##VIDEO ID:https://vimeo.com/1037650396## Mm-hmm. And it's not like, Good evening. I forgot. I'd like to call the December 9th, 2024 meeting of the Westfield City Council to order. Roll call please. Madam City Clerk Bean Bean. I get to go first. Yes, you do. Uh, here. Belt. Randy. Here. Burns. Fanon. Here. Figgy. Here. Harris. Here. Matthews. Kane. Here. Meow. Here. Morgan. Elli. Here. Oniskey. Here. Sullivan. Here. Adams. Here. Allie. Last But not least, these rights from Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge Allegiance. Mr. Flag of the United States America. Mr. Justice. Reading of the record of the meeting of November 21st, 2024 in special meetings of November 21st, 2024 and November 26th, 2024. Councilor Bean, I give you Mr. President. I'd like to accept the me the minute Of the meeting without reading. So moved. Second. Motion made it second. And any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now comes the portion of the meeting for public participation. Anyone wishing to address the city council can do so by stepping forward. Stating your name and address and three minute increments, which may be extended. That looks like more than three minutes. And also, just so that you know in the public, anything that's on the agenda, that's a public hearing, you don't wanna speak at this time, you can wait until the public hearing. Uh, Dan Alley 38 Union Street. Um, I hope everybody had a thanks. A wonderful Thanksgiving. Um, first of all, I'd like to, uh, to thank the mayor for, uh, using a million dollars in free cash, um, toward the tax levy, um, but also the work of the auditor. Um, Vicki Morrow, um, for finding another million dollars, which will help with the taxes, um, going forward. Last Thursday, December 5th, the Massachusetts Department and Public Utilities, the DPU held a public comment hearing on an application to build a lithium battery storage facility in Westfield. The hearing was scheduled on a night when the city council regularly meets. I would like to thank the council president and each of my fellow counselors who voted to reschedule our regular meeting, which is why we're here tonight, so that counselors could attend this important hearing. I wish to thank Councilor Melo who alerted me about the hearing. Otherwise, I would not have been able to rally support of the council to propose postpone our meeting. At the beginning of the hearing, the DPU commissioner stated the goals of the process were transparency, clean energy, and environmental justice. However, the scheduling did not give sufficient notice to Westfield residents or city councilors and calls into serious question just how transparent this process is. The DPU sent a notice to the city on Tuesday, November 26th. Two days before Thanksgiving, the city clerk is only required to post a notice in the basement of City Hall and the library, but not on the city website. Both buildings were closed on Thanksgiving and barely opened before Monday, December 2nd. No federal or congressional representatives were present at the hearing. No state officials or representatives were present. I contacted Senator Oli and Representative Pease to see if they received notification. Both representatives were out of the country according to Senator Ellis' office. He received a notice on Sunday, December 1st. During the hearing, I asked one question. Was there any circumstance or scenario that in the event of a fire, would the fire phone, would firefighting foam containing PFAS be used? I received a one word answer from the lawyer representing the company. No, I specifically mentioned firefighting foam because I knew nothing could be used to put out a fire in a lithium battery storage unit. Any fire would become a ca ca catastrophic event and must be allowed to burn itself out, usually taking at least 48 hours. In one case, a fire lasted 16 days, requiring 8 million gallons of water be poured around the container from, to keep the fire from spreading to surrounding containers. The proposed facility in Westfield would have 219 such containers. The one word response I received was more than other questions to residents. The representatives of the company gave short answers or simply replied, the answer or requirement was included. The application filed with the DPWA copy of the application, along with 5,000 pages of supporting documents was provided to the city court. Motion to extend second Motion made it second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Go ahead counsel. Okay, thank you. Mr. President was delivered to the city clerk. It was the hand delivered on December 19th. Once again, the city, we weren't invited until, um, December 26th. A week later. Um, that's when we were notified. Why would anyone living in Westfield wanna place a lithium battery storage facility over the aquifer? The city's drinking supply simply put any fire in a lithium battery storage container is a catastrophic event lasting for days, releasing large amounts of smoke and toxic pollution, including PFAS into our air and millions of gallons of water into the ground right over the aquifer. As Mayor McKay pointed out, where do you think that water is going to go into the ground? And the site is right over the aquifer. The DPW review is to determine whether the project proposed the proposed use is necessary, serves the public convenience, and is consistent with the public interest under general law. Chapter 1 64, section 72 And 20, whether the zoning and assumption should be granted and if the proposed use of the parcels is reasonably necessary for the convenience or the welfare of the public. Pursuant to general law, chapter 40 a I contend and everybody should know, there is little tax benefit to the city and absolutely no benefit to the residents or to the Westfield Gas and Electric. Since Westfield owns its own electric supplier, I wish to thank Mayor McCabe, fire Chief elo and Tom Flaherty of the Westfield GE for expressing their concerns and councilors, Fanon and Mellow who spoke eloquently and passionately against, along with other residents. What would we tell people if a future event threatened our water supply? That we hoped nothing would ever happen? Our residents and taxpayers have already paid a heavy cost, both financially and health wise, due to exposure to PFAS for damage done to our aquifer. As a result of the misguided actions of our local, state and federal government that somehow thought it was a good idea to set planes on fire and train to put out fires using fire foam on a regular basis over the city's drinking supply. Our aquifer already faces challenges each and every day from development truck and vehicle traffic and having an airport over it. We simply cannot afford to roll the dice and just hope that nothing happens. We simply must say no to this project. I have posted a video of the hearing on many of the, uh, Westfield Community forums for people to watch. The portion for community, uh, public comment began at 38 minutes. The deadline for public comment is December 20th, 2024 to submit com. Uh, comments on the project must be filed with the department by email or email attachment to DPU efiling@mass.gov. And to Donna, do Sharkey, S-H-A-R-K y@mass.gov no later than the close of business on December 20th, 2024. Include your name, title, and telephone number to contact in the event of a question about the filing. Later tonight, I will make a motion that the city council consider drafting a resolution strongly opposing the construction of any such facility over the aquifer within the Resource Protection area or the City of Westfield. There are levels of participation that interested parties can appear, intervene in the Department of Public Utilities Review process, which I have asked the city clerk to put on your council share. And you'll see the documents there, including my comments. Anyways, thank you for your time and I'll return this back to the court. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council? Jessica Britton, 36 Kasier Street. I as well attended that meeting last Thursday. I'm speaking here tonight in opposition of the proposed battery park on Madero Sway by Westfield, E-S-S-L-L-C-A-K-A, Jupiter Power AKA. They refuse to acknowledge that they are BlackRock, which I fact check them at the meeting. This is not a right or left issue. This is a human issue, one that affects every citizen constituent in all living life. In the city of Westfield water is essential for life. Every li living thing needs water, fresh, clean, potable water. We have a tremendous natural resource living on the Westfield River. The proposed location of this battery park, which will be built directly on top of our aquifer, is a huge liability risk and potential detriment to every living thing in the city of Westfield. We are in grave danger with what they want to shove down our throats. Figuratively and quite literally, your actions today will add to Westfield's legacy. What are we leaving behind to future generations of Westfield inhabitants health and wellbeing? All of us have seen and bear not only the costly financial burden of cleaning up our water from the PFAS con contamination at Barnes Air Base, but the deadly health risks from the decisions made decades ago. Many generations are now poisoned with PFAS with no knowledge, consent, or control of our own. This is all brought to us under the guise of green energy deal and climate change. I came to you back on June 2nd, 2022 City council meeting and used George Carlin's monologue. It's a big club and you ain't in it. It unveil carbon credits. That's a portion of the World Economic Forum agenda 2030, where many global investors such as BlackRock, one of the biggest investment firms that basically owns the world, want to change our way of life. And usher in the fourth industrial revolution of automation in ai, basically rendering the human obsolete. This is our fight, our last stand. Maintain our autonomy and sovereignty in Westfield. Tell back BlackRock No, and go back to Texas. Rescind the resolution from August 15th authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement for the easement to run the power lines across Madeira's Way. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council? Good evening. This is Ralph Thresher, 1 6 3 Elizabeth Avenue. And at about 10 after six tonight, unfortunately, is when I found this article from, uh, has to do with the town of East Hampton, New York, one of four best systems that caught fire in 2023 out there and polluted the water supplies. Basically it says the fire at the storage facility produced heavy smoke from the building containing lithium batteries. For those of you that are not aware, lithium ion batteries contain PFAS. Okay, so the East Hampton storage facility is monitored remotely with internal and external external video surveillance. When the facility went online in August, 2018, it was Long Island's first and largest utility scale battery storage unit three and a half tons of lithium salt. Within the 98,328 battery cells tightly stacked in racks. Of course continuously monitored by a battery management system on May 31st, 2023 at 8:30 AM The controller based in Florida knew that the lithium ion batteries were on fire and notified the East Hampton Fire Department who advised the police officers on site responding to the fire alarm due to the toxicity of the smoke. Establish a one mile evacuation from the direction of smoke. The smoke would have contained hydrogen fluoride gas from the lithium salt. Hydrogen fluoride gas, for those that don't know, is corrosive to the eye, skin and respiratory tract and may be absorbed through the skin in toxic amounts. Acute or chronic overexposure to hydrogen fluoride can injure the liver and kidneys. Inhalation of hydrogen fluoride over 170 parts per million can be fatal. It says the police and fire departments are to be commended for acting swiftly and professionally. It says we were misled into believing the East Hampton and Montauk battery facilities were clean and green and pose no threat to groundwater. However, apart from the release of potentially fatal hydrogen fluoride gas, the facilities owners failed to tell us that toxic PF pfas chemicals are essential components in lithium ion batteries, including in the electrodes, cathode and anode binder. Electrolyte and separator. The industry acknowledges that commercial alternatives to such chemicals are 13.5 years away and these are forever chemicals. There's much more to this, but I'll, I'll read the highlights 'cause I want to keep it short for you. In 30 hours, a fire sprinkler system that basically extinguished the fire generated over 2.2 million gallons of fire extinguishing water. Consequently, the fire extinguishing water flowed into our sole source aquifer carrying high concentrations of toxic contaminants, harmful to human health. To give you an understanding of the potential adverse impact the chain reaction fire might have on our water supply. If all the battery cells ruptured fire, extinguishing water at 2.2 million gallons would flow into the aquifer. Motion to extend a minute. Second, second, second, second. Motion made It second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aquifer carrying PFOS 34,800 times the concentration level proposed in the EPAs national Primary drinking water regulation and P oa 27,800 times the concentration levels would exceed the highest levels detected in Wayne Scott from East Hampton Airport. By 276 times the battery fire in East Hampton was the first of four facilities in New York State to catch fire in two months, in 2023. In 2023, half of the battery storage capacity, New York State added to the grid caught fire still. Governor Hoel maintains the fires at energy storage facilities are exceedingly rare. The East Hampton and Montauk facility owners have layers of corporate protection to insulate them from liability in cases of fire. To my knowledge, the joint venture partners paid no bond and submitted no proof of adequate insurance. If a severe battery fire occurred during a busy summer afternoon resulting in fatalities from hydrogen fluoride gas emissions, it would be the equivalent of a hit and run where we would be left picking up the pieces after the carnage. There's more to it. I will submit this and I will make sure to email a copy of this article to everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Like to address the council? Seeing no one communications from the mayor. Item one Councilor Matthews K Council. There was somebody down there. Oh, okay. Did not. Hey, Do everybody, uh, there was the council. Uh, my name is Fred Connor. I'm, uh, hail from, uh, west Springfield, the city counselor in West Springfield. And, uh, it was brought, uh, it was brought to my attention this, uh, this subject. I think the gentleman before me, uh, quite aptly, uh, got into the details that I, that I won't, uh, venture into. But I just want to express my concern about this from, uh, a regional standpoint. Um, uh, and I'll, I got a prepared statement here. The proposed construction of LIB source facility over the aquifer post an unacceptable risk to our drinking water, the environment, our natural habitat and human health. Uh, west Springfield gets its raw water from the, uh, Barnes aquifer, I believe this is what we're talking about. An aquifer which spans five towns, as I understand it from Westfield, Holyoke, south Hampton, east Hampton, and North Hampton. Uh, is astonishing to me based on what I, uh, am privy to at this point about this project that, uh, the Department of Public Utilities of Massachusetts, a state that prides itself on championing, uh, environmental causes, would embrace this project, even the inordinate risk at the, the site, uh, this where it's proposed, uh, and, uh, I could talk about the risk. I think this gentleman before me covered it quite aptly. But, uh, certainly you got hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen chloride, uh, sulfur dioxide, fluorinated, phosphorus compounds. Uh, you got lithium based compounds, uh, cobalt based compounds, cyclical based compounds, manganese and or organic electrolytes have VOCs commonly known. Um, uh, all of which can be released during the various stages of the, uh, LIB uh, lifecycle, which includes, uh, uh, manufacturing, but in this case, uh, use and disposal. And over the normal lifecycle of, uh, uh, uh, uh, lithium ion battery, uh, recycling and disposal. That's another issue. And, uh, also fires and thermal runaways. Uh, uh, very concerning. Um, aside from the, uh, lbs leaching into contaminants over the lifecycle of the battery, catastrophic fire, the facility would last for days as, as this gentleman pointed out. And as, uh, uh, experiences, uh, has made it very clear, uh, the amounts of smoke and toxic pollutants into the air released, uh, in such a catastrophic event would be, uh, uh, the, uh, uh, you know, something we could not afford to count in it. Uh, the millions of gallons of water used to extinguish the blaze would flush contaminants, uh, uh, directly into the groundwater and poison the aquifer. Uh, uh, if aqueous film forming, uh, foam, uh, the PF and pfas were used to, uh, extinguish the blaze that's, uh, been shown to be an expedient way of extinguishing a fire of this, this, uh, type, uh, that would, uh, further contaminate, uh, the, the air and the groundwater. So, uh, I, I believe the concerned citizens of Westfield and surrounding communities, at the very least, are entitled to a proper vetting of this proposal so that a site may be considered that poses a minimum risk to our drinking water, the environment and natural habit habitat and the human health. So, uh, it's my statement. Uh, I have a copy if you'd like it, or I can Have, you can submit it to the city clerk if you'd like. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Once again, anyone like to address the council? I mean, that's how we started seeing none. Back to item one, Councillor Matthew King. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion for immediate consideration and acceptance of a grant in the amount of $20,335 from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division to the Westfield Barnes Airport to purchase navigation easements off airport for runway 15 obstructions. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion council. Thank you Mr. President. This has been a multi-phase project to cure a hotspot on runway 15. Currently, several trees have grown near the airport runway, and because of this, airplanes must land 490 feet further down the runway than they would normally, thus shortening the usable length of the runway. Additionally, a stop line is not where it would normally be at other airports due to the shortened runway. And this confusion has resulted in runway incursions a clear safety hazard. Both this hotspot and the shortened runway will be resolved by this project. The first step of this project was the environmental permitting, which has already been completed. The grant in front of us right now from mast is for the navigation easement. The money will go to property owners where the trees are located for the right to remove the obstructions. Later tonight, we will discuss another related grant from mast to take down the trees, but this is just to cover the cost of the easements. The total cost of the project is $406,700. Council has already accepted the FAA grant in the amount of $366,030, and the city share of 20,335 is already in the airport's fiscal year 2025 Budget. Um, there will be one more step to this project. Once the navigation easement in construction is complete, the runway will have to be res stripped and the lights repositioned. The airport manager is confident that he can secure a grant, but this is not guaranteed. And it's immediate consideration because we will be considering, um, the other grant today. And if they're both voted on tonight, they can start with the Project. Anything further? Seeing none. Roll call. Madam City Clerk Bean? Yes. Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Thank you. Item two, councilor Matthews Kane. Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion for the city clerk to read item two and refer to finance Second. Motion made it second Madam City Clerk. Two appropriation of $5,593 and 39 cents from free cash to the conservation purchase of service account to replace the transmission for the conservation department's vehicle. Any further discussion? Council burns. Yeah. Thank you Mr. President, will you consider this under immediate consideration? Seeing it got a vehicle down only one for conservation. According to the letter in there from the mayor, it's gonna take two weeks to get parts and labor or for parts and labor. Make it, yeah, I amend it. Motion to suspend. Motion to amend for meeting consideration First. Motion to suspend The rules. Second. Motion made it second to suspend the rules. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Now under suspension Council Burns. Yeah. Motion to, uh, media consideration for item two. Second. Motion. Made it second. Further discussion on this roll call Madam. I'm sorry. Council B. So again, what, what's the reason for media Consideration? Well would say it is their only vehicle and downset September. And it's gonna take at least two weeks. And believe me, being in the auto rep remote business industry, I can tell you it's gonna take more than two weeks and we it's gonna go to another meeting than another meeting for a vote. Council B. Good. Anyone else? Council Morgan. Thank You Mr. President. Um, I, I'm looking at the, the estimate on the, uh, I don't know if this was a, from a a, it doesn't say where this is from. Say at Ford, Um, the estimate for the labor charges are over $2,000. The average time in place of transmission is about 10 to 12 hours. That's $200 an hour? Mm-hmm. Sounds good. Is what? That's $200 an hour. That's what they get. That's what they're getting. That's What they get for shopper transition. Actually, We're probably getting, I thought it was more like 140, 150. Okay. It's gone up quite a bit. It seems a little high. They're Probably under contract for the city. That's what I'm assuming. 'cause it's in there for that. The truck. Anyone else? Seeing none? Roll call Madam City Clerk. Beans. Jesus. No. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? No. Meow. Yes. Morgan Elli? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Thank you. Get a motion for regular order please? Motion for regular order. Second. Motion made it Second. And all in favor? A. Aye. Opposed? Now back in regular order Item three. Councilor Oniskey. Thank You Mr. President, would you please ask Madam City Clerk to read items 3, 4, 5, 6, and seven and refer to Ano and Law? Second. Motion Made it seconded Madam City Court. Um, may do we need a motion to return the regular order? We did, we already did. Just voted, I'm sorry. Three. Submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 13. Article five. Division two, wetlands protection. Four. Submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 18, article two. Division three. Division of public services. Five. Submitting resolution to approve and accept a preservation restriction for the Central Baptist Church Building located at one 15 Elm Street. Six. Submitting resolution to authorize the mayor to sign on behalf of the city of the model host community agreement between the city of Westfield and safe TIVA Labs LLC seven. Submitting a memorandum of understanding between the city of Northampton and the city of Westfield regarding the integrated bike share system. Valley bike. Any further discussion before we send this off? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item eight, Councillor Harris. Thank you Mr. President, please ask, Uh, Madam City Clerk to read eight and refer to the Personnel Action Committee. Second. Motion made it seconded. Madam City Clerk Eight. Submitting the reappointment of Joseph Muto 61 Baldwin Street as a member of the Community Preservation Committee for a term to expire in July of 2027 For the discussion. Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item nine Council Winky? Uh, yes. Would you please ask Madam City Clerk to read item nine and submit to ANOVA law? Second. Motion made it seconded. Madam City Clerk Nine. Submitting a letter of intent to increase the staffing level in the police department from 66 to 70 sworn officers. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Item 10, councilor Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion to place on file the, the, uh, expen December, 2024 expenditure report of the Coronavirus State Local Fiscal Recovery Fund program authorized by the American Rescue Plan Act. Second. Motion made it second. And any further discussion? Council? No. Anyone else? Seeing none. All in favor? A. A opposed, uh, petitions, Rees and other papers. Councillor Figgy. Item 11. Thank you. Um, like to make a motion to table this item until the, our January 16th, 2025 meeting. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion. Council? Yeah. This letter. No discussion on a table. You Right. Excuse Me. No discussion on the table. Oh, there is no discussion on the table. Correct. Okay. Now table All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Uh, item 12 is public hearing on applications for junk dealer and junk collector licenses for Elm Art and Antiques. LLC 30 Elm Street submitted by John Henry Owner's the applicant here. Step forward please. Public hearing is now open. Hello? Uh, we plan on utilizing the vacant former Santander building, uh, to open a cooperative of artists and antique dealers. Um, can we for your approval, Mr. President? Yep. Name and address? Yes, please. Uh, my name is John Hanley. Um, I grew up on Northridge Road, but I'm currently living in West Springfield. Thank you. Go ahead. Uh, we plan on, um, joining the city's growth, um, and adding to the, the recent cultural district designation by, um, allowing all the local artists to, you know, display and sell their items. As well as, um, portion of the, um, vendors will be antique dealers, which is why I'm looking for your approval for a license for the antique portion of the business. Okay. Questions from the counselors? Councilor Figgy? Yeah, I, I couldn't hear what, where's the location? 30 Allen 30, the former Santander building. Thank you. Questions from other counselors? Questions from Mr. President? Oh, yep. Uh, do you have like, hours of operation? Is this gonna be open every day? Uh, we're gonna follow the local businesses. Um, most local businesses in that area aren't open on Sundays and Mondays. Um, we may open on Sundays and Monday. We don't really know yet. Uh, it, it depends on the, the business and how many people walk through the door. So are, are you going to be renting out spaces to artists renting Out spaces? Yes. And then they're gonna be showing and selling their, uh, No, we're gonna be showing and selling their items. You're gonna be showing and sell? Yes. Okay. So the rent to space, how does that, I'm not familiar with how that all works. Do you rent the space to artists? Yes. Um, rent, rent a display space. We're gonna be providing all of the furniture, um, locked display cases, um, shelving tables, uh, to keep a consistent look. And we're gonna, um, allow the, whoever wants to be a vendor to pick their space, the size of their space. Um, and we will handle all of the sales, you know, all, all the money will go through us. They won't be there. Okay. So the business model is you, you will make a commission of some sort. Offer, Commission, and rent. Okay. Uh, there may be some, um, opportunity for artists to do demonstrations, um, in the future. Um, but right now it'll just be us in the building. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Any other questions from the council? Council? Matthew Kanes, The, does the Santander building come with parking? Uh, yes. Uh, we're also buying seven School Street, um, right behind the building. And that has 15 parking spots. Okay. Uh, they're a package deal. Okay. Uh, but there's also plenty of city parking. Uh, really close to the building. Yeah. Council Riley. Famous President. So, um, can you tell, uh, describe some of the items that you anticipate that would be in this building? Um, paintings, um, artwork. Uh, my wife is, uh, an artist and, uh, that's what instigated some of this. She makes things out of class. Um, but we're, you know, frequent, um, displayers at the artwork. Westfields events like the one that's happening this Saturday. Uh, people, people like that. Um, and, um, antique dealers with small antique items. Uh, no furniture, no large items. It's gonna have to fit in the display furniture we provide. If I may follow up, yes. So something similar to like the, I think it's the Michael Galland up in North Hampton. Uh, no, um, there isn't anything, um, similar to what we're doing around here, uh, with a mix of dedicated space for artists and for antique dealers. Okay. Um, will be unique. Alright. Anything further from the council? Council? Na. Thank you, Mr. President. So you, you mentioned you were also buying seven School Street? Yes. Mm-hmm. So do you have That's the small bank building? That's The small bank building? Yes. Do you have plans for that? Um, it, immediate plans are for storage. Uh, there's been some interest in, um, leasing it from, uh, another local business in the future, but we're gonna use it for storage, uh, when we first opened. Okay. Is Council Sullivan, is there a restriction on that drive up? That's the building we're talking about, right? Correct. We're only using it as storage. I, I know, but when you take it, is there a restriction, like in terms of what it can be used at for a drive up operation? I don't know. Uh, we don't plan on using it, uh, as a drive up. I, I, I guess my concern would be some other business approaches you and says we'd like to use it as a drive up and it's, oh, We definitely have to investigate that. No, I know, but this is the only time we get to ask that. Anything further? Council's all set. Anyone in the public have any questions of fact for the applicant? Questions of fact? No. Seeing none. Anyone like to speak in favor of this application? I raised it so, or right In favor. Okay. Anyone like to speak in opposition to this application? Can I ask a question? Sure. Do. Do you know the square footage on seven Elm? 700 square feet? School Street. Seven. I'm sorry. Seventh School Street. My Apologies about 780 square feet. Seven 80. I'm sorry, I can't hear you. About 780 square feet. Okay. Uh, plus the 15 parking spots. Can I Ask a question? Council Matthews came. I'm going back to questions of fact. Um, and have you lined up who's going to be renting or are you still in the process? We just started advertising today. Uh, today Santander was very strict in, um, not allowing us to say much about the, the purchase of the building or what we're gonna do with it. There, there they acted like it was a tenement building and we were gonna displace people. So there's strict confidentiality agreement and it we're, we're closing on Monday. Um, they, they agreed to allow me to, um, apply for this permit knowing it's, you know, public and it'd be a public hearing. So, okay. I, you know, we have just started advertising, but we haven't, um, made arrangements for specific people yet. Councilor Matthew, can You Thank you, Mr. President. Is there, is there just one floor or are there multiple floors? Multiple floors. Will you be using the other floors? Yes. For Same thing. Same thing. Okay. Uh, we're gonna use the first floor and the second floor, start out the retail portion. Uh, the basement is pretty dark and uninviting, but eventually we're going to work on that to allow artists to, you know, give demonstrations, give classes, um, you know, bring their, you know, fans into the building to, you Know, Work present to the Community. Is there an elevator in the building? Uh, not active elevator? No, there is. Um, it was decommission. Okay. Anything further? Councilor Adams? Just that drive up, just, just to clarify that, if you did anything with that building, would you have to come back through us for that? Or is this, is that part of this, that second building? Or is it not? We're not using that for the Elmar antiques business. Um, except for storage of, you know, like maintenance equipment, you know, leaf blowers, you know, rakes, um, bubble wrap for packaging things. Okay. So that's not, so I guess the question again, would, would that building be part of this or not? I guess I'm just trying to clarify that It, it definitely won't be used, um, in the antique portion of the business. But again, are we talking two separate buildings here or are we talking one building? That's what I'm trying to Figure out. So I think it's one piece of property. It's one piece of property. So it's both part of this public hearing, I would say. Right. Okay. So if there was, again, it's going to committee, so may maybe, you know, you can discuss options at that point. Okay. Thank you. Anything further? Once again, anybody wish to speak in favor or in opposition to this? Seeing none. Counselor Fanny. Motion to close the public hearing and refer to license committee. Second. Second. Motion made. And second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing is now closed. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Item 13 is a continued public hearing on a petition for a zoning amendment submitted by our Lavec associates for plum roses development. LLC for 1295 South Hampton Road Parcel 71 R 12. From rural residential to residential B to yield two additional lots for construction of two family homes on each lot. Public hearing is now open floor Is yours, sir. Thank you. Uh, good evening, Mr. President and counselors. I'm Rob Leve from our Leveque Associates. Uh, I'd like to thank you for, uh, entertaining a request to continue at the last, uh, public hearing. We, uh, had a family friend who had an issue. Um, so I appreciate that very much. First and foremost, um, here with me this evening, uh, as Matt Gomes, uh, as well as Dave McGuire, MacGyver, sorry. Uh, these gentlemen are both affiliated with the, uh, technical school. They're local craftsmen. Um, and they have purchased a property, uh, uh, for private, uh, use, uh, and construction on Southampton Road. We're here this evening to request a zoning map amendment or a zone change for the subject property. Specifically the subject property is zone rural residential. Um, on the plan to my left, hopefully everyone can see it. Um, on the plant to my left, you'll see that we have, uh, two different maps on the, um, I guess this is gonna be your left is the existing, um, Southampton Road. Here we're identifying in green A residence B property. The subject property is right here. Um, we are proposing to change the subject property to the residence. B, we're contiguous kind of on a diagonal, uh, with the residence B zoning. So this green property is already zoned residence B in the surrounding area. A number of the other properties, there's own rural residential. Um, there's also the property where seven Bs and the former convenience store and hair salon exist, which are of zone business. A, uh, just a little bit farther down. Uh, going towards the other side, we have business B and industrial A. So the reason we're requesting the, uh, change to residence B, it would allow for the folks to do duplexes. Uh, the, the item, uh, that you, that you had on before us, I think it was item 10, uh, where Mr. Vinky was gonna be talking about some of the changes that the state has with regard to accessory dwelling units, um, will be afforded to properties that are zone rural residential that are single family home. Um, this, uh, was a discussion that I had with these folks that, that, uh, regulation generally becomes a valid or in effect in February. Uh, what we're looking to do is something that is a little bit cleaner, uh, from a, uh, residential development standpoint. Uh, duplexes would allow, uh, an unrestricted size for each side of the duplex, uh, or conducts. Again, again, zoning doesn't dictate ownership. So what we're requesting this evening is the use, um, of the property. Um, we're requesting a zoning map amendment to basically allow us the use of two family dwellings as well as single family dwellings. So, you know, that's the game plan. That's why we're here this evening. These gentlemen are available, and again, they've been, uh, in connection with a lot of successes that the technical AC Academy has had. Um, they're both craftsmen that, uh, teach and train these young kids, um, to go off and, and, uh, learn a lot about construction. And they were, you know, involved in the Mill Street project as we were involved with them. So we got to know them. Um, they are doing this, uh, I would say in a very thoughtful way. Um, they're rehabbing the existing structure on the property currently that's been under construction for a while. Um, and they're looking to be able to yield, um, a, you would end up yielding, um, more density than would be allowed under rural residential. So that's why we're here. This is not in the aquifer. That's probably one of the questions. Um, happy to answer any questions through the president that you have. Thank you. Questions from the council councilor, all Famous president. So, uh, through the chair, um, or Rob. Um, so are there any residences within, let's say 500 feet and were abut notification sent out to, to folks? Yes, I believe the notification processes through the planning department and they send the cards, uh, that would've been done. Um, and there were a number of abutters that attended the planning board meeting. I have not spoken with them since with regard to the abutter notification for city council, but that's my expectation that they were all notified if, if they were within that radius. Alright, Thank you. Thank you. Council Fige. Thank you Mr. President, can you elaborate a little bit more on the future changes that are coming down from the state? I, I've been hearing a lot of different stuff through the pipeline, but haven't been able to get my hands on anything. It really looks solid, so yes, I do. I know all about it. Okay, So am am I wrong in my thinking that it doesn't matter what our local zoning is, that the state zone's gonna take preference over that? Uh, I could clarify. So in, I think it was say August, uh, the state, uh, promulgated regulations that essentially said that if you have a pri you have a single family homed home zoned property. So single family home in a single family district you can buy, right? So not by special permit, but buy, right. Um, as of February of 2025, I think it might be February 2nd, 2025, you could construct an accessory dwelling unit, which could either be attached to the house or detached. Um, can be up to 900 square feet or half the size of the existing structure, whichever's less so it's whichever's less. So in order to have an 1800 square foot accessory dwelling unit in say your backyard, I'm sorry, in order to have a 900 square foot accessory dwelling unit in your backyard, your primary structure would have to be 1800 square feet. Now local municipalities can promulgate regulations with regard to that, um, and kind of fine tune density, uh, setbacks, et cetera. You know, does that adhere to, um, the primary, uh, setbacks or the accessory setbacks that you might have for a shed? Um, those are the types of questions. There is a, uh, fact sheet that I could forward, um, through the clerk that describes a lot of the discussions that have been having, having been had at the state level. So essentially if you have an 800 square foot house, 1800 square, 1800 square foot house, you could build a 900 square foot accessory dwelling unit either attached or detached. Um, and it has to have a separate entrance and there's some other subtleties and its gross floor area, not net you don't include garages, et cetera in that calculation. Just, Just while we're on through the chair, just while we're on this point, there's not a requirement that it be owner occupied. That is correct. Actually. Um, some legal scholars that I dealt with have said that, uh, zoning again, doesn't dictate ownership. Um, their eastham actually does regulate and say that you can't make it a condo, but I have attorneys that disagree with that. Um, we'll see what, I guess how that shakes out. But essentially the primary structure and the accessory structure can both be rented with no restriction provided that it's a long-term rental. Um, more Than 28 Days. Yeah, so about 30 days. Um, anything less than that, they can, they can regulate. Um, and you know, this is throughout the state, uh, lunenberg and a few other, uh, places, I think, um, I think there's a few locally that have done, uh, their regulations. But my guess is most, most municipalities will, will do that sometime soon before February type. Sorry, Councilor figure, did you have another question before? Yeah, I did. So the new regulations coming down are for existing preexisting buildings? No, no. Well, not necessarily. Okay. So I'll give you an example. Well, I could give you a lot of examples, but, um, a, a vacant lot would qualify as well. So if you wanted to do so, for example, Nathaniel Hill Estates, we did a subdivision recently that's, you know, in the process. So if somebody were to buy a property, buy a lot there, assuming that there's no crazy density requirements that the city of Westlaw comes up with, which I think the state doesn't necessarily want you to come up with crazy regulations, but let's say it's reasonable, you could do a structure and then a, and then a, an accessory structure maybe over the garage, maybe have a free car garage in back and you have, you know, mom or dad living there or something like that. So certainly an option. Councillor Matthews King. Thank You Mr. President. This is to follow up on this discussion. And is that in every zone or just certain zones? Single family. So it's, um, so if you, so for example, if example, if you have a two family zoning district, I you, uh, certain the towns or cities can pass other regulations, you could certainly promulgate your own regulations. But at the very minimum it needs to be allowed in a single family zoning district and can't be prevented and it's allowed by. Right. So no special permit. Okay, thank you. With some dimensional controls and where the state is going with allowing what they allow, it's, it's not super clear on those specifics. Okay. Thank you Councilor Adams. And then councilor me. Sorry I rob not to get too far off your project. No, it's great. I, I love talking about it. It's very interesting to me actually, as you can imagine. No, no. And, and I guess my question is kind of having to do with that, would the new regulations give you any more rights to this piece? It would tell, tell us how. So we were actually discussing that, uh, creative guys here. Um, Matt happens to have a, a bunch of three ring binders. He's the most organized guy I've ever met in my entire life. Um, so we were going through it. So on this property, again, single family, home, property zone, rural residential, they could potentially do either attached to the existing structure. Okay. 'cause there's already an existing structure they're renovating or separate from the existing structure on that lot and they would yield potentially another lot under the current zoning and they could, so they could potentially get two housing units per lot. But so could you and so could anyone of you that lives. So it's there, the intent is, you know, we have a housing crisis in Massachusetts. The intent is to create housing in, in, in my humble opinion, it's probably the first thing I've seen that I think will actually create new housing, uh, for people. And it's, you know, it might be mom, mom or the kids or it might be, you know, a renter, you know, another way to make income. There's a lot of different options and ways to go with it. It might be the guy in Nantucket that buys a $3 million house splits off the backyard, sells the front for 2 50, 2 0.5 in the back for three, whatever. So there's, there's options. Alright, thank you. Yeah, thank you Councilor Melo. Thank you Mr. President. So is this is the 12 plus acre lot we're talking about? Yes. Okay. Well there's, there's a conservation restriction on a portion of the property, um, that will remain. So this is the, I guess I'll call it the developable or the portion that was, was left for development. There was a conservation restriction that's, that's included in the property but not included in what we would do. Okay. So how much of my question is basically, or is the property gonna end up being partitioned so that there would be more than one build one more than one new building going on this lot? Yes, that is the intent. And so how many buildings? So I have a, I believe under here I have a, Is it, are you envisioning like Union Street? No, no, no, no. These would just, these would essentially feel and look like single family home lots. So this is the subject property with the conservation land surrounding it. Okay. Okay. So there's about 7.662 acres of conservation land that wrap around, I'm sorry. Sorry Karen. I see there you see that a little better. So there's about, yeah, so there's about seven and a half acres of land here that's conservation. These would be the resulting lots, something similar to this. Now to my point, and you know, with the accessory dwelling units, um, rather than, you know, in this scenario what we're showing is if this was zoned residence B, we would be allowed to essentially do like a duplex or a Conex. And that might be closer to the front or maybe not. Um, if we don't get the zone change, there are ways where they could yield more units again, you know, in keeping with what the state is looking for. But that might look different in that the lots might be slightly larger or they would be slightly larger. Um, and then they would have the primary and then the accessory. The reason we like the duplex scenario in this particular case is because we have the room to do them and it's a cleaner sale potentially for these gentlemen. So if they go to sell a Conex or if they even hold a duplex and then sell it later as a Conex, it's a little bit cleaner. And I think, you know, to be frank, during our discussion, um, they may or may not utilize the accessory dwelling regulations. You know, it might, it might make it more sense to do it that way, but right now we think it's cleaner with the residence B zoning district. It allows them to do smaller lots. That's, that's really the key to this zone change. Council Ky Thank you Mr. President. So in residence BI can't entirely see if we got three lots or four lots Showing, uh, if we got a zone change to residence B it would be four lots. Four lots. So you could conceivably put eight buildings on there then? Yes. Conceivably, yes. Realistically, what would more, what the reason to go to this route would be? We'd get one more lot and we'd likely do duplexes out the, out of the front other than maybe this lot here, which maybe we do an accessory dwelling unit or you know, 'cause it's already a single family home. So under residence B you're not allowed to do detached to family. But we could do an accessory dwelling unit. So I would expect these three lots to have duplexes on them and this lot to have at least either just the single family home or if it makes sense and it's viable, an accessory dwelling unit on that. If, Can I ask a few questions from here? Yes. So if, if it remains as residence A, Uh, I'm sorry. Rural, Rural residence. Rural residential. Yep. Thank you. Is it gonna be, you could only get two lots out of it, correct? Uh, yes. Potentially. So, So you could potentially have eight lots in residence B I'm sorry, eight houses or eight structures in residence B. Yeah. What we would likely have is maybe five structures. Worst case scenario. 'cause we'd be going with a duplex, so that would be one structure, right? So duplex, duplex, duplex, single family most likely, if for some reason accessory dwelling unit made sense, they, they would have that ability under the, the, the state law. I mean come, come February when all this, you know, could potentially change. I mean I'm not sure how many cities and towns are ready for it. I mean, not only are you looking at zoning, but you're looking at, you know, things like number of driveways that can go in there. And you know, some of that was I think in, uh, Jay Minsky's, uh, report. But I mean you're also looking at septic systems or you know, you can have one septic system, two septic systems can one look into another. So you can have shared systems. It's under, you know, it's regulated by Title V, so it's no different under Title V than it normally would be. If it's sewer, then obviously you can have one or two sewer connections. The, you know, DPW can dictate that there's been talking about, we've talked about water, you know, and then power too, right? Can you daisy chain off of the primary structure to the secondary structure? Um, a lot of the towns so far have required separate services, which makes sense if you ever want it to have the value of being able to sell it separately, uh, and then cleaner to rent it separately. Um, so yeah, so get ready. It's coming. It's already, it's already passed it, you know, so as of February it, I could come in probably will, um, with building permits for folks or, you know, submitting applications for accessory. Dwelling units have already been approached by a number of folks in different municipalities, but Westfield as well. Councilor Bernson, councilor B. Yeah, thanks Mr. President. Hey Robin. Welcome. Sorry, yeah, the conservation property, is that under 61 A? Um, it's under a conservation restriction, so I think it's better than just 61 A, so I don't know who gets taxed on it. Um, but it is a conservation restriction. The family I believe put it on, um, I, Joan Carell's family works sound right? I think it was, She used to. Okay. But yeah, so it's a formal cr, not, not just a tax. So no one can touch it in Perpetuity. And that goes with the parcel That well, yeah, I mean, yes, essentially this is a conservation restriction that that runs with the Land and that's landlocked, right? Uh, it's got technically has frontage on Southampton Road. It Does have frontage, how much frontage? And, Uh, it looks like about 297.72 feet. But again, completely restricted. No one can touch it. Thanks. Yep. Councilor Bean, then Councilor Figgy, then Councilor Morgane. Um, I, I guess, I mean, the question I have is like the spot zoning is the problem for me. Mm-hmm. Um, and I can understand what happens in February, but I, I had a, I had a problem when this council did it back on lock house Road a few months back too. Um, the precedent is, it's a little nerve wracking to me. So can you point to the lock again? So this is, this is currently zone residence B this is adjacent parcel across the street. So Yeah, it's not adjacent. Yeah, it's not adjacent. Kind of adjacent. It's a different, it's a different color. I had the same conversation with the planning board. Yeah. And I, I saw that vote too, which was shake my head on that one too. But, um, okay. No, that I, I can, I can see the rationale, but I, I, I've got, I've got issues with this, that particular spot zoning, so. Understood. That's my only concern. Councilor Fige, then Councilor Nella. Thank you Mr. President. What, what is the frontage of the whole property? Uh, if I can get an approximate for you. Well, give me the individual Four box. If you have a calculator. It's, uh, so 110.5 three, a hundred and forty seven 0.7 two, a hundred seventy three 0.6 5, 53 0.21, and 49.91. I can add that up if you want. I did tell Council Morgan that he was next, so, Okay. Sorry. And that is excluding the con the conservation piece. Okay. Go Ahead. Finish your, and these will be on septics? Yes, sir. Okay. And that, that, just so we're clear, that is excluding the conservation piece, which has 297.72. Right. So these will be septic systems? Yes, sir. Okay. And what about, uh, water will be, is that water up there public? Well, Okay. I'd just like to enter into the record that the planning board's decision was a six one positive for this. And also request those maps at our committee meeting because if we don't get it in now, we can't add, ask them. Okay. That's it for right now. Council Morgan Elli, then Councillor Muller. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, thanks Rob for the presentation. Um, yeah, I, I, uh, I concur with, uh, with, uh, Councillor Bean in the, in the zoning. Um, first of all, to say adjacent across a main road like that is obviously that's, that's not the right, uh, analogy, that's not the right, right word to use. Um, but we just had an issue with, with the zoning. Um, we had a business father down on Southampton Road. The business wanted to change their, uh, business model and directly adjacent on that side of the road on the east side of Southampton Road were other businesses that had manufacturing and so forth. This was in, in the last year. Um, and that was even a difficult decision. Your rural residential on the entire eastern side of Southampton Road all the way back to Hampton Ponds, pretty much. Um, and then there's that one residential B on the west side that you mentioned, and then you've got of course, uh, uh, and the business is right at the intersection, which that's, you know, is the intersection there. Um, so I, I also have issues with, uh, the zoning because, you know, historically the council is very, um, has has been very, um, adamant about spot zoning. We always look at it very, very meticulously and say, is this spot zoning? Everybody has their different definition of it. Um, but uh, to me it looks like spot zoning, just, you know, as an, as an observation in how you described it. But, um, so we'll, we'll see where it goes from there, but I just just wanted To add that comment. Understood. But thank you for the information tonight. You're welcome. Council Malo. Thank you. Um, do we know the water quality at the parcel, if there's a house there now, there'd be a well there. Now, do we know that you're not gonna like put a bunch of houses there and then be like, oh, the water's crap, we need to bring in city water. Like, is is there, do we know the quality of the water under that ground? Um, so they have not tested the well yet. They're still in, in the renovation process is fair to say. Um, but he did say that the residents were in their nineties for what that's worth Was pfas nothing. Um, but okay, so, so, So we could certainly, you know, that could, you know, that's something that would likely do prior Because whether or not the land can support that kind of density really depends on whether or not the water's safe. Right. And, and I don't know that I've seen, I mean, I've seen a lot of water, but not necessarily from that parcel. Also is there a building on there? Is the residence be over there? 'cause I see a big water thing in the middle, but I, I'm sorry, I just to clarify, on the existing residence B over here? No, on the not adjacent kitty corner property? Uh, I don't think, no, I think it's just wooded. So why is it residence B if it's just wooded and there's water in the middle of it? You guys did it. I did not just, not me. Um, yeah, I don't know the history. Um, You know. Right. But, but the argument is based on the residence B that's across the street. That's a big water thing. A wetland? Yeah. Yeah. There's a, yeah, there's a wetland there. I think it might have been associated with, I think Paul Dion had done some, some rezoning and some work on, is it Secluded Ridge or something like that, back behind Southampton Road to the west? Is that what it's called? Scenic. Scenic SCE bridge. Nic Bridge. Okay. But there's no house Subdivision, But there's no residence in that residence. B. Correct. Okay. And one more, can I do one more? If you were to put the duplexes on there and it were residence B, that's what, if it were changed to residence B and you could put the duplex or the con deck there, would they also then have the ability for accessory units? No. No. So My understanding is it's only valid for single family home lots And not any Reside. If you wanted to allow them, you could certainly pass a regulation that allowed two family structures to have a, a third unit or something like that. But no, it's specifically state, single family home. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Council and ms. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'm not in favor of this. Um, I think it's, it's quite a stretch from saying it's adjacent. You know, we've gone through that, but, you know, I would say let's wait for the state to actually happen the state, uh, Regulation In, in February. Yeah. So just to clarify, and that's a separate, I guess that's apples versus the oranges tonight. So that happens. That, just to clarify, that already happened in August. So as of February, it's, it's valid. So at that point, somebody could come in with, so I think Jay is trying to get ahead of that Jay Vinky. Mm-hmm. And I think that's what he, what he's starting to work, So, right. So I mean, I, I'd like to see what happens in February. Yeah. Gotcha. Thank you. Can I confer with my client for two seconds? Sure. Yeah, I do. Jimmy's got one too. Mr. President, uh, based on the feedback that we're receiving, some from some counselors, certainly in the, in the area and that have concerns on the north side, we're gonna withdraw without prejudice. If the counsel will allow us Make a motion. Oh, sorry. Mr. Please. May I make a motion to allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice? Second Motion made it seconded. Any discussion on the All in favor? A aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you for allowing us to do that, and we will work hard to bring something forward that you guys can, you know, be proud of. Thank you. Thank You. Thank you for the education of the state. You're welcome. Yeah. Thank You. Anybody that's here for this, if you want to go, we'll take a one minute recess. We're Now in recess. I would've followed you Ralph Out back in order. Oh, no, no, no. Not at all. No. So you're sending committee Yeah. Back in order. Reports of committees. Okay. Thank you. Finance committee Item 14. Council Sullivan. Yes. Thank you. Mr. President Finance committee, um, has met and recommends the approval of the appropriation in the amount of $289,111 and 24 cents from free cash to the opioid settlement, a special revenue account to be used for the purposes identified in the settlement agreement. So moved. Second motion. Made it seconded for the discussion. Counsel? Yes, this is something the council will probably remember. Um, sometime last year, um, the mayor had been in looking for us to make this appropriation. The monies that we're moving are the settlement monies from the opioid, um, settlements that are nationwide. Um, we were part of those settlements. The, the amount of money we get every year is gonna fluctuate. There's not a hard schedule necessarily. Um, we, quite frankly, I held it because this position, the opioid director, um, which is not called director pro program administrator, I think it is, um, was actually in last year's fiscal budget. So rather than move the monies at the time since she was being paid and the program was being run, we held it in committee. Um, the mayor in his fiscal 25 budget, cut the position with the intent of funding that position in the program out of the settlement monies. So he, he did that. He, he cut it. And now is back to us looking to move these monies over. I just want to be clear that this is the only time, this is the only time this ever comes to the council. So the yearly budgets get set up, you know, by the mayor and the Board of Health and the program administrator. Um, it's kind of like the ARPA money. So we've held this for a year, and I will say I held it in committee for a year. I thank my colleagues for holding it. Um, but I think it's a really important program and that's why we held it. It wasn't that we didn't want to fund the program. We actually wanted to fund the program and make sure that it was gonna be sustainable moving forward. And, um, we've now been, um, given the evidence that we think it would, the program administrator, the Board of Health has actually asked us to do this, um, as has the auditor and of course the mayor who sent it into the first place. Thank you. Any further discussion? Scene none. Roll call please. Madam City Court. Dean? Yes. Bill str. Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Thank you. Item 15, counselor Matthews. Kane. Thank you. Mr. President Finance met and upon a vote of three to zero, approved the acceptance of a grant in the amount of $11,240 from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division to the Westfield Barnes Regional Airport to be used to remove the off, off-airport runway. 15 obstructions and I move approval. Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion. So I already talked about this in the immediate consideration. The immediate consideration was just for the navigation easement. This is actually to remove the trees. We've already approved the FAA portion, which is 76%. Um, there's a city share, which is already in the, um, fiscal year 25 budget. And this is the mast share. It's 17% of the total. And once they get this, they can start moving on the project. Any Further discussion? Seeing none, Mo call Madam City Clerk Beam? Yes, bill. Randy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Ow. Yes. Morgan? Yes. Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Thank you. Item 16, councilor Beam. Thank you. Mr. President Finance committee has met and with a three oh approval of the appropriation, the amount of $245,094 and 97 cents from the stabilization account to the engineering purchase of service account for the design and permitting phases of the proposed powder mill Brook dam, uh, rehab rehabilitation project. Second. Second. Motion made it seconded for discussion, counsel. Yeah, so, uh, we're looking at the, the 2 45 is, uh, a portion coming outta stabilization. There's already been, uh, about nine hundred and fifty nine hundred eighty $1,000, uh, set aside by arpa by from the mayor for the 1.2 2 6 7 7 0 3, which is the engineering proposal design and permanent piece from NRCS. Um, the good news is, is that we are, uh, with, with work from the engineer and the mayor, is that we are using that particular piece of money as part of our 35% on the construction side of, of that particular ba uh, that powder mill dam work. Um, total construction's over $7.7 million in which our portion is 35% of that. So this will go towards that. Um, we're still on the hook right around 1.48, uh, for additional funding for that particular construction on the dam. But the good news was, and this wasn't always the case, that the 1.2 in this case, the 2, 2, 4 5 is still, uh, gonna be counted as part of our portion. So if that makes any sense. And sorry for the round numbers, But Councilor Fige, Thank you. Since this is out of stabilization, this is a nine vote. It is. Okay. The other question I have, is there any discussion of using fee cash instead of stabilization? I know we put it into stabilization, but I, at that time, we had no idea we were gonna have this large of amount of free cash. Yeah, I, I believe that question, that question question, I mean, I would, we would assume that's the case. It might be pulled more money pulled outta stabilization, but that has yet to be determined on the, the, or the rest of the money being pushed forward. But that's the only two pots of money at this point that it could come out of. There is no budgeted item right now. Councilor Matthews King. Thank you, Mr. President. And part of our decision making was that we pulled up the original vote where we pulled the money from free cash to put it into stabilization for the specific project. Just so if we were working on it during the summer when free cash wasn't stabilized, we could move forward. So the money is in stabilization for the specific project. Anything further? Roll? Cop. Madam City Clerk Bean? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Fes? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Mellow? Yes. Morgane? Yes. Hoki? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Legislative and ordinance Committee. Item 17. Councilor Oniskey. Thank you. Mr. President L and O met on December 4th and upon a two zero vote voted approval of a petition for street acceptance of Janelle Drive. Second. Second. Motion made it seconded for the discussion. Counselor? Yes. Thank you. Mr. President. Similar to what we've done, uh, in the past weeks on other streets, um, the street will become, um, a city street. It is passed through engineering DPW and planning board approval. And this will make this a, um, uh, city wrote Any discussion? Yeah, I will. I will add that there's a resolution that we need to, uh, read here to release the deeds and then there will also be an order accepting a layout for Janelle Drive. So there'd be two votes there. Time. So the, the first vote, if I may, would be a resolution accepting the release deeds. Second Motion. Made it seconded. Any discussion on that? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Uh, sec. Thank you Mr. President. Second vote is an order. Accepting and laying out Janelle Drive, so-called as a city way. Second. Motion made it Second. Need two li on that? Yes sir. Yes. Okay. So this is first reading by title. First Reading by title. Okay. Which is an order. Accepting and laying out Janelle Drive. So-called as a city way. Okay. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Councilor? Thank you Mr. President. Motion for, uh, second reading and final passage at our next meeting. Second. Motion made. And second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Item 18, councilor Burns. Thank You Mr. President. Ano Matt, on December 4th and on two zero vote, we recommend approval of notification from the Massachusetts Highway Department requesting council approval of a special speed regulation number three 15 B speed limit speed limits for Western Avenue and that the president will sign on behalf of the council. Second. Well, she made it seconded. Further discussion. Council burns. Yeah, I think, um, this is basically, we gotta clean this up. We, when we voted last time, we didn't do it properly. Not all of us, everybody involved didn't do this properly and the state it has go into the state, that's why it's three 15 B and they approve it. And of course, Mr. President, you're gonna sign it. Um, but uh, just real quickly, I'll read the, um, no, and he's been sign, sorry. Okay. That's Apologies. You gotta put him in a booth or something. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Second, Um, Western Avenue and, and Court Street eastbound by striking a clause 1.25 miles at 35 miles per hour. 2.28 miles at 40 miles per hour. And inserting in place 3.53 miles at 35 mile miles per hour. Western Avenue and Court Street westbound by striking the clause, reading 2.28 miles at 40 miles per hour. 1.25 miles at 35 miles per hour, ending at the Westfield Russell Town line. Total distance, 4.33 miles and inserting into place 3.53 miles at 35 miles an hour ending at the Westfield Russell town line, the total distance would be 4.33 miles. So from, from the whole length, it's gonna be 35 miles right to the rest of the lane. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Fige, my apologies to the committee for missing this meeting, but does this mean if we change the speed limit on any street, we have to get state approval and then we get to approve it? Yes. Sergeant Meia, this is the first, First One. The first street that she did, they're reviewing all the speed limits throughout the city. Okay. Council B Follow up. So the, when we passed the 25 mile an hour thing, that's, That's a different, that's a horse of a different color. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your tolerance. Councilor Beam, I guess I'll ask some of the councilors that were here back a few years, but the reason for creating the traffic commission was so we were able to change our own street signs or, or speed limit signs. I wasn't mistaken. So you're saying that that kind of goes away and it goes back to the state. So why have a traffic commission? Well, the reason, the only reason, the reason, and the only reason that she, that traffic commission found out about this is because when they redid after the, you know, phase, phase two of this, they put back up 40 mile an hour signs after we changed it. The, the council changed it and that's the only reason they found out. So now yes, the answer is yes. They have to go back in to ask the State. Just like a truck exclusion. You have, I mean, I know there's probably, excuse me, right? Yep. I know there's a few other things at the traffic commission, but should we be thinking about disbanding the traffic commission? At this point? We're having trouble filling slots as it's Good If I may. Mr. President Council. Mr. Thank you. The traffic commission will recommend, right? We'll still make the recommendations, but it still needs to go to the state to approve and also to the city to approve. Yeah. The tr There was some discussion on how that should all happen, what the order of it should be. Should it come from the traffic commission to the, uh, city council first, then go to the state to really make it real, so to speak, or the other way around. So that seal that's still open for discussion. Yes. Council B, unfortunately, I'm gonna be a little snarky here, but, um, so will they wait to put signs up prior to stuff being approved? I, I don't know Because currently they're not doing that. They're putting signs up prior to our vote. I dunno. Okay. Thank you. There, there shouldn't be any signs going up until we approve it here, as it goes through the state, but, but we know that's not the case. That that is correct. Okay. Anything further? Seeing none. Roll call. Madam City Court Bean? No. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanny? Yes. Fahe? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow? Yes. Marelli? Yes. Eski? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Thank you. Item 19. Council Oniskey. Thank you Mr. President Lan Oma on December 4th and upon a two zero vote voted to approve an ordinance amendment to chapters 15, I'm sorry, 17 dash one 15. Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets, adding no parking on both sides of Sibley Avenue and Valley Drive between 86 and 1 0 2. Second the motion made it seconded. Further discussion Council? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, this, this was approved by the, uh, traffic Commission. Uh, Sibley Avenue currently is parking on one side of the street. And when the sidewalk, uh, was improved, um, it became wider. So the sidewalk is wider, the street became narrower, and now is it even the correct width to support, uh, parking on one side? So it's all going to, uh, no parking on both sides. Okay, So this is both gonna be, it's gonna be a single vote for this. So I'll go over Fally Drive. Uh, also Fally Drive has an unsafe area to park when, uh, going down the hill. There's a blind spot. Uh, there's currently one household that's parking in this dangerous area. And efforts were made to talk to the people. They actually did talk to the people. Efforts were made to convince them not to park in that area. Um, but they refused and they're legally correct in refusing to not park there. So legally they can park there unless this ordinance is passed and it'll be no parking between, uh, 86 and 1 0 2 Valley Drive, both sides of the street. Anything further? Objection. Okay. Oh, councilor Bean Councilor, be just a quick question. Is there signage going up on those particular North parking areas? There will be, yes. In a residential neighborhood. Right there? Yeah. Both sides. One. Reading both sides. Motion, uh, motion for first reading by title only. Second Motion made it second. And, go ahead, sir. Yeah. A set of ordinances amending the code of ordinances, city of Westfield, Massachusetts. Uh, it ordained City Council City of Westfield as follows, adding, uh, valley Drive both sides between 86 and 1 0 2. Deleting s Sibley Ave Western side and replace it with Sibley Ave, both sides. Thank you Mrs. Going for a second. R It it will be yes For first re Excuse me. Hold on. Okay. First reading by title only. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Council Burns is or Council Beans A no. Motion for second Reading and final passage at our next meeting. Second. Motion made it seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Councillor Bean is a no. Item 20. Councillor Oinky. Thank you Mr. President Ele Ooma in December 4th and upon a two zero vote, voted to remove, um, the following from Committee without Action, which is Ordinance amendments to chapter two, six and 15 to change the operations of the facilities management and purchasing departments. Second. Motion made it second. And any discussion, Sir? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. The, uh, the mayor sent an email asking, uh, to withdraw this proposal without prejudice and we voted to allow that. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed. Now removed from committee government relations Item 21. Councilor Sullivan. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, this item, um, will be taken up, uh, no action this evening. We'll take it up, uh, in committee, in full committee, uh, full counsel in, uh, January 2nd. Motion made it second in Any discussion? No. See none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Unfinished Business item 22, Councillor ky. Thank you Mr. President. Motion for second reading and final passage of a layout order entitled An Order, accepting and Laying out Jean Mary Drive, so called as a city Way. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion sir? No. Roll call Madam City Court. E? Yes. Bill Chandy. Yes. Burns? Yes. Companion? Yes. Gie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane. Yes. Mellow? Yes. Morgan. Ellie. Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Thank you. Item 23. Council Oniskey. Thank you Mr. President. Motion for second reading and final passage of a layout order entitled An Order, accepting and Laying out Camelot Lane. So called as a City Way. She made it second in any further discussion, sir? No. Seeing none. Roll call Bean. Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Fiy? Yes. Terra? Yes. Matthews. Kane. Yes. Nello? Yes. Morgan. Ellie. Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Thank you. Item 24, councilor Burns. Yeah. Thank you Mr. President. Second reading and final passage of an order entitled An Order Discontinue a portion of Berkshire Drive, so-called a City Way. Second Motion made it seconded. Any further discussion, sir? Yes. Yes. Um, I'd like to last meeting. I, I actually, um, misspoke and I said it was, uh, Berkshire Avenue. My, my, uh, counselor, my colleague to the, uh, left of me. I just want to cha re make that reflect on the record. Do Adam. Thank you. Second. Further discussion. Seeing none. Roll call Madam City Court Bean. Yes, That Randy? Yes. Burns Definitely. Fanon? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Cain. Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Ky Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yeah. Allie? Yes, I Did say that. Item 25. Councilor Figi. Thank you Mr. President. Motion for second reading and final passage of an ordinance amending chapter 17, adding action 17 dash 89 a engine brakes prohibited and amending section 17 dash 90 penalties for restricted vehicles adding a monetary fine of $300 for engine brake infractions. Second motion made it seconded. Any further discussion? Councilor? Councilor Allie, I just have a question for Councilor Bean. So will there be a sign like on the bridge that says, you know, engine brak like $300? Um, they'll have to light it too. Oh yeah. Yeah. But blinking, yeah, I think the $300 might get their attention. Councilor Adams? Yeah, I mean I don't have a problem with it, but I dunno how you're gonna enforce it. Yeah, it's hearsay. I did, I didn't do it until body cameras or all that stuff happens. A lot of this stuff. I'm not sure how you force these things. That's Councilor Meow. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, so you can hit a person with a car and it's only 205, but if you engine brake it's 300. No, that would be 500. I don't have the answer for you. I saw it driving in. Okay, thank You. Maybe we can talk about the anything further? Roll call Bean. No. Beltran? Yes. RNs? No. Fanon? No. Figy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Mellow? Sure. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. All Yes. Yes. What council? Ally. Councilor All. Did you have something? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Yes. Uh, thank you Mr. President. Um, I would like to make a motion that the, uh, city council consider drafting a resolution strongly opposing the construction of a lithium battery, uh, storage facility or any such facility over the aquifer within the resource protection area or City of Westfield. And consider all options that the city has, including repealing the easement or restricting. Um, and this to be voted on at our December 19th meeting. Can We get a motion to suspend the rules And refer to, uh, l and o and legal? Hang on, we Gotta suspend the rules. So to suspend motion made and seconded to suspend the rules. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Okay. Thank you everyone. So what's your motion? Okay. Um, from the beginning? No, no, you're Good. I'm good. You don't have to. Council Morgan, did you have your hand up? Uh, yeah, we'll let the counselor present the motion again. Okay. He's already, but I do have a comment. Yeah, you good? Okay. I just have, I just have one comment. Um, uh, alright. So, uh, the irony of not giving much notice, uh, for this motion, uh, has not been, uh, lost on any of us. Um, but due to the December 20th deadline to respond, um, we would need to vote, uh, to send this to the uh, um, the dp, um, views, um, comment, um, by the 20th. Um, I would encourage each counselor to read the document, uh, the DPW, um, dealing with levels of participation. Um, you actually have a copy of it. It's on the council sheet, but you have a printed copy in front of you as well. Um, so thank you. That's it? Yes, I Did he have Councilor Morgan Iye have a Yes. Councilor Morgan. Yeah. So, yeah, I, I mentioned this to Councilor Cross the way, uh, that I was going to speak with law and, uh, is there reason this is coming out tonight without my knowledge or is this something that we need to do right away? 'cause this was gonna be done at the next meeting. Well, I just explained that, that yeah, we only have to December 20th to respond to the DPW under the review process. Right. No matter what what it is they want. Close that. Um, so I knew you were talking for legal. I don't know if you got back to me, but does that would be part of this process, but we would have to move it into committee and that's what that's what I'm asking. It encourage officers to be able to move it into committee, discuss those options. You can bring information, but it has to happen or we're not gonna be able to move fast enough. Yeah, The, the, so Because our next meeting is December 19th, If I may. Yes. Alright. So thank you. Um, so yeah, the, the, the, what what I was planning on doing is bringing out the actual resolution for immediate consideration at the next meeting. Um, and then the council will have voted on it and we have voice in this whole issue of battery parks in Westfield. Um, so I, I don't know what this motion is going to do differently than that next week. Well, If I may. Yes, they simply put, um, if you look at the faces on, on the committee, um, and then as Council Sullivan pointed out, if I, if I just try to do this as an immediate consideration right now or it would be too late, people need to work on this and decide a cost of action and we have to come up with something. Okay. Um, and so, um, if we wait, it's not enough time for people to absorb it or take action on it. So this just gets it into committee and then we can do all that work and you can submit it, you can submit a draft or whatever. I mean that's, that's fine Mr. Melo. And then Council o Missy's gonna have something say Thank you Mr. President, if it's any help. Um, it can't be a action of counsel until it's in the council, which is probably why he's bringing it now. That way people can work on it and talk about it and have it all on the, you know, open meeting if you Join. Motion Council on. Thank you Mr. President. Council Valley. Can you send me exactly how you want this worded by the end of the week? Um, I could give it to you as it sounds. I can, yes, yes. I'm sorry. I may figure the button. Email it to me and, uh, and uh, attorney Reed. Thank you Council. Okay, So this is motion to go to l and o and law. Yeah. Yeah. I'm okay with it. Yes. May I add Mr. President? Um, anybody, I mean there was a lot of councils there that evening. I, I, um, would recommend highly that you view that video and um, it, there was a lot of good information there, A lot of, um, citizens spoke and I would, like I said, highly recommend watching that. Thank you Councilor Sullivan. Just on the wording since uh, counselor crossed the way I believe the motion was may act, didn't say shall act, it said may act Correct. Okay. Just, I just wanted to be clear on that. 'cause at one other point when you were talking just now, you said shall so I just wanna make sure it's a may at least going into committee. So I'm good. Councilor Matthews King First, thank you for bringing this up tonight 'cause it does allow us to send it to subcommittee and debate it. Um, I was at the meeting, I've actually already submitted my own letter to the DUP as an individual city counselor because I'm totally opposed to it being over the aquifer. Sounds like a really bad idea. And we derive no benefit. The citizens of Westfield, we take all the risk and we get none of the benefit. I'm just concerned about the motion you made tonight about never having one in Westfield. And I just wanna point out, Wellesley just broke, opened up theirs and they also have a municipal utility and all the benefit goes to the municipal utility. So I'm just cautious about saying we should never have one in Westfield. 'cause if it's correctly cited and benefits the citizens of Westfield, I think it would be worth considering. And I just wanna say that now before it's sent to subcommittee, If I may. Councilor Ley. Thank you Mr. President. So I included all those things. Any one of those things can be struck in out of it. In other words, I wanted to mention those things. We may say well just over the aquifer and leave it there. This is just a suggestion or guideline. Okay. We're kind of moving at the speed of light here. Um, I was up most of Sunday night, uh, with about three hours sleep. So I appreciate, but we would be able to restrict this to what we could live with Okay. And what legal referers and what everybody else is comfortable with. But I do believe it's important for us to make a strong statement for what it's worth. Thank you. Anything else? All in favor? Aye. A opposed? Any announcements or anything else, councilor? No. Thank you Mr. President. I just wanna say thank you to everyone who said the words PFAS and Aquifer today. And it wasn't me. I just like, I am So proud. You were thinking tears In my eyes. I, I'm so proud of everybody. Thank You Councilor Harris. Merry, Merry Christmas. Do adjourn. Second. Made it second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you everyone.