FinCom, Planning Board Review Warrant Articles

In a public hearing held Monday night at Westwood High School, the Westwood Finance Commission reviewed a number of proposed Planning Board articles for this year’s Town Meeting, which will be held in May. The Planning Board currently has ten articles, and both committees went in depth about several.

Town Planner Nora Loughnane presented the articles one by one, fielding questions from members of the Finance Commission as well as several from members of the public.

Because Monday's hearing was only one of several to be held this month by the Finance Commission, in addition to a handful of Planning Board meetings and additional public hearings, the Planning Board is open to hearing recommendations from all directions. proposed by the Government and Charter Study Task Force.

Much of the discussion Monday night pertained to clarifications that the Planning Board is still working through.

The Planning Board will meet tonight to discuss the articles in further detail, and Loughnane told the Finance Commission Monday that the proposed articles still very much a work in progress. She said that she expects changes to be made at tonight’s Planning Board meeting, as well as more in the future to ensure they have everything set for the Town Meeting.

The first article discussed, and one that has received a lot of attention from the Planning Board, refers to adopting a new bylaw called Open Space Residential Development, and eliminating Flexible Development and Fifty-Percent Bonus.

Loughnane explained that this would allow for smaller lots, enable clusters to form and allow for more open space. The current article states that purposes include conserving natural areas such as wetland resources and wildlife habitat; lessen the amount of disturbance to soils, topography and provide roads and infrastructure in more efficient and less intrusive ways; to provide the opportunity for more flexibility and imagination in design; and offers greater housing choice by allowing varied mixes of housing type.

Loughnane said that one part of the article that the Board has put a lot of time and thinking into pertained to the type of housing units allowed. The article would allow for single-family attached housing under a special permit. She said that the article would not include “up and down housing” or multiple family housing.

“The feedback is that we are not at a stage to go any further than this,” said Loughnane, referring to the types of housing.

She said that there has been input throughout the town that there is a need for town houses, which the proposed article would allow for. Loughnane said the proposed bylaw gives an alternative to developers.

Minimum dimensional requirements are different under OSRD, she added. Detached single-family dwelling units have a minimum of 10,000 square feet, while single family attached housing can have 7,500 square feet. Detached single-family dwelling units also have a front setback on an interior drive that is 20 feet, while single-family attached housing has a minimum of 10 feet.

There are also incentives for density increases based on open space, affordable housing, moderate income housing, historic preservation and aggregate yield.

Finance Commission Chair Mary Masi-Phelps asked Loughnane if there would be provisions to provide protection in case two neighbors decided to pool lots. Loughnane said that buffer zones remain.

FinCom member Chuck Bean asked if builders could still use other means of development and Loughnane said that they could and that in many occasions they would.

“We are trying to give this as an option so we don’t have a few remaining parcels divided into larger lots,” said Loughnane.

Another article that brought much attention was in regards to a revised Senior Residential Development bylaw. Loughnane explained to FinCom that the current bylaw has not been effectively used. In fact, she said that only High Rock Village was approved and it was never built. She said there was one other application, but it was not approved.

This happened for a number of reasons, according to Loughnane. She said that the proposed bylaw reduced the amount of units from 16 units per acre of land to 10. Loughnane said that this is so developers have a more realistic outlook because it is impossible to have 16 units per acre.

She also said that the current bylaw allows only 30 percent of development of the lot, which she calls a physical impossibility. The amount was increased to 50 percent and some setback requirements have also been decreased. There would no longer be a requirement for separation between buildings.

The description of an allowable resident was also changed so that only one resident in the household needs to be 55 or over. This means that a spouse or children can also be a resident, thus bringing needed flexibility.

“We think what we have come up with is a more feasible approach to senior housing,” said Loughnane.

The Planning Board consulted with developers when drafting the article, she added. One developer, she said, was one who tried unsuccessfully to build senior housing. She said his comments were taken to heart.

Types of permissible dwellings include single-family detached houses, two-family houses, two-family semi-detached houses, townhouse-type dwelling units, or any combination of such housing types determined by the Planning Board to be appropriate for a SRD.

The Planning Board is also proposing to replace the existing Planned Development Area Overlay District with a Flexible Mixed Use Overlay District.

This is to provide a desirable mix of land uses; promote creative, efficient and appropriate solutions to development of complex sites; encourage development of comprehensive projects of appropriate scale in transit-oriented locations that provide access to major transportation routes; promote walking, bicycling and public transportation; and encourage an all-encompassing approach to site design by considering buildings, open space, landscaping and site amenities.

There are five distinct districts:

1. University Avenue Business District (FMUOD1)
2. Southwest Park (FMUOD2)
3. Glacier/Everett Business District (FMUOD3)
4. Perwall/Walper Business District (FMUOD4)
5. Allied Drive Business District (FMUOD5)

There are alternative dimensions set up for each one. Each would have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet and a 10 percent minimum public amenity area.

There are other small variations including Maximum Building Height with FMUOD3 through five at 45 feet, FMUOD1 at 70 feet and FMUOD2 at 80 feet. The minimum project areas are also different with FMUOD1 at 30 acres, FMUOD3 at 10 acres and the rest at 5 acres. Minimum residential district buffer required is 100 for FMUOD1, 20 for FMUOD2 and 50 for the rest.

The proposed bylaw is a one-board, one-permit proposal to decrease confusion between boards. Loughnane said it is more advantageous to developers, and also helps the Planning Board to have a better handle on developments. She said it would also be a good proposal for abutters. This article is also sponsored by the Board of Selectmen.

“The most important part is that we believe it will provide better protection for abutters,” said Loughnane.

Finance Commission member John Grogan said that he could see why it is advantageous for the developers, but questioned if the town gave up too much. Loughnane and Planning Board Chair Steven Rafsky both said that they felt the town wasn’t really giving anything up at all, but instead brought everything under one process to consider things together and have one picture.

“It actually allows more protection to the town, unlike other recent processes,” said Rafsky

Loughnane said that she encourages residents and abutters to provide their thoughts, but said that, philosophically, the board is supportive of the proposed article.

The Planning Board will meet again tonight at 7:30 in the Carby Street Municipal Building to discuss the articles in further detail.