WESTFIELD – The Legislative & Ordinance Committee will resubmit a controversial ordinance amendment unchanged, although the motion could be further amended on the City Council floor at the Nov. 6 session.
The council was deadlocked at 6-6 at the Oct. 16 session and referred back to the L&O which had given the ordinance amendment a 3-0 positive recommendation.
The amendment has three components: it defines the role of associate or alternate members; it defines a quorum needed to conduct Planning Board meetings; and it would eliminate ward representation on the Planning Board which is currently composed of six ward representatives and one at-large representative.
Currently, the Planning Board has five full members and two alternates, a sufficient number to meet the super majority state special permit requirement. The line defining the role of full members and associate members is unclear in terms of participation and responsibility.
The Law Department, in an opinion sent to Principal Planner Jay Vinskey on June 18, 2014, states that the membership of the board is nine, which requires a quorum of five members to conduct a meeting.
Historically, the board has conducted meetings with a quorum of four members present for the seven-member board. If all seven full members are present, and eligible to vote, the votes of the alternates are not counted.
Elimination of the ward representation was the issue dividing the council which led to returning the amendment to the L&O and could be deleted during debate on the City Council floor.
Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell, who was not at the Oct 16 session due to an airport delay, attended the L&O meeting last night and historically has been a strong supporter of ward representation, a position she took again last night with the L&O.
“The city would be better served with ward representation (on the Planning Board),” O’Connell said.
O’Connell would be the seventh councilor to oppose eliminating ward representation of the Planning Board, unless other councilors who were opposed at the Oct. 16 session have changed their position.
Elimination of the ward representation was requested by the majority of Planning Board members who voted 6-1 to seek the ordinance amendment.
The board requested L&O member Matt VanHeynigen, an at-large councilor who was also an at-large member of the Planning Board, to sponsor the ordinance amendment.
VanHeynigen argued that “as for the Planning Board, each member acts in an At-large capacity, bound by ordinance and zoning codes.”
“What those members bring to the board is expertise and knowledge for citywide decisions,” VanHeynigen said.
Several residents also spoke at the L&O session in support of ward representation. Barbara Rokosz of Lockhouse Road said that only residents of a specific ward have intimate knowledge, “24/7 of what goes on in that ward, in those neighborhoods.”
“You can’t go up to a neighborhood (for a site visit), you need to live there to know what traffic is like during peak traffic times, what the noise is like,” Rokosz said.
Jean Carpenter supported that position.
“Shouldn’t it be ward representation because each neighborhood is different?” she asked.
