Hearings held on zoning amendments

On Monday, the Norwood Planning Board met for a three-hour session – almost all of which was spent on hearings regarding five proposed zoning amendments, the objective of which was to receive public input before they move on to Town Meeting in November.

Three were informed by citizens petitions that had gone to Town Meeting this past May, where they were referred to the Planning Board for further study. Since then, the Board has been discussing and refining all five of them (the other two originated with the Community Development Department), while the public was (and still is) able to review each of them on the Town’s Planning Board webpage and submit comments.

However, the hearings were the first opportunity for public testimony on the drafts, and they drew about 20 attendees – a number of whom took turns stepping up to the podium.

One of the proposed amendments that had started as a citizens petition concerned density bonuses, and it drew the most opposition from those who chose to speak.

In the bylaw, new developments within the MBTA Communities Multi-family Overlay District may qualify for a special permit to add one additional story of building height “in exchange for certain improvements to benefit the public interest.” Three improvements are specified: stormwater management and heat island impact, structured parking, and affordable housing.

At the July 27 meeting, the Board reached consensus to recommend the removal of the first two incentivized improvements, but it agreed to keep affordable housing.

This bonus may grant an extra story to a proposed development in exchange for an additional 5 percent of its units to be made available to households earning not more than 50 percent of area median income (AMI). State law requires 20 percent of a qualifying project’s units to be offered at 80 percent of AMI, so the extra 5 percent would raise its income-restricted units to 25 percent.

At that meeting, Vice Chair Ernie Paciorkowski explained that the 25 percent would go further to address the Town’s concerns regarding a shortage of affordable housing. He added that – at 25 percent – all of the units in the building could be credited to the Town’s 40B requirements. Alternatively, at the 20 percent baseline requirement, only that percentage would be credited.

Testimony included: the prediction that developers will raise rents too high on their market units to compensate for the extra affordable units; the position that the Town is already too densely populated and that there is housing committee and a voucher system to deal with affordability; and the observations that the bonuses are doing nothing for the Town and that the Fire Department is not equipped to go up to five stories.

Judith Howard – the lead petitioner on the article that had gone to Town Meeting and a member of the subcommittee to draft the proposed amendment – also noted in her testimony that the original citizens petition had been to rescind density bonuses, but that this had never been discussed on the subcommittee, even though the petitioner had brought it up twice. She added that there had been an “unmistakable” bias toward developers and affordable housing.

This led Paciorkowski – who had also been on that subcommittee – to respond by stating that the density and affordability bonus had been discussed at length during that drafting process.

He also addressed the sentiment of the testimony. “What we decide here is not binding: it’s a recommendation to Town Meeting,” In that context, he revisited July 27. “Is it worth it to have a building with a fifth floor and have more affordable units and get to count the whole building, or not have a fifth floor and count 20 percent, and cut out some affordable units?”

The vote was 4-1 (Vice Chair Debbie Holmwood opposed) in favor of recommending to Town Meeting that it keep the affordable housing bonus as it is now, and remove the other two.

The hearings for Parking Definitions and Parking Waivers – the other proposed amendments connected to citizens petitions – took nearly two hours to play out, chiefly because of a handful of impactful points raised by former Town Moderator David Hern in his testimony regarding both.

Advertisement

Hern – a well-known local development attorney who appeared before the Board on his own behalf as a Town resident – picked apart the two draft amendments in such a way that it resulted in the Parking Definitions hearing being continued for the Board to further review its definition of Motor Vehicle Storage. Hern also challenged the language of the Parking Waivers draft on four of its five findings of fact, leading to major changes before its unanimous approval.

“I don’t want to see the Town get held up in litigation because of vague language and bylaws,” Hern responded when Holmwood brought up her concern that he, or another attorney, might eventually come back and take advantage of those changes. “I support bylaw changes that make things clearer so everybody knows what they’re supposed to do and understands why decisions were made the way that they were – whether it’s a denial, a grant, or something in-between.”

The other two amendments propose creating a definition for urgent care facilities and establishing a one-year moratorium on the development of data centers. Both were approved unanimously, with a minor change to the first, and testimony in favor of the second.

Data centers – oftentimes huge warehouse facilities used to house IT infrastructure – are rapidly becoming a national issue because of their impact on communities, and because of their fast-developing nature. A moratorium would allow the Board to better determine how to regulate them.

Aside from the Parking Definitions draft amendment, which was continued to Sept. 21, the other four were referred to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on the Town Meeting Warrant.

For more information or to comment, visit the Planning Board page on the Town website (www.norwoodma.gov) and then click on Proposed Zoning Amendments (under Related Pages).