MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, August 28, 2006

8:00 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

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

ABSENT: Anne DeSouza-Ward

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

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

MINUTES

The Planning Board members read the minutes from the Regular Meetings and Public Hearings held on July 10 and 24, 2006 and the Design Review Subcommittee held on July 24, 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.

SLOPE PROTECTION SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION

Case SP06-003, Dana Street, Amero

The Applicant, Stephen Amero, and George J. Zambouras, P.E., a registered civil engineer, were both present for the meeting. Mr. Amero is proposing to build a single family home for his family to live in. He is not building the house with plans to ‘flip’ it. The proposed lot is vacant – over 14,000 S.F. The front is along Dana Street – an undeveloped roadway. It is suitable for a private roadway, not public. The site has a natural slope as defined in the Melrose regulations – approximately 16-18 feet differential in elevation. There are 3 areas of ledge outcroppings. The plan is to place the house in a ‘natural valley’ located on the site – a little above one of the ledge outcrop. There will be almost no ledge blasting. Mr. Zambouras stated that there is a significant drop so there needs to be a significant amount of fill: 25 feet of fill at the lowest point. Anticipate some trench ledge where utilities will be installed. The plans call for a 25' wide paved road with curb on each side. The retaining wall will be 27 ½ feet at the highest point of the wall. Mr. Amero began the process with the city in June 2005. Rip rap at slope below road at Bob Beshara’s request. There’s a guardrail at the end of the road and fence on top of the wall. Easement at portion of the roadway for emergency vehicles to turn around. Drainage in the roadway will be collected in a series of basins for runoff. Mr. Zambouras stated that the road will be crowned at each end. Mr. Zambouras described the storm water management system as a series of chambers. Chambers will provide storage to mitigate peak runoff. The 2 & 25 year storms will produce slightly greater rate of runoff, less rate of runoff in larger storms. In all cases, there will be a lower volume of runoff than exists today. It will be an improvement from the existing drainage system. He stated that there should be little effect to the neighborhood during construction and there will be police protection during construction. Slopes will be protected with hay bales during construction. The Applicant is requesting waiver from the application requirements. The house is not designed yet,” it is just a box on the plan”. The engineer stated that there are no wetlands on the site. The engineer stated that presently there are broken bottles and trash on the site so this proposed project should be an improvement. They plan to clean up the site in order to construct. There shall be a modular concrete block wall. The design will resemble stone with a mortar look – 3' x 2 ½' (some 6' long). The Applicant passed around a brochure regarding the proposed wall for the Planning Board members to look at. Mr. Amero also distributed photos of the site. The engineer submitted four additional sheets of plans showing details of the retaining wall. It was stated that the plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the Building Inspector. The Applicant indicated that they received comments from the Conservation Commission and City Department Heads today but has not had time to respond.

Mr. Cassavoy said the discussion will be opened up to the public, then the Planning Board, then the City Departments. Mr. Cassavoy asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak up in favor of the project. No one spoke up in favor. He then asked if anyone not in favor wanted to speak in opposition to the project. He stated that if anyone has questions, please address the Board after stating your name and address.

Marianne Long, 25 Willard Street, spoke. She said her property abuts Dana Street to the right. She wished to welcome the Applicant to the neighborhood, but did have some concerns. She stated that it is a quiet neighborhood. Her list of concerns included safety and accessibility. Surrounding roadways are narrow and without sidewalks. Neighbors already have to maneuver carefully around each other’s cars. She feels with machinery coming in, there will be major safety concerns. She said there are young children in the neighborhood. She stated that she hopes these issues are addressed. She spoke about seeing a lot of open space in Melrose disappear and would like to preserve the open space. She hopes Planning Board will be sensitive to conservation land.

Alice Wiseberg, 189 Forest Street, addressed the Planning Board. She asked how high this retaining wall will be. The engineer replied 27 ½ feet. She stated that there has been a vast diminishing of green space in Melrose. She said she feels that this is too much destruction to the area for just one home.

Bob Cunningham, 176 Forest Street. Mr. Cunningham spoke about how the land slopes up to the conservation land from Lebanon Street. He had questions about the wall: will it interlock? How will it stay together? Will it create a pool of water?

Dorothy Travis, 40 Naples Road. Ms. Travis stated that for 25 years she has enjoyed the natural setting and has concerns with the look of the retaining wall. She had two questions: 1) will there be any blasting and how much? 2) In rainstorms, will this wall block the flow of water? There is already a lot of erosion to the hillside. She has concerns with the amount of construction with this project.

Dave Matthews, 2 Willard Street. He had two questions: 1) There is low water pressure already, has the Fire Department tested? 2) How much fill? Mr. Matthews spoke about impact on the roads which are not ‘the best roads.’ Will there be any mitigation to local roads post construction? 3) He asked about the lack of house plan and would like to see the whole project.

Ralph Moore, 39 Dexter Road. Mr. Moore spoke about the Special Slope Protection Act. He asked about allowing this for a single family house. He stated that it is an extreme high differential and huge fills. He spoke about living on a hill and the devastating effect of the water running down. He said he is against this project.

Susan Craig and Ken Anderson from the Conservation Commission said the Commission had submitted their comments. The Conservation Commission is interested because the project abuts conservation land. Ms. Craig said that “the Commission never said that the property was a wetland”. She spoke about the steeply sloped lot and said that the Conservation Commission is the guardian for the public. She summarized the concerns raised in the Conservation Commission’s memorandum.

Brian Long, 25 Willard Street, stated that he was unclear about the process.

Ms. Gaffey stated that the Applicant needs a Slope Protection Special Permit in order to develop the land. The zoning ordinance prohibits development on land that exceeds a 25% slope. To develop on such land the applicant must demonstrate that he meets the purposes described in the zoning ordinance.

Marianne Long asked if some trees would be taken down and also asked how the conservation land would be affected.

Dorothy Travis spoke about a 100 year oak tree which she is very concerned about. Alice Wiseberg inquired about the duration of construction. Bob Cunningham asked about the composition of the fill. Where does the fill come from? Who regulates it?

Mr. Cassavoy opened the hearing to comments from board members. Mr. Sadowski stated he wishes to be respectful of the owner’s property rights in developing a single family home. This is a special circumstance. The original intent of the Ordinance was not to allow developments like this. He said that he was “not sure we can get to where we need to be”.

Mr. Pawlina had thoughts about the drainage and how the proposal might change the patterns for the other houses. He stated that it would be relatively simple to add drainage arrows to the plan to show drainage plans before and after. He thought the plan could work but wondered about adding more catch basins. He does not feel it is a problem to have a detention system on fill. He is interested in the macro picture.

Mr. Cassidy stated that he finds the proposal offensive. The impact will be on the Lebanon Street houses and on the land. The wall is industrial engineering and is offensive. Mr. Cassidy stated that this project is not getting his vote. He thinks the land should stay as it is.

Mr. Mercado stated that he agreed with Mr. Cassidy. Ms. Marcus stated that she was thinking that the neighbors would be ‘staring at a 28 foot wall – she does not think that was the intent of this Ordinance. Mr. Connolly totally agrees with Mr. Cassidy’s opinion of the project. Ms. Francazio agrees with Mr. Cassidy and said the Planning Board represents the public interest. She said the Board needs to look at the local area, aware of the natural restrictions, water pressure. She stated that as co-guardians of public space, it would be irresponsible to grant permission of this. She said she will not be giving the proposal her vote.

Mr. Cassavoy suggested that the proposal should be kept open to the next meeting to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the comments made at the hearing.

Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to continue the hearing until September 25, 2006. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

SITE PLAN REVIEW

Case SP-06-002, 406 Main Street, Edin Masic

Mr. Cassidy explained that the Design Review Subcommittee met at 7:00 PM and feels that additional progress has been made. Mr. Cassidy will catch everyone up and draft a resolution. The DSR took another look at the plans – third or fourth time doing so and some additional progress was made.

• Decision on heating system – grills, louvers
• Improve pavement in front
• Concerns about utility details
• Storm drainage
• Exterior lighting of the building
• Wrap up review of elevator of the building
• Handicapped design – van clearance, doorway clearance
• Storm water retention (city engineer approval needed)
• 6 inch sanitary sewer draining into a 4 inch main in the street – needs to be corrected
• Water service – ductaline not cast iron pipe
• Transformer visibility – can you get to it?
• a/c mount on the roof
• location of bathroom vents – sidewall or rooftop?
• Trim

There was some discussion about the roof plan regarding the vents. Could the Building Commissioner who is present give his input on this? Mr. Cassidy asked if the Applicant could clarify about the plans:

1. Are the plans new?

2. When were they brought to the Planning Board meeting?

3. Give a copy to the Planning Board

Site plans are as of 8/23/06. There are some changes in the architectural drawings according to the Applicant.

Mr. Cassavoy mentioned the ventilation through the roof of the building. Mr. Cassidy said there is concern about venting through the sidewall. Mr. Cassavoy stated that it should probably be run to the roof – similarly the dryer vent to the roof. It would not be noticeable on the Faulkner Place side of the building. The Building Inspector explained the length requirements.

There was discussion about the lack of detail on the railing. Mr. Cassavoy stated that detail was needed of the section. The Applicant’s representative stated the material will be vinyl so it will not deteriorate. Mr. Cassavoy stated that the Planning Board will have a conditional list for the Applicant.

The Planning Board would like more detail provided on rooftop access. The Applicant’s representative stated it would be similar to a ‘widow’s walk’. A structural engineer should supply specific details.

Mr. Cassidy requested a description of the lighting in the parking bay and the rear. Mr. Cassidy feels the Applicant should select lighting that will give illumination but will not be seen. Recessed lighting was discussed as a good possibility.

The Planning Board discussed shutters and feels they detract from the building and should possibly be left off. Mr. Bell discussed the placement of shutters only on the Faulkner Place elevation. Mr. Cassidy stated that this could be submitted for final approval.

There was discussion about handicapped parking available to the building. It was stated that the building doesn’t have to provide handicapped parking because of the proximity to municipal parking lot. The Building Commissioner said the AAB and the ADA issues were reviewed with the state and “I was told they would be fine.”

Mr. Cassidy spoke about the Applicant bringing color panels to show the Planning Board members. The Board would not hold up approval just want to see it.

The front elevation (Main Street) handicapped access was then discussed. The Building Commissioner stated that five feet of land, then a ramp of 8 feet and then 5 feet space is required. Mr. Cassavoy stated that a cross-section should be provided by the Applicant to the Planning Board to show this detail. Mr. Cassidy stated that the only reason for this request is that the Board does not want to see the elevation change. Mr. Bell stated that for the record handicapped access reorientation is from the rear. Mr. Mercado asked if there were any pipe chasing? Mr. Cassavoy stated that there was none shown.

There was discussion about the stairs and whether they are fire-rated. The Building Commissioner also stated that the sprinkler system will be connected to the Fire Station.

Mr. Cassavoy asked the Board if they had any other comments regarding 406 Main Street. Mr. Cassidy stated he recommends to the Board horizontal and vertical cuts into the windows. One set of plans with text written on it is requested by the Board so the Building Inspector can check it against the written explanation. Mr. Cassidy stated that the windows were ‘not figured out in a reasonable way.’ Further study and detail is needed by the Planning Board.

Mr. Cassidy stated that the Planning Board has reviewed the plan during four sessions with the Applicant. The Building Commissioner believes it to be reasonably understood. It has been depicted on the plans of August 25, 2006 as presented together with Site Plan Review dated August 23^rd. Recommend approval of the submission as noted:

1. Mark up on the plans made this evening as well as notes of discussions held during Design Review Subcommittee and in this session clarified and understood by all.
The Planning Board discussed closing the Public Hearing on this matter. Ms. Gaffey informed the Board that they have 35 days to vote from the date of closing the hearing. A letter is needed from the City Engineer clarifying about the excess flow. Public Works needs to write a letter - without a letter the Applicant cannot get a permit. Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to close the public hearing. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed. The Chairman stated that the public hearing is now closed and that Mr. Cassidy’s letter will be done before the next meeting of September 25, 2006.

OTHER

Citizen Petition To Amend Zoning Ordinance

Ms. Gaffey stated that there is an application to amend the zoning map. The desire is to downsize the area in question from a UR-B zone to a UR-A zone. Ms. Gaffey recommended a joint public hearing with the Board of Aldermen on October 3, 2006. A developer has expressed a desire to build townhouses at the height of the hill on Wyoming Heights – large parcel, single ownership. Mr. Bell said they are simply looking to be treated like neighbors on Boston Rock Road. Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to send letter to the Board and request a public hearing on the Citizen Petition. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

Comprehensive Permit Application Case 06-029, 24 Vine Street, Caritas

Ms. Gaffey put on the agenda to discuss how to treat the ZBA’s first application of this type. The Applicant, Caritas, would like to develop the former nursing home into a rooming house. The Applicant has been discussing this proposal with the community for over a year. They had preferred to go through the conventional process – Site Plan Review, ZBA for zoning relief. It went to the Board of Aldermen for a license and was denied by them. Ms. Gaffey stated that Melrose is vulnerable to a Comprehensive Permit – we have less than 10% affordable housing in this city. She explained the permitting process.

Mr. Sadowski commented on the as-of-right – different complexion.

Mr. Cassavoy asked if the Planning Board should have Caritas come speak to the Board and then the Board could make their recommendation to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Pawlina agreed with that, saying he is not sure the Planning Board could get concessions from Caritas. Mr. Cassidy thought it would be a good idea, especially to have Caritas’ attorney come before the Planning Board. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to send a letter inviting Caritas and their representatives to the next Planning Board meeting on September 11, 2006. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to ADJOURN. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

Meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.