Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwood planning board approves definitive subdivision for 6563 Nahatton Street with conditions
Summary
The Town of Norwood Planning Board closed a continued public hearing and approved the definitive subdivision for 6563 Nahatton Street, accepting conditions 3, 4, 6 and 7 and incorporating three waivers previously granted; the applicant must file revised plans addressing the town engineer’s January 22 memorandum within 30 days.
The Town of Norwood Planning Board voted to approve a definitive subdivision for 6563 Nahatton Street, moving the project forward while attaching specific technical conditions and requiring the applicant to address items noted by the town engineer. The board voted (roll call) in favor of the applicant’s motion to approve with conditions 3, 4, 6 and 7 and to note three waivers previously approved by the board.
Attorney David Hearn Jr., representing the applicant, told the board the group had met with the board on Dec. 15 and that the earlier votes had resolved several waiver questions. “We last met with you, as you mentioned, December 15. It was continued to this date,” Hearn said, and he confirmed the applicant had submitted updated plans and a stormwater report ahead of the meeting. The applicant said it had commissioned a tree inventory and added identified trees to the site plan.
Board members and staff discussed items in a memorandum from town engineer Mark Ryan dated Jan. 22. Hearn agreed the applicant would submit revised plans addressing Ryan’s requests, meet with the town engineer to resolve technical items (including drainage and recharge details), and file updates within the 30‑day window suggested by staff. The planning director’s memo and Ryan’s memorandum will be referenced in the final decision and incorporated as conditions.
During public comment, resident Anne Makowicz asked, “Why are we trying to freeze the zoning?” and expressed concern that future development could remove trees near Route 1. The applicant and staff clarified the filing before the board is a subdivision application — the creation of a roadway and division into lots — not an application for specific site development or special permits. As applicant representatives noted, any future site development would require separate review and approvals.
Board members debated the draft list of seven recommended conditions, focusing on whether some items were redundant given the updated plans. Several members said conditions 1, 2 and 5 would effectively require a second full review of items already provided; other members said the conditions provided useful oversight. The board settled on retaining conditions 3, 4, 6 and 7, removing 1, 2 and 5, and explicitly noting the three waiver requests that were approved previously (sections 4.3.0.3(k), 4.3.0.3(p) and 5.6.0.2(f)).
A motion to approve was made and seconded; the board recorded a roll‑call vote (Brian: yes; Joe: yes; Ernie: yes; Chair: reluctant yes) and carried the motion. The applicant will submit revised plans addressing the town engineer’s January 22 memorandum within 30 days, meet with the town engineer, and return to planning staff with a final Mylar for signature after conditions are met. The decision includes the noted waivers and references to the town engineer’s memorandum as part of the approval.
Next steps: staff will monitor the applicant’s submission, the applicant will meet with Mark Ryan to resolve technical items, and the board will receive the final, signed plan when those conditions are satisfied.
