Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 9/22/2022
WESTFIELD – After a hard-fought effort by three councilors to add additional restrictions, an ordinance allowing “flag lots” recently passed its second reading by a Westfield City Council vote of 9 to 3, the minimum needed.
The ordinance allows property owners who have enough acreage to subdivide their land into more than one buildable lot, but not enough road frontage, to create “flag lots” that contain at least 4 acres but as little as 40 feet of frontage. The name refers to their shape on a map, with a thin strip of land, the “flagpole,” connecting the road to a large “flag” area behind other house lots.
The ordinance passed on Sept. 15 allows flag lots only in Rural Residential or Residence A zones, to be used for residences only, prohibits shared driveways, and mandates a setback of 50 feet from side and rear property lines for all dwelling structures. Applicants could ask the Planning Board to allow a lesser setback distance on a case-by-case basis under a dimensional special permit, according to the ordinance.
One of those who continued to argue for tighter restrictions before the vote was Ward 3 Councilor Bridget Matthews-Kane, who requested a white board to draw on and illustrate some of her points.
Matthews-Kane said the original ordinance recommended by the Planning Board stated that not more than one flag lot may be created by each parent parcel, a restriction that had been removed by the Zoning, Planning and Development Subcommittee chaired by Councilor Dave Flaherty.
The Ward 3 councilor said after removal of the limitation, an 80-acre parcel on Fowler Road would be able to add six lots by right, and add seven flag lots for a total of 14 lots.
“If it’s a bad idea, I think we should stop it,” Matthews-Kane said.
Flaherty said the committee took out the restriction because the boundaries of the property would be those recorded on the day of passage.
“If you owned 80 acres and wanted to break it up, you should be able to do this. I don’t think it’s fair at all,” he said.
“While I completely respect my colleague across the way, the entire goal of zoning is to prevent future development,” said at-large Councilor Kristen Mello, adding that a resident came up to her that day saying each time a parcel is split, a new stormwater permit is needed. In past discussions, Mello had talked in particular about the unintended consequences of allowing flag lot development on the aquifer.
Ward 4 Councilor Michael Burns said he agreed, adding that he believed the ordinance had been rushed, and he wanted to see how many lots in the city would be eligible. Burns made a motion to table, which was seconded by Matthews-Kane. The vote to table failed 3 to 9, with Burns, Matthews-Kane and Mello in the minority.
Matthews-Kane went on to discuss her motion of one flag lot per parent parcel, which the Planning Board had included in its recommendations. She drew a picture on the white board, showing how an 80-acre lot could be carved into eight or 10 lots using flag lots.
“It’s basically a subdivision, [but] cheaper than that. It’s not a good form of development, and will put a strain on our resources,” she said.
At-large Councilor Brent B. Bean II said it sounded to him also like a cheaper alternative than to create a subdivision.
“I don’t want to blow up a good ordinance that speaks in favor of flag lots. It seems like we keep adding to this, which is becoming concerning to me,” he said.
Flaherty said he agreed the example was “a worst-case scenario,” but said it was unrealistic because the Planning Board would vote it down. He said the council was trying to accommodate and allow people to create flag lots, not to disallow them.
“I think it’s unfair for somebody with 30 acres now,” he said.
“The way we help the Planning Board say no is by voting the ordinance correctly,” Mello said.
At-large Councilor Nicholas J. Morganelli Jr. said the flag lot amendment was brought up three years ago.
“We debated this on the floor; we’ve talked to different departments. We’re not changing much, just allowing people a little latitude to build a second lot on their property, which is something they should be allowed to do if their lot is big enough. If they want to build more, they will have to get permission from the Planning Board,” Morganelli said.
“As far as the aquifer, it’s not a parking lot, it’s a house with plenty of land for absorption. All the checks are in place. We already spent a lot of time on this. I think it’s time to address the issue and move on to the next – many times,” Morganelli said.
The motion to amend to allow only one flag lot per parcel failed 4 to 8, with Richard K. Sullivan Jr. joining Burns, Matthews-Kane and Mello voting in favor of the limitation.
After further discussion, a motion was made for a second reading and final vote on the flag lot ordinance as it stood. The motion passed 9 to 3, with Burns, Matthews-Kane and Mello voting no.