Norwood Town Meeting Soundly Rejects Town’s First High-Rise and Apartment Rezoning Quests-November 6, 1970

Voters Soundly Defeat $2.5 Million Walpole-Wilson Streets Project While Approving Small South Norwood Complex

Two rezoning quests for apartment developments, including the town’s first high-rise proposal, were soundly trounced last night by Norwood town meeting members who okayed, however, a 3.5-acre change to multifamily for a small, 56-unit complex requested by South Norwood residents. Representatives unanimously passed two small rezonings, one requested by Selectman Olga A. Abdallah, approved an additional $67,000 expenditure for the light department, rejected firefighters’ request for a three per cent, two-month pay raise, and refused to reconsider the previously opened special warrant. Outbursts of applause from the nearly 150-person audience punctuated last night’s 3.5-hour session as opponents to the rezonings for 300 units in the Route 1-95 area and a 160-unit, eight-story development in the Walpole-Wilson Streets area decried changing the town’s character into a city-like atmosphere.

Opposition to developer Frank R. Simoni‘s proposed $2.5 million high-rise development was so pronounced that representatives wondered if they could go further than the planning board’s indefinite postponement recommendation and somehow ensure the matter would never reappear. Town counsel and Moderator Walter J. Gotovich informed them to the negative. Members overrode the planners’ favorable recommendation for the 26-acre rezoning request adjacent to Route 1-95 in an 82-24 vote. Town meeting member Mrs. Esther J. Deeb had a simple explanation: “It’s not good will to give people something they don’t want.”

Though they acknowledged that Norwood needs to increase its tax base, representatives refused to allow the rezonings asked by Mr. Simoni and developer Thomas J. Geraghty of Milton. Though the proposed eight-story building would be 20 feet higher than the 60 feet allowed in some zones, it would be about 40 feet less than the height of the town hall tower, said Mr. Justin C. Barton, representing Mr. Simoni, referring to the changes in height regulations asked along with the rezoning. He added his client would construct garden apartments if representatives merely objected to the height. Norwood Atty. Justin C. Barton, representing Mr. Simoni, had said the $2.5 million Brookmeadow Towers proposal would produce $100,000 annual revenue above school costs for the town. Briefly recapping points in his hour-long presentation last week, Mr. Barton last night compared development under the present single-residence zoning to the proposed multifamily district. Present zoning would produce a $5,000 annual deficit, he said, and, if residential development occurred, would destroy the wooded area and entail eight traffic entrances from Walpole and Wilson Streets. Conversely, Mr. Simoni’s proposal would contain four of the 10 acres in a natural state and need only three traffic entrances.

District 3 member Robert E. Wohler warned fellow representatives, citing the 912-unit Windsor Gardens and 318-unit Norwest Woods complexes. “Our tax rate of $102 is not conducive to industry locating in Norwood,” he continued, adding that the $26 tax rate increase the past two years is “another chilling effect.” “I think the time has come to call a halt to apartment developments… I don’t think we’ve got to make a major decision that Norwood is a single-family residence town, not a small city, a Jamaica Plain or a Brookline,” said Mr. Wohler, urging representatives to “forget the dollars. What’s $100,000? I don’t think it’s worth it.” Moderator Gotovich remarked, “Please, let’s have no demonstrations.” “We let ourselves be fooled by the dollar signs in the past,” Mr. Wohler added. Mr. Barton also pointed out that the Windsor Gardens complex was the town’s largest taxpayer, producing more than $180,000 annual revenue above school costs. “If we didn’t have Windsor Gardens, our tax rate would be $5 higher,” he said. Town meeting, however, chose to disregard financial benefits speakers opposing the multifamily rezoning request, and one member even questioned the savings in apartment developments. District 5 representative Richard P. McSweeney, Thomas S. DeSisto, and Maurice M. McQuaid Jr. had figures of his own, and the way he worked it out, he thought the town lost $484 per unit and $441,000 a year with Windsor Gardens.

Strong opposition from District 9 residents to the proposed 300-apartment complex adjacent to Route 1-95 resulted in rejection of planners’ favorable recommendation and an 82-24 defeat of the rezoning. Applause and cheers ensued when opposing members stood to be counted. Atty. George M. Ruboy noted if it were the development of the non-access superhighway in that area “constituted a tremendous change in the character of the land, particularly this land, the last plot of land before you go out of Norwood,” and said he opposed the rezoning since Mr. George Elias would not give a covenant allowing future road development through his complex if it were needed to ease Dean Street traffic. Mr. Elias retorted he had complied with planners’ request to locate the exit from his complex directly opposite Pond Avenue in South Norwood. The planning board recommended it 2-1 and several representatives spoke in favor of the Orchard Apartments proposal. Mr. Elias noted the district primarily consisted of two-, three-, and six-family homes—and his proposal was a modern replacement of the 15 apartments razed three years ago. “It’s always been apartments here… everybody is really enthused about this.”

Disapproving, Planner Francis Wisgirda termed Dean Street the “busiest street in Norwood” and noted the developer had requested another exit in the Lewis Avenue area that would see “trucks and other vehicles going through my little complex,” assuming selectmen would support parity. The developer added that Mr. Wisgirda had requested the covenant the week before town meeting and he was “not going to make a deal with him.” Miss Julia Lewis, town meeting member, criticized Mr. Wisgirda’s suggestion for a future extension of Pond Avenue to Washington Street, remarking, “To make this road, he’d have to take my bedroom.” So did District 6 member Mrs. Mary A. Frederick, as did John Howard, retired deputy fire chief, who said the traffic situation would “handle itself as it has in the past few years.” Mr. Howard told fellow representatives that South Norwood “was looking for something to give it a shot in the arm.” Representatives promptly passed Mr. Elias’ rezoning petitions on votes of 109-15 and 101-7.

Once the rezoning was defeated, Mrs. Deeb moved reconsideration of Article 11, under which representatives last week appropriated $10,000 for the light department for legal fees in the town’s joint fight with Wellesley against the 21 per cent rate hike in power purchase price levied by Boston Edison Co. Though town meeting last week closed the single-article warrant appropriating $320,000 for the light department to the deficit caused by the Edison rate increase, Light Supt. William J. Kates said the additional sum was needed because the state had required Edison to burn low-sulphur fuel, the cost of which is “very volatile.” Mr. Kates explained the late request was due to his learning of the increase in the electric rates’ fuel cost last Friday, the day after the first special meeting session. After two District 9 representatives begged for rejection of the firefighters’ proposal, the remaining four members waiting to speak deferred to a motion to end discussion. Representatives approved an amended $77,000 figure for Article 11 and rejected the Norwood Firefighters Union petition for a three per cent pay raise for the last two months of the year after consideration of the previously defeated article asking establishment of a local council for the aging. Finance Commission Chairman Robert A. Bulger said it would be illegal. Firefighters were seeking the three per cent, which amounted to $2,315, to equate their percentage raise with that granted police this year. Selectmen were recommending indefinite postponement of the firefighters’ article since “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Selectman Chairman Joseph F. Curran, however, replied his board had tried to gain parity by voting against the 12 per cent for police and nine per cent for the fire department. “The firefighters signed a contract assuming selectmen would support parity,” he said. Representatives shouted down the reconsideration motion and the firefighters had had “for generations” were disturbed this year on business rezoning and planners’ manufacturing to multifamily housing. It was a different story, however, on the rezonings asked by George Elias for a 56-unit development on Dean Street in April approved a 12 per cent wage hike for police and nine per cent for the fire department. The votes were 105-0 and 103-0. Commendations on the three articles followed swiftly. District 4 member Richard P. McSweeney, a resident of the adjacent Rustic Acres single-residence development of Mr. Simoni’s, maintained the developer had a responsibility to the other area homeowners. When he purchased his home, Mr. McSweeney noted it was advertised as being a rustic setting. “I don’t see anything rustic about having an eight-story apartment house in our backyard.” Opposition to the 160-unit building also came from District 7 member Maurice M. McQuaid Jr., an “ordinary hardhat,” who questioned apartment dwellers patronizing town businesses. “Does anybody seriously believe that these people spend half their income in Norwood?”

Elementary school students will be dismissed at 11:45 a.m. Tuesday. The teachers will be attending the Elementary Education Institute, an in-service program at the Willett School.

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