WESTFIELD – The Planning Board voted Tuesday night to send a positive recommendation to change the CORE district ordinance, but declined to support a change to the zoning map that would change the zoning classification of seven properties.
Ward 2 Councilor James E. Brown Jr., whose ward includes a substantial part of the downtown CORE district, requested the change “so as not to discourage smaller residential projects and to clarify language regarding residential uses and related parking in the CORE district.”
Brown said that City Council, City Advancement Officer Jeff Daley and Principal Planner Jay Vinskey have been working to stimulate residential growth downtown.
“We’ve been working with the folks who own property downtown and who are interested in converting the upper floors of their buildings into two, three or four apartments,” Brown said.
The present CORE ordinance requires that building owners provide two parking spaces per apartment, often a difficult requirement to satisfy when the building itself fills the property lot, leaving no space for resident parking.
The present ordinance language also allows property owners to buy a waiver from that parking space requirement, at a $2,500 fee.
“The existing ordinance fee of $2,500 is too restrictive,” Brown said. “We’re looking for options to create more housing units downtown, to generate more foot traffic and build a critical mass of residents and potential customers.”
“We’re trying to make it as easy as possible for the property owners,” Brown said. “The proposed language is that the wavier fee will be $1,000 each for up to four spaces, or the requirement for two apartments, and then it kicks back up to $2,500 per space for the parking wavier. The property owners think that is reasonable.”
“The fee is a waiver of the parking requirement,” Brown said. “The property owners are not buying spaces and the tenants would still need to buy a parking permit from the city if they are using off-street parking lots.”
South Maple Street resident Carl Vincent requested the Planning Board modify the language of the proposed ordinance change to make that distinction more clear.
“Would the board and (City) Council consider adding language to the petition that the fee is a wavier in lieu of (providing) parking spaces?” Vincent asked. “There is a lot of growth already downtown. Down the road the city will need a parking garage (or deck) that will be paid by the taxpayers. These people who are creating more demand should contribute to that cost.”
Brown said that while the ordinance sites a revolving account to improve downtown parking and controlled by the Off-street Parking Commission, that dedicated account has yet to be established. Recently a Main Street property owner paid a $5,000 wavier fee for two parking spaces, money which went into the city’s general fund, brown said.
“I will introduce a motion at the Aug. 16 (City Council) meeting to create the account that is described in the ordinance but which has never been set up,” Brown said.
The Planning Board members voted 5-0 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed ordinance amendment.
The board voted to reject a zoning amendment that would change the present Residence B zoning on a section of Lockhouse Road and Twiss Street to residence C zoning.
Ward 1 Councilor Christopher Keefe sponsored the zoning map change to bring the zoning into concert with the present use of that property.
Residence B zoning allows for the construction of single-family and duplex houses, but prohibits apartment complexes and three or four unit buildings.
Keefe said that the area, located between the intersection of Arch Road and the Massachusetts Turnpike overpass, has been developed with several non-conforming buildings and an apartment complex.
“This amendment is to allow the zoning to catch up with the present uses of those seven parcels,” Keefe said. “I’m looking for a solution out of this where the apartments and multifamily buildings are nonconforming.”
Several members of the board questioned how the apartment complex and multifamily buildings were allowed to be constructed in a Residence B zoning district.
Board Chairman Philip McEwan said that when those complexes were built, it was an allowed use in Residence B with a special permit.
“Multifamily was allowed in Residence B under the special permit years ago, it was pulled out when Residence C was created because everyone was building apartments in the outlying areas of the city,” McEwan said.
McEwan raised a different concern about the proposed zone district change.
“Residence C is designated as an urban use, this area is not urban in character,” McEwan said, adding that the board has historically discouraged spot zoning, an issue since there is no other residence C property in that area.
McEwan made the argument that it makes more sense to change the zoning to Industrial A (IA) because more of the property behind the Residence B land is currently in the IA district and that doing nothing to change the zone will have little if any impact on the seven parcels.
The board voted 0-5, rejecting a motion to send a positive recommendation to the City Council.
