Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 5/3/2022
HOLYOKE – In a joint meeting with the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board, a public hearing on the amending of a zoning ordinance that could impact daycare services dominated the meeting.
The item, brought to the meeting by City Councilor David Bartley, looked to amend the city’s current zoning ordinance to no longer allow daycare services in R-1 or R-2 districts by right, but only by a City Council special permit. By the end of the hearing, there were still a few unanswered questions for some on the Planning Board so a vote on this item was tabled until their next meeting.
Bartley, who had to leave the meeting due to family obligations as the hearing began, spoke briefly before leaving on his reasoning behind bringing this to the agenda. The councilor opened his remarks by stating that when he filed this order, there was no intent to hurt anyone or come after anyone in the community.
“The reason I filed this is to be prospective, in other words, not to look behind us. I have no interest in regulating change of any existing provider,” Bartley said.
Bartley said he felt as a councilor he should be looking out for property rights and that the establishment of home daycare programs in these residential zones could cause blurred lines in their ordinances.
He added that these specific zones were made up of mainly single-family homes and that there was also concern from some neighbors regarding toys in the yard and car traffic for parents dropping off and picking up their children. He also mentioned the dangers of speeding cars on streets where some home daycares are located.
“We’re OK with taking care of children, that’s not the issue. When cars fly in late for work, or afternoon come flying in, they’re speeding. That’s what prompted my thought and got me to ask about this,” Bartley said.
Bartley said his vision for regulation here was to not stop daycare, but quite the opposite as he said he was a supporter of these workers and of small businesses in Holyoke. His main point in bringing this to public hearing was to make sure there was protection for other homeowners if a home daycare residence is ever sold to someone looking to bring in new business.
“This would not in any way, shape or form impact or affect an existing provider. How I envisioned it, they would be grandfathered in, and it would be for future use,” Bartley said. “Homeowner gets change in neighbor, the homeowner gets a word on it.”
Bartley then exited the meeting and the public comment portion of the hearing began.
Eileen Leahy was the first public comment and stated she was there to speak against the proposed amendment and on behalf of her children’s former home daycare provider who is in the zones that would be impacted.
Leahy shared all three of her children went through home daycare and expressed how important that was for her to have a community support for her children as a young parent. She also shared that her children’s former facilitator had called her the morning of this public hearing sharing her discontent for the proposed change.
“How are we going to regulate kids going outside, having fun and laughing? How will you regulate toys in the yard? It just seems like an empty special permit, how will the city regulate this?” Leahy said during her comments.
Leahy continued by making the point that there are already many hoops to jump through for home daycare providers in terms of regulations from the state and that this amendment would only create more challenges for people trying to do good and help parents with childcare.
“If someone buys a house and sees a home daycare next door, maybe they should reconsider if they don’t like kids,” Leahy said. “These are the hardest workers in the city. During COVID[-19] they opened their doors for first responder’s children when we didn’t know what it even was at that point. Now we want to turn a special permit on people? It doesn’t make any sense to me.”
Leahy ended her comments by saying her access to a home daycare was crucial as a young parent of three and was a more affordable option than storefront daycares within the city. She added she had great trust with her children’s facilitator and never worried about them when in her hands.
Another speaker was a woman who currently operates a home daycare from her residence. She said her initial thoughts with this proposed amendment were about the parents she has had to already turn away due to being at capacity. She also said this change would be a move against the women- and minority-owned businesses.
Resident Jose Romero, a firefighter, spoke on behalf of his wife who is an educator and was against the proposed changes. Romero said that while traffic is a real concern, there is no way to control that as citizens and that was a task for the police to enforce.
“In my opinion, everything is working now. If it ain’t broke, why fix it? I hope you guys take into consideration that educators for the city of Holyoke,” Romero said. “I’m a first responder and I couldn’t do my wife’s job. I’d go into burning buildings first.”
Another speaker was Steve Huntley of Valley Opportunity Council (VOC) who spoke against the proposed amendment and shared how it would impact the work he already does to help families find resources like home daycares to improve lives.
The VOC is the largest and most diverse community action agency in the area and uses an established network of support and collaborative services intended to encourage community members to actively achieve self-sufficiency for themselves and their families.
Huntley explained that VOC is already working with 17 home educators in Holyoke and work as a system with another set of hands for situations with home daycare owners.
VOC also meets with families, helps identify their needs and aligns them with the proper home educator.
Huntley said this was an important process as some kids come from difficult situations at home that need certain areas of attention, so identifying the right home educator is important in making the child feel safe and ready to be successful. He added there were once 36 home educators in Holyoke pre-pandemic, and there are now only 17 currently.
“What that says is there’s huge demand for this in the city of Holyoke,” Huntley said. “We want to help the most disadvantaged children have a good day.”
After a few more public speakers and the reading of seven written comments to the Ordinance Committee, conversation among the two town groups resumed.
At-Large Councilor Kevin Jourdain of the Ordinance Committee said he felt there was no need for this regulation as federal laws for home daycares already had enough in place for people to use if they had complaints or concerns for a specific home daycare.
“There is due course for neighbors, they don’t need protection of special permits to get the relief they need,” Jourdain said.
Fellow At-Large Councilor and member of the Ordinance Committee Israel Rivera began his comments by thanking those who came for public comment and apologized to them for this debate getting to the point it had reached. Rivera said he tried to kill the amendment proposal early on.
“We are trying to educate other councilors on these hoops to jump through, but I guess they had to take it on themselves and learn for themselves,” Rivera said.
Rivera then motioned to withdraw the order, but At-Large Councilor Joseph McGiverin still felt there was one more question to be answered.
“I don’t understand how this isn’t educational use,” McGiverin said of the classification of home daycares. “My understanding is we cannot regulate through zoning education. Before we take a final vote, can the Law Department weigh in on that?”
Councilor and Ordinance Committee Chair Linda Vacon ultimately motioned to close the public hearing and wait on a vote until a recommendation from the Planning Board was received and any final questions on legality were answered.