WESTFIELD—The planning board met this week and most of the discussions and hearings were continued, except for a private commercial development on Southampton Road receiving some criticism and worry from residents and board members.
The Westfield Planning Board continued its discussion on a development proposal at 710 Southampton Road. The proposal is for three commercial buildings to be constructed on the lot, with one being a possible restaurant with drive-thru capabilities and potential 24-hour operation. The location does have some residential abutment and residents that said they live nearby voiced their concerns to the board, and board members also had questions about the development.
The discussion was a continuation from a previous one, which occurred on May 16. The board had requested more information on the project and Filipe Crevo of R Levesque Associates, who is overseeing the plan, was at the meeting to provide additional information.
According to Crevo, the Conservation Commission approved the plans, and the city’s engineering and public works departments provided feedback, with the revisions being “acceptable.”
There were still no tenants specifically listed for the site however, and there was still a potential for the 24-hour and drive-thru options to be fulfilled, if a tenant fits the need. The potential for 24-hour service did not bode well with William Carellas, planning board member.
Filipe Crevos of R Levesque Associates talks with the Westfield Planning Board
“I think we should make a time restriction on a drive-up,” he said.
According to city planner Jay Vinskey though, that sort of limitation may not be allowed.
“Limiting an allowed use by right, I’m not sure if you can do that,” he said.
Additional concerns were voiced about light trespassing from the property. Members of the planning board had noted that there was light trespass onto Micro Abrasives, a nearby company. Crevos said that the lighting has shielding on it though, and is angled downward. He also said that vegetation in the area isn’t taken into account when measuring the trespass.
“The photometric plan we have is produced by the vendor we use and it doesn’t take into account the existing vegetation,” Crevos said. “That would shield some of the light.”
He also said that the residential area that is near the property had zero light trespass.
Other criticism came from residents, including those from adjacent Meadowbrook Lane. One resident complained that the traffic on Southampton Road was already a nuisance, and that the proposal wouldn’t blend with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, it was mentioned that the board had previously said no to a development on the same road about a quarter of a mile away, according to the resident.
“The parcel down the street was a special permit, this is a site plan review. This is zoned for commercial development,” Planning Board chairperson Philip McEwan said. “It’s not a matter of yes or no, it’s a matter of regulating.”
Following the discussion, the board determined to continue the hearing until July 18.
