The Town of Norwood Planning Board voted to submit three zoning articles to the Board of Selectmen for placement on an upcoming town meeting warrant and discussed multiple other zoning priorities, including an open‑space residential development bylaw (OSRD), floodplain overlay updates and possible revisions to the downtown central business district overlay.

The board voted to forward: (1) an article to adopt accessory dwelling unit (ADU) language that aligns Norwood’s bylaw with a recently amended state zoning statute; (2) amendments to Section 5.4 addressing nonconforming single‑ and two‑family structures to harmonize special permit and variance requirements; and (3) a clarification to the Table of Uses specifying that commercial panels are not permitted in the MBTA Communities district. Planning staff said draft language had not changed since members last reached consensus and that the board’s vote would formally submit the drafts to the selectmen ahead of the town meeting submission deadline.

On ADUs, staff and several board members stressed the approach is intentionally “bare bones”: the article inserts the statutory definition into local zoning and permits ADUs where state law permits but does not add local dimensional or design standards at this time. Planning staff explained the state has issued draft guidance but may finalize the regulations after the local submittal deadline; the statute itself will go into effect regardless of local action. The building commissioner (Gary Pelletier) was discussed as the official who would review ADU permit requests without finalized state guidance, ensuring that known statutory limits (for example, an ADU size limit of half the gross floor area or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller, as recited by staff) are met.

The Section 5.4 amendments emerged from a joint working group of planning and zoning board representatives and the building commissioner; the changes would raise thresholds so smaller, frequently approved additions to nonconforming residential lots no longer require a special permit while aligning rules so proposals that increase nonconformity (for example by encroaching on setbacks) generally require a variance, consistent with how conforming properties are treated. Planning staff said the Zoning Board of Appeals participated in drafting the language and is comfortable with the proposed approach.

The board also approved filling a blank in the town’s Table of Uses to expressly prohibit commercial panels in the MBTA Communities overlay (the blank existed because the column and row were created at different times). That article and the two above were moved forward with motions and seconds and recorded ayes in the transcript.

Beyond ballots, the board spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing an open‑space residential development (OSRD) bylaw the staff is drafting. Members debated whether to include cottage/courtyard housing types and whether to prioritize an OSRD that incentivizes 55+ developments. Staff cautioned that financing and market demand for 55+ projects require further research; board members suggested incentives (for example modest density bonuses, reduced infrastructure costs) could encourage developers to choose OSRDs rather than conventional large‑lot subdivisions. Planning staff said an OSRD would complement existing subdivision rules and would not create a new entitlement for parcels not otherwise eligible for subdivision.

The board discussed floodplain overlay updates briefly: staff noted the state is preparing new floodplain regulations and that the municipality will have six months to adopt those once released. Given timing uncertainties, staff flagged the floodplain rule changes as a potential May town meeting item if the state language becomes available in time.

Finally, members reviewed the 2019 central business district/downtown overlay and agreed it likely needs a technical rewrite. Staff reported multiple developers visit the planning office each month and then decline to pursue downtown projects because requirements — including density caps, open space calculations, stepbacks, parking, and a 20% affordable housing expectation — combine to make projects unfeasible. The board directed staff to begin work on targeted revisions that clarify incentives, reduce redundant provisions, and better define public‑benefit bonuses so developers understand what the town expects in exchange for density or other flexibilities.

The meeting closed after routine administrative items.