Norwood Planning Board Debates Controversial Condominium Rezoning-July 17, 1973

The meeting drew approximately 50 local residents to debate the proposed rezoning of a 26-acre parcel of land situated off Route 1-95. The proposal, which sought to rezone the site to accommodate the construction of 288 condominium units, mirrored the intensity and arguments observed during three previous unsuccessful attempts to develop the same tract. The project proponent, Milton developer Thomas J. Geraghty, was represented by Norwood attorney John J. C. Herlihy, who passionately argued that condominiums represented the most appropriate and sustainable use for the property. Despite the developer’s efforts, the Norwood Planning Board found itself deeply divided regarding the recommendation they should provide to Town Meeting.

The deliberation within the board grew heated when member Thomas F. Cavanaugh moved to issue a negative recommendation, a move intended to prevent the developer from bringing the proposal before the Town Meeting for a fourth time. The vote resulted in a stalemate, with Thomas F. Cavanaugh and Thomas A. Riolo favoring the rejection, while E. William Bamber and Francis Wisgirda voted against it. Chairman James T. O’Sullivan ultimately cast the deciding vote, siding with the latter pair to keep the issue alive, though the board stopped short of issuing a formal favorable recommendation. The procedural complexity deepened as Francis Wisgirda sought clarification on state Chapter 40A, Section 8, regarding whether this session’s report would constitute a “final report” capable of allowing reconsideration of an issue previously defeated within a two-year window. Thomas F. Cavanaugh expressed sharp frustration over these procedural delays, characterizing the board’s decision to consult Town Counsel as a “dereliction of duty,” though he later moved to petition the state attorney general for an official interpretation.

During the presentation, John J. C. Herlihy described the planned development, to be named “Valleyview Park,” as a complex of Colonial-style buildings containing one and two-bedroom units. He emphasized that the developer would assume full responsibility for private streets and utilities, and he offered assurances that traffic would not transit through the neighboring Norton Drive, reserving it only for emergency use by the fire department. Addressing community concerns about school crowding, he noted that the exclusion of three-bedroom units would mitigate the influx of new students. Furthermore, he highlighted an estimated $400,000 in annual tax revenue as a primary benefit to Norwood. However, local skepticism remained high. Residents questioned the affordability of the units, which were projected to cost between $30,000 and $50,000, while Norton Drive resident Thomas DiFrancia voiced vigorous opposition, stating, “These people have had their chance. We fought them and beat them, fairly and squarely.”

Additional concerns were raised by Neil J. Reardon and Leonard Rentel, both residents of Norton Drive, who cited existing heavy traffic on Neponset Street and the potential for increased population density to negatively affect the crime rate. Planning Board member Thomas F. Cavanaugh added his own voice to the opposition, stating, “One thing this town doesn’t need is more apartments,” and noting the presence of existing vacancies in local complexes. Despite this, some public figures stood in favor; notably, former Registrar of Motor Vehicles Clement A. Riley endorsed the condominium plan, and real estate broker Edward E. J. Runci defended the concept as the “best and highest use” for the property owned by Harry Schofield. Following the heated exchange, residents queued to enter their names into the official record, with the majority registering their opposition to the Valleyview Park development.

Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger