WESTFIELD – The City Council sent an amendment of the ordinances establishing and regulating operation of the Planning Board back to its Legislative & Ordinance Committee Thursday after an extended debate on a portion of the amendment.
The L&O had voted 3-0 to present the ordinance amendment with a positive recommendation after discussing it prior to the full City Council session.
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.
Elimination of the ward representation was the issue dividing the council and led to returning the amendment to the L&O.
At-large Councilor Brian Sullivan, chairman of the L&O, said the committee, which includes at-large Councilor Matthew VanHeynigen, a former long-time member of the Planning Board, said the committee was submitting the amendment to eliminate ward representation with support of the Planning Board members.
Sullivan said elimination of the ward representation “ will allow us to better fill vacancies on the Planning Board.”
“We have the final say to vote down any (Planning Board) candidate who would give too much representation to one ward,” Sullivan said. “All members of the Planning Board effective operate as at-large members representing the entire city. The L&O feels this will help the board to be more effective and efficient.”
Sullivan said a similar motion to eliminate Planning Board ward representation “was voted down in 2012 because of the strong will of ward councilors (to maintain ward representation).”
Thursday night it was at-large council members who led the opposition to eliminating ward representation of the Planning Board
Council President Brent B. Bean, an at-large councilor, said he would “not vote to support” the amendment as presented with elimination of ward representation.
“I’m looking at this the way it’s set up now, (that) it guaranties full representation of the city,” Bean said. “Most importantly with ward representation if guaranties a flat look at the city.”
At-large Councilor Cindy Harris sided with Bean’s argument.
“I feel that all wards should be represented. It is much better balanced for the city,” she said.
At-large Councilor David A. Flaherty said he was “opposed as well.
“We have an at-large opening right now that we can’t fill. Changing this ordinance will not help with that issue,” Flaherty said.
At-large Councilor James R. Adams, also an L&O member, said that he had discussed the issue with Planning Board members.
“They will tell you that people don’t come to their (Planning Board) ward representatives,” Adams said. “There is only one other community in the Commonwealth which has (Planning Board) ward representation.
“We have ward representatives here on the City Council that people can come to with issues,” Adams said.
“My concern with ward representation is it may be a problem in the future when a great candidate, well-qualified, comes forward, but can’t serve because the ward seat is already filled,” Adams said
Ward 6 Councilor Christopher Crean said the he supports ward representation on all boards and commissions, but not in the case of the Planning Board because the duties of that board are “very demanding and place enormous time constraints on its members.”
“I don’t like (Planning Board) meetings being cancelled, even one meeting, because that holds up businesses,” Crean said.
Ward 2 Councilor Ralph Figy also supported the ordinance change to eliminate ward representation.
“My concern is that we can have associate members on that board for years getting trained, but we can’t use them in a full-board member capacity because their ward seat is filled, which is a waste of human resources,” Figy said. “I see it as a way of enhancing a critical, very important, board.”
Ward 1 Councilor Christopher Keefe said his head count of the council members had the vote at 6 to 6 which would result in the defeat of the proposed ordinance amendment. Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell, who was stuck at an airport and unable to be present Thursday night, has been a strong proponent of ward representation on the Planning Board in the past.
Ward 5 Councilor Robert A. Paul Senior made the motion to return the amendment to the L&O.
Sullivan urged the councilors to approve Paul’s motion.
“We like 80 percent of this amendment. It’s just the ward representation that is an issue, so there is no reason to kill it now. Send it back to committee,” Sullivan said.
Paul’s motion was approved by an 11-1 vote, with VanHeynigen casting the lone dissenting vote.
