Planning keeps moving on amendments

The Norwood Planning Board met on Monday, June 29 for a session that ran almost two hours. Almost all of it was spent on discussion of the five proposed zoning amendments officially introduced and set up for preparation at the June 1 meeting.

The Board’s goal is to bring these five amendments to Fall Town Meeting and – since the beginning of the month – work, in different capacities, has gotten underway on all of them.

The first three on the agenda – concerning parking definitions, parking waivers, and density bonuses – had initially taken the form of citizen petitions brought to Town Meeting in May, when they were referred back to the Planning Board for further study. They represented a community-level response to recent development activity – particularly against the proposed development at 55 Lenox St., which is now in litigation with the Town as the result of the Board’s controversial vote against it.

At issue in that application were differing interpretations of whether or not mechanical car lifts constitute approved parking spots in the Town’s zoning bylaws – ambiguity in the parking definitions amendment, currently being put together in subcommittee, seeks to rectify.

As Town Planner Sarah Dixon explained it, Town Counsel has already provided a memorandum to the subcommittee explaining the ways mechanical parking may be appropriately regulated. These methods include defining it, identifying locations in Town where it would be allowed, and determining if it would satisfy applicable minimum/maximum parking requirements.

“Towns cannot attempt, through their zoning, to regulate things that are otherwise regulated through the building code or the elevator code,” Dixon said, referring to the zoning act. “Examples of things that we could not regulate would be technical provisions relating to the engineering or the design, or fire safety.”

Dixon added that the subcommittee is meeting this week to review drafts and to discuss whether or not mechanical parking should count toward the above-noted parking requirements, with the goal of bringing “some draft language” to the next Planning Board meeting on July 13.

While not a public hearing, the discussions were informal enough to allow for those attending – either in-person or virtually – to ask questions and to comment. The parking definitions subcommittee and its method of operation was a topic, as it had been during the June 1 meeting when representatives were being proposed, and there were questions of petitioner participation.

As constituted, Planning Board members Joe Sheehan and Rob Bamber are on said subcommittee, as are Dixon and Building Commissioner Gary Pelletier. Lead petitioners (of citizen petitions consolidated into this proposed amendment) Steve Konetchy and Judith Howard are also on it.

However, resident Jim Kirker, attending virtually, asked why more citizens hadn’t been allowed on it.

“A subcommittee of this nature can get unwieldy if there’s just a huge number of people involved,” Chairman Brian Hachey responded. “These are people that had some knowledge and involvement, and this Planning Board felt that it was appropriate that it be comprised of those individuals – or people with similar concerns – and about that size.”

Holmwood – who had advocated for more community participation at the June 1 meeting – followed Hachey’s remarks with: “I think we’re covered with two petitioners,” she said. “Right now, it’s just a working group, so the public will have their say after we get a final draft.”

Dixon also responded to a gallery comment regarding the lack of a public hearing that night.

“While I understand it could be a little frustrating to not have the opportunity to participate right now, our goal truly is to get a draft in order well ahead of time, and to give ourselves the time for that type of productive conversation with the public well in advance of even the public hearings.”

Planning Board member Ernie Paciorkowski had also made clear that subcommittee findings will be brought back for a full Planning Board discussion, as well as a required public hearing.

Dixon also referred to the website that the Planning staff has created to keep the community up to date on the amendments by going to https://gvimes.link/prpsdzng

Advertisement

A second subcommittee has been established to address density bonuses. It consists of Hachey, Paciorkowski, Dixon, Pelletier, a still unfilled seat for a representative from the MBTA Communities Task Force, and Judith Howard. It is reviewing the four existing bonuses in the bylaw and exploring an increase in the affordable housing percentage to obtain the bonus. Its goal is to ask the Planning Board to finalize any amendment language by its July 27 meeting.

Regarding the parking waivers amendment, the Board reviewed a draft prepared by Dixon. Public comments will be taken via the website, and a public hearing is planned for Aug. 24.

Similarly, the Board reviewed Dixon’s draft defining urgent care facilities and their allowed locations in Town. Public comments will be taken at that planned Aug. 24 public hearing.

The fifth proposed amendment concerned the creation of an amendment regulating data centers – electricity and water-intensive facilities used to house computer systems. This has been a rapidly growing issue across the country, with environmental and quality-of-life concerns frequently cited. The discussion focused on how restrictive the zoning language should be regarding them, and the mood of the Board leaned away from welcoming them into the community.

While acknowledging that Fall Town Meeting may be an ambitious goal for this zoning amendment, Dixon did emphasize the importance of establishing zoning regulations. “I do think that we’re vulnerable to this being a fairly new use that we haven’t defined properly yet in our bylaw, and so I think the urgency definitely is there to try to move forward as quickly as we can.”

And finally:

The public hearing regarding the “Many Stories, One Norwood” mural was continued to Monday July 13 when the Planning Board next meets at 7 p.m. at the Senior Center (275 Prospect St.).