Planning Board Discusses Revised Warrant Articles

After presenting its Monday night, the Westwood Planning Board met Tuesday to discuss revisions made to the articles based on FinCom's comments.

Chairman Steve Rafsky announced at the beginning of the meeting that the intention was to get the articles ready for a public hearing to be held on March 15. He said that the focus would not be on language, but instead try to find an agreement on theory and principle.

However, sometimes language drives the theory and principle, he added, and the Board spent much of the meeting discussing some of the housekeeping articles to be looked at. This came from recommended changes by Building Inspector Joe Doyle.

The Board went through the changes one by one, but Rafsky made sure to keep the meeting moving along when they would start getting too deep into the language.

“I think we ought to agree on substance tonight, not language,” said Rafsky.

Much of this conversation came in the area of what is considered a boarding house compared to family housing. This came in an article that would amend a list of definitions in the Zoning Bylaw. The recommended amendment to the definition of boarding house is “a dwelling or part thereof in which lodging is provided by the owner or operator to more than three (3) boarders. Where more than four (4) unrelated individuals rent a dwelling, it shall be considered a boarding house.

Town Planner Nora Loughnane said that Doyle’s concern in this was because there could be two couples living together and that wouldn’t make sense to be labeled a boarding house. After some discussion, the Board came up with a variety of possibilities that would make something a boarding house according to the definition.

Members of the Board, such as Secretary John Wiggin, were concerned about the language because it could bring legal issues in the future. Loughnane said that she sent the definition to Town Counsel Tom McCusker to look at, but she had not heard a response.

“There are case laws written all over this,” said Wiggin. “This is dangerous territory.”

Rafsky recommended that the Board change the definition to include “three members not related to the owner,” but said the wording should be fixed and discussed.

The Board also made changes to the proposed article regarding Flexible Mixed Use Overlay Districts. Rafsky had spoken with Loughnane about the alternative dimension section and said that he had some concerns regarding the maximum building height and floor ratio in FMUOD1, which is the University Avenue Business District.

The original proposal had the maximum building height at 70 feet and floor area ratio at 1.0, with footnotes next to each. The footnote for height originally stated “Where a lot in FMUOD 1 is not within 500 feet of any residentially zoned parcel not included within the project authorized by FMUOD Special Permit, the Planning Board may allow an increased maximum building height of no more than 120 feet. In no case shall the height of any building exceed 178.5 feet above sea level.”

The footnote for floor area stated the same thing except that the Planning Board may allow an increased maximum floor area ratio of no more than 1.2.

After discussion regarding Rafsky’s conversation with Loughnane, the board decided to change the first part of the footnoted sections to say “Where a lot in FMUOD 1 is within 2,500 feet of the Route 128 MBTA Train Station parcel (shown as Lot1 on Assessor’s Plat 33), and East of University Ave…”

“I think we should keep it as far away from the residents as possible if we are talking about increasing height,” said Rafsky.

In the area of Open Space Residential Development, the Board was pleased with the direction it has headed and was very happy to see that it was well received by the Finance Commission at Monday’s meeting, as well as the general public. This is in regards to having single-family attached housing, such as town houses, and one of the main intentions is to create good developments and conserve natural, open space. Up and down housing would not be allowed under this bylaw.

This has been a fairly touchy area, the Borad acknowledged, but Rafsky said that he is confident they put together an article that will be well received. Planning Board Vice Chairman Steve Olanoff said that he did find some discrepancies in some wording, but all in all, they could agree that it had the right focus.

The Board also discussed an article for the first time as a group, regarding lot shape requirements for residential districts. The proposed article says that lots would provide satisfactory sites for buildings in relation to natural topography, and shall to the extent feasible, be rectangular in shape.

The Board originally recommended that there should be a shape factor of 35 or less, based on a devised formula. However, Rafsky said he felt that 35 was too high and they may want to drop it. Also, members of the Board wanted to make sure that current lots wouldn’t be penalized. However, they felt that they were headed in the right direction going into the public hearing.

The public hearing will take place on March 15 at 7:30 p.m. at the Carby Street Municipal Building.