MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, September 11, 2006

7:45 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

 

PRESENT:            Richard Connolly, Vice Chair, Ed Cassidy, John Sadowski, Gerry Marcus, Anne DeSouza-Ward, Bob Mercado, Tom Pawlina and Carla Francazio

 

ABSENT:              Michael Cassavoy, Chair

 

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

 

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

 

ASSENT CALENDAR

Case 06-028, 8 Batchelder Street, McCue

 

Mr. Sadowski asked if anyone is present to represent 8 Batchelder Street.  Ms. Gaffey replied that the Applicant may arrive later.  If necessary, the Board could move the case later in the evening.  It is a good candidate for the Assent Calendar.  Mr. Connolly asked if the case should be accepted or moved.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed. 

 

Case 06-030, 115 W. Highland Street, Falzone

It is a home occupancy application – child psychiatrist’s office.  Ms. Marcus felt it should be moved along.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to send standard letter to Zoning Board of Appeals.  Mr. Sadowski stated that it tends to be legal rather than planning issue.  Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed. 

 

Case 06-031 One North High Street, Donaldson  

Ms. Donaldson was present.  This is a home occupancy application.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to write a standard letter.  Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed. 

 

Case 06-033, 51 Old Brook Circle, Scarano

Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to take this case off of the Assent Calendar.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.  The Applicant, Steven Scarano, presented the nature of the Application to the Planning Board.  He stated that he would like to build an in-law apartment in his house to continue to house his aging parents.  His father is 84 years of age and has heart disease.  His mother also has heart disease.  It is difficult for them to go up and down stairs so the Applicant would like to have them live all on one floor.  They have lived in Melrose for 23 years.  The Applicant plans to convert the lower level into an in-law apartment and make the garage a bedroom.

 

Mr. Connolly asked if there were any questions from the Board.  Mr. Pawlina stated he is curious about the working kitchen downstairs and will it be renovated the same size.  Mr. Pawlina said he has heard from neighbors concerned about this Application.  He asked what would happen as time goes by regarding the in-law apartment.   He stated that is his only concern.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward responded that renewal is required every 3 years.  She stated that she feels a standard letter would be appropriate as this meets all of the requirements.  Mr. Sadowski asked about entrance requirements.  Mr. Connolly stated that it was in the definitions.  It appears that the entranceway of the house will not be altered.  Ms. Marcus asked about how it is defined in the code – a house with two kitchens.  Mr. Mercado thought it could not become two apartments even though it had two kitchens.  Mr. Sadowski recalled receiving emails.  He has concerns with maintaining single family home neighborhood characteristics.  This will provide some flexibility for in-law circumstance.  From that standpoint we should send a standard letter.  Mr. Connolly feels the Planning Board should defer to the ZBA with input from the public.  It was noted that two emails and one letter were received by the Planning Board.  Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter acknowledging abutters’ correspondence to the ZBA.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed. 

 

Case 06-032, 481-483 Lebanon Street, Dao Vo

The Applicant, Dao Vo, was present.  He explained to the Board that he is renovating the four-family to accommodate his relatives and he needs eight parking spaces.  The Applicant stated he has a four-car garage and plenty of land for four additional spaces.  The Planning Board questioned the Applicant about backing out onto Lebanon Street which is busy.  Mr. Vo assured the Board he has ample room for turning around and exiting the driveway onto the busy street.  He indicated that he has revised the parking layout to allow for this.  Mr. Sadowski asked the Applicant about striping and wheel stops which the Applicant replied he would do.  Mr. Sadowski asked about any other improvements.  The Applicant stated that he will mount a light at an angle so it does not shine onto the neighbors.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter with the following conditions:  1)  that the Applicant will re-orient the parking spaces by 90° to minimize anyone backing out onto Lebanon Street,  2) address the issue of lighting, i.e. light will shine downward and away from abutter,  3) parking spaces will be striped and there will be wheel stops to make clear proper marking of parking space.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed. 

 

Case 06-034, 406 Main Street, Masic

Mr. Bell was present and spoke about being before the Planning Board numerous times for Site Plan Review and Design Review Subcommittee.  He stated that hopefully this process will wrap up soon.  The Applicant has appreciated the time spent by the Planning Board to make the project better.  The project needs ZBA relief: dimensional relief and relaxing parking standards.  The buildings between Essex Street and Grove Street are exempt from on site parking – do not need a Special Permit for use of municipal lots.  The ordinance was changed 20 years ago.  Mr. Bell described the parking that is being provided – six spaces under the building.  The spaces will require backing out onto Faulkner Place (private way).  Faulkner Place is lightly traveled.  The main entrance to the municipal parking is from Grove Street and Myrtle Street.  Lot size requires necessary 5,000 S.F.  The Applicant does not meet that according to Mr. Bell.  Another minor relief needed is proposed coverage on the building similar to many buildings downtown.  Many buildings have 100% coverage; not exceptional in the downtown area.  Mr. Bell stated it is necessary to make the project work.  In order to make it viable, the Applicant needs six units and one retail bay.  The project needs to use the whole lot to make it work.  It is hoped by the Applicant that the Board will accept that analysis.   Mr. Connolly asked for questions from the Board.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward had a question about the lot area requirements.  Ms. Gaffey clarified that 11,000 S.F. is required for mixed use including six residential units.  Mr. Sadowski had concerns about Faulkner Place that gave him pause.  He said it is reasonable to make an exception for light traffic.  He thought the sight distance is an issue and perhaps a mirror could be mounted to alleviate that.  The members discussed the width of Faulkner Place and decided it was not much of an issue.  The Board listed the following points to include in the letter to the ZBA:

 

1.                    Importance of site downtown on Main Street, poor condition, opportunity to turn that corner around (very prominent)

2.                    Applicant has been very cooperative with Planning Board during this long process and has been receptive to many suggestions Planning Board has made

3.                    Concerns about density are mitigated by the affordable unit

4.                    Parking is as-of-right use of municipal lot – up to the ZBA to confirm

5.                    Explain to the ZBA that Planning Board anticipates a satisfactory outcome of Site Plan Review Application

 

The Planning Board then discussed backing out of Faulkner Place.  It was felt signage should be installed to decrease use of Faulkner Place from traffic point-of-view.  Mr. Sadowski stated that the Planning Board should send a strong letter urging the ZBA to grant, subject to public’s input.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that given what the Planning Board knows, the members support granting necessary variance.  Mr. Sadowski thought it might be better to not use the word ‘urge’.  Ms. Gaffey reminded the members that the Planning Office received a supportive letter from the Zoning Board of Appeal.  The members discussed using the phrase ‘support waiver request’ instead of ‘urge waiver request’.  Mr. Cassidy stated that this project is really what the health of the City is all about – don’t want it to slip away.  Mr. Mercado SECONDED the letter.  All in favor.  None opposed.  The members discussed giving the Applicant the notes from the Design Review Subcommittee. 

 

C.P. 06-029 24 Vine Street, Caritas Communities, Inc.

Applicant was represented by Jonathan Wright with Caritas Communities and Hugh Russell, the Architect.  Peter Freeman, the attorney for Caritas, was present as well.  Mr. Freeman said that the Executive Director, Mark Winkeller, was unable to be present as he was out of the country.  Mr. Freeman said the Applicant would be happy to give a brief overview of the project if that is what the Planning Board would like.  Mr. Connolly said that the Planning Board would benefit from a brief overview.  The architect, Hugh Russell, said that the plans include taking out the handicapped ramp and adding a lift.  They are not planning a lot on the corner although there will be improved landscaping.  Mr. Russell said the plans call for 16 rooms and a kitchen versus the 18 rooms when used as a nursing home.  Reconfiguring is involved.  The plans include opening up the porch and restoring it.  They plan to ‘take it back to the studs and rebuild the house.’  There will be new heating and electric.  This project is a departure for Caritas in that they usually have common bathrooms but these rooms have their own private bathroom.  Rooms will be approximately 130 S.F.  There will be a common kitchen for the residents to share.  The apartments will be furnished.  The manager will be on the first floor.  In the basement will be an oil burner only.  Caritas likes to have clean, empty basements.  The plans for the siding will be to unify and restore trim.  There will be simulated multiple panes in the windows.  The siding and windows will be vinyl.  The back porch will have a handicapped lift.

  

Mr. Freeman said the main relief the Applicant needs is the waiver for parking – generally the residents of Caritas’ projects do not have cars so there should not be a need for spaces that are usually required in Melrose.  There is only enough room for two parking spaces.  The Applicant’s project does not comply with lot area requirement. 

 

Mr. Wright, the project manager, then spoke.  He said the Executive Director will be back in time to attend the September 27th ZBA meeting.  Mr. Wright described a range of properties of Caritas – from three story houses to brick apartment buildings –560 total units.  It is a permanent population –average age 40 years old making $18,000 a year.  The residents usually stay about 2 ½ years.  They work in service sector jobs:  restaurants, cleaning crews.  They are very low income and generally cannot afford cars.  On average, 25% of tenants have cars.  The manager lives in the building in one of the units and has a full-time job.  The on-site manager does maintenance and takes applications.  A fairly significant management staff oversees Caritas’ sites.  Caritas has taken control of the Vine Street site – now doing asbestos abatement. 

 

Ms. Marcus asked about the staircase visible from the street through an upstairs window.  The Architect said the stairs will remain but not be used.  Mr. Freeman mentioned that there is a municipal parking area two blocks from the site that the residents will have to use.  He added that Caritas will pay the annual fee for some spots.  One parking space at the site will be reserved for the manager.  Ms. Gaffey asked about the availability of the municipal lot.  Mr. Wright said he believed ‘someone looked into that for Caritas.’  Mr. Bell added that there are two lots behind City Hall and one at the train station - $325 a year.  City Hall’s Treasurer is interested in renting out these parking spots to residents. 

 

Mr. Mercado asked if the area is in a flood zone; Mr. Bell replied that it is not. 

 

Mr. Cassidy said his only concern is with the vinyl siding and feel Caritas should make an investment for something more attractive.  He feels hardiboard or manufactured siding would add value to the building and minimize maintenance.  Mr. Wright said a portion will be hardiplank to try to make it maintenance-free.  They have used hardiplank on other sites and are open-minded to this suggestion. 

 

Mr. Sadowski spoke about this 40B achieving Melrose’s goal of 10%.  He said it is reasonable to try to be aware to bring it close to zoning compliance.  He asked about screening or fencing and the need to trim the shrubs.  He added he would like to see this project done in a first class manner.  It will be here for a long time.  Mr. Russell said the choice of vinyl was for maintenance reasons not financial ones.  Mr. Freeman stated that all these points are very well taken.

 

Mr. Mercado asked the representatives about rubbish removal.  Mr. Wright replied that it varies by municipality or site.  They have not yet looked into it.  He mentioned the possibility of a small dumpster.

 

Mr. Connolly asked for any other comments.  Ms. Francazio had a question about windows that Mr. Russell answered. 

 

Mr. Bell said the site is decreased from 18 units to 16 units – when a nursing home, there had been 26/27 beds so the occupancy will be down with this project – less staff too.  The neighborhood is hostile to this Application and had been equally hostile to the nursing home.  Some people moved out of the neighborhood because of the nursing home residents.  This is a much less onerous use than the nursing home had been.  Mr. Bell has been involved in other various attempts to develop this property.  There would be calls every few months or so.  None worked out.  A potential 4-5 unit townhouse condo was attempted but due to the same parking issue, the number just didn’t work.  The neighbors looked at it and could not come up with anything.  Mr. Bell stated that this is as benign as it is going to get and the ‘city cannot take a walk on this one.’ 

 

Mr. Sadowski asked about seeing other Caritas’ sites.  A question was asked about what term leases are.  Mr. Wright replied they are one year leases with a thirty-day notice, some tenants at will. 

 

There was discussion about the licensing authority and who would be responsible for annual renewal permits.  Mr. Bell stated that the Aldermen had a chance to annually review it and perhaps condition license renewal or revoke license but they chose not to exercise that authority and, thus, gave it up.  Now the licensing authority becomes 40B permitting authority.  Mr. Freeman stated that Caritas has never had a license revoked before.  Mr. Freeman also stated that Caritas is willing to go back to the Aldermen annually for license approval even with the granting of the Comprehensive Permit.  Caritas prides itself on their management.  If called about any problem, Caritas will resolve it.  They have strict rules:  no overnight guests, no drugs or alcohol.

 

Mr. Sadowski asked about signage and was told by Mr. Freeman none was planned.  Mr. Sadowksi thought it would be appropriate to advise approval upon conditions along the lines of what has been discussed. 

 

The Planning Board discussed what the ZBA has asked of them – make recommendation.

 

1.        Quality siding – vinyl vs. something different

2.        parking issue – off site available for price

3.        lighting and screening minimum

4.        trash not pinned down

 

Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that there will be 16 new residents and it is a delicate situation.  She stated that it is appropriate for the neighborhood.  It is less dense than other allowed uses.  It looks like it belongs.  She said we need affordable housing.  She supports the principle and is pretty persuaded.

Mr. Cassidy agreed and feels Melrose should ‘come down on the right side.  It might as well be Melrose.  If not here, where?’  This site will enable residents to walk to the train, bus stop, 12 churches, synagogues, YMCA, support downtown businesses.  If not these people, then who?  He stated that Caritas has a terrific reputation and is the right developer.  Mr. Cassidy mentioned Mr. Sadowski’s concern about the possibility of the site being ‘flipped.’  Mr. Cassidy also shares Mr. Sadowski’s concern.  Mr. Freeman said the Applicant would not object to that being a condition if they could get the Planning Board’s recommendation.  Mr. Bell stated under MassHousing covenant, it could only be sold to another user – affordability would stay in place.  Mr. Freeman stated this site is under long-term financing.  He stated it is technically restricted and limited on return.  The site is not productive enough for any other developer to buy. 

 

Ms. Marcus stated that there is not a lot of people who want this building.  It needs a huge amount of work.  Since we have a reputable organization willing to do that work and use it for good purposes, it might be worthwhile.

 

Ms. Francazio stated from a physical planning perspective this site is excellent for the use proposed given proximity to transit and downtown.

 

Mr. Connolly stated that the ZBA meets on September 27th in two weeks.  He said the Planning Board meets before that.  He asked if the Planning Board should have a letter for the Board’s review for that night.  It seems the discussion tonight was a generally favorable tone with a few conditions that were discussed.  Mr. Connolly said he is not deaf to the neighbor’s concerns but feels this is an excellent use for the City.   

 

Mr. Pawlina spoke about making a recommendation to the ZBA and outlining the big picture, planning issues.  He MADE a MOTION to have Ms. Gaffey draft a supportive letter.  The letter should address planning issues such as advocacy for affordable housing, design issues and zoning relief.

 

Mr. Sadowski stated the Planning Board should specify in the letter to the ZBA that the Applicant is open to reasonable conditions upon them.  Mr. Connolly stated that the Planning Board could share the draft at some point with the Applicant.  Mr. Sadowski added that it should be distributed as a draft.  Mr. Freeman stated that they would like to see the letter in advance and that all these comments are very well taken.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.  Mr. Sadowski also asked if the Applicant could send a lease they have used at a site to Ms. Gaffey.  The Applicant said they would do so.

 

Wetlands Ordinance

Ms. Gaffey told the Planning Board that Melrose does not have a local wetland ordinance.  A local bylaw is recommended in the Melrose Master Plan which gives the Conservation Commission more authority.  This ordinance expands their authority beyond the wetlands act, particularly as it relates to flood prone areas.  Ms. Gaffey said she believes the model used was from the Association of Conservation Commissions.  Ms. Gaffey stated that she has reviewed this and that the Aldermen would like the Planning Board’s input.  They do not have a deadline.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated it is not zoning. Ms. Gaffey pointed out that there is a provision for floodplains in our zoning ordinance.  Mr. Connolly wondered if this should be given to the zoning subcommittee.  Mr. Sadowski asked if the Conservation Commission could come to a Planning Board meeting and discuss this and give an overview. 

 

Mr. Bell talked about why this subject is before the Planning Board tonight.  He stated that there is a map in the Planning Office – ‘zones of concern of certain areas sensitive to the Conservation Commission’.  He stated that Washington Street is color coded in this map.  He said this should not just ‘go through without any questions about how it might impact property owners.’  The Conservation Commission is trying to extend their jurisdiction into a new area.  Mr. Bell said this raises concern if a homeowner has a yard that is partly in a flood zone and wishes to put on a new addition to his/her home, then ‘they will be out of luck.’  The Conservation Commission wants this ordinance to apply not just to wetlands, but also to isolated land subject to flooding.  Mr. Bell feels the Planning Board’s input is critical because this totally changes appeal rights for the homeowner in Melrose.  He spoke about the appeal process to the Court, which is more rigorous.  Mr. Bell stated that this could have impact on our housing market.  It could have ramifications beyond development.  He stated that now if we change zoning, you have a joint public hearing.  Where is the public input?  Homeowners will have no idea their property is going to be affected.  He stated that, at the very least, the public should have available the map to see what is being talked about.  This is a last-minute intervention – the Aldermen decided to give the Planning Board a chance to look into it.  Ms. Francazio asked when this is on their agenda.  Mr. Sadowski stated that he wants to ‘take time and read the language carefully.’  In the Aldermen meeting, they expressed concern and didn’t feel like it would sail through.  Ms. Gaffey told the Planning Board that the Conservation Commission held a public hearing but she is not sure if anyone from the public attended.  Mr. Bell further discussed isolated land subject to flooding and how now there is no hydraulic connection from wetlands to habitat.  The Conservation Commission is creating a buffer zone around vernal pools.  He added that the creation of a 100 foot buffer zone has significant impact.  The concern is the creation of a new buffer zone and the fact that there will be a more rigorous appeal.  Ms. Gaffey stated that the Planning Board agenda is quite full for September 25, 2006 and perhaps this should be put on the agenda for the October meeting.  Ms. Gaffey stated that she will send a letter to the Board of Aldermen and invite the Conservation Commission to a meeting on this topic in October. 

 

Ms. Gaffey stated there will be a joint public hearing with the Board of Aldermen on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 regarding zoning for Wyoming Heights.  Ms. Marcus stated she will not be able to attend the October 3rd meeting.  Ms. Francazio asked about the Planning Board’s role at the joint public hearing.  Mr. Sadowski stated that there would not be discussion by the Planning Board members, they simply hear testimony.  

 

Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to ADJOURN.  Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.  Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.