yes. Phil? Yes. Cheryl? Yes. Rich? Yes. And I'm a yes. Thank you, guys. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for waiting. Is Keller Williams here? Yes. Can I get a motion to alter the agenda for Keller Williams for a sign? Somebody? 16 George Street, you're saying? What? For 16 George? Yes. I'll make a motion to alter the agenda for 16 George. Do I hear a second? I want to listen to- Anybody want to second that? What's the... I'm sorry, I didn't- To take Keller Williams, 16 George Street sign next. I'll second that. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Next on the agenda, Keller Williams, Laurel Stevens for a special permit for
zoning ordinance 8-10.21C to allow an intermittent electronic sign at 16 George Street, Zoned Business A. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Go ahead. Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm here looking for a- Oh. Well, actually, I already have a permit. Name and address, please. Laura Stevens. My home address, Elm Street, East Longmeadow, Mass. Thank you. I am the owner of 16 George Street. It's held under 16 George Street, LLC. And I was given a permit to put an LED intermittent sign on the corner of my property.
I then purchased a $33,000 sign, and when my contractor went to get a permit to do the footings, they told him I couldn't have a permit, but I already have one. So, I was told I need to come here and talk to you guys again, I guess. So again, the sign is by right, but to have it changing is the matter of the permit. So if it were a static sign, we wouldn't need to be here. It was never going to be a static sign. You wouldn't- Well, that's ... buy an LED sign and make it static.
Well, they can be static. Well, they could be, but it would seem rather silly. Is your sign going to have any flashing? Does it have any flashing? Yes. Is it going to have- It is going to change pictures, but not in your face change. We can't have any movement on the sign Well We've never approved any movement on the sign. The Pride Station on Route 20 has movement on their sign. I think it's a Pride Station. So movement and changing are- It's like a change of a photo ... movement and changing are two different things. Hmm? Movement is animation where-
Oh, no, there's not going to be any animation. It's going to be a still picture that then gets replaced by another still picture. Oh, that's... Yes. Yeah. No, and nothing's going to be- Okay ... moving across the sign or distracting. And the illumination will be dimmed during hours, correct? Excuse me? The illumination will be dimmed during evening hours, correct? I understand there's a time limit. It has to go from sometime in the morning till sometime, has to be off in the evening, after what hour, I'm not sure. Okay. My contractor took care of all of that.
Right. Sorry, the application specifies shut off by 11:00 PM. Okay. Well, we will adhere to whatever the town rules are. Okay. That's not a problem. Yeah, so that's citywide, no illuminated signs after 11:00. Mm-hmm. Unless you're open. Okay. There is a condition here, says there is an existing ground sign and an unused sign pole
on the property. Yes. I was told that we cannot take the one that's at the corner down because that's not my property. That little, I don't know if the town took that corner at one point when they redressed the center. I'm happy to move it or take it down. I don't have a problem with that. I will take the larger one that is my sign down. Yeah, I- I can take- We had the city engineer look at that. It looks like it's on the property. I can't imagine why the city would leave that up if they owned it when they redid the intersection, so.
It's like an antiques, it's sitting on a cement block. Yeah. So- I would actually like to take it and move it to the entrance to my building and do an arrow pointing to the entrance, just because it's kind of a cool sign. It's a cool post. Well- So ... part of our special permit would be you taking down that sign. Hmm. Yeah. The larger one, yes. Yeah. And I'll move the, it's a post, it's not a sign. Yeah. If you look at the picture, there's two really old signs on the property. One of them is just a post right at the corner of George and
Route 20. Mm-hmm. Right at the fence. And then the other one is on my property, much taller, used to be a lit sign when it was a gas- Yeah, see? You might have to take it back from here somewhere. Okay. Right at that corner, it's really hard to see in this picture, there's an old antique metal sign with a little swirly, some comes off it, and it has a swirl on it. That's on a block. I could have that moved. The other one is really ugly, and I've always intended to take that one down.
It says Gandara on it. That one's going to be gone as well. Okay. But she's got two existing signs right now? So the- Well, there's one sign, and then there's this post, which is just sitting there with- One sign, a post. Here, let me take this one, I will show you. If you could scroll that picture down a little bit. I don't know if we were on the- Nope. Wait. Go back to the... Wait, wait, wait. Hmm. I don't own that building. Should I go over here? Okay. If you go back to the picture where this shows the sign, like the last... Yeah. Okay, here we go. Right. Ah, okay. Mm-hmm. Right there. See that?
Mm-hmm. That, there's a dispute over is that my property, or is that the town property? I am happy to have that moved. I don't think we want it. And this is coming down. So you- This doesn't light up anymore. It's old, it's rusty, and it's going to be gone. Okay? And this, if you don't have any objection, I'd like to move it closer to the building as an arrow, so. Or if you want, I'll just cut it down. It just- Yeah, you're allowed one ground sign. You can have an instructional sign that says entrance or something like that, with certain limitations. But... Well, it would just be like an arrow. Maybe say entrance or something.
Yeah. Well, that would be a building department permit for that. Mm-hmm. So as far as this board's concerned, those would be coming down. Those will be coming down. It will be- Okay ... down or moved or- Okay ... not on the street. If you want to put it up in front of your building with an arrow, you have to go through the building department. Okay. It'd be a- Yeah, I could do that ... another sign permit. But for this purpose- That's fine ... all of them are coming down except- They will all be down- Okay ... except the one that I'm asking for. Anybody in the public have a question? No? An opinion? Please come forward. Anybody in the board, questions? They're asking for a 14-second
change. Our normal is 10.Just stating that. Okay. We have a special draft condition, special permit, intermittent electronic sign, subject property 16 George Street. Conditions, one, the subject is approved as described in submitted plans, images by Cirrus 9/30/25, signed and sealed by Jerry Murdock, PE. Two, as proposed, different static messages may be displayed, provided none is displayed for less than 14 seconds, and there is no scrolling,
flashing, or animation. Three, the illumination level shall be dimmed during evening hours as commensurate with diminishing daylight. Four, as not more than one ground sign is permitted per lot, the existing ground sign and unused sign pole on the property shall be removed. Jay, what's number five referring to? So, on occasion, you have limited these to the applicant before you. Oh. But not always. Do we want to limit this to only this applicant or allow it regardless? If we limited it to this applicant and
somebody bought the business or the building, they would have to come in and ask for a permit for the sign. Yeah, for the same sign. For the same sign, okay. So, I'm indifferent either way. Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Do I hear a motion on the special permit? I make a motion to approve the special permit. Second. Okay. Cheryl? Yes. Phil? Yes. Jane? Yes. Rich? Yes. John? Yes. Bernie? Yes. Okay. And I am a yes. Congratulations. Thank you so much. Before you leave, though, I do have to read this to you. Okay. It's important. Congratulations on your special permit, on getting your special permit
approved. As the applicant owner, you cannot utilize the rights granted in this special permit without having met all conditions and requirements of the permit. You have additional steps which must be met before this approval becomes valid. Per state law, you must wait 20 days after the day the planning board files a decision with the city clerk. This is a 20-day appeal period allowing any aggrieved party to appeal their decision. After the appeal period, you must obtain the city clerk's signature on the
decision, and you must record the special permit in the registry of deeds. This will all be spelled out in an instruction sheet mailed with your decision. Most importantly, you must continue to comply with the terms and conditions of the special permit through the life of the permit. If you are not in compliance, city and 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 the citizens and its procedures.
We look forward to your success, hope to see you before us as your business grows and your needs change. Thank you. Got it. You have a 20-day appeal period. Right. Okay. It's gonna take longer than that to get it up anyway, so- Okay ... I don't have to get. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next on the agenda is Off-Campus Housing LLC for a special permit for zoning ordinance Section 4-20.2 to divide 5 Clark Street, Zone Residence B, into two building lots by lot size averaging. For this hearing, the chair recognizes Rich Saloy for Ray St. Hilaire.
Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Good evening again. For the record, Rob Lebeck from our LeBeck Associates, representing Off-Campus Housing LLC, which is a horrible name, apparently. The gentlemen own the subject property. This is Chad Hedges and Dave Briggs. They are owner of a number of properties in the city of Westfield. Some of them, and a lot of them, I think, at least formerly or still may house off-campus folks from Westfield State. I know there was some questions related to this at the last, I think, at the last
public hearing, or at least they were relayed to me that there were questions related to housing of students. There's been a discussion internally, and I believe that there is no specific intention for that. But the property is owned by an LLC that states, basically says that that was the original idea, and I do believe they probably have housed students here at the existing property. But we're not here for that this evening, nor are we here for the discussion specific to occupancy. There are certain ideas and laws in place with regard to not discriminating against different groups.
I know we talked about that in past proposals. So, we're here this evening specifically for a special permit related to lot size averaging or infill. We've done a calculation and provided that information through the application, where we have looked at the surrounding properties within 300 feet of the subject property, and eliminated it, as necessary, eliminated up to 40% of them, and then found that the lot sizes, frontage, and other requirements could be met, the average of those could be met or exceeded. So, we're proposing two lots, Lot
A and B, as described in our application. Just give me one second. There is a table. We don't have it paginated, but theThere is a table that describes each of those two lots, their square footages, their frontages, et cetera. Also in our application, we have the criteria for a special permit related to these infill special permits, and if I can find that. We describe that, and all of those standards in general have been met. We have sewer, water, gas, power, all
of the requirements for lot size averaging. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. You also, by the way, have a plan from McCann Architectural Drafting that shows a two-family, kind of a tandem arrangement, where there would be a unit in front and back, so it's less impactful from the street, but is a deep unit, so the front door is out towards the street on Clark Street. That'd be a faux entrance, so to speak, or an additional entrance. The main entrances would be off of the side driveway, and parking to the rear behind the units.
Again, happy to answer any questions you have through the chair. Thank you. Questions? Rob, looking at the house by Clark, head on to the left in that side lot, there's a red barn or some type of... Doesn't look like anybody's living in it. Is that going to be torn down? Because it looks like-- Is it on their property? This one here? To the left. If you look at the-- Yeah. It's in the back. I was up there today, and if you look at the property to the left, there's- Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. This is the existing structure to be demolished. Yes. All right. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that was it. Okay. Thank you. Yep.
That existing house now on the side of Clark Street, there aren't going to be any changes to that, correct? Correct. Not to the structure itself, no. No. On the existing structure, that's a two-family house at this point in time? Yes, sir. Okay. And what you're proposing is putting up another building, which is also a two-family house. Proposed is a two-family as well. So kind of like a duplex turned, so front to back. Side by side, right? Yes. But just front to back. Well, if you're standing in the driveway, they're side by side.
Yep. If you're standing on the street- Correct. Exactly ... you'd be eye to eye with it. Yep. Okay. And those driveways are going to be separated, so there'll be two separate driveways? That is correct. Yep. Is there going to be any kind of a divider or fence in between the two driveways, or is it just going to be a piece of grass? There's going to be a piece of grass there. We didn't propose any fence, not to say it couldn't happen. I think it's on here somewhere, but what is the existing home? What is the square footage of that, Five Clark? It's probably in our calculation sheet. Let me see what I can find for you. Sorry, just give me a minute. I'll find it. Are you asking about the square footage of the lot? No, of the actual home.
It might-- Oh, boy. It might be on an assessor's card. I don't know, Jay. 3,505 according to the assessor's card. Thank you. Oh, wow. Thank you. It's a big house. Is it going to mirror the same as the number five, this one? Would it mirror the same? Pretty much the same structure, the same height, the same amount of bedrooms and bathrooms? As the existing? Huh? I'm sorry. The new one as- Exist- ... the existing? Yes. Is this is going to mirror the same thing? It's going to be almost exactly like that? I don't think so. I think it's going to be different in nature.
It's going to look different. It's a different structure. I guess I don't want to call it modern because it's more of a colonial look, but it's got a front gabled roof. Do you have these? So the picture that's- I don't know if, Jay, is it possible to go to the street view so we could compare the two? Yeah. There's a picture in here. That's why I was asking, did somebody put a picture in here? More like not as high as the existing one right now, but this duplex. I would say they're similar in nature. So the proposed plan from everybody's own judgment is...
So, yeah. I think they're similar in overall feel. I would argue that this has a slightly steeper pitch roof, but side by side, similar in nature. Okay. You got the porch. Yeah. They're not dissimilar. They're more similar than they are different, I guess. All right. So the entrance is going to be on the same side versus the existing house right now, it looks like it's two different entrances, one in the front and one in the back. I think that sounds right. But this would have-- YepSo the red building that you'd asked about is gone, and then-
Right ... the structure will go behind the tree there. Right. But I was just looking at what this picture's showing and where these guys-- Because there's two family, and I see there's two different entrances when I went down there to look. Yep. Okay. So that's correct. And there will be multiple entrances on the new structure, but generally speaking, similar, probably not quite as tall is my guess because of the peak of the roof. Like
a TV production. Nice. Thank you. Look at that. Thank you. Very cool. Do you have a room count that you know how it will work? I don't have it on what I've been printed out by my staff. Jay, did we give you a layout, a floor plan? No, just elevations. Just the elevations. I would say a minimum, I'm going to say probably three bedrooms per unit, but I don't know. I can't really confirm that. I apologize. I might have it in a file. Is the intended use for families? Is the intended use for other than families? So I know the question came up. I did not have that direct conversation.
I do know these gentlemen to have housed students throughout town. They have multiple properties. My understanding in the initial discussion with them, because they're also pursuing a project on Russell Road with us right now, our understanding is that they've been beat up and battered around by college students over the years and have had a lot of replacements and different things. So I think they're looking for, at least they discussed-- And I wouldn't venture to say that they're going to completely never rent, or if the right solution or opportunity came up that
they wouldn't rent. But the discussion was they weren't actively looking for that tenant anymore. I think they're a decade beyond that, both of them, and they're not looking for headaches, is generally the discussion we had. I guess it hasn't been an easy 10 years. From a tenant standpoint. Other questions, comments? I didn't realize that there were so many properties that this company owned in Westfield, as Rob just pointed out. And on their website, there's a list of all the properties that people, if students or whoever want to apply for them.
And so after I drove around today, now that I'm retired, I've got plenty of time to do stuff like that. And I went over, and after I visited Clark Street, I took a drive past them. These are all pretty well-kept properties. For the most part, they conform with the rest of the neighborhood. A couple on Cross Street, one right over here. And I went to about a handful of them, and I was impressed with the way they fit into the community. There wasn't a lot of mess around each of them. So, as far as being landlords, I think they're doing a pretty good job. Yeah, I know that they are definitely owner-operators where they do a lot of the work themselves, which I think is helpful.
So they're not relying on outside parties, generally speaking. I think they try to, hopefully, as much money as possible can stick to them, which means that they do a lot of the work themselves. So, yeah, I would agree. Other questions? Is there any way we can put in the condition not to have college students? Only for the fact that it's a very quiet area back there. Well, if the question is posed to me, I would defer to your planner. I do think there's very specific rules and regulations about who you can exclude. I don't think college students are necessarily a protected group. But for example, if somebody wanted to move
into the property and had a school-age or a college-age daughter like myself, I don't know if that becomes a sticky wicket. But I defer to your planner. Maybe he's more familiar with those restrictions. So you did impose that at the Court Street- Yes ... Apartments. That's what I was thinking. And they voluntarily accepted it. Yeah. They may have proposed it, but yeah. Again, anyone could be a college student, I guess, so graduate students, older students. I don't know what the intent of the board would be. We do have a provision in the ordinance, no more than four unrelated
individuals in a dwelling unit. So that controls that issue somewhat. Questions from the public? These are questions. Right here. Please come forward. Carthage Mendoza, 25 Kellogg Street. A question. On the website, it states that most of these houses are three bedrooms up to nine bedrooms. So on the current house that's in there, how many bedrooms was that? Three? Was it mentioned three, the current one standing now? Can I answer that for him? Yes. There's a total of eight bedrooms split between the two sides,
so it's four and four. That's for the current one, correct? Correct. And who owns the current property? The owner is Off-Campus Housing LLC. And is that property vacant right now, or is there people living on it? I know there's people here from that area, they should know that. But do we have anything on that if it's vacant, or is there anyone living in that property, and who basically living in the property? What other questions do you have? That is the question I have. Right. Because it's relevant. Yeah. No, I know. Yeah. But it's not a question and answer situation. If you have questions, ask them all, please. Yeah. That's the question I'm asking, if there's anyone living
currently in that property, and how many people are living in that property. Yeah. That's not a question we would know the answer to. So what we do know is there is an ordinance that says no more than four unrelated people. Okay? The bedrooms suggest otherwise. If it's- They- ... college- Okay ... students only, it suggests otherwise, more than four related. Okay. That could be an enforcement issue. Yeah. Okay? But there is an ordinance in place. Okay. Okay. Other questions? Yes. Please come forward. Hi. What is the name for this architectural style? You said it was a tandem?
Well... Sorry. Yeah. Please. So, no, that wouldn't be the architectural style. It's the arrangement of the duplexes are in tandem to each other. So instead of normally a duplex is side by side, this is one in front and one in the rear, so that if you envision a side-by-side duplex, it's not that. It's that turned 90, if that makes sense. Yeah. So it's a duplex in a tandem configuration. It's a duplex turned 90 degrees. Okay. Are there any other buildings in that neighborhood that are a duplex turned 90 degrees?
Yes. The house directly next door. Both are two-family turned the exact same way. Mm-hmm. So that older home you're saying is the same. Is there another one besides that in the whole neighborhood? I'm sure there are. I haven't been to the neighborhood. But through the chair, maybe I'd be happy to open the Street View. Yes, please. So- Please ... so from an architectural standpoint, part of the special permit, we look at massing. Mm-hmm. I think Cheryl's mentioned massing. We look at size, we look at height, we look at the orientation. So in the neighborhood, we have front or side gabled roof,
mostly front gabled roofs with dormers. I guess you could call them colonial. I don't even know. Jay might have a better architectural description. But the gabled roofs are pretty consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, as are the height. It meets the height requirements and the scale of the neighborhood in terms of the size of the structures is very similar. I'm sorry. Thanks. So on the older building, do both tenants access the property from that front door? I have no idea. So you don't really know internally if it's
constructed the same way. You just said you don't know. They might both be going in that main entrance and going to their respective apartments. So it sounds like you don't know what the internal structure of the older home is. That is correct. That is correct. Okay. Yeah. So what I'm saying is they don't look at the internal structure of the floor plans. So the existing structures are not typically, other than the exterior, are not the subject matter of the special permit. The interior of the structures for existing structures, we have never, and I wouldn't anticipate ever,
measuring or determining the existing floor plan because typically it doesn't matter. The exterior does matter based on the special permit criteria. The size, the structure, the orientation, all of those things I think are germane to the discussion. But no, I have not been in the existing structure. I don't know which door people come out of. Again, it's an existing structure within the city of Westfield. My understanding is they have tenant requirements. I'm assuming they're meeting those tenant requirements because they are familiar with that. I know that those folks, as well as a number of other folks, including the folks across the street from my office, who can't, by the way, on the
record, seem to get siding on their building, also have met with the police department multiple times over the years. And I know that the management of that is worked on in concert with the police department. So as far as the structure, I don't know the interior of the existing structure. I know where the exterior doors are. I would assume they're coming out of the doors that show. Typically, in that scenario next door, I would assume that the upstairs unit comes out the back, or maybe the front, and same. But they usually have access for both units in the front
and the back with that type of building. And actually, we might be able to see it on the- I guess that's my question. Are there any side doors on either side of the building?Can you see? Well, there's a walkway. Yeah. All the way to the back or to the side? They used to- The neighbors may know, but let's... Oh, there we go. In the back. Okay. There it is. And so it's not a first floor, second floor arrangement? It's a front house, back house arrangement? Do we know? I think it's a first to second floor arrangement. So, you walk in the front door, one unit is the first floor, and the other unit is the second floor?
That's traditionally how these houses are. Yeah. That's traditionally how- Because that's the traditional architectural style of this neighborhood. Right. I would assume looking at that side door over there, you would normally see an enclosure that goes up for the staircase. Okay? I know them in Springfield. They go up on the staircase. I think that's been removed. If you go in that door, I would anticipate there is some form of circular staircase going up to the second floor. To me, this looks like a single family home originally with an
addition on the back. That could be different. It became a two-family, not originally a two-family. Yeah. But I don't know. Rob, I want to confirm I understand this correctly. Jay, can you go over the site, please? Site plan? Yeah. No, I just want to see an aerial view of the site. So you're going to have three buildings on that site, two duplexes, and both duplexes will be facing the house. I'm sorry. To clarify, the new unit will all be one structure- Mm-hmm ... with two units, two independent living units, just like this structure. I think to Councilor
Kane's question, I do believe it's probably up and down here, but I don't know that. Jay, he makes a good point. This could've been added later, oftentimes, and only when that happens. So, I don't know how it's germane to the special permit. I do, in the style, architectural-- Jay and I, we studied landscape architecture at the same university, and we study architecture, so I don't think the architectural style is different. The form follows function, right? The function might be slightly different inside, but the architectural style and the overall scale and volume of the
structures is arguably the same. So when I fly a drone- It's a- ... when this is all said and done, when I fly a drone over that, I am going to see two structures, one on each parcel. Yes, sir. One here, which exists- Yeah ... and one here. One there. Yeah. And the one there, the upper one, is how many units? Two units. Correct. And each unit has X amount of bedrooms. Yes, sir. Okay. Yep. I want to make sure I understand that correctly. Yeah. Thank you. Questions from the public. Please come forward. Hi, again. My name is Monique Lopez, and I live right next door to this. Mm-hmm. I'm at 9 Clark Street. So let me see if I understand this.
The special permit, because they're asking to build, because they don't meet the current zoning requirements, they're asking for that to be changed to be able to build on a smaller lot, the two-family? Yes. They're asking to put a two-family house in there, provided that the lot conforms to how the neighborhood is set up. It has to meet certain mathematical requirements. Mm-hmm. If the lot's too small, they can't put a house. If the lot is twice the size, they can in theory, as long as they average out the entire neighborhood.
Yep. Okay. And the house complies with how those lots average out. Okay. Okay? It's a mathematical formula. So when I was looking at the plans, it looks like on average, the house lot sizes in that neighborhood is 0.20. My house is 0.20, and the other ones are very similar to that. So if a new house was to be built there, and even if it's turned sideways, that's no longer 0.20. Isn't that why they're asking specifically for the special permit to fit it on that lot when it's no longer going to have that
same size that the rest of the homes do? It's 0.4 right now, so- Mm-hmm ... five and nine is 0.2. But then they're adding a driveway, so how is that configured? And I do believe in the drawings it had that they were having space enough for four cars per house, per dwelling, I guess, is what it is. How does that match the neighborhood? Because it increases the density of the neighborhood, and I do believe there must be some sort of regulation. We live on a dead-end street, so how will that fit in? And isn't safety
an issue as it is when we have our trash pickup or recycling, they come down the street, have to turn around, or they're trying to back down the street and weave through the cars. If we have additional cars because of additional dwelling on that street, it gets even tighter. There are already two homes there. That one right next to me at 5 Clark Street and one across the street that houses college students, and each of them, I counted this morning, there were seven cars across the street and eight cars at 5 Clark Street. For the people who currently live there, if you're adding two additional dwellings,
that just increases the density. How is that going to be addressed, and is the special permit so that they can exceed the density for the neighborhood, and also the safety of the people who live there? Because if there's a fire, I don't know how someone's going to get down the street... when people, if you add another home with additional cars, and plus for the other people who are housed, the college students or anyone else, if they have anything going on at their house and there is parking on the street, you literally can't get down the street. So how are we going to address the safety of the people who live there?
I've lived there since 1998. More people have come onto the street, and one's namely because of the college students that live there. And I work at the university, so I get it, but I also know that they're trying to make changes. But now we're talking about the safety of the residents that are there, the noise that occurs when they're having parties. They just had one. But how are we supposed to navigate that? And if you're putting a larger house on that lot, that's actually going to be a fairly good-sized house. How are even the parking spaces supposed to work? I do see that there's supposed to be an added driveway, but that would be parking
single file. So I'm curious as to how, if the special permit is granted, how that's going to have an impact on the neighborhood when there is a requirement about the density of the neighborhood, and we've sort of already hit our max. It's a dead end. It's not a pass-through, and it's a short dead-end street. How will that be addressed? Thank you for the question. Next question. Anybody have a question? Questions, comments from the board. Just a request for that condition. That's the only thing. Okay. Anybody in the public want to speak in favor of, speak against, please come forward. Kenneth Mendoza, 25 Kellogg Street.
I'm a lifelong resident, basically, of the Orange Street area. And I've seen a lot of changes going on throughout the years, and I'm sure a lot of people here are from that area. I remember Mr. New Horizon. I used to call him Mr. New Horizon when I was a little kid, and many here. There's been a lot of changes, and if there's a way we can get up a website on there, WSU Living. WSU Living. No, it's one word, Living Together. Yep, L-I-V-I-N-G.com. I don't know why it's not coming up on there. wsuliving.com.
Oh, I can get it to you. There you go. Right there. Actually. If you scroll throughout this website, there's a lot of clues onto who are the target audience, and there's also properties owned by this company, which is the Off-Campus Living LLC. If you go to, scroll up for a second. You go to cost information. If you scroll, keep on scrolling. If you look throughout that area, on campus, off-campus, they're comparing how much it would be on campus versus off-campus. All these properties are being targeted
to one group. So I'm going to start my statement. Dear members of the planning board, chairman, my name is Kenneth Mendoza, and I am a resident and taxpayer of Ward 3 in Westfield, Massachusetts. I am writing to formally oppose the special permit application for 5 Clark Street. This proposal should not be evaluated in isolation. It is part of a broader pattern of high-density, student-focused rentals that are fundamentally incompatible with the intent of a residential B district. Number one, traffic congestion, narrow roads, and child safety risk.
Clark Street and surrounding roads in our communities are narrow residential streets designed for single or, in some cases, multi-family homes for, keyword, family use, not high-density occupancy. These properties routinely generate five or more vehicles per dwelling, resulting in chronic on-street parking, reduced roadway width, and obstructed visibility. We've seen that in the wintertime. With all the snow we got, the more vehicles we got in those neighborhoods, the harder it is to clean the streets and plow.
It is not just an inconvenience, it is a safety hazard. Children regularly play in these neighborhoods, and there has been a noticeable increase in speeding and aggressive driving associated with high turnover occupancy. Keyword, high turnover occupancy. The combination of excessive vehicles and speeding traffic creates a serious risk for pedestrians, families, and emergency responders. Number two, public safety and quality of life violation. The current concentration of high-density rentals has resulted in
ongoing issues, including open container and alcohol-related disturbances in public spaces, late-night noise and disruptive gatherings, theft of personal property, including items taken from yards, public urination, and trespassing on private property. These are not isolated incidents. They are the predictable result of over-concentrating transient housing in a residential zone. Number three, violation of occupancy limits and overuse of propertyThe City of Westfield limits
occupancy to no more than four unrelated individuals per dwelling. However, properties marked with five to nine bedrooms strongly suggest occupancy levels that exceed this limit. This directly contributes to overcrowding, increased vehicles, and strain on infrastructure. Almost done. Number four, not in harmony with Residential B zoning. While in harmony is sometimes interpreted structurally, it must also include the functional use of the property. A high turnover, multi-tenant rental operation
is, as de facto dormitory housing, is not in harmony with a stable, family-oriented neighborhood. Number five, fair housing and disparate impact concerns. Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 151B, Section 4, it is unlawful to advertise or operate housing in a way that shows preference for a particular class or has a discriminatory effect. Marketing housing primarily or exclusively towards students,
combined with the concentration of these properties in areas identified as Environmental Justice Community, which is a MassEJ website, raises serious concerns about disparate impact, even if not intentional. Concentrating high density disruptive uses in one neighborhood while others remain protected create an unequal burden on that community. My conclusion, this application fails to meet the standard required for a special permit. It is not in
harmony with the neighborhood, it creates unsafe traffic and parking condition, and it contributes to an ongoing pattern of overuse and instability in residentials area. I respectfully urge the board to deny this application and prioritize safety, stability, and long-term integrity of our neighborhoods. And I want to make it clear as well, in this website, if you review it, the board, you will see what the audience target is, whether the person applying for this permit is saying otherwise.
But we have a bunch of people here that can tell you from experience that that has not been the case for the past almost, what? 10, 15 years, right? So I'm not opposed to college students. I'm opposed of the fabric of our community. I feel like we're being targeted in our community as, oh, center of town, even Ward 2 is seeing that as well. This same developer continues to buy houses, Ward 3 and Ward 2. And if you look at the MassEJ website, it will show
you the high concentration of minorities in these communities, and I'm one of them. And I decided to invest in my community after I finished my tour in the military and came back home. And you guys saw too, this past Saturday when the, what was it? Kentucky Derby. If you see how the center of town was, how Burger King was so ridden with traffic, not even us that wanted to have a burger could get in it, because they all parked because they wanted to go party in a house next to my great aunt's house on Mechanic Street, which is part of these areas that a lot of
minorities live, and a lot of these students are concentrating in our communities. So if you guys have any questions for me, then you're more than welcome to ask me, and we can go from there. But other than that, if you analyze this website, it's targeting one class of people. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak in favor of, speak against, please come forward. My name's Pablo Lopez. I try to explain the best way I can, because my English is not that good. Your address, please? Excuse me? Address. 13 Clark Street. Okay. Thank you. That's where I living. Living there for 56 year.
Thank you. I never have any problem with the neighbor or the people around, until some of the college kid move over. I was driving down one time to my house, speaking on my telephone, and about four kid went to my house. They say, "We're taping them and taking picture because they have a party and they're going to be down my house, and they have big party in there." Say, "No, I didn't." Say, "Yes, you did." Say, "No, I never take a picture. I never tape you guys." Say, "You show me the telephone." Say, "No, I don't have to."
That's one incident. Another time, I got a fence at my house. A kid living in front of my house right now, they back it up and break my fence. They take off, and my neighbors see it, and I told them about the college kid. Nothing happened. And last Friday, I got a tape here. They run my house with a big bottle of whiskey, in the front yard, drinking whiskey. It's no good because we got a lot of kid around. I got a tape right here. They are drinking here with a bunch of those college kid. That's one reason why I don't like to have no house around.
We finished? Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Come forward. I'm Bridget Matthews Kane. I live at 81 Court Street. I'm a Ward 3 city councilor. I think that you have to reject this proposal. I'm going to talk about a historical example that happened like in 2014, where a similar one was rejected. I want to talk about how you have to find that the proposed building is consistent with the architectural style, scale setbacks, and character of the immediate neighborhood. I don't think this proposal is, and I think it's going to adversely affect the
quality of life in the neighborhood. So the example I want to talk about, this is in 2014. It's way before I was on council, and I live near Chestnut Street, and a house burned down on Chestnut Street, and somebody proposed to build in the spot where the house had burned down. And their original proposal was exactly like this. It was this tandem, two in a row, where the main door were going to face the side of the house. There was nothing else like that on Chestnut Street, and I want to read to you from the "Westfield Evening News." "The Zoning Board of Appeals voted last night to continue a public hearing because
of issues cited by residents and board members during the presentation of a proposal to construct a two-family house on Chestnut Street. The board chairman asked, 'Is there any way to modify your plan to make the proposed house look like any other houses in that neighborhood? There must be plans out there. You just have to look at the neighborhood,' Parent said. One of the requirements we have to find to approve a special permit is that the proposed project be conducive with the existing neighborhood. Parent requested that the petitioner return to the September 3rd meeting with a modified plan. 'We want it to conform a little more with the
neighborhood,' Parent said. 'It's a little problematic for us with the way it looks in that neighborhood.'" It was the same proposal that you see in front of you. And I want to show you what they came back with, and I want to talk in detail about how it now fits the neighborhood. Can you show this? So again, this is Chestnut Street, which is kind of near Noble Hospital. And this is what the plan that they came back with after their original, this version was rejected. So I want you to look at this and think about how it fits with the neighborhood. It has an actual porch. Okay? It has balusters on the porch.
Both main doors are in the front. There are no doors on the side of the house. If you look, there's dormer windows in the attic, which echo the dormer windows on the houses next to them. And there's like little triangle over, like if you look where the front doors are, there's a little triangle. It has a lot of the nice architectural details that are on that street. And that is what they, they accepted this plan. They rejected this original one. They accepted this because it fit the architectural style of the neighborhood. Now, I would like to talk in detail about the current plan.
Can you pull up what the current plan is for this, the box that they want to put up? So I have the same reason that this house did not fit Chestnut Street is the same reason why it's not going to fit in this neighborhood either. So one is it's just a simple box. If you look at the house next to it even, if you look at the outline of all the houses in the neighborhood, none of them are a perfect box like that. It has a token porch. It doesn't have a real porch. The main entrances are on the side. That's not true of any of the other houses.
Look at the size of the windows, and then we'll look at some of the other houses in the neighborhood and the size of the windows that are being proposed. Look at the outline. If you look at the visual, look at the outline of the home compared to the other outlines of the homes in the neighborhood and the variety of the peaks and the way the roofs all look different and just the utter lack of architectural details. And if you swing around, and I had submitted pictures of the rest of the neighborhood. I know we keep focusing on that house that it's next to, and yes, there are some similarities, but you're not just supposed to decide does it
look like the house that's next to it. You're supposed to decide, does it look like the entire neighborhood? And it looks like a box to me. Look at the nice triangles and all the differences and all the porches and how they all fit. There's that older kind of quality that we have on Chestnut Street. So those homes, it should echo all of those homes. It shouldn't just look like the house it's next to. So I think that's one reason that you have to reject this. You have to ask them to come back with a plan that better fits the neighborhood. But there's also the issue of it adversely affecting the neighborhood.
Obviously, the neighbors are really concerned that it's being built by people who specialize in college housing, and I would personally be really hesitant to approve it without seeing what the inside look like. If it's going to be four bedroom, four bathroom, that will adversely affect the neighborhood. So I hope you think about the architectural style and how it doesn't look just next to one house, how it looks next to all of them. Can you see the older home? See how the build on the back sticks out a little bit, so there's a little more variety?
And I don't think you can approve that. I don't think it matches the quality of the other homes. And thank you. I'm not going to go into detail about what it's like to live next to college students because I know the neighbors can talk about that. But I hope you'll think about all of these as you make your plans. And I know Mr. Levesque is arguing if it's the architectural style. I would argue it does not. Thank you. Bridget, are you suggesting that they put a porch on the box? Because that's where the kids are going to party. So I'm not sure that's going to benefit the neighborhood. So right now they're partying in front
yards, and if they're partying on the porch, that's not going to make a difference. Or if they're partying in the driveway next to it instead of on the porch, that's not going to make a difference. I think you're raising the issue of the porch because you're agreeing it doesn't really fit the architectural style of the neighborhood I'm just looking for a solution. Yeah. I wanted to make sure I was on the same page. Yeah. I felt like the house that was on Chestnut Street, that's an example of a house that fits the architectural style of these older neighborhoods. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. As you can imagine, I need to advocate for my client, and I need to make the points where they are needing to be made.
I'm not sure whether you agree or disagree with Councilor Cain. I personally have very specific reasons why I believe we meet the special permit criteria. So I've been before your board, and frankly, I believe we've done most of the special permits related to lot size averaging and infill just by the nature of being in town. That said, this meets all of the criteria. It meets the calculation. It meets the side setbacks, front setbacks. It meets the setback with the adjacent property to the left of the subject property. I think it's 13 and a half feet or something like
that. The height of the structure meets the size requirement. Can we just go back to the side-by-side for a second? So it is literally the same orientation. Two versus three windows, porch, porch, gable, front gable, roof, front gable, roof. Length of the structure is almost identical. So I don't disagree with Councilor Melo... I'm sorry, Councilor Cain. Changing a hundred names here. I don't disagree with Councilor Cain with regard to the fact that that other house is attractive. It's also three stories. We're two stories. It's also much wider and wouldn't fit on our lot.
I like the front porch. I like the architectural details, but we are consistent with the neighborhood. We are not inconsistent with the neighborhood. So we are meeting the criteria. I agree. It's a beautiful house. I think they did a nice job. That house, Councilor Bill Trani is also here. That house, we all deal with construction costs. The house probably costs an extra 300, or no, 150,000, 200,000. It's got another story that we don't need. It's got a front porch that they don't need. This has the porch. So I respect her opinions. I respect that it's an attractive house that she showed us.
It's neither the current applicant or the current neighborhood. I would be happy to go up and down the street on the Street View and look at those, but realistically, we meet all of the requirements for every criteria in the special permit. Is it possible to go to Street View just to look? So the other one was kind of more of a Victorian. Frankly, I think it was the, you ever hear the kids say Temu version? Which is like the not as good of a version of a Victorian. But these are a little bit different. This has the hipped roof. These have a front gable, porch. This one's completely different.
Front gable or with a hipped front gable, porch, front gable. This is kind of different, more of a Queen Anne. Again, front gable with a porch. Not inconsistent. If anything, in my opinion, the roof peak is a little shallow. I think it would be more attractive with a similar roof peak to next door. But this is a pretty basic existing structure, clean. But look, just to compare to the neighborhood. No disrespect to the folks in the neighborhood. These folks are operating a business. If you look at the siding, you look at what's hanging off the house, the condition of the structures.
Oh, wow. It's well taken care of. These properties are well taken care of, to some of the members of the board. I got that. They run a fairly tight operation. We are not here for students. We're here specifically for- That's fine ... the special permit for the use. Okay. Thank you. If he gets to refute me, I get to refute him. It doesn't matter if it fits the setbacks and the lot lines averaging. It has to do everything. It's not like you get to do seven out of eight. You have to do them all. It has to fit the architectural style of the neighborhood. And he just said, "Oh, we can't do that because that's too
expensive." There's no disclaimer that says, "You have to put it in the architectural style of the neighborhood unless it's too expensive." You have to put it in the architectural style of the neighborhood. To clarify, it does meet the architectural style of the neighborhood. It's almost identical to the house next door. I would suggest it had a little taller peak to the roof. I think that would be an improvement. But if you can argue that there's one architectural style in the neighborhood- Six. Six ... it's not the Queen Anne style or something derivative of that on the other plan. So-
Yes, sir ... we'll rest our case. I have advised you. Anybody else with a question? I mean, anybody else with an opinion? Go ahead. Please come forward. So here's the problem. I live on that street. I've lived on that street since '98. When the college students have moved on that street, I don't know if any of you have college students that live in your neighborhood. Have you ever came out your door and seen someone peeing on your house? Have you ever came out your door and seen them exposing themselves in your neighborhood? Wait a minute. Hold on. Hold on. But we're concerned about- Wait now ... Hold on. We're concerned about the density of the neighborhood, about even adding another property in that neighborhood. It just isn't safe.
It is already congested. It is a short, dead-end street. Where are people supposed to park? We have lived there for years and for decades. Do we not get consideration for living in there and paying our taxes? I pay over $4,000 for taxesI want to be able to enjoy my neighborhood. I want to be able to enjoy my house. I think it's ridiculous that we should even consider it if safety is an issue. Safety is most definitely an issue. Adding another house smaller onto that lot, and yes, it is going to more than likely be college students that are living there.
And even if it's not and they rent it out room by room, that's still more cars, that's still more congestion, that's still more of a safety issue with the people who are living there on that street. We have just as much rights to be here and to be taxpayers in this city as they do to want to just come here and live here, whether it be just for a semester or for the year, and then they pack up and go home over the summer. It's still an issue. When they are partying, they were just out partying with huge bottles of Jack Daniels on Saturday because it was Kentucky Derby. The only reason there wasn't even more students in the neighborhood is
because I set the academic schedule for the university. Last day of classes was Monday. Basically, for them, the last day of classes was last Friday. I understand how this works very well because I work for the university, and I do understand the enrollment numbers because I also produce those. What I'm thinking is I live here, and I want to be able to live in a peaceful, safe neighborhood. This is no longer feeling safe if we keep disregarding the amount of density and the traffic that's going to be there. And if I have to call the ambulance because one of my kids is sick or my
grandkids is sick and they can't get down the street because college kids or whoever is parked all over the street because there's no parking in their parking lot, that is an extreme problem to me. And then what is the city going to do? Say, "Oh, I'm sorry"? There are elderly people who live on that street who also need medical care. If an ambulance or the police or whatever can't get down there, that is going to be a problem. We can't make this a pass-through because the park is there, and everybody in the neighborhood comes down. It is a concern. People that are riding their bikes, people that are just walking, kids that are out
walking, people with their dogs and their children. It is like a safety issue to have any more congestion on that street. It is a problem. They're not going to do anything over to Sacket Street. Do you know why? The water department's there, and they take up half one side of the street, so clearly they're not going to want to add anything there. I have no problem with them if they want to have their houses, but they don't need any more here on Clark Street or even in the local neighborhood because there are already so many. Thank you. Thank you. Hold on. We're going to go through anybody who wants to speak first. You wanted to mention something.
Thank you. Yeah. So, there's a lot of discussion of safety. So this is a city street. Yeah. It's a public way. There's a 50-foot wide right of way. There's a standard-width roadway, and there's sidewalks. Regarding on-street parking, we're not requesting any additional on-street parking. We're going to accommodate these uses with the parking that's available. That said, if there is on-street parking allowed, it'll continue to be allowed, just like anything else. These folks pay their taxes just like everybody else. So from a safety standpoint, I've heard the arguments.
The arguments are that it's not the same architectural style. I would disagree. There's no known safety issue here. We got hydrants. We got full width access, full right of way, and frankly, fairly close to emergency services. Thank you. Rob. Yes, sir. Can you help me with the math on the parking? If there's two buildings that each have two units, the new proposed building has four parking spaces. Does that mean that each unit only gets to have two parking spaces? I believe so, yeah. That would be arguably the case. Two per unit is the ordinance requirement.
Although, for single and two-family uses, you can count your driveway as parking. So in theory, it could be loaded up. But only two per unit is the requirement. Yes. So there's five cars in my family, and we're playing musical cars all the time, parking in the street, which- Try seven ... causes congestion. Right. Yeah. But again, we meet all the requirements for the special permit. Thank you. Does anybody else want to speak in favor of, speak against, please come forward. Please come forward. Hi. Jane Oxen, 341 Striker Drive. Don't live in this
neighborhood, but I do watch water, sewer, and trash. And I have heard DPW numerous times say they hate these streets. They have to back the dump truck down the street, and then they come to these multifamily houses, and Jay, when he pulled up those pictures, did you count how many trash cans that house had? It had three along the side of the house, and it had, I think, five across the front. You quickly went it through. To me, they've got four trash cans and four recyclable cans. Four, five, yes, right
there. See? Right now, I think there's four or five going across, and five going across, and going on the side when you show the side door. No, no, the other side. That sidewalk that goes in. There's three more right there. Three more trash cans. So they have eight trash cans. It's a two-family house. I can tell you right now, they ordered up and got some extra sets. We have to. Our trash fee has gone
up to $270 a year. It's because of houses like thisWe have to, rain in, they're all open. Trash can lids must be shut or we have the right to bypass them, not pick them up. Yes, everybody needs to put their trash in a trash can and recycle and all that, but it's houses like this that's abusing the system. They're not being charged properly. Okay, that's on trash. Water. I can tell you right now, that street has a four-inch street pipe. It's got low flow, probably very poor.
It's clogged. That four-inch pipe needs to be replaced, and all those side streets do. So yes, when the fire department says the fire hydrant didn't work, no, they went to the first one, a low flow came out. They go to the second one, there's no flow. It's not the fire hydrant's problem. It's the pipe is clogged and old, needs to be replaced, and you'd have to systematically go through that whole neighborhood. That's water. Sewer,
same thing. If they've got multi rooms all with bathrooms, say nine college kids are living there. They're probably getting one to two sewer fees. Sewer fees now going up to $600 on July 1st a year. That house probably needs three fees. So, we have flat rate. Flat rate for the base water, flat rate for sewer, and flat rate for trash. That house is abusing it, and I'm sure if they're going to put up another one, they're going to abuse it
too. I didn't get it clear whether we're subdividing the property. Yes or no? We're going down to the Hampden County Registry of Deeds and subdividing, making a whole separate house, two family, so that it can be sold off. I didn't get that clear. I thought- Yes ... Yes, they are going and subdividing the property so that if it's built, it could be sold off too. Yeah. Okay. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak in favor of, speak against? Please come forward. If you want to come, now is the time. I want permission to the box.
Nelson Lopez. I live on Clark Street. But I'd like you guys to go over to where the dirt lot is at 5 Clark Street. Okay. You see all that dirt right there? All that right now, they're taking a picture where there's no cars parked. That is constantly filled with vehicles. So also, this gentleman here says that they maintain their property fine. Every year, as you can see, I got a fence up there. I have to fix that because when they plow the snow, I have to keep going back there because they plow right into my fence,
and every year I get stuck fixing that. And then the college kids, like we've mentioned before, will come over to my property, you can see there's a fence there, and urinate on my property. I've caught the guys and I've caught the girls with their pants down and then they're telling me, "Oh, we thought this was part of that property." I'm like, "There's a fence separating this. So why are you going to tell me that?" I'm tired of dealing with that. I got to deal with these college kids four at a time, five at a time by myself,
okay, and tell him to get off my property. So if they got any courtesy for any of the neighbors, then they just got to get rid of this. Because if you're going to build another house there, there's no parking spaces. There's not going to be any parking. Where are you going to plow the snow? You're right. And like I say, that picture right now shows no vehicles in there. But when they're parked there, there's no room. Thank you. Thank you. Only one more time, okay? I understand we keep on going to structure, the structure of the houses or whatnot. But like I mentioned before,
in Harmony, it's a Residential B community. It's mainly families. And I'm sure many of you don't live in that community. I grew up in that community. It's always been a Mass Equal Justice community, and it's on file for that. And for some reason, they continue to target our communities with these housing. They could deny all they want, but I guarantee you, there's more. If you see the website again, they have more properties coming. It says, "Coming soon, more properties." So I don't think their intention is to get away from targeting the students, which that's a different
topic that we're going to have to take with the Mass EJ Association out of Boston, because that's considered discrimination in one part. But like I said, it's gonna make things more difficult. Trash, sewer, emergency services, and noise issues. I'm a veteran. My son's autistic, and it's constant, nonstop. Thursday, Friday, Saturday, crazy noises. They don't respect urinating in my driveway. I got videos of that too. I got videos of them stealing ornaments, Christmas ornaments. I got videos of them going on people's
vehicles.So, and I'm not trying to make this into that, but what I'm saying is, it's going to create more issues. It's going to suck into more of our own resources. So I don't know what their intention with this new property is. They can deny it all they want, but it's in their website showing what they usually target, what's their target audience, and I don't see them moving away from it because it's pretty lucrative. And I understand people want to make money, but they can't make it off the backs of other people. If I was to come to this board and I wanted to buy a house at
Atwater Street where this person owns property, there is a nice, quiet community, or at Shaker Heights, I guarantee you I will get pushback if I wanted to do the same thing to buy property and put in houses for college students. I would get pushback, and because it's not that type of community, it's more of a working-class community, lower-class community, then there's no pushback. Nobody respects our areas, and it's not fair to us. Jim. Anybody on the board, questions, comments, anything?
Yes. I got nothing. Okay. We have a draft condition, special permit, subject property, 5 Clark Street, parent parcel. Draft conditions. One, the lot shall be created, laid out in general conformance with the submitted special permit filing plan prepared by Arlabeck Associates, dated 3/24/26. Two, prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall appear before the board with the elevations illustrating the proposed appearance of the structure. The board reserves the right to require a formal amendment to this
approval to consider, impose, or amend any conditions it deems warranted by this new information. That was before we had the plan. That was before we had the plan. I was sitting here thinking, "Okay." The new dwelling shall be constructed in the style and size general conforming with the submitted photographs, which is what we have. Three, to compensate for the loss of green space, at least one shade tree, two-inch minimum caliper planting shall be installed and maintained within the front yard of each lot. Trees in the adjoining street right away and with
city approval shall satisfy this condition. Four, the rights granted by the special permit are twofold, creation and reduction of the lots for which this permit shall have been deemed to be substantially used upon the 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.
That's the draft. So I have a comment. Mr. Mendoza sent us a letter that said something about, there's an ordinance in Westfield that you can't have, I believe it's more than four unrelated people living in a house or a unit. Is that legitimate? Yeah. So can we condition that, that that's- Well, you don't need to, it's already an ordinance. Okay. So then it's theoretically an enforcement issue because I suspect if one of these units has three or four bedrooms,
we're just asking for trouble. So we did, I think we codified that in 2021. So in theory, if someone was operating prior to that with a larger number, they could continue as non-conforming. But going forward, it's four. Because I agree, I think parking is going to be a nightmare. I think the driveways aren't going to work, and I think parking in the street is going to create an issue in the neighborhood. This is the hardest part of our job because I want to deny this and it's legal.
So what do you do? There's an interesting twist to this with what Richard found. I went on for looking to see about college housing, and I find 5 Clark Street, which is the building that is existing there. They are listing that as four bedrooms up and down, maximum five people on each floor. So they're looking to rent that to 10 people, that building that's existing right now. So you're going to have 10 cars with that building alone for parking.
Maybe, but- And if you put another one in there with six bedrooms, you're going to have another six cars. So you're looking at 16 cars for that lot with eight parking spaces. Therefore- The numbers don't work. Therefore, your question is valid, especially if they're advertising it differently And that five-car sheet is being marketed to 10 people, the existing building. So to clarify, that would be in violation of the ordinance? That would be. So I would- Well, again, it could have been a grandfathered use prior to our- Well, the- ... clarifying the ordinance that way, but-
I'm not familiar with the one that's there, but the minute you add... Right now there's plenty of parking because of that plenty lot. The minute you add that second building, you've lost all that parking space. Right now, there's plenty of parking space for the lot for what they're doing with that building that's there. That's fine. The minute you add that second building, you don't have that amount of space to put those cars in for off-street parking. Because you're advertising it, it's allowing it. Yeah. This is... I would agree with that, actually. My understanding is that's not their approach going forward.
So, this is a special permit. Both properties are going to be cut out of the parent parcel. So if, and Jay, just thoughtfully questioning Jay, if there's a new special permit that's issued, arguably that grandfathering that they would have for the number of unrelated parties, I guess it is, would arguably not apply anymore with a new special permit. Is that correct? Yeah, I think if you condition. Yeah. And then if they decide that they want to continue to market the structure, then they don't have to act on the special permit and build this new structure.
I don't think it's unreasonable to Mr. Solovy's point. I don't think it's an unreasonable statement. I think he's accurate. I think if with 10 people in that house, what we're showing wouldn't work. So I think adding that condition, hopefully cleaning up that issue, and if they decide not to act on the special permit, they have that right. But the condition is already in ordinance. So it's technically already conditioned for that. But this is a new special permit. No, it's not. But- This new special per-- Yeah, the ordinance is in place, but it's not applicable to structures that pre-- Or- If it's grandfathered in, it wouldn't apply to the existing-
It's grandfathered into the built house- To the existing- ... it's not grandfathered into the not-built house. Right. No. Anything new is going to- But the existing structure is part of the special permit, I guess is what I'm saying. Is that- So- Yeah ... if you condition that, it would apply to both. It could apply to both the existing structure and the new. If they decide- I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Yep. Assuming the existing structure is grandfathered, the minute if we were to approve a special permit, it takes on the new ordinance, and that new ordinance says no more than four unrelated parties in
both structures. I think you're, I think- Yeah ... we're close. I think you'd need to condition that. You're close. Yeah, you'd have to condition it. We would have to condition that as part of the special permit. Yes. I'm happy to do that. Are we talking grandfathering depending on when it was purchased, when an owner purchases the home? No. So it doesn't matter how many owners take over, that grandfather sits? Is that what you're saying? It was when that use began. So whenever it began being rented to five per, if it was legal at the time, which depending how you read the ordinance before 2021 may have been.
See, John, I agree with you. I'd be happy to grandfather that one. I'd be happy to include that, condition that. What I struggle with is they could put up either a single family or a two-family traditional mother/daughter there, and you could end up with multigenerational family that could end up with four or five cars, even more. But that's any house in the neighborhood. What's that? But that's any house in the neighborhood. That's any house in the neighborhood. Yeah. That's correct. So you could have a- Right ... a European family that comes over and has- Sure ... trying to first- You could have-
... first immigrants to the United States, and they make ends meet, and they work hard, and they do what they got to do. So that is a distinct- Right ... possibility in any house in that neighborhood, in any neighborhood for that matter. But what you're not going to have is having to go out and confront them like the gentleman mentioned. That's why conditioning that is not a bad thing at all. I like that. I wouldn't do it. So does conditioning the new one condition the old one? Because the- Yes ... the parking- Well, we would write it that way ... that you produced is not sufficient for 10 people. I think you would want to expressly state that. I think we have to do that.
And I also think we need to condition a fence down the middle because there'll be leapfrogging cars over each other to get out of the driveways if we don't put a fence up or require a fence. I think that's fair. Any other comments, questions? Yeah. I don't know for sure, but I don't think we've ever dealt with this high of a density before, point ones and point twos. Yeah. And-Usually you're talking about one isolated house in a more spread out neighborhood, they divide the lot. But this is shoehorned in right now.
And not only that, but it's a narrow dead-end street with the biggest municipal playground in town at the end of the street. It's just too congested at this, the way- We have- ... it sits now, really. Yeah. We have done quite a bit of point twos, I think. They're usually in that range. Did we ever approve one on a dead end? I don't think so. No. I'd need to check. Wouldn't that be less traffic than a through street? Where? Wouldn't a dead end be less traffic than a through street? It's the safety issue, not the traffic issue with me.
So we have the full width, roadway width. Is there- If there's one car there and a firetruck wants to get down, will it make it without driving down the sidewalk? Yeah. So it's a full-width street, so it's no different than any other 24-foot wide street in the city of Westfield. Is there parking on both sides? These guys would know better. Yes. Yes. There's parking on both sides, so that means if they park on both sides, they're not necessarily even lined up. You can barely squeeze a single car through, never mind a firetruck going anywhere. And again, that's a city traffic commission issue, not a planning board issue.
Understood. But I think conditioning the number of tenants is going to kill this thing, and build a pup tent or something. Well, the board can condition what it wants, and the applicant can choose to pursue or not pursue the... I don't know. Can a planning board condition the number of tenants or residents? It's like a health issue, not a planning board issue. Well, it is in the zoning ordinance already for no more than four unrelated. Even in the state of Massachusetts, they've had one recently.
It's been kind of for years. So- So I heard- ... do we vote, or do you go talk to your clients, Rob? Because I'll make that recommendation. I'm sorry. What was the first part, John? I'm sorry. I said, so where do we stand? Do we vote? Or do we wait and see what your clients say about a proposal? Because I can't see them going for that as is. You can't see them going for the- Two people in each unit. No. That was... So no one would do that, right? Two people- Well, that's- Yeah. So that doesn't make any sense. So what could make sense potentially is- So wait a minute. So is it four? It's four in each unit.
It's four unrelated. But no more than four unrelated folks, I believe is the ordinance. So that's potentially eight cars on each side. Somebody could have two cars, and then have a roommate with another car. Mm. The ordinance requires, in the city council's infinite wisdom, which I'm sure they had planning input, they decided that two parking spaces were required. So we have what's required. There's a couple options, right? You could look at the ordinance as it relates to the number
of tenants. It could be one house instead of a duplex. There's still value to the developer. They might not handle it in the same way. Maybe it gets sold off, maybe it gets built, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it doesn't make sense to build a single-family home in that neighborhood. I can tell you what they would like to do, what the market supports is a single-family home. I'm sorry, a duplex home in that neighborhood. It's Residence B, as the gentleman had mentioned. It has sewer, water. It has the width of the road.
So there's nothing functional about this location that doesn't meet all the requirements of all the others you've approved. The question is, is that drastically architecturally different? Which I would argue it's not. And the question is, I think the big question is parking and functionality. I think that's the fair big question. So there's probably ways to improve that. Bedroom count. Stack them. Bedroom count, or increasing the number of parking spaces. To me, that's, I think to Phil's point, and I think Mr. Soloy's point, it's a fair argument. It's worth looking at. Mm. But the architectural, I don't think that holds water.
But the functional parking, I think maybe we need to look at that. Can I- One second. Phil, to answer your question, we've done one dead end. Where was that? Allen Street, and it was 0.31 acres. So not even close to this. This is half of that. Or a little more than half of that. But that's the only one I've ever been associated with. Can I just say that- Mike I'm making you get your steps in. For the parking issue, the house at 5 Clark Street, that strip that you see, for whatever reason, it was empty that day. There are usually at least eight cars there, and that's the
people who live there. For the other college house, there is no more backyard. It turned into a parking lot, and there's six to seven cars there. There is no more space at 5 Clark Street for it to turn into a parking... What you have now is the parking lot. If you add another property there, I have no idea where they're going to be parking. If it's going to be single file, it's going to be a hot mess because people won't want to park in the driveway, because they're going to want to park in the street because they don't want to play the car-switching game. In the other house, the entire backyard, which was a fairly good-sized backyard, is the parking lot, along with the driveway.
So there just isn't any more space in reality to add any more cars there, and if you take away what they have now, they're using as a parking lot, that means people are just going to go to the street. And you saw the pictures of it. Yes, it's maybe a regulated street. It's an old neighborhood. It's a small street. Hell, we barely have curbs. But people walk down there, and you are very correct, there's a municipal park at the end. Everyone comes down there, and a lot of children, and if you don't have parking, how are people even supposed to walk? Because they'll park up on the sidewalk. They've done that without issue.
Hell, one time I had one almost park in my house. We had to go and find them to get them to pull their car off my front lawn. It's just ridiculous, and that's before we even get to this point. So now you add another house and more parking requirement, and you take away the lot that they're currently using for parking, and they say they're going to add another driveway. They're going to park on the street. There is no other place for them to park. Is the street filled with parking all day long? Off and on, there are parking. So if they have people over, if the girls are there, the girlfriends are there, and they're doing the walk of shame
coming out, yeah, they're parking on the street. It is a congested street. When I come home, it's just like, "Okay, just make sure when you're backing out..." I tell my daughter, "Be careful when you're backing out to make sure you're not hitting anything." It's a very real thing. If someone is on the street because they're working on someone's house, you are dodging traffic to get back and forth. So if there's work on any one of the houses on the street, where are they supposed to park? Thank you. Through the chair. Yeah. So, I would like to continue. I would like to request a continuance. I think if they're renting to 10 people on the existing structure, that's an issue. We need to figure out, and I need to understand what they want to
do and how they are planning to handle this logistically. I think the parking is absolutely a legitimate question and concern. I need to go back to them and talk to them about that. As far as the roadway, I'll go measure the roadway. We'll double-check. Obviously, if they allow parking on either side of the roadway, whether there's 10 houses on the street or 11, or whatever the number is, it's still going to be the same street. So that is really not specific to this site. But I will absolutely request a continuance tonight. Hopefully, come back with some information.
Maybe we have a reduction, maybe we have more parking, maybe we have a different solution. I will also take into consideration Councilor Matthews-Kane's concerns. I'm happy to meet with her separately and hopefully get something that meets her idea of what goes into the neighborhood. I still argue, as you know I can do, with regard to the actual size, and architectural character is similar. Whether we like it or not is different, right? So we'll try to see if we can get folks to like it a little bit better and also make it functional. So I apologize. I don't want to belabor the point anymore.
We would respectfully request a continuance. I'm happy to communicate with these folks before the next meeting and see if we can address the additional concerns. The 19th or the 2nd? What's that? The 19th or June 2nd? If you don't mind just one second. It's just that we're done. The 19th would be great. 19th would be great. Okay. Thank you very much. Sorry for the delay. I'll make a motion to continue to the 19th. Second. All those in favor? Aye. All right. See you on the 19th. Rod, thank you. Thank you. Have a good night, guys. Thank you.
Next on the agenda is... Gotta change these guys. Oh, that's- This one should be easy. That's it for our public hearings. We've got to put you first. Next on the agenda is review of a proposed change 61 Franklin Street car wash facility, special permit site plan approval 2023. John, I apologize. Thank you very much for waiting. I'm sorry for taking up your time. Okay. Thank you. I'm here representing the Porter family, who owns the Friendly Car Wash on Franklin Street. You may have noticed a couple of years ago, they own the one across from Applebee's
as well. Awesome. And my company went in and we replaced the vacuum systems- Should've got our maintenance crew ... the old, antiquated, loud vacuum systems that were there, and that shows you what we replaced them with, the pictures that I gave you. They want to do the same thing on Franklin Street, but in order to do itThey need to alter the front where the island is that goes across the front. They need to put a three-foot sidewalk in because those trash cans on the back of that, they're hard to dump if you have to walk through the mulch. So they want to just take the curb off and extend it. So you're basically going to lose two feet of the actual island that's
there. It'll be replaced with a sidewalk that'll hold back the mulch, and it won't alter the landscaping in any way. No, I think it's all front. And the other thing they need to do is they need to shrink that island coming in the opening to allow for the seventh vacuum to fit. It's about five feet. The island will still be there, it just won't be as large as it is now. And then they would like to move the dumpster location to, I think Jay might have shown it, the right-hand side there, right about where he's got that, which would be driving straight in from the Conner Avenue side to
dump it, and then making a turn and going out. And they would enclose that whole system right there, because currently the dumpster's in the middle of the parking lot in the back. So by putting it there, they could put an enclosure and you wouldn't see it. Where do they want to put it? Jay, can you just... Right there, on the right side. I can bring up the plan. Thank you. So if you came in from Conner Avenue, which there's an entry, you'd be going straight at the dumpster. They could dump it and then take a right-hand turn and go out. Presently, the dumpster's not in the location that was on the original site plan. It's in the middle of the back. So that's basically it in a nutshell.
It's a very small alteration, but they just want to modernize the location. And the one benefit is that the vacuums that they put in now are very quiet compared to what they have there now. Anyone else with this? Mm-hmm. I'm okay with it. Is there... The other thing, in modernization, they're going to be putting new equipment inside the car washes, and they're going to repave the entire parking lot. And I know some of you went over there. They take very good care of their places.
The landscaping's taken care of. It's always clean. It's always clean there. Yeah. And the other item that I didn't talk about is there's some lighting that's in the existing pods that the vacuums are on. If those lights are changed, they'll be changed to the compliant ones because the ones that are there now are not. So they will be upgraded to meet the requirements for today. I don't mean to be a nudge on this, John, but the dumpster's going to be right there in front on Franklin Street, and everybody's going to be looking at it. It's going to be enclosed. It'll be right next to this person's house. Right, but the location it's at now, it's next to a person's house. I'm sorry, what?
There's a person's house next to the existing location where they have it. Yeah, but at least the dumpster's in the back of the building. Here, if I'm understanding this correctly, it's up in front by the vacuums. Okay. And if it's up in front by the vacuums, that means it's in the front of the parking lot. And if it's in the front of the parking lot, everybody and their uncle driving up and down Franklin Street sees the dumpster. It's going to be enclosed. It's going to be enclosed. Just like the one that's on East Main Street. Can you put a shed in your front yard? Well, it's not my front yard. No, but
a shed is just a storage facility that's enclosed. Yeah, I don't think we treat it that way. It's probably technically not in the front yard setback anyway, but I don't think fencing and dumpsters are treated as accessory structures. So, if you've got your 20-year-old decision on the Shear Drive, Phil's probably on that one, too. And as mentioned, the original approved location in the back corner is not where it has been operating. It's kind of back in the middle, somewhat unenclosed.
So the board can consider this as a minor change or not. I think the most affected abutter happens to be here. So, I don't know if you have any comment, but... John, explain to me again why we have to get rid of the berm. Because if you look at-- I don't know, did you see the pictures? Yeah. So there's a barrel unit that goes off the back of those vacuums. Yep. And in order to dump them, they would have to be standing in the mulch existing. So they just want to create a three-foot walkway so that you can walk on the concrete to dump those things as opposed to walking in the mulch. You said it's still going to be there, it's just going to be narrower.
When the curb comes out to accommodate the sidewalk, you're going to lose two feet of that big island, and that's a big island there. So there's still going to be an island there. Just going to take basically- So you're just taking two feet off ... two feet of it. Yep. Okay, but there'll still be plants and- Nothing's going to be- There'll still be mulch and all still- Nothing's going to be altered in any way with the plants or anything else. Okay. And there's currently no plants in that small section that would become the three-foot sidewalk. They're in the center of the island. Okay. My apologies. It's not what I understood earlier. Okay. That's why. Okay. All right.Is it a minor
change? Yes. I still don't like the dumpster up front, but... I think we're conditioned to live with dumpsters. I get it. I have one at my building. It's in the back. So, all right. It's just a minor condition and out. Yes. Yes. Two. Yes? Yes. All those in favor of considering this a minor condition, say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Anybody opposed? Is it a public hearing? No. Okay. But do you want to speak? Please speak. Before or against? And you're the abutter? Yes. Do you have any objections? I don't particularly like the look of a dumpster from the street. Have you looked at the present dumpster?
It's behind the building. Behind the building? Yeah. But this dumpster would be enclosed in a fenced enclosure. It's supposed to be in a pad in the back corner. Yes. And it never has been. I get it. Which means they haven't been complying with their special permit. If that's what I'm hearing that correctly. Right? That never happens. What? They just moved it yesterday. So... And where exactly would it be? Right behind that light pole. But it would be fenced in. I mean, that was intended to be a buffer from the original plans, with no structure on it. I think the original plan shows plantings.
Well, you'd have to put a pad there too, John, right? Yes. Bridget, you want to say something? Well, I want Don to have a chance to talk. He's the abutter. He can talk all night long. I do have things to say, though. Please come forward. In terms of the dumpster, I do get complaints, not about that specific dumpster, but about dumpsters in this neighborhood being picked up at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. And if you're going to make a change, if you could require that it has to be picked up within certain hours, that would be a kindness to the neighborhood. And I don't love the look of the new vacuums, but planting two street trees on the tree belt would help block them and make
that neighborhood look nicer. And the abutter's concerns are the largest. I hope you'll take them into consideration. I don't think they'd have a problem with putting the two trees in. Okay. Okay. So condition the collection time and add two trees. Well, you can't really condition. You can ask them to do that, unless you want to require a new hearing and write a new decision. But... So typically, because I have dumpsters as well, I don't allow the dumpster company to pick them up prior to 8:00 in the
morning or after 6:00 at night, and I just do that on my own, and I'm sure Rick Porter would not have a problem with that. The gentleman is entitled to a peaceful evening's rest. Yes. So in his case, it's probably 8:00 to 4:00, 8:00 to 5:00, maybe. Yeah. Yeah. That would be kind to the neighbor. Yeah. And like I said, they're very accommodating. Have you had issues with them? No. Sir, have you had issues with the people who own it? No. Okay. You were going to say something, Bridget? Oh, I've never had anything about this specifically.
Okay. But there's some other businesses that- Okay ... might notice something. Are we good with all this? John? Yes. Rich? Yes. Okay. All those in favor of a minor change? I think you already voted on it. What? We already did, I think. Oh, Jason. Oh, we already had it. We had a first and second. Yeah, you did. Right, Chris? Yeah, but we never did open... He just said say yes if we- Okay ... agree. I think we all said yes. Do I hear a proposal on this? Does anybody want to consider- I propose this as a minor change to the car wash on Franklin Street.
Do I hear a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Thank you, everyone. John, again, my apologies. I misunderstood earlier. I've been there. You know that. I misunderstood. John, he did it on purpose. I know he did, but that's okay. I'll give you that one. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Have a good night. Good night. So it's like 10:30. Yeah. That's right. It's exactly... Okay. So- I didn't eat dinner, so... I declare the meeting closed tonight. See everybody on the 19th. Have a good one