Little Resistance from Residents to Westwood Planning Board's Proposed Zoning Changes

A handful of residents indicated some support, some concern, and little resistance overall at public hearings last Tuesday regarding Planning Board's proposed zoning amendments that will be set forth in five warrant articles to appear at spring's Town Meeting. 

In a remote hearing, commenters joined by voice over Zoom and indicated some concern over Planning Board's proposal to relax review of new solar installations. They were supportive of two other proposed zoning amendments that would establish a district of multi-family housing by-right and relax regulation of nonconforming properties. Residents voiced little or no objection to proposed amendments to rezone the historic Obed Baker House and a Shell gas station.

For a summary of the issues discussed in the public hearings, see Westwood Minute's earlier reporting, here.

Planning Board Disputes State Guidance for Multi-Family Housing Area Size, Amount; Residents Support Idea of New Overlay District

Planning Board’s Article 1 proposes a new Section 9.9 to Westwood’s Zoning Bylaw, to create a new Mixed-Use & Multi-Family Residential Overlap District (MUMFROD). The overlay district is an attempt to comply with state law requiring MBTA communities, like Westwood, to allow multi-family housing by-right, within half a mile of a train or bus station.

Town Planner Abby McCabe noted that the state recently indicated a designation for Westwood as a “bus service community,” which would require at least 20 percent of Westwood’s total housing stock to be multi-family units.

Town Counsel Pat Ahearn disputed the state’s characterization, noting that under definitions listed in the state’s Draft Compliance Guidelines for Compliance, Westwood clearly is a not a bus service community, but a “commuter rail community.” Commuter rail communities are required to have at least 15 percent of total housing stock as multi-family housing units.

Indeed, the state’s Draft Compliance Guidelines define a commuter rail community as a community that has no subway station in or within 0.5 miles of its borders, but which does have a commuter rail station in or within 0.5 miles of its borders.

“We are not a bus service community,” said Chair of Westwood Housing Authority Lou Rizoli during public comments. “To be a bus service community, we have to have a bus stop and not train station. We have two train stations,” he said, referring to Islington Station and Route 128 Station.

Image of MBTA commuter rail by MassDOT from Flickr.

Mr. Ahearn has noted that the town will be filing comments to the state's Draft Compliance Guidelines, disputing the designation as a bus service community and asserting the town's belief that it is a commuter rail community.

Another area of dispute that the Town will likely take up with the state is the area size of the required district. The Draft Compliance Guidelines propose that each multi-family district must be “at least 50 acres of land, or approximately one-tenth of the land area that is within 0.5 mile of a transit station.” By contrast, Planning Board’s proposed multi-family housing by-right district encompasses approximately 16 acres of land. It includes the properties at 22 Everett Street, 85-95 University Avenue and 120-130 University Avenue.

Planning Board member Ms. Ellen Larkin Rollings reiterated her opinion, and the shared opinion of fellow board members from their last meeting, that the board’s proposal stands as an honest attempt to reasonably comply with the new state law. Board members and Town Counsel anticipate that state will modify its guidance on required size of district after it reviews public comments from towns and interested parties, including Westwood.

A total of three residents provided public comment. No one opposed the draft zoning amendment on the new multi-family housing district.

Mr. Gary Kaplan, a new member of Westwood Affordable Housing Associates, stated his strong support for the new district. Affordable housing will enable young families with children to participate in the benefits of living in Westwood - good schools and transportation to Boston, he said.

Planning Board will present the state's Draft Compliance Guidelines at Select Board's meeting to be held on Monday, February 7, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. 

Proposal to Relax Permitting for Solar Arrays Receives Mixed Response

Planning Board’s proposed amendment on solar arrays, Article 2, is an attempt to be consistent with state law which encourages installation of solar arrays and discourages unreasonable regulation. The amendment would remove the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals to review resident installation of solar arrays. It would essentially make installation of some solar arrays by-right.

Under the amendment, Planning Board would expand the category of solar installations that are allowed to proceed under simple building and electrical permits. Under the current bylaw, only principal buildings fall under that more streamlined process. The proposed amendment would generally afford the same treatment to solar arrays on any building structures, such as car ports and sheds, so long as they are not large solar arrays.

Other solar installations, such as ground mounted solar, would be reviewed by town staff and generally approved so long as certain conditions are met, such as compliance with minimum setbacks (e.g. 25 feet from the street). Lastly, large solar installations of more than 10,000 square feet would be reviewed by Planning Board.

Image from Planning Board's Jan. 18, 2022 slide presentation to Finance & Warrant Commission. Depicted (left to right) are a solar array on a building structure, ground mounted solar array, and large scale solar array.

Resident Barbara Shea asked whether the proposed amendment would mean that ground mounted solar installations could cover an entire lot. Ms. McCabe answered in the affirmative - they could cover a good portion of a lot, as long as they follow setback requirements.

Ms. Shea asked whether companies installing solar arrays could be required to provide a minimum return to the town for clearcutting land or using municipal buildings. In response, Town Counsel Pat Ahearn stated his opinion that such an arrangement would not be a zoning issue, but a management issue under the purview of the town’s energy manager, Mr. Thomas Philbin.

Resident Donna Morrison expressed concern that under the proposed amendment, solar arrays might be allowed to replace wooded areas. She also noted that provisions should be made to ensure that solar panels go through a proper disposal, stating that they are destructive to the environment and must be handled in a specific manner.

Ms. Claire Galkowski offered that while old growth forests are important, the woods in town tend to be young, and that solar arrays will be able to displace more carbon dioxide than the young woods in Westwood. Ms. Galkowski also noted that fossil fuels that are used to generate electricity end up destroying woods through emissions and through climate change.

Ms. McCabe noted that there is a protocol for how to treat abandoned solar installations for large scale solar, but there is nothing in the current draft amendment that addresses abandonment of solar arrays on residential properties.

Support hyperlocal news. Support and/or subscribe to Westwood Minute!

No Objections to Rezoning of Westwood Plaza, Historic Obed Baker House, and Adjoining Town Lot

Select Board recently designated a developer for the historic Obed Baker House at 909 High Street and an adjacent town lot. Developer Todd Sullivan plans to convert the house into two residences on separate floors, and construct a commercial space on the adjacent, municipal lot.

Planning Board’s Article 3 proposes to change the zoning of the Obed Baker House and the adjoining municipal lot.  The parcels would included in the Flexible Multiple Use Overlay District (FMUOD7/High Street Business District overlay district).  Westwood Plaza, where Duncan Donuts sits, would also be part of the expanded district. Currently, there are no specific plans to redevelop Westwood Plaza, but the rezoning gives the owner of Westwood Plaza an opportunity to redevelop in the future.

Image capture Aug. 2019 from Google Maps. Pictured is the Obed Baker House as viewed from High Street, with Westwood Plaza on the left and municipal owned lot to the right.

Ms. Larkin Rollings asked about the wetlands alongside the Obed Baker property, and was assured by Westwood’s Director of Community & Economic Development Nora Loughnane that the redevelopment would be outside the “35-foot no-touch zone.” Additionally, Mr. Sullivan has proposed to clean up the wetland area, which he noted is currently filled with “junk.”

Resident Barbara Shea raised her hope that the owner of Westwood Plaza might cooperate with Mr. Sullivan in moving the entrance and exit of Dunkin Donuts to a safer location. She noted that the nearby curve on High Street makes it a troublesome location.

Ms. Loughnane responded that the redevelopment of Westwood Plaza and the Dunkin Donuts entrance and exit are not part of the current proposal.

No Objections to Relaxing the Permitting Process for Expanding Nonconforming Properties

Planning Board’s proposed amendment in Article 4 would give the building inspector the discretion to decide whether a new or expanded nonconformity should require a variance, or whether it should proceed under the procedure for a special permit. The intent is to allow minor expansions to nonconforming properties to be reviewed by the less stringent review under a special permit process rather than the higher bar of review from a variance.

Resident Brian Clinton voiced strong support for the amendment. He described his experience last fall in applying for a variance to add a porch to his home to provide a separate, independent entrance for his mother-in-law who is living with his family after suffering a stroke. His project was denied, he said, due to an extra 2 feet and rigid zoning enforcement. He voiced support for the amendment that would allow families like his to have an improved quality of life.

Ms. Morrison commented that “add-ons” to homes are in Westwood’s future, as children of Westwood parents cannot afford to buy or rent a home in Westwood. They are now moving into their parents’ homes, she says. She also observed that the amendment would help people stay in their original homes, rather than having to build a new, “monstrosity” of a home to comply with zoning regulations.

Ms. Shea agreed that allowing residents to go ahead with small extensions of nonconformance is a good idea. She asked if notice would still be given to neighbors. Ms. Loughnane confirmed that notice requirements for special permits and variances are the same.

No Objections to Rezoning Shell Gas Properties at 394 and 396 Providence Highway

No opposition was raised to the proposal to rezone the Shell gas station at 394 Providence Highway from Industrial Office to Highway Business, and the adjacent, unzoned lot at 396 Providence Highway to Highway Business (Article 5).

Image capture: Nov. 2021 from Google Maps. Pictured is the Shell gas station on Providence Highway and the adjacent empty lot. A redeveloped station and convenience store is planned on these two lots.

Owner Michael Brown noted that the property's current use is nonconforming with the current zoning. Mr. Brown would like zoning to match the land use, and he plans to expand his gas station and convenience store across the both lots.

Planning Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearings at its upcoming February 15, 2022 meeting, at 7:00 p.m. via Zoom. 

If this was helpful, consider supporting and/or subscribing to Westwood Minute!

You may also be interested in reading:

-Westwood Follows Dover in Recommending Preservation of Open Space at Hale

-Highlights from Select Board Meeting of January 24, 2022

-Inclusive Westwood Appeals to Residents to Support Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (Updated)