MELROSE PLANNING
BOARD
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
Monday, January 26, 2009
7:45
p.m.
Mayor’s Conference Room
PRESENT: Mike Cassavoy, Richard
Connolly, Ed Cassidy, Gerry Marcus, John Sadowski, Anne
DeSouza-Ward, Tom Pawlina, Bob Mercado, and Carla Francazio
ABSENT:
Denise Gaffey, Planner, and Matt Hennigan, Assistant Planner, were
present.
The meeting was called to
order at 7:50
p.m. by Mr. Cassavoy.
MINUTES
a) Special Meeting & Public
Hearing, December 3, 2008
Mr. Cassavoy and Mr. Cassidy offered
minor revisions. Mr. Mercado MADE a
MOTION to accept the minutes as revised.
Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION.
All voted in favor. None opposed.
b) Regular Meeting and
Public Hearing, December 22, 2008
Mr. Marcus MADE a MOTION to
accept the minutes of December 22, 2008. Ms. Francazio SECONDED the MOTION.
All voted in favor. None opposed.
ASSENT CALENDAR
Case 09-001, 76 Granite Street, Green
Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to
approve the item on the Assent Calendar.
Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION.
All voted in favor. None
opposed. Mr. Cassavoy explained that a
standard letter would be sent to the Applicant.
BOARD OF APPEALS
Case 08-029, 42-44 Howie Street, Zavarella
SUBDIVISION
482 Swains Pond Avenue, Toomey/Maneiro/Greene (continued public hearing)
Representative
for the Applicants, Patrick McAvoy, was present to request a continuance to the
February Planning Board meeting. Mr.
McAvoy explained that a case related to this application is pending in Superior
Court. Mr. McAvoy added that there is a
potential resolution on the horizon that would involve the sale of the lot to
the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Connolly
MADE a MOTION to continue the public hearing
until February 23, 2009 at
the request of the Applicant who agrees to waive any statutory deadlines. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
SUBDIVISION
– SLOPE PROTECTION SPECIAL PERMIT
Carlida Road/Cranmore
Lane/Boardman Avenue, Green Morningside Nominee Trust (continued public
hearing)
The Applicants, Linda Bulman
and Mark Hutchinson, were present along with their Representative, Louis Izzi
and Engineer, Richard Williams from Hayes Engineering. Mr. Izzi reintroduced the members to details
involving the subdivision proposal. Mr.
Izzi explained that the proposed subdivision is comprised of five lots. Mr. Izzi reminded the members that Hutchinson family originally purchased the undeveloped land as
an approved 23 lot subdivision. Mr. Izzi
stated that the Applicant’s proposal is a far less intense development
project. With respect to the Slope
Protection Special Permit, Mr. Izzi explained that this proposal has been
crafted to minimize alteration to the natural features on the site and strives
to preserve these features wherever possible.
Mr. Izzi explained that grading is proposed to be limited and trees and
plantings will be preserved and wherever disrupted additional plantings will be
installed. Mr. Izzi indicated that the
design team has met with the City Engineer to discuss the drainage provisions
included in the proposal.
Mr. Izzi introduced Rich
Williams, the Civil Engineer, to address the request by the Planning Board for additional information following the last public
hearing in February, 2008. Mr. Williams
stated that the Erosion Control Plan/Construction Sequence Plan includes a
proposed tracking pad to minimize the amount of sediment onto Boardman Avenue. Mr. Williams
acknowledged that blasting will be required to meet the proposed grades. Members were assured that blasting would take
place in accordance with City and State standards. Mr. Williams indicated that he meet with the
City Engineer to verify the capacity of the existing sewer and discuss the
possibilities for re-routing stormwater runoff.
Based on his conversation with the City Engineer, Mr. Williams explained
that the problems with the sewer system in the area result from flooding from
storm events where capacity in the sewer lines is taken up by stormwater
resulting in surcharges. Mr. Williams
added that the City of Melrose has been in contact with the Town of Saugus regarding the collapsed culvert in the area. The Town of Saugus has initiated measures to fix the culvert. At which time this work moves forward and is
completed, flooding elevations will hopefully be reduced which will improve the
sewer system in the area. Mr. Williams
indicated that the 15% of property will be covered with impervious surfaces. In terms of the size of the proposed
dwellings, Mr. Williams indicated that what is shown on the plans is a good representation
as these footprints are defined by the setback requirements. Mr. Izzi added that Ms. Bulman intends to
reside in the subdivision and assured the members that the Applicants are
interested in well designed subdivision.
Mr. Williams stated that the detention basin proposed adjacent to the
Crafts’ property could be shifted 15’-20’ from the property however the rip rap
would need to be extended at a 1:1 slope to accommodate this move. Mr. Williams expressed that the project does not
lend itself to phasing. Mr. Williams
stated that if peer review is determined to be necessary, the Applicant would
be receptive at a reasonable cost. Mr.
Cassavoy asked for clarification regarding the 100-year flood delineation. Mr. Cassavoy opened the meeting up to public
comment.
Arnold Koch, 66 Cranmore Lane Mr. Koch inquired regarding why the dead-end pipe that
flows into the Applicant’s property was never connected.
James Renier, 11 Arlington Road Mr. Renier asked for more information concerning the
appearance of the swale. Mr. Williams
described the proposed swale as a 6’ foot deep 1:1 rip rap wall.
Janis Crafts, 171 Boardman Avenue Ms. Crafts asked for more precise information
regarding the detention basin that is proposed to be located behind her
property. Ms. Crafts expressed concern
regarding the impact that the detention basin would have on her property
value. Ms Crafts also expressed that she
felt that the detention basin could be a potential danger to children in the
neighborhood. Mr. Williams stated that
the detention basin would be 20’ from Ms. Crafts’ property, 20’ by 25’ in size,
3’ in depth. Mr. Williams added that
there a three similar mitigation fields included in the proposal. Ms. Crafts inquired when the work on the
collapsed culvert is scheduled to take place.
Ms. Crafts added that the subdivision project should not start until the
improvements to the culvert occur. Mr.
Izzi stated that the Applicant’s proposal will not exacerbate the existing
conditions. Mr. Williams indicated that
he is not aware of a specific time frame for the Saugus culvert work.
Ms. Gaffey stated that the City Engineer had indicated that Saugus retained a contractor and is hopeful to start in the
spring.
Kathy Driscoll, 23 Cranmore Lane Ms.
Driscoll stated that the Applicant’s proposal is an extensive project that will
change the tone of the neighborhood. Ms.
Driscoll expressed that every time it floods the neighborhood pays the price. Ms. Driscoll stated that the neighbors need
some assurance that the culvert work in Saugus will get completed first. Mr. Williams stated that the project has been
designed so not to exacerbate existing conditions.
Kevin Hegarty, 11 Cranmore Lane Mr. Hegarty asked for a clarification of the
percentage provided for impervious surface.
Mr. Williams indicated that 15% of the lots that comprise the
subdivision are impervious. Mr. Hegarty
asked for what percentage of the buildable acreage is impervious. Mr. Hegarty asked for more information as to
how the mitigation improvements will appear.
Mr. Williams explained that the mitigation field to the north of the
Boardman extension will be a dirt pond planted with wetland plants. The mitigation field will be 2’ lower than
the road and be defined by a 3:1 slope.
Mr. Williams stated that the mitigation field behind the Crafts’
residence (if shifted further from the Crafts’ property) will have a 7’ 1:1 rip
rap slope down to the mitigation field.
Mr. Williams briefly described the large mitigation field in the rear of
the Applicant’s property. Mr. Williams
stated that the maintenance plan included in the Applicant’s proposal would require
mowing the slope once a year. Mr.
Williams offered to provide photographs of similar mitigation fields.
Arnold Koch, 66 Cranmore Lane Mr. Koch asked how many trees are expected to be
removed. Mr. Williams answered that he
did not know.
James Renier, 11 Arlington Road Mr. Renier expressed concern regarding the well being
of the trees and ledge on his property line.
Mr. Williams indicated that trees on the property line would not be
affected. Mr. Renier inquired what
preventive measures would be taken to offset the airborne dirt that will be
created during blasting. Mr. Izzi
assured the neighbors that the Applicants would use whatever techniques
available to make sure these concerns are addressed.
Mr. Cassavoy asked the
members for their comments. Mr. Connolly
asked whether the mitigation fields are constantly filled with water. Mr. Williams replied that the mitigation
fields are not always filled with water, usually in the spring. Mr. Williams explained that water above the
outlet pipe will empty into the wetlands system in less than a day. Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked for clarification
regarding the sloping walls (swales) included the Applicant’s proposal. Ms. DeSouza-Ward agreed that photographs of
similar mitigation techniques would be beneficial. Mr. Pawlina inquired whether the hydraulic
reports had been submitted. Mr. Williams
indicated these reports were included with the original application. Mr. Williams added that they intend to file
with the Conservation Commission tomorrow as a large piece of the road falls
with the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr. Cassidy asked if the width of the roadway
has to be so large. Mr. Cassidy stated
that he supports a reduction in the roadway width and wondered if sidewalks on
both sides of the street make sense. Mr.
Cassidy asked whether semi-pervious pavement for the road and driveways have
been considered as this material might reduce the runoff impact. Mr. Cassidy suggested in this case that a
higher standard might be appropriate instead of assurance that there is no
increase in runoff from pre-development to post-development. Mr. Williams explained that the
road/sidewalks were designed to the provisions of the subdivision requirements
and that the Applicant would be happy to reduce/eliminate the sidewalks as well
as reduce the roadway. Mr. Williams
added that the swale is a closed pipe that would only contain water during
storm events and would not be visually different from the landscaping in the area. Mr. Williams explained that the detention
basin is at the low point and provides treatment before the water goes into the
wetlands. Mr. Williams added that the
City pipe at the end of Boardman Avenue would be eliminated.
Mr. Sadowski asked if the detention basin on the north side of the proposed
road could also be moved. Mr. Williams
indicated that it could probably be moved a few feet.
Mr. Pawlina stated that the
Site Plan Review criteria have been updated to mitigate at a higher level, the
five year 24 hour storm event. Mr.
Pawlina suggested the installation of a leeching system in the cul-de-sac and
the driveways would be a more efficient means to recharge the groundwater. Mr. Pawlina expressed that adding leeching
systems would only have a positive effect and minimize the frequency of the
activation of detention basins below.
Mr. Williams stated that installation of leeching systems might be
difficult due to the presence of ledge. Mr.
Mercado inquired regarding alternative location for the detention basins. Discussion took place regarding the areas
where there might be frequently standing water.
Members inquired whether any consideration had been given to the
installation of fence or insect control measures. Mr. Williams indicated that these measures
are not included in the proposal. Mr.
Williams explained that the detention basins cannot be located in wetlands per
Federal regulations as detention basins need to be above the elevation of
wetlands in order to be effective. Mr.
Cassidy encouraged the neighborhood to look at this proposal as the last chance
to do something about the flooding issues in the area and stated this project
is an opportunity as much as it is risk.
Mr. Cassidy acknowledged good people are on both sides of the project
who are trying to solve/mitigate the issues at hand.
Mr. Cassavoy raised the issue
of peer review. Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION
to require peer review of the drainage study and per Mr. Cassidy’s request
added review by a Landscape Architect of the proposed vegetated materials. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
Ms. Gaffey stated that the Planning Office would secure the services of
a peer review consultant and follow-up with the Applicant. Mr. Cassavoy suggested that a site visit in March
would be appropriate. Ms. DeSouza-Ward
MADE a MOTION to continue the public hearing to March 23, 2009. Mr. Mercado
SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in
favor. None opposed.
ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
Draft Report to the Board of Aldermen for Proposed Specialty Food Stores Zoning Amendment
Ms. Gaffey distributed
handouts related to the zoning amendment and reviewed with the members the draft
report to the Board of
Aldermen. Members suggested points of emphasis in the
report. Discussion took place regarding
signage, the appropriateness of a special permit requirement, and the role of
Site Plan Review in the approval process.
Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to accept the report as edited. Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.