Southwood Development
Extracted from the Norfolknet Notes.This page contains the posts related to the Southwood re-zoning and housing development that have appeared among the Norfolknet Notes. They are also logged in the archives as usual.
2/26 3:36pm I would like to add to the Southwood notes. There were comments that all the applicants to develop the Southwood site wanted was a zoning change. In the real world, zoning changes can dramatically transform a community without careful oversight. The Norfolk Planning Board is not likely to give a developer carte blanche in writing zoning for the Town of Norfolk. The recommended zoning change on the surface appeared harmless but that is not the case. Zoning is written with specific areas of Town in mind. It is not prudent to just take zoning written for Route 115 on the Millis line and apply it to the Southwood site. That in a nutshell is what the Planning board was telling Caritas at the Public Hearing. Representatives of Caritas agreed, and have been working with the Planning Board to get some reasonable Zoning changes on the Warrant. If zoning changes were adopted as requested, the Southwood site would have allowed 582 units, far in excess of the conceptual plan shown to the Planning Board. If the changes went through, the board would not have the ability to scale back the development to the conceptual size. During the Public discussion the Planning Board never claimed this to be an undesirable proposal or made any effort to dissuade the applicant. This is all a matter of public record. All meetings are recorded and transcribed. The Developers are being prudent in getting support from the planning Board and the Zoning Bylaw Study Committee. It would be a difficult battle at Town meeting without their support. - SM
2/18 11:54am To TF, PC, and VR: Thanks for the edification about the Planning Board and their concern with the Southwood project. I also learned that the agent for the Board of Health doesn't even work full time for us, so I'm relieved that at least one board has it covered. Thanks! - SH
2/17 12:11pm To TF re:Southwood -- it is my understanding that a conceptual project has been proposed. There have been no formal project plans submitted to the Planning Board(PB). The PB was asked to consider a zoning change to be submitted for approval at Town Meeting. The existing zoning on this district is pretty limited. The timing of the zoning change request is to accommodate Caritas Norwood/Southwood Hospital. Caritas is under a severe financial strain to maintain the quality of their Norwood operations, this zoning change will allow Caritas to sell the Southwood property and pay off bond debt due in October. I applaud Caritas for coming to the PB asking for their support of a zoning change . . . . Caritas could have submitted a warrant article directly to Town Meeting. On its face, this is a good project for the Town - there is no downside to any Board in Town taking a position supporting this CONCEPT. Unless the PB or any other Board in town is going to go out and help find a $50-60 million dollar development (w/ no school age children) backed by a national developer with the horsepower to pull it off then why not give this project a chance to germinate. No plans has been submitted, investigated, approved, denied . . . or abandoned for that matter. Just a zoning change folks . . . a chance to see this project possibly happen. - PC
2/16 9:52pm To SH: Re. your message to AW, be advised that the Planning Board is not opposed to a project that will bring substantial revenue to the town with no burden on the schools. The Planning Board considers the Southwood site to be a suitable site of Age Restricted Housing and recognizes it to be perhaps the highest use for that site. However, the Board has the right to as much data as the applicant can provide it in order to determine the feasibility of the project. I suspect you would not invest in something without performing due diligence nor even buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. Comments made by a municipal board at a preliminary meeting should not be viewed as a rejection of an idea but rather a desire to dig deeper in an effort to protect the interests of the Town of Norfolk - to make sure it fits. The developer must convince the board that it has done its homework and will not be running away from a half finished project as a result of failing to do so. - TF
2/16 3:37pm To SH: I'm not familiar with the jurisdictions of the different boards in town. If contaminated sites are the responsibility of the Board of Health, then I would hope that they, too, are looking closely at the situation at Southwood and evaluating its potential future impact. However, that shouldn't limit other boards, nor other residents, from airing their concerns or providing their input, preferably before any long-term changes are approved for use of the facility. [Incidentally, my understanding is that Title V deals with septic regulations, and is not directly linked to subsurface contamination problems]. - VR
2/16 3:28pm To VR: It is nice that the Planning Board has the time and initiative to look into those affairs pertaining to Southwood, but wouldn't contamination of the subsurface fall under the jurisprudence of the Board of Health? They have an award winning health agent who helped author Title V, and they should be the ones concerned with any type of issue such as the one at Southwood. - SH
2/13 10:37pm To SH: The way I understand it, the Planning Board had some questions regarding contamination of the subsurface at Southwood. I don't know the details of the problem there, but depending on the type and the extent of contamination, it can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to adequately clean up such sites. And since most towns around here are dependent on groundwater for their drinking water supplies, it is especially important to be sure that sites are cleaned up so that there is no future health impact to residents. I agree that the proposed future use of the land is likely to be very positive for Norfolk, but I commend the Planning Board members for making sure that all aspects are satisfactorily addressed. - VR
2/13 9:15pm To AW: Our table, (and the one next to us, at least) was like a Norfolk version of Crossfire!! I heard about the Planning Board yesterday and their resistance to a plan that would not be a burden on our school system, and bring in anywhere from $500K to $800K annually. (Why bring in revenue when we can have our taxes raised again?) - SH
2/12 7:27pm To SH: Yes, the Norfolk Community League should be commended for their efforts . . . the Valetine's Dance was a great time Saturday night. Still though, I have to wonder which dance you went to last Saturday, as I didn't hear much political discussion about anything worth listening to, let alone worth commenting on . . . . If you are looking for real controversy, check into last Thursday's (2/8/01) Planning Board meeting about the Southwood Hospital sale. - AW
2/12 10:57am Thanks to the Norfolk Community League for a great time at the dance Saturday night. Aside from having a blast, the air was rife with local political talk . . . . . such as who's going to run for selectmen, why we can get by without a town administrator (we got by without a health agent two years ago without any major calamity) and the most talk centered around Con Com and how they feel future actions should be ratified now. Your web site also got rave reviews!! - SH