WESTFIELD—After support from the community and several city councilors, the abutter’s notification zone change is going to city council for vote this week with the sign suggestion included.
The proposal, which was first made by city councilor Dan Allie, went through city council initially and was sent to the council’s legislative and ordinance committee, as well as the city’s planning board. The proposal would mandate notification to abutters of possible map or parcel changes within 300 feet of the property.
And while the suggestion has received largely positive commentary from several elected officials and residents involved, one sticking point was the application of signage that would be required on the properties that would be under the change.
An example of the abutter’s notification sign, provided by city councilor Ralph Figy
Previously, ward six councilor Bill Onyski and ward two councilor Ralph Figy—both committee members—were against the suggestion for the sign.
“I’m not a fan of it, the sign could fall down, could get stolen, then it’s against the ordinance,” Onyski said previously.
“I am not a fan of the sign, I’m going to come out right now and say that,” Figy also previously said.
Both comments came during a May 16 legislative and ordinance meeting where the signage was previously discussed.
The committee sent the proposed ordinance change to city council with an affirmative vote without the signs, as recommended by Figy and Onyski, and a lone dissenting vote from ward four councilor and fellow committee member Mary O’Connell. It reached the floor of city council and was given a first reading, where residents also spoke in favor of the signage.
From The Westfield News’ article on the May 18 city council meeting:
“Earlier in the meeting, during public participation, several residents had spoken up in favor of the ordinance and the signage requirement. In her remarks, Kristen Mello of Union Street said the signage was a good idea to protect residents who are not property owners, and may not have been notified.
Connie Adams of Yellow Stonehouse Farm also spoke in support of the signs, adding that she would pay for the first 25 signs for the city.
The council voted for an amendment from Jay Vinskey, city planner, to include specifications for the sign, and it was sent back to the legislative and ordinance committee.
Then, during last night’s meeting, all three gave a positive recommendation of the signage and the ordinance change. The proposal will now go back to city council, where an affirmative vote will make it law.
