When the Zoning Board of Review considers the appeal of the Planning Board decision that a proposed three-story 630-unit self-storage facility would not be compatible to neighboring Norwood residences, the proceedings will be more like a court hearing than a public hearing.

Postponed because of a snowstorm on March 13, the Zoning Board is slated to hear the appeal on April 10 at 6 p.m. at Council Chambers in City Hall. Given vehement neighborhood objection to the development when it came before the Planning Board last fall, an audience of more than 100 is expected to turn out.

But their numbers and what they have to say may not have bearing on the actions of the Zoning Board. City Solicitor Peter Ruggiero said this doesn’t mean people will be prevented from speaking. Rather, it’s a matter of what they speak about.

He emphasized that the role of the Zoning Board is limited to weighing whether the Planning Board acted properly on Sept. 13, 2017. It will not consider new evidence or arguments that the development would adversely affect the neighborhood.

Ruggiero said sticking to the rules is important, as the zoning board shouldn’t deviate from its review of the planning board record. Doing so could jeopardize its decision to either uphold or disagree with the Planning Board’s decision.

In terms of what the zoning board will consider, Ruggiero said, “It’s a fairly straightforward matter. It’s whether the Planning Board followed their rules.”

Contrary to the Planning Department’s findings that the development at Pond Plaza is generally consistent with the city’s development regulations, the Planning Board listened to the arguments of neighbors and denied a master plan approval of the block-like tower designed to rise from the rear portion of the plaza. The redevelopment by plaza owner Cenico, LLC and applicant PRW Holdings, LLC would transform the plaza into more than 33,000 square feet of storage space and 12,600 feet of retail space.

The Planning Board found the development to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan on a number of levels, including the purpose to promote high quality and appropriate design, designs that are well-integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods and that provide for design and improvement standards to reflect the Comprehensive Plan. The board also found the plan inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to promote a high level of quality.

In an interview last week, City Planner William DePasquale said the scale and scope of the proposed development is some 30 percent larger than the existing facility. He said the Planning Board found the project to be out of scale to the neighborhood. Furthermore, he said that developments within general business zones should not encroach on residential zones.

In a memorandum supporting the appeal John Mancini, attorney for the applicants, contends the Planning Board lacked evidence for its action and abused its discretion and committed clear error of law by making prejudicial comments, unsubstantiated findings and violated procedural and substantive due process.

Charles Anderson of PRW Holdings, who plans to buy the plaza, said that with Amazon and online sales, the retail world is changing and the proposed mixed use for the plaza is its best use. He argues that claims the self-storage will be open 24 hours a day and will hurt the pond are “not fact based” and rather, the plan for landscaping and run off water will benefit the pond.

He said the company has two plans for the self-storage unit in response to community concerns and that either would work. Anderson isn’t backing down.

“We have substantial money invested and we’re going to see it through,” he said.

Should the Zoning Board uphold the Planning Board, Ruggiero noted that the applicants have the right to appeal that decision to Superior Court. The same holds true for the neighbors, should they not be satisfied by the Zoning Board decision.

Should the applicants be successful, they would still be required to return to the Zoning Board for special use permits for parking and the building location. They would also be required to meet additional standards for mini-storage facilities.

Ruggiero said neighbors, as well as others looking to comment on the development, would be eligible to voice their opinions and bring forward any additional information they may have at a hearing on the special use permits.