Konetchy looking to amend Zoning Bylaw

Norwood District Town Meeting District 4 member Stephen Konetchy has submitted six articles regarding the Norwood Zoning Bylaw for the upcoming May Town Meeting, and he said he hopes this helps the Town to deal with large development projects, their impacts, and the Town’s finances.

Konetchy said he submitted these articles for one reason: to save Norwood money.

“My goal in submitting these articles is straightforward: to help the Norwood taxpayer,” he said. “Norwood is currently facing not one, but two potential overrides. That reality makes it even more important that we scrutinize spending, identify efficiencies, and pursue policies that can ease the financial burden on residents. Each of my articles is oriented toward reducing taxes where possible, strengthening fiscal discipline, and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and in ways that directly benefit Norwood and its residents. They are designed not simply as isolated proposals, but as part of a broader effort to lessen the pressure that these overrides would place on households across town.”

Perhaps most controversial, and the biggest lift on the list because it will likely need state approval, is the reclassification of residential rental building over four units to commercial property tax rates.

“That changes the way apartment buildings are taxed,” Konetchy said. “Right now they’re taxed at the residential rate, and this would change them to be taxed at the commercial rate. And this is for larger apartment buildings. Anything over four units, they would get taxed at the commercial rate. Because these big apartment buildings, like Avalon, those owners bring in a lot of money from rents, but the building is only taxed as a homeowner would be taxed, when they really should be paying the commercial tax rate.”

Konetchy said the rate would be on the assessed value of the building, and said the increase would bring in millions for the Town budget. But he said it wouldn’t just end at Town Meeting.

“They’re a for-profit business; the owner of those buildings is not a resident,” he said. “That’s the way it’s done across the state, and it would take a home-rule petition in order to do that. And Boston just tried to do that, (Boston Mayor) Michelle Wu tried to do that and the legislature shot it down. But it’s worth looking at, because it represents $9 million in additional potential revenue, and it would go a long way to helping our override.”

A 2023 Boston Globe article said they asked the legislature, and from the answers the paper got, reporters found at least 36 Massachusetts legislators (out of 200) are commercial/rental property owners and 19 are renters. The article also points out that the law doesn’t bar legislators from voting on issues that could impact them financially.

Back in Norwood, Kotechy allowed it may lead to higher rents, which, according to Zillow, average out at $2,920 per month for Norwood.

“But it wouldn’t raise them (rents) as much as the overrides would raise for homeowners,” he said.

Next up is the requirement that Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds only be used for projects and/or properties that are “owned in fee simple or held under a permanent interest by the Town of Norwood.”

Konetchy said this came from the recent proposal from Caritas Communities for the property at 20 Vernon St. for 20 units of housing for homeless veterans, as well as a fireplace renovation at the Day House from the Norwood Historical Society.

“It’s Norwood taxpayers putting up the money, so it should be spent on things the Town owns or controls,” he said.

Also on the list is parking waivers that allow parking requirements to be waived if certain conditions are met, which are generally environmental mitigation. One of the big pushes for those waivers was that Norwood’s stormwater collection, retention and cleaning infrastructure is currently and historically inadequate, and so giving parking bonuses to developments that increase stormwater capacity would help to alleviate that problem. This has most recently been requested for the proposal at 55 Lenox St., and was shot down by the Norwood Planning Board because it was felt it was too many spaces for too little water.

Advertisement

“We can disagree on whether or not the thing they were going to give up to get the waiver was valid or not, but I want to get rid of the waivers altogether,” he said. “We should just say, look, if you want to have this building, and the zoning law says you need 1.1 parking spots, you need 1.1 parking spots. You might have to shave off an apartment or two to get it, but I’m just looking to get rid of the waivers completely.”

Speaking of 55 Lenox, after the waivers were rejected, the proponent looked to use stackers to meet the parking requirements. That was shot down as well – and is now the subject of an appeal lawsuit from the proponent – because the Planning Board did not view stackers as legitimate parking spaces. Konetchy said the new amendment would define stackers, lifts and tandem parking and restrict their use.

“It’s saying that lift parking won’t be allowed in the zoning laws,” he said. “It’s inherently unreliable. A parking spot on a piece of asphalt or on a deck on the parking garage is pretty much there to stay… With lift parking, if you’re on the top and the lift breaks, you can’t get your car down. The people on the bottom have to move their car or leave their keys in a lock box so you can move their car, there’s no allowance for what happens when the thing breaks and all of a sudden, you no longer meet your zoning requirements because you have too few parking spots.”

Konetchy is also looking to institute a residential property tax exemption, that would allow a homeowner to knock off up to 20 percent of the home’s assessed value for taxation purposes, so long as the property is the primary residence of the homeowner.

Lastly, Kontechy said he wants unused funds from a project to be put back into the General Fund. He said this was because of plans to use about $10 million so far leftover from the Coakley Middle School rebuild project for other uses without Town Meeting Authorization. His amendment would essentially require Town Meeting to vote on the reuse, since movement from the General Fund requires such a vote.

“It should go to Town Meeting, it shouldn’t just be able to be used because they have the money leftover,” he said.