Planning Board Surprised by Lack of Discussion at Town Meeting

Much like the rest of , the Westwood Planning Board articles that were on this year's warrant received little discussion and all were voted in favor except for Article 22, which was indefinitely postponed.

Officials agreed that this year's Town Meeting was unusually smooth and that many expected more discussion from residents.

“I was pleased with the efficiency of this year's Town Meeting,” said Town Planner Nora Loughnane. “ I was surprised that there were no substantive questions on any of the zoning articles, but that may be due to the thoroughness of the Planning Board and Finance Commission public hearings, and the extensive coverage of the zoning articles by the Westwood Patch and the Westwood Press.” 

Loughnane added that various articles were introduced at Board of Selectmen meetings, discussed extensively at the Planning Board and Fin Com public hearings, and further discussed at Housing Information Sessions and Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee meetings.

“It seems people had their concerns addressed early in the process and were comfortable voting on the final product at Town Meeting,” said Loughnane.

Planning Board Chair Steve Rafsky pointed out that Westwood’s registered voters are well versed in how the town is run, and that the lack of discussion may mean that they have faith in the recommendations of their elected officials.

“Residents in Westwood are very astute to what is happening in town,” Rafsky said. “Last night people seemed comfortable that we did our job right. The meeting ran very smoothly and I’m glad that it was just as smooth in the Planning Board’s section.”

Rafsky did say, however, that he expected a bit more discussion than what was presented. There were few public comments throughout the entire evening, let alone during the section of the warrant focusing on Planning Board articles.

Town Planner Nora Loughnane anticipated before Town Meeting that there wouldn't be much controversy surrounding the articles. Planning Board member Carol Chafetz added that she heard a few questions raised from the crowd, which she looked at as a healthy move.

"I noticed a few 'nay' votes, which is healthy, as I'm not sure that not everyone in attendance had attended our Planning Board meeting on these articles," Chafetz said. "I also liked the fact that one Town Meeting member asked why the FinCom didn't vote unanimously on a couple of Planning Board articles. That said, I think that the FinCom's opinion is well respected and residents who may have been unfamiliar with the complexity of zoning, trusted the FinCom had thoroughly vetted the Planning Board's proposals."

Town Project Manager Glenn Garber, meanwhile, said he was surprised that residents didn’t ask more questions about the Flexible Multiple Use Overlay District and the Senior Residential Development articles, since these are newer concepts.

Regarding the Open Space Residential Development article, Garber said that residents are more familiar with it, since it was originally proposed in 2010, but was voted to be postponed for fine tuning.

“It’s really quite amazing that there was so little discussion,” said Garber. “There were public meetings plus the mandatory public hearings, but considering FMUOD is a new concept, there was surprisingly little discussion. I’d say that’s a good thing. At least among open meeting attendees there were no grave questions.”

FMUOD encourages non-residential development and ensures that there would be no negative effects to surrounding neighborhoods. The article is intended to promote creative solutions to developing complex sites while providing a desirable mix of land uses.

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)

Senior Residential Development brings a more feasible approach to building senior housing. The article lessened the minimum number of lots from 16 to 10 and adjusted setback issues.

The only article not voted in was Article 22, which pertained to lot shapes. This was indefinitely postponed after both the Finance Commission and the Planning Board recommended to do so. However, Garber said that this article was minor in the grand scheme of things, and that this allows the Planning Board to have more time to review it and weigh out their options.

“There was just no desperate urgency,” said Garber. “This gives the Planning Board a year to look at some other models, fine tune what they have and offer more public education.”

Loughnane explained that the Planning Board will take another look at regulating lot shape, and will probably have a revised proposal ready for next Town Meeting.  She noted that the board is interested in preventing the creation of irregularly shaped lots that are designed just to meet area and frontage requirements.

“While legible in plan form, these irregularly shaped lots cannot be readily understood on-site,” Loughnane said. “Property owners have difficulty discerning the borders of their land, which can lead to misunderstandings, unintended encroachments, and potential title issues when property owners attempt to sell these lots.”

The Board will conduct analysis to determine the appropriate shape factor to achieve a balance, and may consider including a provision for Planning Board waiver in certain cases.

The bylaws are taken into effect immediately, according to Loughnane. The next step with these bylaws is to have them sent by the Town Clerk’s office to the Massachusetts Attorney General's office for approval. They are then integrated and approved by the Westwood Town Clerk's office. The approved bylaws will be posted on the town’s website.

For a summary of the bylaws, click .