Greetings Fellow Westfield Citizens,
As it has been several (busy) months since my last column here in the Westfield News, there is much to cover in limited space, but I will attempt to address some of the issues that have been in front of the Council in recent months, or which we anticipate to come in front of the Council in the near future. Some of you may have heard me speak about these as a guest on the Westfield News Radio Show on WSKB 89.5 at Westfield State University earlier this week. This was a great opportunity to reach many of you, and I hope to be a part of the program again in the future, as this is a terrific resource that helps to keep us all more informed citizens.
The proposal for the City’s purchase of development rights for approximately 120 acres at East Mountain Country Club at a cost of $758,000 in City Community Preservation Act revenues raises skepticism in my mind as well as the minds of many I’ve spoken with in recent weeks, for a number of reasons. While I understand that conservation restrictions on golf courses have been done in other communities across the Commonwealth to protect land and water resources (and having worked in land conservation for five years, I am very familiar with the role of such restrictions for conservation), this proposal – presented as a ‘must-do’ alternative to the prospect of future residential development on this property – would present a significant financial commitment for the City. I will look for more information on this proposal when it is discussed in both the Finance and the Legislative and Ordinance Committee (on which I serve), and raise these and other questions that I have and which I have been hearing.
Another key issue under current debate on the Council is a proposed amendment to the Planning Board ordinance, which has, very interestingly, divided the Council in its support for the changes the amendment proposes, despite nearly unanimous (6-1) support of the Planning Board itself in recommending the changes. In addition to defining a quorum of four (out of a total of seven full members) and more clearly defining the role of an additional two alternate, or associate, members of the Board, the issue generating the most debate is the proposal to eliminate Ward representation on the Board. The case being made by those opposed to this aspect of the proposal is that, according to some, Ward representation “guarantees” the broadest representation of perspectives from across the City, and that eliminating it from the ordinance would leave open the possibility that some parts of the City would either be over or under-represented on the Board. The fact is that we, as members of the City Council, have the final say on all mayoral appointments (including those to the Planning Board), and if we ever felt that any particular appointment would result in too much “representation” for a particular Ward on the Board, we would certainly have the authority to vote down that appointment. Furthermore, as members of the Council, we are the elected representatives who should represent our constituent’s interests in front of the Planning Board, while the members of the Planning Board are appointed officials bound by the Code of Zoning Ordinances for the City, and effectively operate from a citywide perspective as they consider applications for special permits and site plan approvals for projects across the City. As a former member of the Planning Board for over seven years (six of which I served as an alternate, or associate, member), I can further attest to how Ward representation is not only non-existent in nearly all other communities across the Commonwealth, but how it can impede the ability of the City to attract and retain members as well, and leave seats unfilled which can and has resulted in delayed project review. Under the current ordinance, the City is limited in bringing on new Planning Board members as vacancies occur as filling Ward seats is limited, of course, to each Ward. Meanwhile, those most qualified and interested in serving may not reside in the Ward in which a vacancy occurs, and therefore are not able to serve. In my opinion – shared not only by several other members of the Council and six current Planning Board members (out of 7) – although residency in a particular Ward is helpful in allowing a perspective of familiarity with an area and impact of a proposed project or special permit, it is a member’s ability to understand and apply the zoning ordinances – with a citywide perspective of how the ordinances are fairly applied across all Wards – that should serve as the primary guidance to a Planning Board member’s review and decision making.
[Although I brought this proposed amendment out of the Legislative and Ordinance Committee (L&O) for a vote of the full Council in our meeting of October 16, the issue was sent back to the L&O and will be deliberated further on October 29 at 6 p.m. and will likely come out again for a vote of Council on November 6. If you believe, as nearly the entire current Planning Board, several other of your elected representatives on the Council and I do, that the City is best served by attracting and retaining its Planning Board members from a City-wide pool of candidates to represent the interests of all Wards while applying the City’s ordinances, as opposed to limiting the filling of vacancies to individual Wards, please contact your Councilor to share your support for this amendment.]
The selection made by the ad-hoc committee of the School Committee for the Russell Elementary School to serve as the temporary home for Juniper Park Elementary School next September is, I believe, a very positive step forward. As I know and have spoken with several parents of Juniper Park students with very real and legitimate concerns about the impact that each of the options considered would have had on their children’s education and overall school experience, it seems that most agree that, while not perfect, the Russell option is the best of all considered. Concerns of distance and safety were considered and addressed by the committee, and the cost of the lease – expected to be in the range of $260,000 annually – was by far the lowest of all the options. As there will certainly and understandably be a transition and adjustment to this new school beginning next September, it will allow the Juniper Park community of students and teachers to remain intact, in a building that offers all that a school should for our children to thrive in an educational setting, and at a competitive cost.
On the subject of our schools, it has been very encouraging to learn that the City appears to be back on track for moving ahead with the development of the new elementary school, now long overdue for serving students in the Franklin, Abner and Juniper Park Elementary Schools. The timeline we are looking at now is somewhere in 2016-2017 for its completion, and will begin with the re-bidding of the project this winter. I know that I join many parents across the City in my thinking that the completion of this project cannot come soon enough.
Lastly, and not too far from the site of what will be the new school, another exciting milestone and announcement occurred just a couple of weeks ago with the official opening of the newest phase of the Columbia Greenway Rail Trail now extended to East Silver Street, and an announcement of $2 million in state funds for the next phase of the trail to be constructed beginning next spring. This will add another approximate half-mile to the trail, extending it to Stop & Shop. This is an incredible asset for our community, and will serve not only as a recreational and travel corridor, but as an impetus for economic development as more and more users make their way into our City and our downtown, and encourage greater development along its path.
As always, I encourage you to contact me with your questions or concerns relating to the City and the decisions coming in front of the Council. I can be reached via email at [email protected], or you may also direct your correspondence to me at City Hall (59 Court Street). I welcome your emails and letters, and look forward to hearing your perspective on the issues in my service to you.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. VanHeynigen
City Councilor At-Large
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not the staff, editor, or publisher of this publication.
