Public hearings, COVID–19 and water concerns at City Council

April 6, 2021 | Amy Porter
amyporter@thewestfieldnews.com

WESTFIELD – The April 1 City Council meeting included an update from Public Health Director Joseph Rouse; public hearings on a new business and a strengthened enforcement ordinance, and a discussion by city councilors on questions answered by the Water Department at a Public Health & Safety subcommittee meeting.

Rouse said he had good news and bad news.  

“We had to delay the opening of City Hall because of rising cases over the last couple of weeks,” he said. Originally, City Hall was supposed to open on April 1, but the opening has now been delayed until later in the month. He said he wants to see an improved two-week sample before recommending opening the city offices.

“It’s troubling, in Phase 4 we should be way better off than where we are now. I’m more concerned about where we’re heading,” Rouse said, adding that he doesn’t want to see the state regress back to an earlier phase.
    Rouse said the good news is that the Big E as a mass vaccination site is moving forward. He said they had met that day, and it looked like it would happen soon and should start by administering 750 doses a day, although details still needed to be worked out. He also said even though the site will be open to all state residents, they are considering setting aside a day for residents of each of the collaborating communities.
    During a public hearing, Camile Hannoush talked about plans for a new business going in at 99 Springfield Rd. Hannoush, who owns Michael’s Jewelers in Connecticut, plans to move his corporate office and 15 employees to the site from Springfield and open a gold and jewelry buying store.
    Hannoush said he is already building a Gift-ology store next door, which is expected to open by mid-April. He said he hopes to open the new business by the end of April. The matter was referred to the License subcommittee.
    A public hearing on proposed changes to the enforcement ordinance was presented by City Planner Jay Vinskey, who said the new language doesn’t give any more powers than currently exist but spells it out and updates the language last written in 1987. Vinskey said the new language was drawn in part from the Springfield enforcement ordinance.

A new addition to the ordinance codifies the powers of the Planning Board, City Council and Zoning Board of Appeals to revoke a permit if there is continued non-compliance.

Another amendment changes permit validity times from two years to three years, bringing the city ordinance into alignment with the state.

Ward 5 Councilor John J. Beltrandi III said the changes will be going nowhere unless the Building Department gets more staffing and funding. “The Building Dept. is stretched beyond their capability. They are short staffed – we need to put more money into that department and hire somebody. It’s all well and good to strengthen enforcement, but we need to make that department capable of what they’re assigned to do,” he said.

The Planning Board had a public hearing on the ordinance changes on April 6.

Public Health and Safety chair Michael Burns reported out on the questions answered by the Water Dept. at a meeting on March 24.

“We asked for questions under Section 26 (of the City Charter). We received 20 questions from Councilor Figy, Councilor Matthews-Kane and Councilor Mello which I presented to the Mayor. He was present at the meeting, and turned them over to Heather Stayton (systems) engineer of the Water Dept.  She went through all the questions and answered them all as transparently as she could. She did answer every question,” Burns said.

At-large Councilor Kristen Mello, who had submitted many of the questions, disagreed, and said the meeting was used to insult and slander her.

“I would like to remind the chair that first of all there are three questions very pertinent to Public Health & Safety that remain unanswered…that refer to PFAS [Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] breakout and carbon change-out. These questions are relevant to the public health of the city’s residents. I ask that they be answered,” she said, adding, “I don’t think this is the end of the conversation.”

Several other councilors weighed in, some agreeing that the questions had been answered by Stayton, and others saying that residents continue to have questions about the safety of the water.

At-large Councilor Dave Flaherty said some residents are still buying bottled water.  

“I believe there’s enough money and enough public demand to try to provide a clean water source for those who think they are not getting it from pipes in the city. With all this CARES Act money and PFAS money, we should be able to purchase bottle water or install reverse osmosis filters in their houses,” Flaherty said, adding, “there are resources from the state and federal government to allow people who choose to get clean bottled water until this matter is resolved in a way that makes them feel comfortable.”

Councilor Richard K. Sullivan Jr. said, “I feel confident that we’re in good hands with the professional running that department, (who) assured me there has not been any detection that has gotten into the system. They are watching this closely. I just think that comments in the public forum that have not been verified through the experts licensed to run our system can do a disservice to everyone as well.”

After further discussion, the council voted 11 to 2 to place the questions and answers on file, with Flaherty and Mello voting no.

Share this: