MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting

Monday, October 22, 2007

7:45 p.m.

Mayor’s Conference Room

 

PRESENT:     Mike Cassavoy, Ed Cassidy, Richard Connolly, Bob Mercado, John Sadowski, Gerry Marcus, Anne DeSouza-Ward and Tom Pawlina

 

ABSENT:       Carla Francazio

 

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) Regular Meeting, August 27, 2007

Ms. Desouza-Ward had an edit to the minutes.  Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes with the revision.  Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION.  All who were in attendance voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 07-029, 482 Swains Pond Avenue, Maneiro/Toomey/Greene

Patrick McAvoy, the Applicants’ representative, was present.  Mr. McAvoy stated the Applicants are requesting a simple frontage variance for the property and would appreciate the Planning Board’s comments and support.  Mr. Cassavoy asked if any members had questions/comments.  Ms. Marcus asked about the proposed house.  Mr. McAvoy stated that it is the Applicants’ intention to create a buildable lot and then sell the lot.  The Applicants do not plan to construct a house.  The variance is being requested to subdivide the property with an existing single family dwelling into two lots containing approximately 7,582 square feet with frontage of 75 feet for the existing dwelling lot and 10,903 square feet with frontage of 56.41 feet for the new single family lot.  Mr. Cassavoy stated he has concerns with a 50 feet wide lot even though the lot has more than what is required for area.  Mr. Sadowski agreed that creating a lot with a frontage of 50 feet requires a significant variance.  Mr. Sadowski also indicated that he is not sure how the side yard would work.  Mr. Pawlina said he drove by the lot and feels the reduced frontage would be significantly different than the homes on the rest of the street.  Mr. Pawlina added that he typically looks to see how a proposed house will fit in with the surrounding houses.  He stated it might be possible to place the house further back but the lot would still be very narrow.  Mr. Mercado stated he feels to subdivide this lot would not fit with the character of the neighborhood.  Ms. Desouza-Ward said she agrees that the lot does not have a great shape.  Mr. Cassidy mentioned that some towns allow what is called a “pork chop” lot with a small neck.  Mr. Cassidy added that those towns usually zone at least half acre lots to limit density.  He stated that in this case the other houses on the street appear to have more typical spacing.  He speculated that if the ZBA grants this zoning relief, it might signal the first in a series of requests for similar variances.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeals noting that the Planning Board does not recommend the subdivision of the existing lot to create a substandard lot with less than 75 feet of frontage because the new lot would not fit the character of the neighborhood.  Ms. Desouza-Ward also noted that subdivision of this lot may result in the request for similar variances in the future.  Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed. 

 

Case 07-030, 36 Arlington Road, Sullivan

The Applicant, Tim Sullivan, was present.  Mr. Sullivan explained to the Planning Board he would like to construct a farmer’s porch on the front of his house measuring 28 feet x 8 feet.  Mr. Sullivan indicated that the previous Building Inspector had given his okay on the proposed porch.  He plans to use pressure treated wood and composite flooring and intends to screen the porch with lattice and shrubbery.  Mr. Sullivan told the members he hopes this proposal will help to alleviate a flooding problem in his driveway by dispersing water off the porch roof and into downspouts.  Mr. Sadowski had reservations about significant encroachment onto the front yard and also felt it was hard to assess the Applicant’s sketches.  Mr. Mercado questioned whether the proposed porch could be reconfigured to reduce the encroachment.  Mr. Sullivan said he would consider making it seven feet deep as opposed to eight feet deep.  Mr. Cassidy stated he, in general, is not opposed to porches such as this, but added that it is helpful to see drawings done to scale.  Ms. Desouza-Ward stated she is hesitant to recommend this request for variance to the Board of Appeals.  She added that she might not object if the Planning Board knew exactly what the proposed porch would look like.  Mr. Sullivan stated he will be able to supply more detailed drawings to the Board of Appeals at the public hearing.  Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeals noting that while the Planning Board is always reluctant to endorse front setback encroachments, without more detailed information regarding how the porch will fit with the dwelling as a whole and in the context of the neighborhood, the Planning Board is unable to endorse this case.  In addition, the Planning Board notes that the Applicant stated he would be willing to pull the porch back by one foot which would decrease its depth to seven feet.  Mr. Pawlina added that the Planning Board does not view the addition of the porch as the solution to the drainage issues described by the Applicant.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

Case 07-031, 532-546 Main Street, Carroll

The Applicant, Mark Carroll, was present as well as his representatives, Attorney Bob Bell and Architect Chris Poravas.  Mr. Bell shared with the Planning Board members that Mr. Carroll proposes to renovate 532-546 Main Street and put the second floor in service by building eleven one‑bedroom rental units.  Mr. Bell stated that there have been several fires in the building that have resulted in putting the second floor out of service since the mid 1970s.  The building has been deemed to require emergency structural repair.  The first floor tenants will remain with the exception of Camera Connection.  Mr. Bell stated that mixed use is a permitted use for this parcel.  Mr. Bell explained that the Applicant is waiting on a ruling from the Building Inspector to permit the Applicant to utilize the second floor for residential use.  Mr. Bell shared that the application also includes requests for relief for front setback, lot depth and area.  The Architect briefly highlighted the design for the proposed project including the addition of two bays on the north end of the building facing Main Street.  Mr. Sadowski inquired whether the bays would require relief from the ZBA.  Mr. Pawlina wondered if eleven units are prudent and clarified that this issue will be further reviewed by the Planning Board during Site Plan Review.  Mr. Pawlina questioned about on-site parking.  Mr. Bell explained that no on-site parking is required in the downtown.  The tenants of this proposed building will be able to lease parking behind Memorial Hall from the City.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeals noting that the Planning Board takes no position on the issue of whether the Applicant's proposal is an extension of a nonconforming as-of-right use in an existing, dimensionally non-conforming structure.  In respect to the depth and setback relief requested by the Applicant, the Planning Board finds these issues to be de minimis and also yields to the Board of Appeals.  The Planning Board also notes that the request for a variance from the lot area requirement results from the proposal for 11 residential units, which is significantly more units than the existing lot area supports.  The Planning Board looks forward to evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed residential density as it relates to the Site Plan Review criteria during the Site Plan Review process.  Mr. Cassavoy added that the Planning Board is encouraged by the improvements proposed to this significant building and acknowledged that the mixed‑use proposal with residential located near transportation and in dense areas of the city is consistent with “smart growth" principles.”  Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

OTHER

Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to hear Case 07-028, 354 Upham Street, before Dana Street at which time the Planning Board will go into Executive Session and adjourn from the Planning Board meeting.  Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION.  A roll call was taken and all voted in favor.  None opposed.

 

Case 07-028, 354 Upham Street

Ms. Gaffey shared with the Planning Board members that the Board of Appeals held a special meeting and voted to reconsider their original vote.  A continued Public Hearing will be held by the Board of Appeals on November 7, 2007.  Ms. Desouza-Ward noted that several residents from the neighborhood were interested in attending this meeting to listen to the update on this issue.

 

December Meeting

Ms. Gaffey made the members aware that their scheduled meeting for December falls on December 24th.  The members agreed to meet on December 17th in lieu of December 24th.

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to go into Executive Session to discuss Dana Street.  Ms. Desouza-Ward 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.