WESTFIELD – The City Council is now considering amending the city ordinance to allow the manufacture of plastic products within the Industrial A zoning district.
The council, following a protracted discussion Thursday night, voted to close the public hearing and send the issue to the Zoning, Planning and Development Committee for further review.
Ward 6 Councilor Christopher Crean, who is sponsoring the proposed amendment, said the motion is intended “to limit the prohibition of plastic products in the Industrial A zone. As written now it is not an allowed use in Industrial A, but it is allowed in Business B zone with a special permit.”
Crean argued that the present ordinance prohibiting the manufacture of plastic will remain in place, but that the amendment would allow the manufacture of products from plastic pellets into a finished shape.
“Technology has progressed since the original ordinance was approved,” Crean said, adding that those advances in the plastic extrusion industry have addressed many of the concerns that led the City Council to adopt the early plastic prohibition three decades ago.
Crean also said the plastic industry is already heavily controlled by the deferral and state governments.
“The federal and state environmental agencies have rigid safety standards which a company has to comply with to protect the environmental and health of residents,” Crean said.
The discussion also included concerns similar to those expressed by the Planning Board in its recommendation to the City Council that would establish local control by making the manufacture of plastic products subject to a special permit review process.
The Planning Board initially considered sending a positive recommendation with no local control, but that motion failed by a 2-5 vote because of environmental concerns raised by several board members after hearing from four residents who spoke in opposition during the public hearing.
The second motion to send a positive recommendation included the requirement that there be a review and local control through a special permit process. That motion was approved by a vote of 6-1.
At-large Councilor David A. Flaherty supported the Planning Board’s recommendation.
“There should be local review,” Flaherty said. “This should not be a by-right use.”
Mary Ann Babinski, the only resident to speak in opposition, said there will be no “local voice” if the amendment is approved without a special permit requirement.
“Is there a public hearing requirement, a public hearing where our voice will be heard, where we can say ‘no’,” Babinski said. “The special permit (process) guarantees there will be a public hearing, gives regular citizens more input when (the Planning Board) addresses special permit conditions.”
“I’m not in favor of it as it’s written now,” Babinski said. “You have three options, accept it as written, accept in as a special permit use or deny it.”
Flaherty said that what triggers a special permit review now is the size of the site, not the use.
“But is a facility already existed and they were just moving into it? That would not trigger a special permit review,” Flaherty said.
Flaherty also questioned how much the proposed amendment can be changed in committee without requiring a second public hearing.
“If we send it to committee and it comes out with major changes, do we need to leave this hearing open to allow public comment on the changes?” Flaherty asked.
Flaherty made a motion to reconsider the motion to continue the hearing while the issue was under committee review. That motion was approved by an vote of 10-1.
Flaherty then made a motion to close the hearing and send the amendment to the Zoning, Planning and Development Committee. That motion was approved by a vote of 8-3.
