Planning Board: Ann's Lunch Proposal Needs Improvements

The Tuesday night chose to continue a public hearing regarding the Ann’s Lunch building on High Street at the request of the building’s owners and Project Designer John Andrews.

The proposed project would include expanding the rear of the building as well as reconfigure the parking lot at the site. Involved parties had obtained a special permit from the Westwood Zoning Board of Appeals, subject to the Planning Board's approval and a subsequent traffic report.

Those representing Ann’s Lunch were not present Tuesday night, which angered some of the building’s abutters.

The request to continue the hearing outright came just hours before the meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m. According to Town Planner Nora Loughnane, they wanted to approach the Westwood Zoning Board of Appeals for additional dimensional relief.

Loughnane said that she felt that the project should be designed and approved by the Planning Board first, and that those involved were not about it in the right way; Planning Board Chair Steven Rafsky expressed frustration as well.

“I am very concerned about what is being developed,” said Rafsky, who noted that proposed modifications to the parking area at the building does not work, and that it does not make sense to double the size of the building. Rafsky noted that the owners of Ann’s Lunch are good people, but need guidance in this project to make it an improvement.

Rafsky also said that he actually feels that the entire building needs to be leveled and started over. Loughnane told the Board that Andrews met with Economic Development Officer Chris McKeown on Friday and that they acknowledged that it may be best to start over completely.

Rafsky stressed that the Planning Board is not trying to be difficult in getting the project underway, but feels that the current building foundation, when cut, could fall and it would be more expensive in the long run. Rafsky also noted that the traffic study is not up to date and that the plan is just overall in need of work.

“What we have before us is an insufficient plan with an insufficient report, and I think we should work with the applicant,” said Rafsky.

Abutters were not pleased that the applicants were not even present for the meeting, saying they worked hard to get there from jobs and other obligations.

Rafsky assured residents that there was plenty of work that needed to be done on the project. The abutters’ contact information was taken down in case of another cancellation or continuation.

The hearing will continue on Tuesday, Oct. 11 at 8 p.m.