WESTFIELD – On the second reading and final passage of an order to transfer 66 acres on Cabot Road to the city to allow permitting for a proposed industrial park, several City Council members put a halt to the process.
Ward 1 Councilor Mary Ann Babinski said she had concerns, and was changing her vote for the second reading. Babinski said she had been involved in the discussions when the land was changed from rural residential to Industrial A in 2010-2011. She said the residents who were opposed to that change went to meeting after meeting, with many different reasons for keeping it rural residential.
Mary Ann Babinski
Babinski said when they lost, the residents were given assurances that the parcel would be environmentally friendly, small businesses, and saw the exact same plans that were recently shown in the Legislative & Ordinance committee. Then three years later, the Niagara Bottling Company looked to purchase half that acreage for a plant. “The city went totally against what they had just promised the neighbors up there. The project didn’t happen. Niagara went away,” Babinski said.
Council president Brent B. Bean, III, who said he was present for the discussions, noted that there were a few reasons that it went away, and promises made to the residents was one of the reasons.
“It didn’t happen, and the industrial park was put on hold to concentrate on the Airport Industrial Park,” Babinski said, adding, “I’m not here to stop businesses. The residents up there need some kind of assurance.” Babinski said until the City Council has oversight and enforcement over any kind of business that goes in, she will not be voting for it.
The current language in the order requests the authority to dispose of the property in accordance with Massachusetts Law Chapter 30B, and that the mayor be authorized to sign any and all documents necessary to effectuate and disposition.
City Councilor David Flaherty
“I’m not going to be voting for it either,” said At-large Councilor David Flaherty. “This is not what they were promised. By giving them too much freedom, we’re getting ourselves into trouble.”
Flaherty then went on to list several other areas in the city that are available for development. “I’m in favor of protecting this land. There aren’t many places in town that have 60 acres and flat lands,” he said.
“The plot is ready to be permitted by the state. The special permit process is working for the neighbors,” said Ward 6 Councilor William Onyski, adding that there is a grant available of $93,000 for permitting from the state.
Ward 2 Councilor Ralph J. Figy said that he was wrong when he referred to the property as being “shovel-ready” in an earlier meeting. “I just see a budget coming that’s a crunch. You can either raise taxes or have new growth,” Figy said.
“The property has been vacant since 1982. It’s not on the aquifer, and we’re getting money back from the state,” said At-large Councilor John J. Beltrandi, III.
John J. Beltrandi III
“All that is being asked is that you stick to the plan, and put assurances in there that are environmentally friendly,” Babinski said, adding that she would like to see the City Council have power to decide what happens. “Why don’t we put something in place first to have some assurances for the residents,” she added.
Ward 5 Councilor Robert A. Paul, Sr. said he would support going forward with a yes vote. “I’m not going to be a victim of something that happened years ago that somebody screwed up on. We have to support growth in this city,” Paul said.
“We’re probably going to make 15 households unhappy. As an at-large councilor, I have to look at 15,000 families that will benefit from more tax revenue,” said At-large Councilor Stephen Dondley.
“I’m going to strongly recommend that we send this back to sub-committee,” said Bean.
“Sub committees are not televised. The public does not get to see the back and forth,” commented Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell, before a motion was made and passed to send the request back to L&O.
