MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, March 26, 2007

7:45 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

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

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, February 12, 2007

b) Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, February 26, 2007

Mr. Connolly made a deletion to the February 26, 2007 set of minutes. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to accept the two sets of minutes with the correction noted. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the motion. All voted in favor. None opposed.

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 07-004, 9 Pine Street, McSherry

The Architect, Stephen Reilly, was present as well as the Applicants. Mr. Reilly described the project to the Planning Board. He stated that the McSherrys have a growing, young family and is in need of more space. The Applicants are seeking zoning relief to construct an addition onto their house. Mr. Reilly said the McSherrys ‘inherited ad-hoc additions’ in bad repair which they want to tear down so they meet code. Mr. Cassavoy requested that Mr. Reilly describe the changes on each floor. Mr. Reilly said there will be additional storage in the basement. He stated that on the second level the kitchen will be expanded and a new entrance will be placed at the back of the house. He stated that the plan is to expand a bedroom for a son on the third level. Mr. Sadowski had a question about encroachment on the left side setback by the existing side entryway/mudroom and was told by the Architect that it will not change. Mr. Sadowski also inquired about the height of the addition and asked for a clarification regarding the change in use referenced in the Applicants’ application. The Architect responded that using average grade height calculation, the height is 24 feet 4 inches. Mr. Cassavoy encouraged the Applicant to confirm with the Building Commissioner the circumstances pertaining to the “change of use.” Mr. Mercado referenced the plot plan and brought to the Architect’s attention a question he had regarding the roof line. The Architect indicated that the drawing will be revised prior to the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. Mr. Pawlina said he feels this is a minor application – the foundation for the mudroom is unchanged. Mr. Pawlina verified with the Architect that the proposed foundation of the mudroom will be the same as the existing foundation. He stated that the Applicant is not making dimensional changes but should fix up the dimensions on the plan to make it square. He added that there is no further encroachment on the sideyard setback. Mr. Sadowski stated that a standard letter should be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals noting that there will be no further encroachment on the side- setback. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED

West Street/Bay Road, Grato

Judith Clark, the Applicant’s representative, was present and gave a brief history of the case. She said the Applicant was before the Zoning Board of Appeals last summer to seek a variance to subdivide a lot of land into two single-family homes on the lots. Ms. Clark stated that one lot was nonconforming and the new one conforming. She stated it was a simple process but because it was registered land, she must submit plans to the Land Court. Ms. Desouza-Ward stated that the Planning Board grants the ANR in this case. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to accept the Approval Not Required as submitted and to endorse it. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

SLOPE PROTECTION SPECIAL PERMIT

Case SP06-003, Dana Street, Amero

The Applicant, Stephen Amero, and his representation, Mr. McAvoy, were present. Mr. McAvoy stated that his Applicant has been before the Planning Board several times for a single family home to be built on a paper street – Dana Street. Mr. McAvoy stated that when Mr. Amero purchased the lot, it was a perfectly legal buildable lot. He said it was not subject to any permitting. While under negotiations, the Slope Protection Ordinance was enacted which made the lot subject to new rules. Mr. McAvoy stated that the there have been several meetings on this application. Mr. DiLullo, the Architect, came back with a new house design which allowed the Applicant the opportunity to reduce the length of the road and, thereby, reduce the intrusion into the protected area of the lot. Mr. McAvoy stated that at the last hearing the Applicant agreed to reduce length and width of the road. Mr. McAvoy introduced Mr. Zambouras, the Engineer. Mr. Zambouras described the changes that were made to the project. Mr. Zambouras highlighted that the length of the road has been reduced from 75 feet to 55 feet. The road has been reduced in width from 25 feet to 18 feet. He stated that the new plans call for pulling the retaining wall 2 feet away from the property. Reducing the length of the driveway will allow more of the ledge to be exposed and minimize the amount of fill required. Mr.Zambouras presented the drainage calculations and how the design will reduce the rate of runoff coming from the site and the road itself. The drainage will be piped to the rip-rap slope. The main changes are the diffusion and reduction of the velocity in that area. Mr. Zambouras stated that the road grade is increased to 12% from 10%. There will be a low spot which slopes up a little bit where any runoff will stay in that area. He stated that the retaining wall for the road reaches a height of 25 feet at its highest point. He added that within the site the driveway retaining wall at the corner is 14 feet high. Mr. Cassavoy acknowledged that the Applicant has had meetings with the Conservation Commission and the City Engineer, Mr. Beshara. Mr. Cassavoy asked Mr. Beshara and Ms. Murphy, the Conservation Commission Chairperson, to share their comments on the project. Mr. Beshara commented that he is pleased by the minimized area of fill and that the revised roadway grade appears to work. He stated that he has no issue with the drainage or slopes and he is not concerned with erosion. Mr. Beshara said he is only concerned with the maintenance of the wall. He said the City cannot take responsibility for the wall. He feels the gravel shoulder has a slight positive impact and the plan, as presented, is a good compromise. Ms. Murphy stated this plan has not been before the Commission as a whole. The members would like to see minimal impact on the conservation land. Ms. Murphy stated that the Conservation Commission had suggested shortening the road in previous meetings. They are concerned with who will have ownership of the wall. She added that the Commission had requested pavement set off the center line to the east. Ms. Murphy said they still feel the wall is high. Ms. Murphy asked if there would be any possibility of shortening the turnaround. Ms. Murphy concluded that the Conservation Commission is much happier with the present version of the plans. Mr. Cassavoy asked if the public had any comments.

Robert Cunningham, 176 Forest Street. Mr. Cunningham had questions about roof runoff and if there would be blasting. Mr. Zambouras explained that the run-off will infiltrate into the ground and that the site would most likely be hammered, not blasted.

Mr. Cassavoy asked if any of the Planning Board members had questions/comments. Mr. Sadowski asked Mr. Beshara if the Fire Department approved of the road being reduced to 18 feet wide. He had concerns with the curb being eliminated because he stated vertical curbs are better able to contain runoff. Mr. Sadowski questioned whether the water runoff from Willard would be collected but was told by Mr. Zambouras that there was no plan to collect water from Willard Street. Mr. Sadowski stated that he appreciated the preamble from Mr. McAvoy and is sympathetic to the Applicant. He said if Mr. Beshara is satisfied, then he would like to keep the project moving along the process. Mr. Beshara stated he will defer to the Planning Board if they ‘want to control runoff’ in terms of a curb. Mr. Mercado raised the question of who will be responsible for runoff and expressed concern about erosion. Mr. Zambouras stated that the Applicant is reducing the volume and rate of runoff by 46%. He said this project will not cause any increase in erosion. Mr. McAvoy said the Applicant will take legal responsibility for the wall. Mr. Mercado asked about materials for the wall. Mr. Zambouras replied that it would be modular block and that it had been submitted previously. Ms. Gaffey stated that the Planning Office has the brochure that Mr. Zambouras previously supplied. Mr. Mercado asked about the size of the rip-rap. Mr. Zambouras replied that it would be six feet plus and would be machine-placed. Mr. Pawlina stated that he agreed with the hydraulics report and added that it seemed reasonable. Mr. Pawlina had a few other questions relating to hydraulics and piping overflow to enable the leaching system to work. Mr. Pawlina confirmed with Mr. Zambouras that the catch basin would have a hood or a snout. Mr. Pawlina suggested that DMH (1) as well as DMH (2) should have a hood or a snout as well. Mr. Zambouras replied that the current plan does not call for hoods/snouts on DMH (1) or DMH (2). Mr. Pawlina suggested that for protection a hood be placed on DMH (1). Mr. Pawlina inquired about runoff from the roof. Mr. Zambouras replied that if there is an overflow from the roof runoff, it will day light into the driveway. Mr. Pawlina stated that he feels comfortable with the drainage and complimented the Conservation Commission and DPW on their efforts. He said that 40% of the slope protected area had been impacted in the previous plan and he asked what is the percentage impacted in the new plan. Mr. Zambouras stated he did not calculate it and then clarified what areas are being altered in this version of the plan. Ms. Francazio asked about the fencing on top of the retaining wall. The Applicant replied that the fence will be chain-link. Ms. Francazio asked about ownership of the wall and Mr. Zambouras stated if any maintenance to the wall is required; all work would be conducted from the inside. Mr. Cassidy questioned whether increasing the grading of the slope in the driveway could significantly lessen the height of the wall. Mr. Zambouras replied that it would only result in shortening the wall by two feet. Mr. Zambouras stated that the intent is a reasonable amount of slope. Mr. Zambouras explained that while accepting more slope in the driveway could allow the wall to be eliminated, this design would result in filling up to the ledge face, which is what the Applicant is trying to avoid. Mr. Zambouras stated that the wall is only high at the curve and then it goes down very quickly. Mr. Pawlina agreed that it quickly dissipates. Mr. Cassavoy said that 12% is the maximum slope wanted on a road. Mr. Sadowski concurred with 12% and pointed out that it is important to be observant of the impact of winter weather on the driving surface. Mr. Sadowski expressed concern regarding the potential life span of the retaining wall. Mr. Sadowski cautioned that the wall may not last 100 years and the future owners may not have the resources to maintain it.

Mr. Cassavoy read a letter into the record written by Mr. and Mrs. Long of 25 Willard Street.

Mr. McAvoy offered more details regarding the City Solicitor’s ruling on the purview of the Planning Board. Mr. Beshara explained that Dana Street is a private street, a paper street. As a result, DPW has reduced its criteria. Mr. Beshara said he is receptive to anything the Planning Board wants him to look at and he is ready for them to make a recommendation to him. Mr. Cassidy stated that he feels that the lot is o.k. and the house is well placed. Mr. Cassidy voiced his concern with over-engineering which would result in building a horrible wall in the middle of the woods. Mr. Cassidy read a list of concerns: 1) Dana Street pavement be relocated to the east to protect as much of the city land as possible; 2) height of retaining wall should be minimized by increasing the slope of the roadway; 3) decorate the retaining wall with plants, and vines, and place vertical habitat at the bottom of the wall; 4) architectural fence at the top of the retaining wall, not a chain-link fence. Mr. Sadowski requested that the plans show the actual location of the house on the lot. Mr. Zambouras said the house will not encroach on setbacks. Mr. Pawlina asked the engineer to show at the next meeting the area subject to the Slope Protection Ordinance.

Mr. Cassavoy asked the Applicant to summarize what information he feels he needs to submit to the Planning Board that will answer the questions that were raised and the suggestions that were offered at this evening’s meeting and email it to the Planning Office.

Robert Cunningham, 176 Forest Street. Mr. Cunningham asked what the difference is between a private road and a public road.

Mr. Beshara explained that a private road is maintained at the direction of the City, but paid for by the owner. In this instance, trash collection for this home would take place on Willard Street and plowing of the roadway would be the responsibility of the owner.

Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to continue the public hearing to April 23, 2007. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Pavement Zoning Amendment

The Zoning Subcommittee met to discuss a citizen proposal to limit excessive paving of front yards. The issues raised by the citizen proposal included: 1) aesthetics and 2) address flooding as a result of loss of infiltration. The Planning Office conducted research on how this situation is addressed in other communities. The Subcommittee is in agreement regarding their view that any revisions to the existing Zoning Ordinance should include provisions that direct parking in residential districts to be on driveways located alongside the residential structure. Instead of using percentages to regulate the amount of impervious surfaces permitted, the Subcommittee decided to revise existing definitions (“Open Space”) as well as propose new definitions be added to the Zoning Ordinance Building (“Building Front Yard” and “Impervious Surfaces”). These definitions along with the reorganization of the existing provisions are intended to provide a framework for the Building Commissioner to address the “aesthetics” and “environmental” concerns raised by the citizen proposal. The Subcommittee felt that 24 feet is too wide for a driveway in a residential area and would like to limit driveway width to 20 feet. Ms. Desouza-Ward shared with the Planning Board that the Zoning Subcommittee discussed circular driveways at length. The Subcommittee felt that residents should not park directly in front of their houses, even in a circular driveway. The Subcommittee agreed that by not permitting more than 20% of the area directly in front of a house (Building Front Yard) to be paved over with an impervious surface, the use of pervious materials would be encouraged. Members of the Board discussed the possible scenarios such as those lots with limited frontage where a request for a variance due to hardship would be appropriate. Mr. Pawlina suggested designating a specific threshold of encroachment into the Building Front Yard that, if exceeded, would require a variance. The Planning Board will discuss the proposed amendment further at the April 23, 2007 meeting. Mr. Cassavoy suggested that the members remain observant between now and the next meeting.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Mr. Cassavoy noted that this was the annual meeting of the Board and as such members were charged with appointing officers. Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to keep the slate of officers the same. All voted in favor. None opposed. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to appoint Mr. Connolly as the third member available to sign Approval Not Required plans. Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.