WESTFIELD – The Council voted last night to approve an ordinance amendment to better define the composition of the planning hoard and roles of its membership.
The City Council has been dealing with the issue for the past several meetings and councilors were in general agreement with the part of the amendment that defines the role of alternate or associate members and what constitutes a quorum.
The element of the amendment that sharply divided the City Council was the elimination of ward representation on the Planning Board. That issue still existed as the block supporting ward representation offered several amendments to the proposed ordinance change and attempted to “bifurcate” the motion to allow a separate vote on the element to eliminate ward representation.
The council initiated discussion at its Oct. 16 session but was deadlocked at six votes for and against the ordinance change as presented. Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell, an advocate of ward representation, was not at the meeting due to a airport flight delay.
The motion to amend the city ordinance establishing the Planning Board was returned to the Legislative & Ordinance Committee for further review at that meeting. The L&O members did discuss the issue at the committee session last week, but made no substantial changes before bringing the issue out for consideration last night.
At-large Councilor Matthew VanHeynigen, who also served on the Planning Board, said Planning Board members are required to act within the scope of state laws and city zoning ordinances. The board members do not act in a political function because of the legal restrictions.
“My motivation is to put the Planning Board in the best position, making for a more efficient Planning Board for residents and businesses,” VanHeynigen said. “I served on it for seven years and never once did I represent the interests of one ward. I always represented the interests of the whole city.”
At-large Councilor Cindy Harris said ward representation on the board “makes it more equitable and more difficult for a (sitting) mayor to appoint (membership) heavily from one ward.”
At-large Councilor Dan Allie said that because of the size of the city in land mass, there is diversity that should be represented on the Planning Board.
At-large Councilor David A. Flaherty suggested that the City Council consider adding a provision that would require the mayor in office at the time of a vacancy on the board to nominate a successor to the board seat within 90 days and if that does not occur, the council could then fill the vacancy.
That suggestion, which was not discussed further, was made because there has been no Ward 1 member of the Planning Board for more than a year, if not longer.
Ward 6 Councilor Christopher Crean said he hoped that councilors were not confusing ward representation with the role of a ward councilor, and that the City Council makes political decisions, while the Planning Board is prohibited from making decisions based upon political lines.
“Even a ward representative on the Planning Board who does not like a project (in the member’s ward) can’t vote “no” if the project falls within the guidelines. It can’t be denied,” Crean said.
Flaherty made three motions to amend the proposed ordinance changes.
The first motion to cull out the ward issue by bifurcating the original motion was defeated on a 5-8 vote.
Flaherty then made a motion replacing the wording creating at-large membership on the Planning Board with wording that would maintain ward representation. That motion was defeated 3-9.
Flaherty them made another motion to allow at-large membership on the Planning Board but limiting membership to no more than two members for the same ward. That motion was narrowly approved on a 7-6 vote.
The first reading of the ordinance amendment was approved and will come for a second reading and final vote at the next City Council meeting.
