MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, May 21, 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, April 23, 2007

Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

b) Home Occupation Joint Public Hearing with Board of Aldermen, April 5, 2007

Mr. Pawlina stated that he was not present at the Joint Public Hearing on April 5, 2007. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes with that revision. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

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.

SITE PLAN REVIEW

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

Mr. Rose, President of Rocky Mountain Spring Water, was present at the continuance of the public hearing. He stated that he appreciated the Planning Board’s suggestions at last month’s hearing and thinks the changes are addressed in the revised drawings circulated to the members. Mr. Rose stated he agreed with the Chairman’s suggestion and has moved the structure back 10 feet. Mr. Rose pointed out that the structure has been raised to the elevation of 54 feet. Mr. Rose stated that Mr. Mercado had suggested hiring a structural engineer which he did. The engineer modified the footings to address Mr. Mercado’s concerns. Mr. Rose stated that his company is opposed to the Board of Health’s suggestion of putting in trash barrels and has addressed the issue with the City Health Director. Rocky Mountain does not like the idea of providing a nearby access for dirty containers which he stated could possibly be used for water. Mr. Rose spoke about landscaping. He stated that while the Conservation Commission is not opposed to landscaping, the Conservation Commission is not in favor of any change in elevation to accommodate the plantings. Rocky Mountain does not want to put in curbing because access is required to the eastern side of the structure for deliveries. Mr. Rose proposed a system of 4-6 temporary bollards chained together. He stated that he is aware that the Chairman of the Planning Board has concerns. Mr. Sadowski stated that the Fotomat that was in this location previously was far worse than this proposed structure. He feels acknowledging this brings perspective to this case. He also added that while from a pure retail sense this location is the best, there are many other better locations on the site. Mr. Sadowski stated that he feels the temporary bollards are not substantial and perhaps anchored, commercial-type bollards should be used. Mr. Sadowski inquired how often per week the Applicant anticipated to make deliveries. Mr. Rose responded three times a week. The truck is 38 feet long and will be parked parallel to the property line during deliveries. Mr. Cassavoy asked for comments from the public. There were none. Mr. Pawlina MOVED to CLOSE the public hearing. Ms. Desouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed. In reference to the proposed landscaping Mr. Pawlina stated that curbing would be needed to protect the planting from plows in the winter. Mr. Pawlina, Ms. Desouza-Ward and Mr. Mercado each expressed that the+y felt bollards were not necessary in this situation. Mr. Sadowski raised the issue of extending the gutters along both sides of the structure. Mr. Cassidy agreed that the gutters should span along both sides as well as the front. Mr. Connolly MOVED to grant the application with the following conditions: 1) All signage must adhere to the Zoning Ordinance; 2) A “no parking” sign shall be installed to prohibit parking within the diagonally striped area between the eastern side of the kiosk and Main Street; 3) Servicing of the proposed kiosk, including deliveries must be in compliance with the City Noise Ordinance. Trucks are not permitted to idle; 4) The kiosk’s vinyl gutters shall be extended along the front and both sides of the structure in their entirety. Ms. Desouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. The roll call consisted of 8 affirmative votes. One member, Ms. Francazio, abstained because she missed a session of the public hearing. Mr. Mercado – Yes; Mr. Pawlina – Yes; Mr. Sadowski – Yes; Ms. Desouza-Ward –Yes; Ms. Marcus – Yes; Mr. Connolly – Yes; Mr. Cassavoy – Yes; Mr. Cassidy – Yes;

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 07-010, 115 Waverly Ave., Shuel

The Applicant’s attorney, Patricia M. Wright, was present. Ms. Wright was asked by the Chairman to briefly describe this application. Ms. Wright represents Mr. Shuel whose neighbors, Jon Cancelarie and Terri Warren, have put up a fence which is over six feet high. Mr. Cancelarie received a letter from the Building Inspector requiring him to remove the fence, which he has not yet done. Ms. Wright stated the Building Inspector has failed to enforce the tear-down order. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting that the Board of Appeals order Mr. Luther to enforce the zoning code by retroactively applying the statutory fines from the date of his original order and allowing the fines to accumulate until the fence is removed. After a brief discussion regarding the topography of the property, the Planning Board felt this case involves judgments that can best be determined by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-011, 299 Melrose Street, Rosenblatt

The Applicant, Greg Rosenblatt, described his application. He stated he would like to build a one-story addition to his house which is on a dead-end street. He is seeking a variance for relief from zoning requirements regarding the front setback. Mr. Rosenblatt described for the Planning Board how the City of Melrose owns the first 10 feet of land from his front property line. After discussion, the Planning Board members felt that the proposed addition would not encroach on the setback any more than the current structure. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeals endorsing the project and complimenting the Applicant on his well-thought out design. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-012, 127 Vinton Street, Wiggins, Neale and Sugrue

The Applicants presented their case to the Planning Board. Ms. Neale stated the neighbors of 127 Vinton Street are aggrieved by a decision made by the Building Inspector with regard to a request to determine whether or not the proposed structure is in violation of Article IX, Section 235-48 of the Melrose Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Neale stated the owner received approval from the Building Inspector to construct a new two-family structure. The abutting neighbors do not feel that this proposed structure falls under that ordinance because in their view the original structure was not destroyed ‘due to natural causes.’ Ms. Neale also stated that they believe this structure will not be owner-occupied, but will be rental units. Mr. Sadowski stated concerns with the long driveway and also said it appears that the proposed structure is not in the same footprint as the previous structure. One of the abutters said the previous house had a bump-out and in the proposed structure the entire wall ‘bumps out.’ Mr. Pawlina stated that the case will best be interpreted by the Board of Appeals. Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-013, 133 Woodcrest Drive, Demaso and Gorton

The Applicant, Mauro Demaso, was present. The Applicant explained that he would like to add a second floor to accommodate his growing family. The Applicant’s house is located on a corner lot. The home is currently non-conforming as it presently violates the setback requirements on the side of lot that fronts Wildwood Road. The Applicant expressed that the addition has been designed to be considerate of the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeals reflecting that the Planning Board members believe the proposed addition would be an appropriate expansion of the structure with minimal violation of the setbacks and will have a relatively modest impact on the neighborhood. The Planning Board compliments the Applicant on the presentation of the proposed project and their sensitivity to the vertical aspects involved. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Mr. Sadowski was recused at 9:00 p.m.

Case 07-014, 86-88 Trenton Street, Donovan

The Applicant, Mr. Donovan, was present. Mr. Donovan is requesting a variance for a side door on the property for egress out of the basement. He stated he does not meet the required side setback between his house and his neighbor’s property. Mr. Pawlina stated that this case appears to be an issue for the Board of Appeals to decide. He added that there might be cause for hardship for access through the basement. The Applicant is also requesting a variance to build a second story porch on the front of his house. The Applicant responded to questions regarding the overhang of the proposed porch as the upstairs porch would be larger than the downstairs porch. The Planning Board advised the Applicant to have more detailed plans to submit. Mr. Cassidy stated more graphics will help the process. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-015, 21 Hawthorne Street, Moccia

The Applicant, Frank Moccia, described the nature of the in-law apartment that is being constructed to accommodate an elderly parent in the basement of his home. Mr. Cassidy asked about the size of the area to be renovated. The Applicant stated that it is only one floor – less than one-third of the structure. Ms. Desouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that the Planning Board notes that it appears that the Applicant is aware of the City’s in-law apartment requirements and has met the necessary criteria. With the comments noted the Planning Board supports the issuance of a special permit for the proposed in-law apartment. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Pavement Zoning Amendment

Ms. Desouza-Ward reported on the Zoning Subcommittee’s recent meetings. The Committee does not speak ‘entirely as one voice’ on the issue of parking in the front yard, but all do find objectionable the practice of paving over front yards. In the spirit of the citizen proposal, the Zoning Subcommittee decided to focus on the minimization of impervious surfaces rather than on parking. In summary, the Zoning Subcommittee feels the amendment should 1) seek to preserve green space within the City by limiting the amount of new, impervious surfaces, 2) should limit the amount of impervious surfaces within the Building Front Yard to 20 percent, 3) promote the use of pervious materials for residential driveways and 4) reduce the maximum permitted width of driveways from 24 feet wide to 20 feet wide. Ms. Gaffey stated that the Building Inspector was comfortable with the amendment. Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to submit the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to the Board of Aldermen. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Home Occupation Amendment

Ms. Gaffey reported that the Amendment was passed by the Board of Aldermen and signed by the Mayor.

OTHER

Ms. Gaffey reported that the Wetlands Protection Act was originally voted down and then approved after significant changes were made.

Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.