Residents urge preserving Armstrong Park as open multiuse field

Several Westfield residents told the Westfield Parks and Recreation Board during public comment that they want Armstrong Park preserved as a large, flat, open space rather than redeveloped with parking, courts or heavily programmed facilities.

Residents who spoke said the park currently supports informal play, kite flying, drone practice, dog training, biking practice, pick-up sports, seasonal uses such as sledding and snowman-building, and other activities that rely on an unbroken, flat field.

Nathaniel Walden, who identified himself as a Westfield resident, said Armstrong Park provides “a flat open space that’s use is mainly limited only by our imaginations” and that the city’s recent growth has reduced remaining green and forested spaces. “Any forward moving plans, in my opinion, should strive to preserve the essence of the current structure as a large, multi use, open concept that everyone can enjoy,” Walden said.

Other nearby residents echoed Walden. Josh Bleicker said he can see the park from his house and “100%” agreed with Walden’s description; Michelle Vandermussen, Suzanne Dagley and Tammy DeRue, each of whom said they live adjacent to or can see the park from their homes, also urged preserving the park’s open character.

Residents raised specific concerns about traffic and informal parking. Vandermussen said on busy days there is “a huge traffic pile up with people kind of semi parking on the berms” and urged a traffic study before adding features that could increase vehicle access. Dagley said sidewalks and potholes on Countryside Boulevard need attention if more visitors are attracted to the area; DeRue warned that installing courts, parking lots, lights or restrooms could bring noise and traffic she and other neighbors do not want.

Board staff clarified some questions about features shown in the master plan concept. When asked whether a pond and adjacent walkways are city-owned, staff said the ponds are owned by the Countryside homeowners association and maintained by the HOA. Board staff also emphasized that the master plan concepts shown are “high level” and are not set in stone; they said additional public input meetings would occur if/when any development moves forward.

Public comment concluded after the speakers finished their remarks; the board moved on to the evening’s agenda.

Ending: The master plan and several agenda items discussed later in the meeting (including adoption of the five-year plan) mean Armstrong Park’s future could again be part of formal planning discussion; residents asked that neighbors be included in any follow-up public input.