MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, June 12, 2006

7:45 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

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

ABSENT: Rich Connolly

City Planner, Denise Gaffey and Janet Graf, Secretary, were present.

MINUTES

The Planning Board members read the minutes from the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on May 22, 2006. Mr. Mercado recommended a change to the minutes. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION as amended. All in favor. None opposed.

ASSENT CALENDAR

Ms. DeSouza-Ward MOTIONED to move the Assent Calendar and send standard letters for Cases 06-16 and 06-17. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED. All in favor. None opposed.

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 06-15, 20 Belmont Street, McNamara

Attorney Judy Clark and Petitioner Jodi McNamara were present

Ms. Clark presented that the Petitioner has a 10' by 12' deck. The existing deck is unusable space and they would like to convert the deck to a three-season sunroom. It will be within the footprint of the existing deck. Mr. Sadowski questioned the close proximity to the lot line and mentioned the one-foot offset. Ms. Clark stated that a surveyor looked at the history of the lot lines and could not find the owner of the land between the lots that extends five feet further to the rear. Ms. McNamara has been using the unclaimed land, even though it does not appear to be hers. Messrs. Mercado and Cassavoy asked if there was a retaining wall on the property line. Ms. McNamara explained the fence was up when she bought the house, the inside of the fence faces her property so she assumed that it was her fence on her property. Mr. Mercado asked if the people behind the fence are aware of the request for variance. Ms. Clark stated that she thinks the land was split off but not actually deeded. Mr. Pawlina stated that in light of the best efforts of the surveyor and the fact that they are not building a house or changing the footprint, the Board should give its recommendation. He feels it is an abutters’ issue. Ms. DeSouza-Ward agreed with that. Mr. Sadowski says the ordinance does allow a deck but not a structure with a roof with sides to it. Building inspector would probably interpret it that way. Mr. Sadowski feels the Board should be consistent in matters like this. There was discussion of the possibility of moving the structure to the eastern side of the home, but the attorney explained there are plumbing issues. Ms. Marcus stated that since the deck has been used in this fashion, she has no problem with the matter moving forward. The Board discussed that in spite of the difficulties raised by the ownership issue, they take no exception. Mr. Pawlina made the MOTION to send a letter stating the following:

1) Concern about ownership of the area in the rear of the property.

2) Reluctance of the Planning Board to support a proposal which provides only one foot setback.

3) The Planning Board suggests relocating the porch addition.

4) Given the above, the Planning Board takes no exception and leaves it to the Zoning Board of Appeals and abutters at the public hearing.

Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. Mr. Sadowski OPPOSED the MOTION. All others in favor.

Case 06-18, 215-233 Essex St., Omnipoint

Brian Grossman of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye, representing the Petitioner, was present. Brian handed out colored photographs to the Planning Board members. Mr. Grossman stated this project is similar to prior location. He described the simulated photographs – there are three antennas. The coaxial cable will run down the back of the building and will be painted to match the building. There will be a small, external ground-mounted HVAC condenser on the south corner, which cools the equipment. In compliance with bylaw, this is not placed on a rooftop. The Planning Board asked about noise level and was told by Mr. Grossman it should not be louder than 41 decibels. Mr. Mercado questioned the leaning chimney in the photograph. Mr. Grossman replied the chimney would be repointed if a professional engineer determined it necessary. The Petitioner would certainly correct it. There was discussion about height of the antenna. Mr. Pawlina replied repointing brick does not address structural issues. Mr. Grossman assured the Board that the Petitioner would comply with Mass. Building code. Mr. Pawlina had a question about panel going from 9 inches to 12 inches. Twelve is the limit. Mr. Sadowski added it should be clear. Mr. Cassavoy stated the building inspector would measure it also – it needs to be as vertical as possible. Mr. Cassidy suggested they install a metal chimney with wood surround, mount the antenna inside and remove the brick chimney. Concerns are as follows:

1) The structure’s capacity to support itself; tear down and replace the stack.

2) Five years not 25; antenna within the 12-inch tolerance; cable tray will meet as it drops down.

3) Noise - will the installation comply with the Melrose noise ordinance.

Mr. Sadowski questioned if there is any obstruction to the driveway. Mr. Grossman stated the condenser would be in the back corner; farther away from Essex and West Emerson Streets. The Planning Board stated a letter would be sent to the Board of Appeals noting the issues above and recommending the proposal. Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a letter. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

SITE PLAN REVIEW

Case SP06-001, 897-911 Main Street, Mark Investments

Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to switch Case SP06-001 (Mark Investments) with Case SP06-002 (Masic). Mr. Mercado SECONDED the motion. One abstention, all others in favor. None opposed.

Case SP06-002, 406 Main Street, Edin Masic

The first public meeting for Case SP06-002 is as follows:

Attorney Robert Bell, representing the Petitioner and Edin Masic, presented the project.

Mr. Bell stated the Petitioner is planning to renovate a dilapatated structure, which had been a palm reader on the first floor with two apartments on the second floor, which have been an ongoing concern to the neighbors. The Petitioner would like to change the building to one (1) retail use plus six (6) units sold as condominiums – five (5) two (2) bedrooms and one (1) bedroom. Mr. Bell stated the Petitioner wants to move their beauty salon, which is currently on the corner of East Wyoming and Main Street to 406 Main Street. Petitioner would like to have six (6) on site parking spaces and plans to seek relief; they will be adjacent to municipal parking area. Mr. Bell stated not much complies downtown in the way of parking space availability. It was stated that it is a Board of Appeals matter for the situation of parking overnight for the residential units. He mentioned the entrance on Faulkner Place is a private way. Cars exit through the municipal parking lot out to Grove Street or to Myrtle Street. There is a MBTA bus stop in front of the building and the train station is within a short walking distance to rationalize the lower parking ratio. Mr. Bell stated that solid wastes would be covered and emptied by a private company hired by the condominium association. There will be landscaping and no plans for signage at this time. There are plans for exterior lighting in the parking area, but no other exterior lighting. The Planning Board staff had emailed to members a traffic study showing very minimal trip generation. Mr. Bell stated he feels the parking is adequate. If it is determined not to be adequate, perhaps the City would allow parking in the municipal lot overnight. The Traffic Consultant had recommendations:

1. Parking spaces will be assigned.
2. Lighting proposed on the plans.
3. Installing warning sign for people entering and exiting Faulkner Place. Discussion ensued about vehicle traffic on Faulkner Place. Mr. Mercado stated it is now a one way. Cars exit onto either Grove Street or Myrtle Street.

The Petitioner pointed out one change to the plans. Roof run-off mixed with the surface run-off – water is not allowed. The Planning Board discussed the sewer lines being further down than the water lines. Mr. Pawlina asked where the lot lines are. Attorney Bell pointed out there is an encroachment on Main Street side. It is currently being straightened out with new neighbor on adjacent property. There was further discussion about the Petitioner’s responsibility is only for drainage of roof and small parking lot. The Planning Board wanted to make it clear that the renovations are to the existing building, not a new building. Petitioner concurred. Mr. Cassidy stated that two of the floor plans don’t seem to agree with each other (A5 and 101). He has concerns about material for the planters especially in the location that they are shown in which will get a lot of abuse over the years. Mr. Cassidy stated the elevations are preliminary – hopes they are more carefully detailed in the future. They need more labeling. This plan is conceptual not definitive. Refinement is needed of architectural details, diameter, color of glass/building and windows – how are they handled? Mr. Pawlina stated that the Planning Board’s concerns are not onerous enough to stop project from moving forward. The Planning Board would like some more detail. They encourage the Petitioner to keep working on the plans.

Mr. Cassavoy opened the meeting to the public. Robin Prentiss, 31-35 Grove Street (Blue Bell Cleaners) had received a notice and wanted to say that she hopes this project goes forward. Bob Honeywell, 5 Faulkner Place, former owner, approves of the project. The Board is leaning favorably towards the project, but feels the Petitioner has more preparation to be done.

1. Proposal needs a zoning analysis.
2. The solid waste containers being stored below the stairs could be a potential code issue.
3. Confirm that Faulkner Place will be paved.
4. Planning Board advises Petitioner install more lighting on Faulkner Place for security.
5. Signage suggestion: ENTRANCE ONLY – DO NOT EXIT
6. Need specifications on the planters; planters need to be made of a durable material such as masonry and plantings need proper irrigation.
7. Separate drainage issue.
8. Design needs refinement. Exterior façade – Hardiplank is fine but for architectural details, use another material; strive for “maintenance-free.”

Mr. Mercado had a question on how wide the dimension of Faulkner Place is. The Petitioner stated approximately 25 feet.

Mr. Cassavoy has concerns with the layout of the condominiums – he feels it looks very awkward and the Petitioner might consider seeking out the advice of local real estate professionals on the units’ saleability. Ms. Gaffey inquired about the spa on the second floor. Mr. Bell stated the spa is located on both first and second floor to meet handicap ordinance. Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to continue hearing until June 26, 2006. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed. Mr. Cassidy advised that the Petitioner bring the architect to the next meeting to make a presentation.

Case SP06-001, 897-911 Main Street, Mark Investments

Attorney McAvoy requested a continuance due to the absence of Planning Board member, Rich Connelly. Ms. Marcus MOTIONED to continue public hearing to June 26, 2006. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

SUBDIVISION

Continued Public Hearing: Definitive Subdivision Plan Submission, Blueberry Hill Road

Attorney McAvoy, Mr. Knowles, Engineer from Meridian Associates, and Mr. Gianquinto, the Developer, were present.

Mr. Knowles from Meridian Associates described for the Planning Board action the Petitioner took after the May 22, 2006 meeting. At the Planning Board’s request, three concerns were addressed:

1. A catch basin was added on Forest Street near an abutter.
2. A storm receptor was relocated.
3. The outlet structure of an infiltration basin was raised to meet the crown allowing more water to get into the basin.

Mr. Pawlina expressed appreciation for the Petitioner’s response to the Board’s concerns. Mr. Cassavoy asked if there were any other items. Mr. Sadowski mentioned concern about arrangement of the buildings on the lots. Ms. Gaffey stated there had been discussion about type and layout of buildings to be built during Preliminary Plan approval and it is appropriate to review this information now. Mr. Sadowski added he feels that it is appropriate to raise the issue again and perhaps have it be a condition of approval for the Planning Board. Mr. Mercado said he would like to see that also. Mr. McAvoy asked if it could be made a condition for approval. Ms. Gaffey replied that it could be. Mr. Sadowski stated that the topography is extreme. Mr. McAvoy stated the Petitioner has no objection to a condition requiring the Petitioner to return to the Board for review of the building layouts if they do not need to come back to the Board for Site Plan Review. Mr. Cassavoy expressed concern about the Petitioner coming back before the Planning Board lot by lot. Mr. Sadowski said in the past the Planning Board has gotten much more detail from other Petitioners planning subdivisions. Planning Board discussed the scenario if the Petitioner changes the plans and decides to build single-family lots instead of townhouses. Some members have real concerns about the location of single families, the hardscaping, the sloping. Mr. Mercado asked about the slope protection law and Ms. Gaffey replied that the Petitioner is ‘grandfathered’. Letters from the public were distributed to the Planning Board members and Ms. Gaffey read an additional letter, which was delivered to the meeting. Mr. Pawlina asked if the hearing can be closed to the public and be concluded. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated a decision should be made soon. Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to close the public hearing. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed. The Petitioner provided a written extension to allow for vote to occur at the next meeting.

OTHER

Mr. Sadowski stated he received a call from an abutter of the Willow Street project asking when it will be finished. Mr. Luther, the building inspector, joined the Planning Board meeting and stated there is a problem with the garage clearance height – the garage is not accessible to a van transporting the handicapped. Mr. Luther attended a judiciary hearing with the architect at the AAB. The architect was told to fix the problem. The solution may be to add an enclosed space at the rear of the property. A handicapped van will be able to pull in and then drop down to the level of the garage. It will probably take six months to order and receive the lift. A condominium unit will be held until the problem is solved. There was discussion about the parking situation at Willow Street and whether parking on the street would alleviate the situation. Mr. Cassavoy asked if this is for a public hearing or design review. Ms. Gaffey stated a letter is needed from Tom Bennett to clarify if additional parking relief will be needed.

Ms. Gaffey informed the Planning Board members of the Public Forum to be held on June 21, 2006 at the Lincoln School. The City of Melrose is reviewing zoning requirements for the three-block industrial zone located on Washington Street. The public and abutters have been invited to attend.

Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.