MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

DRAFT Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, September 25, 2006

7:45 p.m.

Mayor’s Conference Room

PRESENT: Mike Cassavoy, Chair; Ed Cassidy, Rich Connolly, Anne DeSouza-Ward,

John Sadowski, Gerry Marcus, Bob Mercado and Tom Pawlina

ABSENT: Carla Francazio

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

MINUTES

Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes of the August 28, 2006 Design Review Subcommittee. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes of the August 28, 2006 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing. MR. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 06-35, 585 Lebanon Street, Omnipoint

Dan Salley, representing Omnipoint was present. He stated that this application was fairly simple. The current company, Metricom, Inc., had been approved in 1997 for wireless installation. The company is now defunct. Omnipoint will remove Metricom equipment and replace with Omni antennas in the same location. Mr. Salley stated the equipment is internal other than the antennas. The antennas will be painted to match the building. Mr. Salley stated that the Applicant, Omnipoint, is before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit. Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked about Metricom, Inc. Mr. Salley stated that the Company had filed for bankruptcy in 2002 and has been completely liquidated. It was stated that Metricom should have removed their equipment. The hospital does not have the expertise to remove it. Mr. Salley stated that the equipment is internal on the 7^th floor. He again repeated that Omnipoint will remove all of Metricom’s equipment. Mr. Cassidy questioned if the antennas would be mounted flush to the wall. Mr. Salley replied that it depended upon the technical requirements. He stated that Melrose’s bylaws require antennas be 12-18 inches from the wall. Members and the representative discussed what the city requires for the antennas. Mr. Sadowski stated that these would look “hideous” on the building. He said it is a minor point but really doesn’t belong there. He stated that was not the intent of the ordinance. He wondered if the Planning Board should revisit it. Mr. Sadowski said his suggestion would be for a technical person and a representative of the hospital to attend the ZBA meeting. Mr. Cassidy had questions about a dashed line on the plan. Mr. Salley replied that it represented equipment inside of the building. He stated that a representative would attend before the authority-granting body, the ZBA. Mr. Pawlina asked the representative about the thickness of the panels. The representative stated that the panels would be thinner but longer and not as many of them. Mr. Mercado asked if the fence would be visible from the street. Mr. Salley replied that it would not be visible from the street. He added that generally a carrier would build out a wall. It is already cooled by a HVAC system. The fence is inside the building. Mr. Sadowski asked for the record if everything from the bankrupt company would be removed and replaced. Mr. Salley replied that is correct. Mr. Sadowski had questions about the façade. He asked if at some point the antennas could be consolidated. Mr. Sadowski suggested language for a letter: the Planning Board understands from the representative of Omnipoint that the equipment of the bankrupt company will be completely removed and replaced. The equipment by Omnipoint does not take up any new area. In fact, it takes up less. Further, the Planning Board understands it may not be clear in the drawings that some of these façade-mounted devices may be cantilevered. Further, we do not recommend a waiver of 5 years re-application requirement. Otherwise, the Planning Board defers to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the public. Mr. Cassidy had questions about who exactly was responsible for the application and then the work performed. He stated his concern that Omnipoint would be inaccessible to the Planning Board if there were problems at a later date and there would be “trouble making Omnipoint do what we want them to do”. He stated that one company has already gone bankrupt. He asked if the application should be granted to Melrose-Wakefield Hospital. He said he understood that Omnipoint ‘did the drawings and holds the lease.’ Mr. Sadowski said that the owner is not the Applicant. Mr. Salley had a letter in which Hallmark Health gave Omnipoint authority. He added that Omnipoint has done 10 to 20 of these projects throughout Melrose and they would be accountable to the City. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to send a letter with the points noted above. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

Case 06-36, 40 Botolph St., Hebert

The Applicant, Patricia Hebert, was present. She apologized that her architect was unable to be present due to a family emergency. The Applicant is proposing an addition – basement level garage, family room and bedroom. There is a two foot encroachment to the side yard setback. The Applicant stated that the architect talked to all the neighbors and the abutters all support the addition. The neighbor to the right supports it and that neighbor would be the one most affected. The proposed garage sits as far back as it can – ledge outcroppings limit the options. Mr. Sadowski questioned the Applicant about a retaining wall and she replied it was the neighbor’s retaining wall. The Applicant said she parks in the existing driveway. Mr. Sadowski stated that this addition will increase the size of the house by 40%. Ms. Hebert stated that the house is small – only 1,000 S.F. Mr. Sadowski stated that the application is not unreasonable. Mr. Sadowski asked about keeping in character with the current structure. Ms. Hebert replied that is correct – cedar shingling will be used as on the original house. Mr. Cassidy asked the Applicant if the laundry existed that was shown on the plan and she replied that it does – there is a pre-existing encroachment there. Mr. Mercado had questions about the proposed foundation and whether there would be ledge underneath. Ms. Hebert stated that the ledge begins behind the garage. There was discussion about the full basement in the existing house. Mr. Mercado asked about the wall and Ms. Hebert stated that it will help with the runoff and it is not very high at all. Mr. Pawlina stated he felt the home is a victim to the structure being perpendicular to the street, which is a challenge. He feels it should be left to the Zoning Board of Appeal. Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send the standard letter to the Zoning Board with the issues identified above. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

SLOPE PROTECTION SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARINGS

There was discussion about moving Case SP06-003 before Case SP06-004 because the Applicant was simply going to request a continuance due to the fact that a Planning Board member was absent. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to move the public hearing of SP06-003 before SP06-004. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

Case SP06-003, Dana Street, Amero

Mr. MacAvoy, representative of the Applicant, was present. There was discussion about continuing the Public Hearing until the next available date with the submission of revised plans. Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to grant the request for continuance until October 23, 2006. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed. Plans will be submitted ahead of time to the Planning Office and will be available to the public at the Planning Office. It was noted that a Planning Board member was absent from this public hearing and would be unable to vote if the hearing were not continued. A two-thirds majority is needed to approve the Special Permit.

Case SP06-004, Swains Pond Avenue, Rivers

James Hanley, engineer with Allen & Major was present, representing the Applicant, Bruce Rivers. Mr. Hanley gave a background history of the project. The lot did not conform to the zoning ordinance due to lack of frontage. The Applicant went through the procedure and got approval from the Zoning Board of Appeal for a 70 x 40 structure set back off the lot line 50 feet or so. The property changed hands. The current owner had the approval in hand when the Planning Board passed the Slope Protection Special Permit Ordinance. They looked at the original plan to determine if there were ways to improve the plans to meet the regulation’s stringent requirements. Mr. Hanley stated there are two things going on: 1) original building proposed was very big: 70 feet by 50 feet. Another engineering firm designed it. 2) the concrete retaining wall was 30 feet high. Allen & Major’s building has a smaller footprint, 50 feet by 40 feet. More of the structure would be closer to the street, placing the house and the driveway in line of existing topography. He stated the topography drops off considerably from the rear. They plan to use a 1 to 1 rock riprap slope to minimize the amount of disturbance. He said that currently the drainage comes down the existing swale. Under the proposed design, the entire roof area discharge will go into an underground tank. They met with Rick Cantone and Bob Beshara and modified the plans to address the City’s concerns. They are now proposing to clean out the swale and place rock riprap to further define it and add additional capacity to the detention basis. This is quite an improvement from the proposal approved by the ZBA. Allen & Major have reduced the footprint of the house and area of disturbance. The Applicant listed the four standards of approval and suggested that the revised plans meet all of the purposes of the Slope Ordinance. They minimize grading with the 1 to 1 slope in back with the reduced building footprint and by moving the building closer to the road. They minimize soil erosion. They are attempting to slow down the water coming through the swale and they provide innovative landscaping.

Mr. Cassavoy opened the meeting to the public to hear neighborhood concerns.

Gail Berg, 20 Beacon Street – Ms. Berg asked if there would be any blasting. Mr. Hanley stated that there needs to be approximately 12 foot cuts at the rear of the building. They will first attempt to hammer out. As a last resort, there will be blasting. Mr. Hanley stated that there are a number of things the engineering firm has to do – they will not know until they are out on the site. Mr. Cassavoy asked Mr. Hanley if they have done boring tests and he replied no.

Robert Oosterman, 17 Beacon Street Mr. Oosterman asked if this application would supersede the Board of Appeal meeting from last fall. Ms. Gaffey stated they still have to comply with the conditions of the ZBA decision. The Slope Protection Special Permit Ordinance is a new ordinance passed by the City of Melrose.

Scott Nee, 14 Worth Street Mr. Nee asked the Applicant’s representative if they could tell the abutters if there would be no blasting.

Mark Winder, 29 Swains Pond Avenue Mr. Winder stated that there is a lot of detail lacking – how much material has to be moved onsite or offsite? Do we have a height on the wall? Mr. Winder wanted to express concern with the size of the project. By pulling it forward, you ironically lessen impact on the slope but heighten the visual impact. He feels the proposed building is out of scale with the neighborhood.

Ralph Moore, 39 Dexter Road Mr. Moore has concerns with the drainage. He said “you see it every time we have a storm.” He stated that after every rainstorm, water runs through a couple of homes that are set back and this project will just add to it. Mr. Moore stated that the rest of it runs onto Swains Pond Avenue. He stated, “Let’s protect the slopes.”

Shirley Cassara, 29 Swains Pond Avenue Ms. Cassara said she lives right across the street from this proposed project. She stated that the one spot in that area that does not drain directly onto the street is this property because there is sufficient vegetation to absorb the water. In other areas the water collects in the street and then freezes in the wintertime. This project will make the situation more dangerous ‘ten-fold’.

Scott Soucy, 11 Prescott Street Mr. Soucy had a question about the undeveloped land in the rear. The Applicant stated to the ZBA that he will not develop further up north of the zone line. Mr. Hanley stated that the Applicant would deed that part of the land over to the City. An abutter asked if that could be a part of the condition of approving the Slope Protection Special Permit. Ms. Gaffey replied “yes” and that it is also already a condition of the ZBA decision

Gail Berg, 20 Beacon Street. Ms. Berg asked if the Applicant would consider a single-family home versus a duplex.

Susan Murphy, Conservation Commission Chairperson Ms. Murphy stated that the swale is vegetated and has better absorptive capacity in its current state. She is opposed to the PWD’s recommendation. She is pleased with the commitment of land for conservation purposes.

John Luther, Building Commissioner Mr. Luther stated that he and the Fire Chief work closely when blasting is needed for projects. He said they did not allow blasting on Prescott Street. They used a method called ram-ho, which is less invasive but takes longer.

Hearing no additional questions from the public Mr. Cassavoy opened the meeting to the Planning Board.

Mr. Sadowski asked if there were a registered plot plan available. Mr. Hanley stated he could get one. He asked what the Planning Board should know about violating zoning set backs. Mr. Hanley stated that the project meets all set backs. Mr. Sadowski asked “if other than the lot width, it complies?” Mr. Hanley replied “Yes.” Mr. Sadowski asked the height of the slope and Mr. Hanley replied it was 16 feet … it was reduced by half. Mr. Sadowski questioned Mr. Hanley about the look of the wall. Mr. Hanley replied that trees will be stripped back and then the rocks dropped down. Mr. Sadowski commented on the plan showing that the stones are placed, not just dropped. Mr. Sadowski questioned whether the curbing on Swains Pond is granite and if a curb cut is needed. Mr. Hanley replied that a curb cut is needed. In answer to Mr. Sadowski's question about how the cars will exit the proposed project, Mr. Hanley replied the cars would back out onto Swains Pond Avenue. Mr. Sadowski had a question about retention. Mr. Hanley replied that it is designed just to slow down, not to retain water. Mr. Sadowski asked about fencing at the top of the slope and Mr. Hanley replied there were no plans for that because there are several areas that are 1 to 1.

Mr. Cassidy asked the engineer to show the areas of steep slope on the plans. Ms. Gaffey clarified that by applying for a Slope Protection Special Permit, they can build on the land if they meet the purposes of the Ordinance. Mr. Cassidy stated that the site is narrow at the curb and the two garages are at each side of the building with a single driveway in the middle. He stated that if the garages were in the middle where the driveway is, it would be a lot less disruptive. His second point was that it would provide a modest projection in the front of the house, which would soften the front elevation of the house. Mr. Cassidy stated that the plans do not have floor plans. With the oversized basement shown on this plan, blasting would appear to be required. He asked why one car could not be inside with one car outside. This would customize the plan for a slope site necessitating less excavating. Mr. Cassidy thought the slope of the roofline was ‘odd’. He thought it was a ‘bizarre elevation’ and needs more pitch. Mr. Cassidy stated that he shares Mr. Sadowski’s concern about this wall; it looks too mechanical. He would rather see a hand-built wall. He mentioned perhaps using short, vertical terraces. Mr. Pawlina asked if the volume of ledge cut has been calculated. Mr. Hanley replied that ‘we don’t know yet; we will get that.’ Mr. Pawlina replied that the Applicant should have that information when they come back before the Board. He also requested that they have a couple of sections of the house through the sloped wall. He feels it would help the Planning Board. Mr. Pawlina felt that the Applicant has the right answer with the drainage going into the structure. He shares the concern about the riprap swale and leaving it vegetated – he agrees with the Conservation Commission. He feels it could just be cleaned up – it works in its natural state today. He asked that a disparity between the 8 by 8 structure (9 by 9) be corrected. Mr. Pawlina made a general observation about the previous subdivision proposal and how the Planning Board has seen worse proposed for this site. Mr. Mercado asked if there could be some mitigation for flooding on Swains Pond Avenue. He stated that the swale is not going to do the job. Mr. Hanley stated that the City of Melrose engineer suggested these recommendations for the proposed project. The Applicant understands there are some drainage issues and will work lock step with the City so that they are satisfied. Mr. Hanley stated that he ‘has a laundry list to address and it seems premature so the project should be continued. Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to continue the public hearing until October 23, 2006. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed. Mr. Cassavoy stated that the public could take a look at it before the next meeting.

Case SP06-002, 406 Main Street, Masic

Mr. Bell was present. Ms. Gaffey clarified that there are two pieces of relief needed: Site Plan Review and Special Permit for Affordable Housing. Each of these has different requirements in terms of the voting majority. Site Plan needs simple majority. Ms. Francazio is absent tonight and three Planning Board members have been absent for previous sessions of the public hearing leaving five members to vote tonight which is the minimum for an affirmative vote. The Special Permit requires a two-thirds majority or six votes and cannot be voted on tonight.

Mr. Bell requested that the Planning Board vote on the Site Plan Review tonight and postpone the vote on the Special Permit until next meeting. Mr. Sadowski stated that the Planning Board should not rush the process, but has to move on. He stated that this is the right development for this site. Mr. Cassidy stated that the list of conditions is straightforward and is covered in the September 11^th memorandum and the Design Review Subcommittee notes dated August 28, 2006. Mr. Cassidy stated that the Planning Board assumes that the outstanding issues will get worked out, relying on the Applicant’s assertions. Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to GRANT the Site Plan Review with the following conditions stipulated: in the notes of August 28, 2006, the PWD Superintendent’s memorandum of September 11, 2006 and forthcoming submission of materials and colors and forthcoming submission of window materials, elevations. Mr. Cassidy stressed that the Applicant is reasonable and the Board is able to trust him. Ms. Gaffey asked about the final set of plans. Mr. Cassavoy spoke about making the list available for the Applicant to include in his final set of plans. Mr. Cassidy mentioned a list from the memoranda and letters and the red-marked plans. He stated he would take responsibility for them. Ms. Marcus SECONDED. All eligible members voted in favor: Robert Mercado, Thomas Pawlina, Gerry Marcus, Edward Cassidy, and Michael Cassavoy. None opposed. It was discussed that the Planning Board should have a vote on the Special Permit on October 23, 2006. For a majority, six votes are needed. Mr. Cassidy stated that the same attendance rules apply.

COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT APPLICATION

Case 06-029, 24 Vine Street, Caritas Communities

The Planning Board reviewed the letter drafted by the City Planner. Ms. DeSouza-Ward has one suggestion. The Planning Board should stress that this proposed project would be affordable and well run. Ms. Marcus commented on the number of residents when it was a nursing home and also that there was a lot more staff. Mr. Pawlina had a question about how many of the units will count towards the affordable percentage for Melrose. Ms. Gaffey replied that 15 units would count. Ms. DeSouza-Ward had mentioned she had heard that this rooming house was for men only. Ms. Gaffey replied that she had not heard that. Mr. Mercado wondered about Caritas receiving a waiver for fees. He feels that Caritas should pay for the building permit. Mr. Sadowski stated that a condition should be made for one-year lease term. Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to MOVE to send the letter as drafted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

OTHER

Patriot Way: Partial Release of Bond for Roadway Work

Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to release bond for roadway work. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED. All in favor. None opposed.

Proposed Green Space Zoning Amendment

Ms. Gaffey explained that Alderman Brodeur has submitted an order asking the Planning Board to research a possible zoning change to prohibit homeowners from paving over front lawns. It will be on the Planning Board agenda next month.

Appeal period for Site Plan Review

Ms. Gaffey explained that she verified with the City Solicitor that there is a 30-day Appeal Period for Site Plan Review Decision.

Public Hearing Vote

There was discussion about a change in state legislation regarding members voting if they have missed one session of a public hearing. This is not likely to be applicable to the Planning Board because we do not tape or transcribe our meetings.

The Planning Board will not meet on October 9, 2006 but will have their next meeting on October 23, 2006. Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED. All in favor. None opposed. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.