MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, October 23, 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, Carla Francazio and Tom Pawlina

 

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

 

MINUTES

The minutes from the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing on September 11, 2006 were read by the Planning Board members.  Mr. Connolly recommended changes to the minutes.  Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to approve the minutes as amended.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED.  Mr. Cassavoy abstained.  None opposed.  The minutes from the joint Board of Aldermen/Planning Board Hearing on October 3, 2006 were read by the members.  Ms. Marcus and Mr. Cassavoy had been absent at that hearing.  Mr. Connolly had questions regarding public participation.  The message should be consistent and he recommended checking the minutes of the Board of Aldermen.  Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to hold the minutes open.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

 

ASSENT CALENDAR

Case 06-038, 32 Batchelder Street, Lynch

Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals.  Mr. Connolly SECONDED the Motion.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 06-037, 98 Lebanon Street, Ciulla

Scott Ciulla, the Applicant, was present with his engineer, Tony Salamanca.  Mr. Ciulla stated that he purchased 98 Lebanon Street from the City of Melrose.  He had had an agreement with the previous owner, Lance Powers, to purchase from him two years prior.  Mr. Ciulla was unable to locate Mr. Powers for approximately six months.  Finally, the City took over the house.  In the meantime, the house incurred water damage.  Part of the roof was missing so rodents got into the house.  Mr. Ciulla has gotten rid of the rodents, only to have them return.  Mr. Ciulla stated it is not feasible to fix up this house at this point.  There is mold throughout the house. He would like to tear it down and then build a two and a half story structure closer to the front of the lot line with a garage in the back.  He would use the garage to store his antique cars.  Mr. Ciulla checked with the abutters who have no problem with his proposal.  They would like this site cleaned up.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked the Applicant who owns the property in the rear.  Mr. Ciulla replied that his father owns behind and the Applicant owns to the left.  The Applicant stated that he proposes a single-family home. Mr. Sadowski noted that Article IX does not apply to this proposal.  Mr. Salamanca stated that the Applicant is seeking three variances:  lot area, both side setbacks and frontage.  Mr. Salamanca stated that they attempted four different methods to ‘put a house on the lot’ and nothing feasible fits without zoning relief.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward questioned if the Applicant could build the new house where the present one is.  Mr. Ciulla replied that he would not be able to put the garage behind.  Mr. Cassavoy said that by bringing the house forward, it is in keeping with the neighborhood.  Mr. Cassidy stated that it should be noted to the ZBA that the Applicant owns the adjacent property.  Mr. Sadowski asked if there was a curb cut on Lebanon Street.  Mr. Ciulla stated that there was and he proposes to place a driveway there.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward suggested that the Planning Board should note in the letter to the ZBA that the Board is ‘bothered by narrow frontage, but it is mitigated by the fact that cars can access the property from the rear.   She added that the Planning Board is not advocating narrow lots.  Mr. Cassavoy added that it should be added to the letter that the Planning Board is ‘not happy with the narrow lot and to utilize driveway in the back’.  The front will remain as a front so it blends in with the neighborhood.  The existing curb cut should be eliminated.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the ZBA with the issues outlined previously.  Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT

Case 06-002, 406 Main Street, Masic

Ms. Gaffey gave a brief history of this project.  Last month this Applicant was before the Board for a Site Plan Review Application.  There were not enough members present to vote on the Affordable Housing component – a 2/3 majority is needed – 6 affirmative.  Ms. Gaffey crafted language which was fairly extensive.  There were a number of conditions taken from the Design Review Subcommittee memorandum.  The Affordable Housing Special Permit decision will not need to be as extensive.  A condition would be that one of the six units will be an affordable unit, preferably a two bedroom unit.  Ms. Gaffey recommends that the two bedroom unit be specified in the decision.  The unit will count towards Melrose’s inventory of affordable housing.  The unit would be affordable to a person making 80% of the median income.   Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to approve the Special Permit for Affordable Housing with the conditions discussed.  Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward, Messrs. Sadowski and Connolly ABSTAINED.   Messrs. Cassavoy, Cassidy, Mercado and Pawlina and Mses. Marcus and Francazio VOTED AFFIRMATIVE.  Ms. Gaffey noted that the Planning Office will file this vote with the City Clerk. 

 

SLOPE PROTECTION SPECIAL PERMIT

Case 06-004, Swains Pond Avenue, Rivers

This is a continuance of the public hearing.  The Applicant, Bruce Rivers, and his engineer, Rick Salvo with Engineering Alliance were present.  Mr. Salvo explained that the client resubmitted the plans one week ago to address comments from last month’s Planning Board meeting.  There are two new sheets: soil testing results from October 3, 2006 and stamped copy of drainage calculations.  Mr. Salvo explained that variance had been granted previously for a larger footprint.  He stated that the plans show 2.1 acres of land in the rear to be placed into conservation.  He stated that this subdivided land would be deeded to the City and never be built on.  The next new sheet is a cross section of requested soil results  -- less than 25%.  Eight test pits were excavated.  Mr. Salvo explained that due to the abutters’ concerns with blasting, the rear 15 feet of the basement has been eliminated.  This will minimize ledge cutting.  The Applicant would like to go on record that they have no plans for blasting; they plan to take the ledge out by chipping.  We would accept a condition precluding any blasting.  Mr. Salvo described sheet 2 of 4 as being similar to the last plans:  1 to 1 slope in the back.  The plan is to stabilize the earth slope with a jute mesh.  It is a vegetated slope which will give more flexibility.  Mr. Salvo talked about the ledge cut excavating – there will be a conservative approach ‘into the hillside.’  He stated that there had been quite a bit of talk about the swale.  The channel has eroded from water traveling.  They have changed it to a grass-line swale from a stone-line swale.  Mr. Cantone had stated to the Engineer he would like to see a stone-line swale but understood our concerns.  The Applicant and Engineer feel that the vegetated swale would have a better chance to stabilize.  He stated that there will be less water spilling out onto Swains Pond Road than before.  The dry well has been modified in the new plan according to Mr. Salvo.  The curb treatment will be vertical granite – curb on both sides.  Mr. Salvo summarized his presentation by saying he feels this proposal meets the spirit of Melrose’s bylaw.  He feels the plan is creative with both the new architectural design and drainage improvements.  Mr. Cassavoy then opened the hearing up to the public.

 

Mark Winder, 29 Swains Pond Avenue  Mr. Winder stated that at the previous hearing, a Planning Board member stated that this proposed house design was more appropriate for a level lot and Mr Winder feels it is still the case.  He stated that he feels that a great deal of excavation is to create a backyard behind the house.  He stated that several weeks ago the site was cleared 130 feet of trees – what trees is the Applicant talking about preserving?  Mr. Winder said the building is still out of scale.  It is oversized to anything surrounding it.  He mentioned that a Planning Board member at the last hearing had commented on the roof being too shallow  -- that has not changed.  Mr. Winder said he sees no innovation; the building should work with the site rather than forcing the site to work with the building. 

 

The Planning Board members were invited to share their comments on this new plan.  Mr. Sadowski mentioned concern about close proximity of curb cut to adjacent property.  Mr. Sadowski mentioned the location of the garage and making the entrance side by side.  It was a point made previously.  Mr. Salvo stated that the reason for the driveway location is to allow for turnaround so the residents would not have to back out onto Swains Pond Avenue.  He added that he is not sure putting the drives together would fix that.  Mr. Pawlina wanted to follow up on the ledge.  He felt that the excessive excavation in the rear appears to be for creating a back yard.  Mr. Salvo responded that the plans show a 15' yard which seems reasonable.  Mr. Sadowski stated that perhaps the natural contour could be followed naturally and the rear yard could be designed at an angle  – one side 5 feet and the other side 20 feet.  Mr. Sadowski stated that the angle could be cut down.  Mr. Pawlina felt that it could be cut down by one-third.  Mr. Cassidy thought a split level would be a better house to build in this site – you could exit out the rear on another level.  He feels a ‘stock house should not be put here.’  He recommended calling in an architect.  Mr. Salvo said the design is exactly what you mention: a reverse walkout. Mr. Sadowski asked about pulling the structure closer to the front of the site.  He added that blasting is a scary thing, but could be less of a concern than chipping.  He said the adjacent properties should not have to suffer any damage.  The homes are all on similar ledge.  Mr. Pawlina asked how long it will take to excavate.  Mr. Salvo replied that it depends on the type of ledge and he spoke about the size of the hammer – 7,000 pounds.  Mr. Mercado asked about settling basin.  Mr. Salvo replied that it would percolate.  In answer to Mr. Mercado’s question as to how it will be maintained, Mr. Salvo replied that It would be maintained by the owners; this could be put in the deed.  Mr. Mercado asked who will maintain the swale?  Mr. Salvo replied the property owner will.  If not, the DPW will, at the property owner’s expense.  Mr. Mercado had a question about the wall on the side.  Mr. Salvo stated that the Applicant met with the DPW on two occasions.  Ms. Francazio said she had a question and a comment.  She asked if the client were really interested in preserving trees given that the lot has been recently cleared of trees.  She concurred with Ed that  energy should be spent on the design.  Mr. Cassavoy spoke about the possibility of staggering the two units and with the right kind of vegetation, the lot will be screened and it will look better.  One unit would be behind the other.  Mr. Salvo stated a specialist will be responsible for the correct placement of special grasses, etc.  Mr. Pawlina suggested the house be rotated counter-clockwise to take advantage of the natural contours and minimize the driveway.  He would be interested to see more creative alternatives to this rectangular building.  Mr. Rivers stated that previously a 70 x 45 foot structure had been approved.  The building on this plan is much smaller – they tried to keep it as small as possible.  Mr. Cassavoy stated that instead of one big front, perhaps it could be fine-tuned a little bit.  Mr. Pawlina stated perhaps they could remove the square and stagger the building.  Mr. Cassavoy agreed with rotating and then staggering the units.  Mr. Cassidy listed what the objections are to this plan: 

 

  • More decoration on dormers and railings
  • Low slope roof – it looks like a non-residential structure
  • Garage split to the extremities – immense apron in front of the house is undesirable to the Planning Board members
  • Single front – put one unit to the back and rotate them so that the impact of excavation is mitigated


Challenge to architect to break down the scale – you could do better here.

Mr. Sadowski stated that while this building is an improvement, it does not mean the ordinance can be ignored.  Mr. Cassidy added that preservation to the rear should not be ignored; the land will be here forever.  He stated that this is by ‘definition a violation of the slope ordinance – trying to make it work in an area where these things do not work.’  Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to continue this public hearing until November 20, 2006.  There was a request that this case be heard first.  Mr. Sadowski SECONDED.  All in favor.  None opposed.  

 

Case SP06-003, Dana Street, Stephen Amero

This is a continuance of the public hearing from September 25, 2006.  Applicant, Stephen Amero, Attorney Patrick McAvoy and Engineer George Zambouras were present.  Mr. McAvoy stated that the Applicant is seeking to build a road, a single-family house and has been before the Planning Board once before.  Mr. Zambouras described the changes to the plan. 

  • Reduce roadway width from 24' of pavement to 18'
  • Road relocated to easterly portion of the right of way
  • Steepen road grades which give additional room on west side to install two tiered walls – each 10' in height
  • Arborvitaes added along lower level to screen versus the 26' wall
  • Change of road grade to minimize impact of potential excavation on site

·        Reduce roadway and retaining wall elevations by approximately 6.0 feet


These changes were made in response to advice from Department Heads.  Drainage has not been altered by these changes.  Mr. Zambouras stated that the primary run-off from the lot will go into the roadway and be collected in roadway system.  Mr. Zambouras said there is a lot of concern about this site causing run-off problems.  He showed a topo map to illustrate that runoff would not be a problem.    

 

Mr. Cassavoy welcomed comments from the public:

 

Michael McCormack, 120 Forest Street.  Mr. McCormack stated his concerns with ‘level of construction on our quiet little street’.  He sees no justification – completely out of character.  He stated there are a number of young children in the area. 

 

Sarah Mathews, 2 Willard Street.  Ms. Mathews asked what is the difference between run-off and percolation.  Concern about percolation.  Mr. Zambouras described that perc is the ability of water to infiltrate into soil.  He expressed that imported fill would perc well. 

 

Alice Wiseberg, 189 Forest Street   Ms. Wiseberg spoke about many children in the neighborhood and the inability of trucks to stop suddenly.  She has concerns about losing green space.

 

Dorothy Travis, 40 Naples Road   Ms. Travis asked what kind of structure is planned for the house lot.  She spoke about concerns about the narrow road in an emergency.  If the engineering system should fail, stone wall could cave in.  Would it be the City’s responsibility or the homeowner’s?

 

David Mathews, 2 Willard Street.  Mr. Mathews asked if it will be a public way.  Mr. Cassavoy replied a private way.  Mr. Mathews asked if those other two lots could be developed.  There was discussion of whether or not there was enough frontage to build on those lots.  Mr. Amero said they were not buildable lots. 

 

Brian Long, 25 Willard Street.  Mr. Long had a question about how the slope protection ordinance would affect the new plan

 

Mr. Cassavoy opened the discussion to the Planning Board:

 

Mr. Cassidy asked the engineer to describe what is different about this plan.  Mr. Zambouras stated that the roadway has been reduced, wall type is vegetated, road goes 3/4th of the middle of the lot.  Length is the same.  They could shorten the roadway but prefer not to.  The driveway provides emergency access.  Mr. Zambouras stated that there is still a private easement through the roadway.  Mr. Pawlina commented on the pretty steep slope.  He wondered if it would be worth considering an alternative for the top half.  Ms. Marcus had a question about cars sliding off the edge in snowy, icy conditions.  The engineer stated that a guardrail would be installed.  There will also be reflectors placed on the boulders.  Mr. Cassidy spoke about the volume of this project filling up this area.  He mentioned the tremendous amount of earth that needs to be moved and how it doesn’t seem to be the intent of the ordinance.  We have three options:  vote it up, vote it down or what would it take to make it work?  Mr. Cassidy spoke about several ways that this project doesn’t meet the purpose of the ordinance.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward commented that the Board has not heard of any type of information about the type of house proposed.  Mr. Cassavoy stated that it has been requested but not yet presented to the Board.  Mr. McAvoy questioned what direction the Board is heading in.  He asked what the Applicant should do if the ordinance forbids the structure from being built.  Mr. Connolly spoke about too much fill defeating the purpose of the ordinance.  Mr. Sadowski thought this proposal was 20-25% improvement – small step in the right direction.  Mr. Pawlina stated that this large lot needs shaping to put house on it.  He asked how much fill would be put on the parcel.  Mr. Zambouras stated it would be six feet on the outside of the ledge.  Mr. Pawlina questioned the amount of ‘ledge face that would be buried on the lot’.  Mr. Cassavoy asked if Mr. Zambouras could present any information to the Planning Board that ‘would change things.’  Mr. Zambouras replied as far as the road is concerned, they can’t really make any additional changes.  They can show more architectural landscaping details.  Mr. Pawlina asked if this has been run by the Fire Department and the engineer replied it has been discussed with the Department of Public Works.  Mr. Cassidy stated there is ‘no doubt this could be solved; it is not an engineering contest.  The natural topography should be preserved.’  He stated that he ‘does not see a design solution which is unfortunate for the Applicant.’  Mr. Cassavoy stated that the Board could vote or close the hearing.  Mr. McAvoy stated that the Applicant prefers that a vote not be taken tonight.  Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION that the hearing be continued until November 20, 2006.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.
WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE

 

Ms. Gaffey stated that the Chairperson, Susan Murphy, could not attend tonight.  She will be added to the agenda for the November 20, 2006 Planning Board meeting. 

 

ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

 

Citizen Rezoning Petition

Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that there had been a joint public hearing with the Board of Aldermen on October 3, 2006.  The Zoning Subcommittee met.  The Planning Board members are receiving emails and letters from the public on this issue.  It was raised by a member of the public at the Zoning Subcommittee meeting that the hearing was closed and additional testimony could not be accepted.  Ms. Gaffey spoke to the City Solicitor about this and he opined that the Planning Board could accept written testimony.  The Zoning Subcommittee reviewed the characteristics of the Wyoming Heights’ neighborhood and discovered that the proposed land is about nine acres – 39 parcels at approximately 10,000 square feet on average.  The UR-A neighborhood, Boston Rock Road area, is 21 acres, average lot size is 15,700 square feet.  Most homes were built in 1950’s and 1960’s – almost all single family homes.  The Subcommittee also discussed the issue of spot zoning.  Ms. Gaffey had presented information which suggests that this proposal would not be subjected to a spot zoning claim.  However, the issue is being reviewed by the City Solicitor for his opinion.  It was discussed whether the area could be made larger; adjacent streets added (a better line to be drawn?)  In UR-A zones, multi-family homes are not allowed –townhouses require a special permit.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated the zoning subcommittee did not have a consensus.  There was discussion of the committee perhaps making a special permit for townhouses in all UR-B districts.  It was felt that the Planning Board should ask the Board of Aldermen for more time.  Ms. Gaffey stated she will ask for extension from the Board of Aldermen.  The Zoning Subcommittee will plan to meet again.  Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to ask the Board of Aldermen for more time and to discuss at the November 20, 2006 meeting.  Ms. Francazio SECONDED.  All in favor.  None opposed. 

 

Proposed Green Space Amendment (Alderman Order No. 07-044)

Ms. Gaffey stated that this order was proposed by Alderman Brodeur.  A citizen did research on a possible zoning change and presented it to Mr. Brodeur.  The concern is paving over of front yards in the City.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to send to the Zoning Subcommittee.  Mr. Cassidy SECONDED.  All in favor.  None opposed.  Mr. Sadowski stated that the citizens did a lot of work and should be applauded for their initiative. 

 

Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to ADJOURN.  Mr. Pawlina SECONDED.  All in favor.  None opposed.  Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.