MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, February 12, 2007

7:45 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

 

PRESENT:            Mike Cassavoy, Chair, Ed Cassidy, John Sadowski, Gerry Marcus, Anne DeSouza-Ward, Tom Pawlina and Carla Francazio

 

ABSENT:              Richard Connolly and Bob Mercado

 

Denise Gaffey, Director & City Planner, and Matt Hennigan, Assistant Planner, were present.

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. by the Chair, Mr. Cassavoy. 

 

MINUTES

a) Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, January 8, 2007

b) Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, January 22, 2007

 

Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to accept the two sets of minutes.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the motion.  All voted in favor.  None opposed. 

 

ASSENT CALENDAR

Case 06-047, 21 Orient Avenue, Wynne

Mr. Pawlina recused himself from the Planning Board given that he has an application for a home occupation special permit on the ZBA agenda.  Mr. McAvoy, the Applicant’s representative, and the Applicant, Sharon Wynne, appeared before the Planning Board.  Mr. McAvoy stated that the Applicant was not here due to complaints from the neighborhood or building department.  The Applicant seeks to acquire a home occupation special permit for her business that she operates from the basement of her house.  The Applicant’s business consists of the publication of study guides for teachers preparing for certification.  There are no signs or customers associated with the Applicant’s home occupation.  Nothing is physically produced on site.  All work is done ‘electronically’ by the Applicant, her son, her mother, and four employees.  Two of the employees are recent graduates who upload and proofread text.   Mr. McAvoy stated that two employees drive; the other two use public transportation.  Therefore, Mr. McAvoy stated there is no overburdened parking or disruption to the neighborhood.  Mr. McAvoy said that the Applicant has initiated this process to attain a business certificate from the City.  Mr. Cassavoy asked if any of the board members had questions.  Ms. Marcus commented on how the employees may not own cars at the present time but may drive to work in the future.  Mr. McAvoy stated that the special permit would allow the Board of Appeals to impose conditions.  Mr. McAvoy explained that there is one space for parking in front of the house.  One employee parks in the driveway on the adjacent neighbor’s property between 9:00 – 2:00 p.m.  That neighbor watches the children of the employee.  That neighbor has a three-car garage on her property.  Mr. Cassavoy asked how many cars could fit in the driveway.  Mr. McAvoy stated that there are two legal parking spaces.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked how many would fit physically.  Mr. McAvoy stated that it is a long driveway and perhaps as many as five cars would fit and be off the street.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked about other traffic generated by this business.  Mr. McAvoy replied that there is none.  The Applicant addressed the question concerning how long her business has been in operation at the present site at which time she acknowledged since the summer of 2005.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward confirmed that there are currently four employees in addition to the owner, her son, and her mother.  She asked the Applicant if she anticipates her staffing level to remain constant in the future.  Mr. McAvoy stated that the Applicant would like the flexibility to employ five or six employees.  Mr. Cassavoy stated that the parking is an issue for the City of Melrose in the winter regarding snow plowing.  Mr. Cassidy stated that four employees, plus the Applicant, her son, and her mother, pushes the definition of home occupation.  Mr. Sadowski stated that the home occupation special permit requires the business not to exceed 600 square feet including storage.  He stated that the Applicant has come before the Board on her own volition so on the one hand, he is sympathetic to her application but feels this home business far exceeds the bounds of what is written in the ordinance.  Mr. Sadowksi stated he feels that the Planning Board needs to look into what truly defines a home occupation.  Mr. McAvoy pointed out that the previous owner of the Applicant’s home operated a construction business out of 21 Orient Avenue.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked how much area within the Applicant’s house is used for home occupation use.  Mr. McAvoy answered 950 square feet and added that the home is very large.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked if the total area dedicated to the home occupation use is not more than 40% of the house.  Mr. McAvoy stated that it is not.  She asked if there were any signs and he stated there are none.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that typical home occupations are operated solely by a resident of the home who does not employ outside staff.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward continued that in this case five to six employees do not seem to be in line with the framework for home occupation established by the zoning ordinance.  She added that on the other hand, there appears to be very little impact on the neighborhood from this business.  The Applicant stated that she invested $150,000.00 into renovations to her basement.  The Applicant explained that the space in her basement was represented to her by her real estate broker as permitted for business use.  She said she searched for over a year to find the property.  The Applicant stated that her next door neighbors have twelve children.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward explained the Applicant’s case involves more employees and more area than has been typically seen in home occupation cases in the past.  Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the ZBA outlining concerns the Planning Board has with this application:

 

1)                   On-site parking in connection with Parking Code T in the Table of Off-Street Parking Regulations;

2)                   Potential disruption of the neighborhood;

3)                   Number of employees; and

4)                   Total floor area devoted to the home occupation.

 

Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION.  Mr. Pawlina recused himself.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

OTHER

Zoning for Home Occupations

Ms. DeSouza-Ward said that the Zoning Subcommittee met twice to draft the proposed home occupation amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.  The Subcommittee favors a two tier approach to permitting home occupations.  They would like to see no non-resident employees and no more than two allowed only by Special Permit.  Mr. Sadowski stated he thinks the definition is fine but asked why the second sentence must be deleted.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward explained that the issue is addressed in the conditions.  Mr. Sadowski had questions about the wording of the appearance of the ‘building’.  Mr. Cassidy felt it applies to the whole ‘property’ not just the ‘building’.  Ms. Gaffey stated that the wording about the appearance of the ‘property’ can be inserted into the definition.  Mr. Cassavoy felt the recommended revisions to sections of the Zoning Ordinance were very well done.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward explained that the Subcommittee did not put a limit on truck deliveries.  A special permit is needed for more than ten client/patron visits per week.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward also shared with the Planning Board the Zoning Subcommittee’s recommendation to remove the provision to permit home occupation-related signage from the Zoning Ordinance.  Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Aldermen to consider these revisions.  Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION.  Mr. Pawlina recused himself.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

Medical Business (BD) District

 

Ms. Gaffey stated the Zoning Subcommittee conducted a couple of meetings to research the existing zoning in the Medical Zone (BD District) in an effort to update its density and dimensional regulations.  OPCD did a lot of research on existing conditions in the medical district and the research was suggesting dimensional characteristics similar to URC/URD District.  Ms Gaffey directed the Planning Board to the existing language within the Zoning Ordinance, Section 235-25, that could potentially mitigate this issue as well as offer a more efficient alternative to amending the Zoning Ordinance.  Ms Gaffey explained that according to Section 235-25 “any new residential uses in nonresidential districts shall be subject to the density and dimensional regulations of the nearest residential district”.  In the case of the Medical Zone, the Zoning Subcommittee felt that UR-B is too restrictive and that UR-C would be more appropriate.  The URC and BD Districts share the same type of residential uses and the URC provides for more density than URB and URA which is appropriate in the medical district because it is close to downtown and the lots are modest in size.  Ms. Gaffey stated that the Planning Board may have been able to limit the Lebanon Street and/or Main Street projects if this provision had been applied.  Ms. Gaffey pointed out that one limitation is that some of the undersized lots may sit too long on the market when their owners decide to sell, but it would be difficult to create dimensional characteristics for the undersized lots.  URC offers a good compromise.  Mr. Cassavoy expressed concern about the long range and how the district would look many years out.  He thought URC might not provide for enough density.  It was pointed out that URC allows for four stories which is more consistent with the downtown.  The Zoning Subcommittee was considering a three-story limit but would be comfortable with four stories as long as the other dimensional constraints are in place.  Mr. Pawlina said he would like to keep the streetscape in a human scale.  Ms. Gaffey said that the Subcommittee will meet next month to discuss this issue in greater detail. 

 

Greenspace Protection Proposal

 

Ms. DeSouza-Ward shared with the Planning Board the outcome of a meeting coordinated by the Zoning Subcommittee with a resident who is concerned with the trend of homeowners who pave over their front yards.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward voiced the Zoning Subcommittee’s preference to initiate a zoning amendment concerning this matter rather than waiting for a citizen petition.  The Planning Board members feel this is a sensitive issue in Melrose due to the overnight on-street parking restrictions.  Mr. Sadowski commented on the number of shared driveways in Melrose.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward said there could be strong opinions about this subject.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated the Zoning Subcommittee will discuss this issue in more depth at its next meeting in March.

 

Smart Growth Task Force

 

Ms. Gaffey provided an update on the rezoning of lower Washington Street and stated there had been a dispute in the purchase of the Mill Street building and that there has not been a meeting for months.  She said that there are five different owners in the owners’ association.   The association funded a traffic study which took a long time to get off the ground.  The traffic study is currently underway and work on the rezoning will get back on track when these results are released.

 

Ms. Gaffey noted that the February 26, 2007 meeting is a public hearing.  The next Planning Board meeting after that will be March 26, 2007 as the March 12, 2007 meeting is cancelled.

 

Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to adjourn.  Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.  Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.