MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, April 23, 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, March 26, 2007

Mr. Mercado made a revision to the March 26, 2007 minutes. Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes as revised. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Mr. Sadowski arrived during discussion of ZBA Case No. 07-005.

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 07-005, 1 Alden Street, Varat

The Applicant was represented by Tim Walsh of T. P. Walsh. He stated that his client looked at this property in the fall with the anticipation of purchasing it. There is a design flaw in the second floor bathroom which is on the front of the house. There is not enough headroom in the shower. Mr. Walsh proposes to bring the roof plane up to the height of the adjacent dormer. This does not change the footprint of the house. The intent is to increase the usable living space. Mr. Cassidy stated the roof line should be preserved. Ms. Desouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to send the standard letter. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Ms. Francazio arrived during discussion of ZBA Case 07-007.

Case 07-007, 21 Walton Park, Berlin

Mr. Berlin, the Applicant, was present and described the proposed project. The Applicant would like to put a 10 x 10 addition over an existing first floor room to create a bathroom upstairs. Mr. Cassavoy asked for clarification on the plans. The Applicant explained that the plans contain a potential future project involving the kitchen. There was discussion about the height/roofline and how the Applicant wishes to preserve the view out of the attic window. Mr. Cassidy stated he had concerns with snow accumulating in this proposed new roofline. Mr. Cassidy suggested to the Applicant an alternative roof design. Mr. Sadowski pointed out the encroachment of the existing eave. Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter with a recommendation that the Applicant revise his design to create a more conventional gable roof. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-008, 219 Melrose Street, MacDonald

The Applicant presented the proposed project – he wishes to build a small garage on the side of the house that is accessible to the street. He stated he would like to make the current garage into living space and would need another structure for storage. Mr. Pawlina stated that the structure will be close to the street which he feels could be a safety issue. Mr. Cassidy stated that he is not sure that there exists a compelling hardship in this case. Mr. Pawlina asked if there is a curb cut that could handle three cars and the Applicant replied there is. Mr. Cassidy asked the Applicant if this structure could be placed elsewhere in the yard. Mr. Cassidy expressed his concern regarding the precedent of this case due to the large number of tight lots in the City. The Applicant stated that access to the street is needed. Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that the Planning Board cannot endorse this case because of concerns with sight distance and safety issues. The Board was unable to clearly establish that any difficulties would be imposed on the Applicant by positioning the addition on another part of the lot or on a detached structure outside of the setback. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-009, 882 Main Street, Maxi-Drug Inc., d/b/a Brooks Pharmacy

Mr. Cassavoy recused himself. Mr. Connolly acted as Chair during this case. The Attorney for the Applicant, Kenneth Hill, was present. Mr. Hill stated that Brooks has expanded into space next to it and would like to put up new signage. Mr. Hill explained that under the Zoning Ordinance, one exterior wall sign is permitted. His client is applying for a variance for three signs. The Applicant would like to replace existing 180 square feet of signage with approximately 95 square feet of signage divided into three parts. Mr. Hill stated that the Applicant prefers to space the signs out. Ms. Desouza-Ward stated she has no issue with the size, just with the lighting of the sign. The Board pointed out that internally illuminated signs are prohibited and the Applicant agreed to illuminate the signs externally with incandescent lighting in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeals that the Planning Board takes no exception to the proposed signage. He stated the only difference from the Ordinance is that the sign will be divided into three parts instead of one part. The Planning Board has no issue with that. The Board also indicated that the colors incorporated in the signage should be appropriate to the surrounding area and uses and that the signage must be externally illuminated. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Mr. Cassavoy rejoined the meeting at 8:50 p.m.

Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to hear the Dana Street case before the 261-263 Grove Street-ANR case. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

SLOPE PROTECTION SPECIAL PERMIT

Case SP06-003, Dana Street, Stephen Amero (continued public hearing)

The Applicant, Stephen Amero, and his representative, Mr. McAvoy, were present. Mr. McAvoy said that the engineer was unable to attend tonight’s public hearing. Mr. McAvoy presented a brief history of the Applicant’s proposal. Mr. McAvoy -explained that the Slope Protection Ordinance does not cover the area of Dana Street, it just applies to the lot for a single family home. The engineer shifted the road two to four feet away from the conservation land. Mr. McAvoy stated that this made a grade change to the road which reduced the height of the retaining wall by two feet in some places. The style of the wall has not changed. The engineer discovered the planting wall is not available any more. In reference to the suggestion at a previous meeting concerning ivy, the engineer is not in favor of it as the root system could affect the integrity of the wall. The engineer proposes arborvitaes at the bottom of the wall. The engineer substituted an aluminum architectural fence along the top of the retaining wall instead of a chain-link fence. Mr. McAvoy stated that the width of the driveway is reduced to 18 feet and the grade is now 5% to decrease disturbance as well as to better match up with the roadway.

Mr. Cassavoy opened the hearing to the public:

Sarah Matthews, 2 Willard Street. Ms. Matthews spoke about how she feels the waterflow is going to change, and will be closer to the conservation land. She disagrees that a straight line of arborvitaes is the solution to screening the wall and proposes that the Applicant consider planting species that are more common to the area.

Mr. Cassidy also expressed concern regarding the selection of plantings and suggested considering species that are evergreen that would have ‘cover’ twelve months of the year. Mr. Mercado questioned the Applicant about the fence. The Applicant stated the fence would be five feet high. Mr. Cassavoy said the fence would be regulated by the Building Inspector. Mr. Pawlina expressed concern that the maximum height of the wall is 22 feet at one end of the road. He added that he feels the Applicant has done a good job but the fact that a city street is not subject to the Slope Protection Ordinance troubles him. He added that he still has difficulty with this. Mr. McAvoy restated the City Solicitor’s ruling that the Slope Protection Ordinance does not apply to streets. Mr. Cassidy feels that the Planning Board has done their best in this application and he feels this process is completed. Mr. Cassavoy stated that four conditions must be satisfied in order to meet the purpose of the Slope Protection Ordinance. He said a fairly complete explanation of the four items were provided in February. Mr. Cassavoy reviewed the conditions and the explanations pertaining to the Slope Protection Ordinance with the Board. Mr. Pawlina stated that the driveway and the property are ‘reasonably drained.’ Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to close the public hearing. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed. Ms. Gaffey brought to the attention of the Board several conditions that have been raised throughout the public hearing process. 1) The Fire Chief requires the house on the lot to be sprinklered; 2) Dana Street will be classified as a private street by DPW; 3) Maintenance of the wall and the drainage structures will be the responsibility of the Applicant; 4) A geotech engineer should be present at the installation of the wall; 5) In regards to landscaping, a more natural variety of plantings common to the area that range in terms of size and species will screen the retaining wall; and 6) An Operations and Maintenance Manual for the storm drainage system shall be required. Ms. Gaffey stated that this was a long, challenging process and she appreciates that this is a difficult project to embrace but due to the circumstances that brought Mr. Amero to the Board and his willingness to make significant changes to the roadway and house lot to minimize the impact, she encouraged Board members to approve the Special Permit. Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to grant the Slope Protection Special Permit with the conditions as described by the City Planner earlier. Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION. The roll call consisted of six affirmative votes and two opposed votes. One member of the Board abstained because she missed a session of the public hearing.

Mr. Mercado – No; Mr. Pawlina – No; Mr. Sadowski – Yes; Ms. Desouza-Ward – Abstained; Ms. Marcus – Yes; Mr. Connolly – Yes; Mr. Cassavoy – Yes; Mr. Cassidy – Yes; Ms. Francazio - Yes

Ms. Gaffey stated that the proposal is approved. She will draft the decision with conditions and submit it to the Chairman for his review.

Ms. Francazio left the meeting and was not in attendance for the remainder of the items on the agenda.

APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED

261-263 Grove Street/McNamara

Ms. Clark, the Applicant’s attorney, was present. She explained that the Applicant received approval from the Board of Appeals to transfer land from one lot to another. Ms. Clarke described the case as two neighbors who want to ‘switch’ land from one to the other. The land involved is a small parcel in the back of the lot. Ms. Clark stated this process is not creating a subdivision or a new buildable lot. The frontage will remain the same. Ms. Desouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to endorse the Approval Not Required. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

SITE PLAN REVIEW

Case SP07-001, 880-892 Main Street, Edward Rose, III

Mr. Rose was present to describe his application. He stated that Rocky Mountain Spring Water had applied two years ago and met with the Design Review Committee. The application was withdrawn because of flood plain issues. Mr. Rose stated that he incorporated the Design Review Committee’s suggestions into his application. He stated he met with the Conservation Commission on Thursday, April 19, 2007. The plan tonight indicates that the footing will be at four inches. When the plan is revised, the structure will be raised an additional 8 inches to be at 54 feet in elevation, above the 100‑year flood plain. Mr. Cassaovy commented on the placement of the structure and suggested moving it back and landscaping the striped off area. Mr. Rose explained that he would like the structure to be as visible as possible. Mr. Rose stated that the sign will be painted and externally lit. Ms. Marcus inquired about the sanitation of the water. Mr. Rose explained that a small pump filters the water through ultra violet light. Mr. Connolly inquired how the kiosk will be maintained in terms of trash. Mr. Rose responded that a container will be located next to the kiosk and that Johnnie’s Foodmaster will maintain the trash. Mr. Rose added that he will adhere to the noise ordinance and that the structure will be handicap accessible.

The meeting was opened up to comments by the public:

Roderick E. Eddy, 49 Melrose Street: Mr. Eddy spoke about concerns he has with the ingress/egress onto Main Street. He feels there is a lot of foot traffic and the water kiosk will compound the pedestrian traffic on Main Street. He said that he has seen many near accidents in this location. He expressed concern regarding the elderly walking to and from Brooks and Walgreens. Mr. Eddy mentioned the flooding that occurs in this area also.

Richard Sawtelle, owner of the property, stated that there is no flooding in the back of this property. The water kiosk will be located at the old FotoMat site. He said sewerage at the Towers is always a problem. He stated that the water kiosk will be an asset to the McCarthy House. Mr. Mercado inquired whether there would be curbing which he explained would be advantageous for safety purposes. Mr. Rose responded that the Conservation Commission did not want any curbing on the site. Mr. Sadowski mentioned the staff report and the desire to see landscaping. He inquired regarding what the water tank will rest on and whether the tank could ever float. Mr. Rose replied that the tank could be anchored and it would only float if it were empty because his company was unable to deliver. The tank is placed on sona tubes. Mr. Sadowski inquired about the drywell on the site. Mr. Rose stated that there will be no drywell on the site; the Conservation Commission preferred to take that out and replace with a pipe which would discharge to the landscaped area in back. The dimensions of the structure were reduced to 12 x 12 after the Conservation Commission meeting also. Mr. Mercado questioned the quality of the soil. Mr. Sawtelle assured the Board of the quality of the soil and commented that he felt the landscaping suggested would obstruct the corner, blocking the views of vehicles. Mr. Cassavoy inquired regarding projections and demographic studies that the Applicant has conducted. Mr. Rose replied he has not conducted any demographic studies. His company targets locations based on density of area. Their locations in Medford, Everett and Malden have performed well and they expect the same for Melrose. Mr. Pawlina advised the Applicant that the Board will require a clean set of plans. Ms. Desouza-Ward suggested that the Applicant speak to the Conservation Commission regarding the landscaping improvement discussed during the hearing. Mr. Sadowski stated that he was unsure whether this is the best location for the water kiosk. Mr. Sawtelle responded that the location is specific to lease agreement of Johnnie’s Foodmaster.

Mr. Cassavoy requested that the Applicant ‘clean up’ the application and come back before the Planning Board. The revised plan should indicate: 1) the new dimensions of the structure, 2) landscaping , 3) footing plan, 4) revised elevation, and 5) no drywell. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to continue the public hearing until May 21, 2007. Ms. Desouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Home Occupation Amendment

Ms. Desouza-Ward spoke about several issues raised at the Joint Public Hearing with the Board of Aldermen for the proposed home occupation amendment to the Zoning Ordinance: storage, parking and signage. Ms. Gaffey suggested amending paragraph (c) to include storage within the area devoted to the Home Occupation. Mr. Connolly suggested adding to paragraph (g) the following words: “including pick up and delivery or parking that exceeds what is normally expected in the neighborhood”. The Board members discussed signage and agreed that signage should be cross-referenced to the signage section of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Gaffey stated the Planning Office will draft a Report to the Board of Aldermen and make the changes discussed. Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to redraft the language for the proposed home occupation amendment and send a report to the Board of Aldermen. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Pavement Zoning

Mr. Cassavoy presented his recommendations to the Board concerning the proposed pavement zoning amendment. After a brief discussion, the Board agreed to send the proposal back to the Zoning Subcommittee for further consideration.

OTHER

There was discussion by the Board about scheduling the Planning Board meetings for the 4^th Monday for the months of June, July and August. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.