MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting

Monday, July 23, 2007

7:45 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

 

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

 

ABSENT:              Ed Cassidy, and John Sadowski

 

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

 

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

 

MINUTES

a) Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, June 25, 2007, Executive Session and June 25, 2007

Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes.  Ms. Desouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION.  All who were in attendance voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

b) Pavement Zoning Joint Public Hearing, July 16, 2007

Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes as amended.  Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION.  All who were in attendance voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 07-018, 24 Granite Street, Thomas

The Applicant, Scott Thomas, was present.  Mr. Thomas told the Planning Board he purchased his home in 1999 in good faith from an estate.  He thought the house was a conforming structure.  Mr. Thomas, his wife, and two children have lived there several years.  A developer has since bought the lot next to them.  Mr. Thomas had been told at the time of his purchase that the vacant lot next to his was also owned by the estate and was unbuildable due to its size and steep slope.  The Applicant explained that he later learned that his lot and the adjacent lot were illegally subdivided.  The developer has tried unsuccessfully to build a single-family home on the lot.   The Applicant seeks a variance for lot size.  Their lot is 14,400 square feet.  They wish to continue to live in their home that they have been in for eight years.  The members listed the points they feel should be highlighted in their letter to the Board of Appeals:

 

  • The slope on Applicant’s lot is less severe than the adjacent lot that was created as a result of the illegal subdivision
  • Pre-existence of the Applicant’s house on the original parcel prior to illegal subdivision into two non-conforming lots
  • The Applicant assert that they purchased their property in good faith and have actively attempted to take steps to bring it into conformance with Melrose Zoning requirements

 

Mr. Pawlina pointed out for the record that the abutting developer has come before the Planning Board twice in an attempt to develop this site, including once with a 40B application.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a neutral letter to the Board of Appeals listing the above issues.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed. 

 

Case 07-019, 39 Harvard Street, Brown

Judith A. Clark, attorney for Michael Brown, was present.  Ms. Clark explained to the Board that the Applicant could not be present tonight due to vacation.  Ms. Clark stated that the application and the plan speak for itself.  She explained that the Applicant’s yard is small.  The Applicant is requesting a variance from the side and rear setback requirements to install an in-ground pool.  The Applicant would like to maintain his existing deck and parking.  Ms. Francazio asked if the dimensions around the pool include a walkway and fence around the pool.  Ms. Clark stated that the yard is fenced in so she does not believe there is a need for a fence surrounding the pool itself.  Ms. Clark said she thinks the Applicant is positioning the pool in this manner so that the usable open space in the backyard will be preserved.  Mr. Pawlina stated he felt this is a big pool in a small area.  He suggested putting in a smaller pool which would require no variance.  Ms. Francazio MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeal stating they remain neutral while citing the following issues:

 

  • The lot is too small to accommodate the proposed pool
  • Lack of information regarding walkways and/or other fencing provided by the Applicant
  • Without the availability of additional information, the Planning Board views the setback encroachment of the proposed pool to be more of a factor than represented in the application

 

Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

Case 07-020, 22 Ledgewood Avenue, Murphy

The Applicant’s representative, George Elanjian, was present.  He described the proposed addition to Ms. Murphy’s home.  Mr. Elanjian explained that Ms. Murphy requires a variance to expand the front existing foyer, which is a nonconforming existing use.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals reflecting that the Planning Board believes that the proposed expansion of the Applicant’s foyer would be an appropriate extension of the structure with minimal encroachment of the front setback that is not inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood.  The Planning Board notes that the Applicant’s home is located on a corner lot and the expansion of the foyer is a component of a larger project that is in accordance with the setback requirements.  Ms. Desouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

Case 07-021, 16 Baxter Street, Ouajdi

Richard O’Neill, attorney for the Applicant, was present, as well as the Applicant, Aicha Ouajdi.  Mr. O’Neill stated that Ms. Ouajdi is requesting a special permit to run a private day care out of 16 Baxter Street.  She has had a license from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the past seven years to do so.  The Applicant was not aware that she required a special permit from the City.  Mr. O’Neill explained that under state law, the Applicant may have no more than ten children under the age of seven in her care.  She currently has seven children in her care and employs two assistants.  Mr. O’Neill stated the yard is ‘totally sealed’ with a fence and described the rooms within the house which are utilized for the purpose of the day care.  Mr. O’Neill said that Ms. Ouajdi has the backing of her neighbors and shared with the Planning Board several letters of support.  Ms. Desouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals stating that the Planning Board notes that it appears that the Applicant is aware of the special permit requirements and has met the necessary criteria.  The Planning Board members view this use to be socially beneficial and support the issuance of the special permit.  Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

Case 07-023, 3 Groveland Road, Burke

Mr. Burke presented his application to the Planning Board.  He stated his house was built in 1965 and sits on a corner lot.  The Burkes have two young children and would like to expand their living space.  The house has only two bedrooms and was constructed on a slab.  The only storage space is in the garage.  The Applicants would like to enclose the carport which would give them living space as well as storage.  The Applicants stated the proposed project is in scale with the neighborhood and they have the support of both abutters.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals that reflects that the proposed expansion includes minor changes to the setback encroachment of the existing carport.  He noted that the Applicants’ house is located on a corner lot and complimented the Applicants on the level of information provided to the Planning Board.  Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

Case 07-33 West Hill Avenue, DeAngelis

Gerry Zingariello of Zingariello Construction, Inc. was present.  The Applicant was unable to attend.  Mr. Zingariello described the full shed dormer proposed for the rear of the house.  This improvement is needed as the Applicant has three children in a two bedroom house.  The proposed plan shows two bedrooms in the attic space.  The property has a lot of ledge making expanding up as the most feasible option for expansion.  Mr. Pawlina stated that he felt the dormer makes the most sense and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals noting that the Applicant’s house is located on a corner lot and presently encroaches on both of its front and one of its rear setbacks.  The Planning Board agrees that the proposed dormer is an appropriate expansion of the Applicant’s home as it will only be somewhat visible from the street and have no impact on the neighborhood.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

SITE PLAN REVIEW PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION

532-546 Main Street/12-16 Essex Street, Carroll

Robert Bell, representative for the proposed project, introduced the Architect for the Carroll development team, Ted Touloukian.  Mr. Bell offered a history of the Boardman Block.  An Ad Hoc Committee made up of members from the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Historic District Commission has been assembled to provide feedback to the development team.  Mr. Bell stated that Mark Carroll is anxious to get underway and is interested in submitting his Site Plan Review application to the Planning Board soon in an effort to start the public hearing process in August.  Mr. Bell reviewed the zoning relief that will be required from the Board of Appeals.  Mr. Touloukian presented a brief overview of the proposed mixed-use project.  The proposed four-story structure will require the demolition of the existing building.  The new building will consist of 28 residential units and approximately 9,700 square feet of commercial space on the first floor with underground parking below.  Mr. Touloukian reviewed with the Planning Board the proposed materials that are under consideration and how these materials draw from architectural details along Main Street.  Mr. Bell asked the Planning Board regarding the possibility of inviting the Historic District Commission to the Site Plan Review public hearing.  Mr. Mercado expressed concern with the scale of this building with abutting properties.  Mr. Connolly felt the presentation should show more of Main Street to get a better picture of how the proposed building fits into the context of Main Street.  Mr. Pawlina offered feedback regarding the proposed roof design.  Mr. Cassavoy explained the chronology of the Design Review Subcommittee and Site Plan Review public hearing process. 

 

ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE

Ms. Gaffey stated there were several primary issues raised at the Pavement Zoning joint public hearing with the Board of Aldermen.  A comment was made regarding the enforcement of the proposed amendment.  Ms. Gaffey stated the Planning Office has offered to develop educational materials that can be distributed by Inspectional Services to raise the level of awareness concerning paving on residential properties.  A question was raised as to whether the definition of Building Front Yard pertains to commercial as well as residential properties.  The Planning Board agreed that the definition was intended to apply to residential properties only and therefore should be adjusted to be applicable to residential properties with three of fewer dwelling units.  Some concern was expressed by the Aldermen regarding whether the seepage of motor oil and/or other toxic fluids through pervious paving materials would have an adverse effect on the City’s ground water.  The Planning Board concluded that the amount of oil leakage from motor vehicles is not significant enough to have a negative impact.  Mr. Pawlina pointed out that oil leaked onto paved surfaces ultimately is washed off driveways into storm drains that run into streams, resulting in a similar end result.  The Planning Board views the pervious pavement option to be an equal trade-off that offers greater environmental benefits.  Ms. Gaffey stated the Planning Office will draft a report to the Board of Aldermen that will take into account the issues that were discussed at the public hearing as well as the revision to the definition of “Building Front Yard”.

 

OTHER

Open Space and Recreation Plan

Ms. Gaffey described the preparation involved to put together the 2007 Open Space and Recreation Plan.  She circulated the complete plan to all members.  Mr. Cassavoy volunteered to draft a letter of review.

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Ms. Desouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation involving the Planning Board.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  The Board will adjourn from Executive Session.  A roll call was taken and all voted in favor.

Minutes of Executive Session appear separately.