[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6654935,"mediaKeyId","5429496-7593124d6efbeee55d458e4304ced192","parentId",5429496,"title","Norwood residents and Planning Board spar over parking waiver for proposed 55 Lennox apartments","audioSeconds",5216,"startMs",100000,"endMs",5316000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5429496-7593124d6efbeee55d458e4304ced192&start=100&end=5316","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5429496-7593124d6efbeee55d458e4304ced192/thumbnail_100000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6654935/Town-of-Norwood/Norfolk-County/Massachusetts/Norwood-residents-and-Planning-Board-spar-over-parking-waiver-for-proposed-55-Lennox-apartments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6654935-cceca1248de8a5c074db0a06e8021b5d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773580471&Signature=ZELVJDGx73IT8Cwc7qln4mdPC0u90Hq6LmJOEgIHTIzfql-unetxbGW3CQ-TFe85VREk6rMszpBQIp5QE1dsT4yEXvGTK051dNrhUTBDWNNocHq-4peFwpajmD3OjujCnmLIKcwBZre~xxI3ODpOGaXnLfUuyRKl59ePitzzwkeVmOgEckvxpD0L5nSNZqG8RzGjaEryzavXmcKVFwYMXGpfYLfJJ7V3VNJHUdbugxc5BU6PFWV8SP4pT82YJ4ali49Qkv~dph48bN4S~IlkxF7tCeBO0m~IkS4BftBwHgguIQbA0UMe--VNYKtCQ3Kkc4ggUmNZgDhhfrmyvxaj~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Norwood","date","2025-07-18T18:58:01.273Z","article","Debbie Homewood, chair of the Norwood Planning Board, opened public comment during the board's continued hearing on a proposed 96-unit apartment building at 55 Lennox and acknowledged extensive public concern about parking, traffic and neighborhood impacts.

The applicant, identified in the hearing as John (applicant/developer), told the board his revised plan will reserve parking for tenants and include some visitor parking. \"The tenants now will have reserved parking,\" John said, adding that parking stickers and a towing policy would enforce assigned spots. He also told the board he could not commit to adding more deeply affordable units, saying, \"the margin on these projects are razor thin\" and that higher construction costs and interest rates limit flexibility.

Neighbors and board members repeatedly challenged the applicant on the size of the requested parking waiver and the likely real-world effects. Several residents and Planning Board members noted the applicant is asking to reduce parking from 96 required spaces to 67 — a waiver of 29 spaces — and asked how the developer will prevent spillover parking on nearby streets and municipal lots. \"At 29, you're a third of the apartments,\" said one resident, later identified as Ernie (Planning Board member) during board discussion, expressing concern the units without parking could be hard to rent or would push cars into surrounding neighborhoods.

Board and public commenters referenced local examples to ask whether transit-oriented projects nearby are truly reducing car ownership. Planning Department staff cited a study that found typical multifamily developments in comparable suburban areas often have substantial unused parking: \"the 70% utilization rate means ... at any given point, 30% of the parking lots were vacant,\" the staff member said. The staffer also noted Norwood-wide census data showing about 11% of renter-occupied households have no car.

Residents described everyday effects of limited visitor parking and deliveries near Lenox Street and the Mill Village area. Margaret Ray Steed, who lives at 1 Lennox Street, said her building of 51 units has only limited visitor parking and relies on neighbors sharing spaces: \"We have a book, and we call our neighbors and say, can I use a space that you are not using?\" she told the board. Another resident raised stormwater and soil-contamination concerns for the 55 Lennox site; the applicant said earlier tests had been done but did not produce evidence of contamination in the geotechnical work presented.

Board members and the public also explored operational questions: whether tenants could sublease, how delivery vehicles and trash pick-up would be handled, whether a building superintendent would be on-site, and how the developer would market units with and without parking. The applicant said parking would be advertised as an amenity for specific units; parking spots would likely carry a monthly charge and could be used to segment the market.

The Planning Board took no final vote on the project at this meeting. After extended public comment that included multiple residents and board questions, the board closed the public hearing and voted to continue the matter to a future meeting to allow time for additional information and to give the board more time to deliberate. The board set the continuation for July 28 at 7 p.m., to be held at the senior center and on Google Meet.

Why it matters: The application tests how Norwood implements MBTA-communities–style zoning changes in practice — balancing a town meeting–adopted parking standard and incentives for transit-oriented housing against neighborhood concerns about traffic, stormwater and neighborhood livability. The developer said the project as proposed meets the town's bylaw criteria for a transit-oriented waiver but acknowledged commercial realities limit additional affordability concessions.

The Planning Board asked for follow-up information and a fuller accounting of parking utilization at comparable nearby developments before its next session; board members said they want more data showing how many existing nearby apartments are rented to households without vehicles and to see any finalized soil and stormwater testing reports.

The hearing remains open to written comment submitted to the Planning Department until the board resumes the matter on July 28.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Board 7.14.25","oneSentenceSummary","Debbie Homewood, chair of the Norwood Planning Board, opened public comment during the board's continued hearing on a proposed 96-unit apartment building at 55 Lennox and acknowledged extensive public concern about parking, traffic and neighborhood impacts.","taxTitle","Town of Norwood, Norfolk County, Massachusetts","taxId",52806,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6654930,"Planning Board approves 132‑unit East Foyle apartment project with parking reduction and conditions",843,5417000,6260000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5429496-7593124d6efbeee55d458e4304ced192&start=5417&end=6260","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5429496-7593124d6efbeee55d458e4304ced192/thumbnail_5417000.jpg","/articles/6654930/Town-of-Norwood/Norfolk-County/Massachusetts/Planning-Board-approves-132unit-East-Foyle-apartment-project-with-parking-reduction-and-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6654930-bc5f9229fde89124aa9106a76e9443d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1773580471&Signature=Ahi00Y4ObnW7S3lt8sQ9qBDHlhlaEoVlHMEvi0WGci3S4qRU80OU~PCsu5dHIKvBeVGnGdVT17T1F933QDGic8WW7cZ-1T-WwclRm8RTrBgk4kDJs-OopHjwLxVyGSF99QAKCNGsu5Ui86pZmcg9eHJLFWnoX5YklRwXT7nYPMVK8LvZsN75LoFEupEm~nQHdGYa2uTD4cotlxm8aO6grhKrBraGq9Bh9RokKl3dzJO-VUkoOpmUPvVmVw7JsEzcIXc0j0Pi2ZBQem9xmlNvaw1xN9-WbIDu9nuJTzk827-ftEodWEzUDCT2Oc8OfPoFnJHejlYG1nPvhLk3B64iAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Norwood Planning Board voted to approve site plan review, a special permit for bonus floor area and a parking waiver for a proposed 132‑unit apartment development at 25 East Foyle, after the applicant revised plans to reduce surface parking and increase landscape buffering.

Morgan Blum, representing Panther Residential Management, and project engineer Zach Richards presented the revised submission and told the board they eliminated 12 parking spaces — reducing an earlier tally from 145 to 133 parking spots — in order to increase landscaped area along East Foyle. Blum summarized the change: \"we have revised both our site plan and architectural renderings ... we have eliminated 12 of the parking spaces ... we've enhanced and beefed up landscaping, primarily at the front on East Foyle,\" he said.

Architect Jeremy Baldwin showed updated elevations that added articulated bays, bow windows and stepped facades. Baldwin said the design changes respond directly to board feedback and to the MBTA‑overlay guidelines, which recommend varied planes, rooflines and materials: \"we have a modern interpretation of the bow articulation ... we've introduced more residential balconies ... and addressed every single facade on this building,\" he said.

Several residents and nearby property owners raised questions about stormwater, site soils and pipeline capacity. Project engineers described a geotechnical and Phase I environmental review that the team said found no unsuitables that would preclude the planned infiltration approach. The engineer told the board the team plans to raise on‑site grades in portions of the lot by about 3–4 feet to achieve required separation from groundwater and to meet stormwater standards. \"We have met [stormwater] design standards ... we are capturing runoff on‑site and outletting at a controlled volume,\" an engineer said, noting the project will tie into an existing drainage swale and drainage easement at the rear of the site.

Nearby condominium representatives and residents asked whether the regrading and new drainage would overload adjacent lots. Project engineers said the proposal reduces overall discharge relative to existing conditions and that town engineering staff had reviewed and provided comments. The Planning Department confirmed the town engineer had no outstanding comments at the time of the vote.

After questions and public comment, the Planning Board took three separate roll-call votes: first to approve the requested parking waiver, then to grant the special permit (the height/floor bonus tied to stormwater and other site improvements), and finally to approve site plan review itself. Each vote passed unanimously among the five board members present (Ernie, Joe, Brian, Rob and Chair Debbie Homewood). Board members recorded a set of conditions attached to approval, including final landscaping plans, confirmation of stormwater and geotechnical items as noted in the town engineer’s memo, a rodent‑mitigation plan to be discussed at pre‑construction, and a minimum 6‑foot planting strip along the west property edge where a vinyl fence and adjacent residences exist.

What the approvals cover: the special permit grants the developer the requested fifth story by finding the project provides the required public gains — improved stormwater management, heat‑island reduction via reflective roofing, and increased landscaping — in exchange for the bonus floor. The site plan approval includes standard construction conditions, submission of final engineered plans, and the list of items the town engineer requested be resolved before construction.

Votes at a glance
- Parking waiver (reduction from ~145 to 133 surface spaces): Motion to approve — passed by roll call (Ernie: yes; Joe: yes; Brian: yes; Rob: yes; Chair Debbie Homewood: yes).
- Special permit (bonus floor / height and related stormwater/heat‑island measures): Motion to approve — passed by roll call (same outcome).
- Site plan review (final design and conditions): Motion to approve with conditions — passed by roll call (same outcome). Conditions include final landscaping plan review, resolving engineer memos, rodent mitigation at pre‑construction, and maintaining the 6‑foot planting buffer along the west property edge.

Why it matters: The board’s approval shows how Norwood applies MBTA‑overlay incentives to allow greater density with tradeoffs in site design and required public‑benefit measures (stormwater handling, landscaping, reflective roofing). The approvals remove a key regulatory hurdle for the project to move toward permitting and construction, while the board preserved enforcement levers: final plan sign‑offs and pre‑construction conditions.

Next steps: The applicant must provide final, stamped engineering plans that address the town engineer’s items, finalize the landscaping plan for town review and satisfy the outlined pre‑construction conditions, after which the town will issue any requisite permits for construction to begin.","The Planning Board closed the public hearing and voted unanimously to approve a 132‑unit apartment project at 25 East Foyle with a reduced parking layout, a special permit for bonus floor area and site plan approval, adding conditions for landscaping, rodent mitigation and final stormwater/engineer sign‑offs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Norwood residents and Planning Board spar over parking waiver for proposed 55 Lennox apartments

Planning Board approves 132‑unit East Foyle apartment project with parking reduction and conditions