Zoning Board continues case 25-5 to May 6; resident raises confusion about ZBA contact email and submission deadline

At the start of its March 4 meeting the Norwood Zoning Board of Appeals continued case number 25-5 to the May 6, 2025 meeting at 7 p.m. at the Norwood Senior Center, with Google Meet as an option for remote participation, after the applicant asked for extra time to respond to recent town comments.

Attorney David Hearn Jr. of Kellerman and Cabral, representing the applicant, told the board he had received new comments in the days before the hearing from the building commissioner and the town planner that needed to be addressed. He said some items relate to prior planning-board site plan approval and to replacement plantings that may not be installable before April; for that reason he asked the board to continue the matter to May so the planting and other open points could be resolved.

Board members agreed. The motion to continue was made by Al, seconded by Matt Burrows, and the board voted unanimously in favor. The chair said the town would advertise the new hearing date and that staff and the applicant should coordinate with the building commissioner and planning staff before the May hearing.

During other business resident Bridal Pomatterre of 18 Ridge Road told the board that members of the public had experienced bounced emails when attempting to submit written comments. Pomatterre said the ZBA rules manual lists an address she attempted to use (zba@norwoodma.gov) that returned bounce messages and that the meeting notice references the Community Development email for plan requests. Pomatterre recommended the board publish the correct submission address on notices and suggested clarifying the language in the rules about the five-calendar-day deadline for submitting materials. She noted the phrase "may not be considered" is ambiguous and could be read to either bar late submissions or to indicate late items might still be reviewed if practical.

Members said they would check their published contact address and consider updating the rules or notices so that the public understands where to send comments and how strictly the five-day deadline is applied. The board also briefly reviewed an annual progress report for the special permit at 973 University Ave and noted the packet included estimates of material removed in 2024; no further action was taken on that report at the meeting.

The continuance and the procedural questions were entered on the record; the board directed staff to follow up with the applicant, the building commissioner and planning staff and to confirm the contact address used in legal notices and the rules manual.