MELROSE PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Monday, November 20,
2006
7:45 P.M.
Mayor’s Conference Room
PRESENT: Mike
Cassavoy, Chair, Richard Connolly, Vice Chair, Ed Cassidy, John Sadowski, Gerry
Marcus, Anne DeSouza-Ward, Bob Mercado, Tom Pawlina and Carla Francazio
City
Planner, Denise Gaffey and Janet Graf, Secretary, were present.
The meeting was called to
order at 7:50
P.M. by the Chair, Mr.Cassavoy.
MINUTES
The Planning Board members read the minutes from the Regular Meeting and
Public Hearing held on September 25, 2006 and the Joint Public
Hearing held on October 3, 2006. Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to approve the September 25th minutes. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All in
favor. None opposed. Ms. Gaffey told the Planning Board members
that she reviewed the Board of Aldermen’s minutes for the October 3, 2006 Joint
Public Hearing and she incorporated some of their language into the Planning
Board’s minutes which clarified that the public hearing was closed on October
3, 2006. Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to
approve the October 3, 2006 minutes as amended.
Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.
Ms. Marcus and Mr. Cassavoy could not vote as they did not attend the
Joint Public Hearing.
ASSENT CALENDAR
Case 06-040, 143 Bay State Road, Faller
Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to
send a standard letter to Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the motion. All in favor.
None opposed.
Case 06-041, 272 Lebanon Street, Neff
Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to
write a standard letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Francazio SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor.
None opposed.
Mr. Cassavoy
asked the public if anyone was present for Case SP06-003, Dana Street. He stated
that he understood the Applicant has requested a continuance and, therefore,
there would be no need to stay. Mr.
Cassidy MADE a MOTION to move SP06-003 ahead of the Board of Appeals’
cases. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor.
None opposed.
Case SP06-003, Dana Street, Amero
Mr. Cassavoy
stated that the Planning Board received a copy of a letter dated November 20,
2006 from David Lucas, the
City Solicitor, to Patrick McAvoy, the Applicant’s attorney. Mr. Lucas was responding to a letter to the
Building Commissioner, John Luther, requesting an opinion on the Slope
Protection Ordinance and how it relates to Dana Street. Mr. Lucas
states in his letter that the Ordinance does not apply to existing ways within
the city even if these ways have not yet been constructed. Mr. Lucas stated that this is not ‘under our
purview.’ Mr. Pawlina said that the
Board has been constrained in this application.
Mr. McAvoy stated that there has been a change in the Application and his
client needs time to adjust the plans.
His client is contacting an architect and is not ready to present. Mr. McAvoy requested this be continued to
January 8. Mr. Sadowski stated that the
potential is there for the City to inherit a substandard road with significant
slope issues. Ms. Gaffey said that the
street has always been considered private in discussions. Mr. Cassavoy reiterated that this letter was
received today, November 20th.
Mr. Sadowski replied that it is not clear what the Planning Board’s
jurisdiction is and he feels it would be prudent to still have dialogue. He feels the PB needs more input from the DPW
– it is their jurisdiction. Ms. Marcus
asked why further discussion is needed if the PB does not have jurisdiction
anyway. Mr. Sadowski stated that the
public safety concerns complicate the issue.
Mr. Cassavoy stated that the PB can give their opinion to the DPW – they
can listen or not. Mr. Sadowski stated
this is extreme. Public safety is an issue
even if the road is not a public way.
Mr. Pawlina said the sequence of events has changed. City Engineer and DPW need to decide on the
proprietary of the road. Once they make a decision, the Applicant can come back
and seek approval to build a home. Mr.
Pawlina said the PB cannot wrestle with the issue until the opinion is received
from the City Engineer. The Applicant
has to receive road approval from DPW.
Once that is met, they can come before the PB. Mr. McAvoy stated that the problem is that
the road was far along in design with Public Works. Mr. McAvoy would like to work with the Board
and the DPW simultaneously. He feels it
would be easier to not have to ‘fix the road with the DPW first.’ Mr. Sadowski stated that there is not a lot
of definitive information available pertaining to the house lot. Mr. McAvoy replied that
there is a landscape architect on board and he will have the information
available a week in advance.
Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to continue the public hearing until January 8, 2007. Mr. Connolly
SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.
BOARD OF APPEALS
Case 06-039, 14 Geneva Road, Canario
The Petitioner, Steve
Canario, was present. Mr. Canario
presented the background. He stated he
noticed some work being done in his neighbor’s yard the week after Labor Day. Mr. Canario spoke to the contractor who said
he had a permit to build a clubhouse for the children. Mr. Canario felt this clubhouse was being
built too close to his property. The
structure was set high in a tree very close to his own property. He felt there were privacy issues. He spoke to the building inspector. It was felt that what had been described to
the building inspector initially was not what was actually being built. Mr. Canario described it as ‘the old bait and
switch.’ He stated that if the plans had
been presented accurately, we would not be here now. He stated that this structure does not meet UR-A zoning setback or height setback. He feels this clubhouse has a negative impact
on his property. He said the base seems
to be at 8'. He stated that he does not
want to be looking at this for the next 15 years. Mr. Connolly asked when the building
inspector viewed the structure. Mr.
Canario replied probably the second week of October. Mr. Connolly asked if the building inspector
has seen it subsequently to which the Petitioner replied he was not sure. Mr. Connolly said he agreed with the
Petitioner. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that
the Planning Board usually does not make recommendations in cases like
this where someone is appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner. She is uncomfortable giving advice to the ZBA
when it is the ZBA’s statutory authority to resolve
this dispute. Mr. Sadowski stated that
he sympathized with the Petitioner. Mr. Pawlina stated that as long as the tree house is not
grounded, it is considered a tree house.
The Petitioner stated that this tree house is definitely grounded –
there are footings. Mr. Pawlina stated
that the footings change the character. Mr.
Sadowski discussed the fact that this structure is clearly beyond lawn
furniture. Mr. Cassidy MADE a
motion to send a letter to the ZBA stating that the PB has no opinion on the
Board of Appeals’ interpretation of zoning code and the Building Commissioner’s
exercise of authority, however, the Planning Board would recommend that the Board of Appeals consider
the apparent permanence of the structure as viewed and tied to the ground, the
incomplete representation of the nature and detail of the structure at the time
the Building Commissioner’s judgment was rendered and the implication for
similar structures elsewhere in the community.
Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION.
All in favor. None opposed.
Case 06-043, 40 Sycamore Road, DelMastro
The Petitioners, William and
Sharon DelMastro, were present. The
Petitioners stated they need a variance for a pre-existing, non-conforming wrap
around screened deck with a corrugated fiberglass roof that was present when
they purchased the home in 1990. Mr. Pawlina stated he drove by and found the
structure very attractive. He had
questions about what was replaced – just the roof rafters and corrugated
panels. The columns and joists are all
original. The Petitioners stated that
the previous owner had built this screened deck. The Petitioners replaced the roof rafters and
corrugated panels without first getting a permit. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to send a standard
letter to the Board of Appeals. Mr.
Pawlina suggested noting that the roof replacement is a maintenance item and
does not change the footprint of the structure.
Mr. Connolly AMENDED the MOTION.
Mr. Cassavoy suggested that the Petitioners ask neighbors in favor to
write letters of support and/or attend the Board of Appeals’ hearing on December 13,
2006. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor.
None opposed.
Case SP06-004, Swains Pond Avenue, Bruce Rivers
The Applicant’s
representative, Rick Salvo of Engineering Alliance, was present. This is a continuance of the public
hearing. Mr. Cassavoy asked Mr. Salvo to
give a brief history of this case. Mr.
Salvo said this is a proposed duplex next to 32 Swains Pond Avenue. It is subject
to the Slope Protection Special Permit.
At the last hearing the proposed building was a 40 x 50 footprint on the
site. It intruded into a steep slope
area which required rock excavation. The
architect thus revised it to 30 x 50 with a slight bump out in the front. Mr. Salvo stated that it now has a different
looking elevation and now looks more like a single family house. The garage is at grade level. This will work best with the topography and
the rise of the property. He stated that
the house is a reverse walkout which is like a split level with 4-5 steps
up. The grading plan decreases the work. There is a swale in the driveway to direct
water to the basin and not in front of the street. Sheet 4 of 4 shows that the
much smaller yard area reduces the amount of ledge cut. At the last meeting it was stated one-third
would be improvement; they have cut more than one-half. The position of the house has shifted on the
new plan; only a very small area is now affected by the slope ordinance.
Mr. Cassavoy asked if any of
the members of the audience would like to speak.
Shirley Cassara, 27 Swains Pond Avenue. Ms. Cassara stated that this structure will tower over the
structures around it. There will be a minimum
of four cars involved. Lots of small
children in the area.
Mark Winder, 29 Swains Pond Avenue. Mr. Winder stated
that the first engineer to present a proposal felt the plan fulfilled all four
articles under the amendment. The
developer had stated that the trees would be preserved only to find out that
the developer had already clear cut the trees.
Mr. Winder stated that the second engineer told the public all of the
ledge is 52 inches under topsoil. Mr.
Winder stated he has a picture that shows large amount of ledge out
croppings. He spoke about the three
driveways in a row on a dangerous corner where the residents routinely wake up
to cars going off the road. The
architecture of the proposed structure is going from bad to worse Mr. Winder stated. It was 2 ½ stories, now a 3 story
building.
Gail
Berg, 20 Beacon Street. Ms. Berg asked
the Board who is responsible for enforcing the plans. Mr. Cassavoy
replied that it is the Building Inspector’s responsibility to make sure plans
are followed. As-built drawings are
prepared by an engineer or an architect.
Mr. Winder said that at the
last meeting one of the PB members stated that ‘ledge busting is like a 30 day
root canal and it is horrendous for a neighborhood.’ It was felt that blasting is easier for a
neighborhood to live through. He stated a preference for blasting vs. hammering
the ledge should the project be approved.
Ms. DeSouza-Ward
wanted to state for the record that this Applicant has gone through a lot for
the Board. She added that it is a large
property and there is a significant contribution of open space to the
City. The Applicant should be
commended. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that
there are only two dwellings with this proposal and a very small area of slope
disturbance. Mr. Cassidy questioned how
the slope was going to be maintained.
The Applicant’s representative stated it will not be mowed. It will be sprayed with compost and will stay
natural. Mr. Mercado asked about
photographs of outcroppings and if the PB had been given data. Mr. Salvo replied that there are some
outcroppings. They have staked the house
out and done some test pitting. Mr.
Mercado stated that a new curb cut is needed.
Mr. Salvo replied affirmatively and stated that the driveway would be 4'
from the adjacent driveway. Mr. Mercado
asked if there were any regulation on distance and also asked who will maintain
the swale. Mr. Salvo replied that they
have not discussed maintenance of the swale but it could be added to the deed
and the condominium documents. Mr.
Pawlina had two observations. He stated
that the Applicant had mentioned a sloped driveway and that it will swale to
the drainage structure and not onto the street – all of the runoff will be
captured. Mr. Pawlina
spoke about the safety and site distance.
He thought the only difficult traffic movement would be entering south
side because there is not a good view down Swains Pond Avenue to the left.
He added that he does not believe it would actually put anyone at
risk. Mr. Cassidy spoke about how this
proposed structure is not ‘very artful, but we may have gone as far as we can
go.’ He stated that it is significant
that the City is getting two acres in perpetuity. He said he is not convinced that there will
be a traffic problem. Mr. Cassidy stated
that he does not feel it should be turned down on the basis of the slope. He added that it is not his favorite house
design, but not such a bad thing. Ms.
Marcus stated that the Applicant has worked very hard to make sure the slope
protection ordinance is addressed. Mr.
Cassidy stated he would like to decline a vote tonight. He wants to look at the drawings and added
that perhaps the public would like a chance to look at the new drawings. Mr. Pawlina stated that he felt that the
public hearing should at least be closed so we can render a decision and he is
ready to vote tonight. Mr. Mercado
said he needs more time. Mr. Connolly
stated he feels it should be kept open for the public hearing for the public to
look at the plans. Mr. Cassavoy stated
the Planning Board needs to make a decision.
The hearing date would be January 8, 2007. A two-thirds
majority vote is needed – Carla is unable to vote. Mr. Cassavoy stated in his opinion the PB
should close the public hearing and go through the new plans. Mr. Pawlina said PB should close the
hearing and then debate internally; getting comfortable with the plans. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to close the
public hearing and to continue the discussion at the next Planning Board meeting
on January
8, 2007. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor except for Mr.
Connolly who opposed it.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED
#06-02,
41-43 Tappan Street, William and Catherine Millerick
Attorney Bob Bell was present
on behalf of the Applicant, William Millerick.
Proposing a dividing line between two structures
currently both on same lot. Classic
exemption within the subdivision control law.
Sufficient frontage. 81(L) division of land. Is not a subdivision. Tract of land on which two
or more buildings were standing when subdivision control was adopted. Mr. Bell said a paper trail does not
exist. The house has a fieldstone
foundation and balloon brass pipes. Mr.
Bell stated that this property was built well before WW II. The rear house was on the site first. The two-family house was built later. Current owners could market the property as condominiums
on common land, but prefer to separate the lots. It meets the definition under the law. Ms. Gaffey added that this is a little‑used
exemption but it is permitted in the Subdivision Laws as reflected on
Form A in our Subdivision Regulations.
The other issue is Form A provides a 1917 date but there does not
appear to be any justification for this date.
Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to sign
and approve the ANR for 41-43 Tappan Street. Ms. Marcus
SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.
SUBDIVISIONS
Preliminary Discussion on Britney Lane Subdivision Resubmission
Attorney Cinella representing
Dr. Anthony Bova, the proposed purchaser, was
present. He was present to discuss a
possible re-submission of the Britney Lane Subdivision with 12 lots as
before. This time Dr. Bova is willing to donate 10,000 S.F. of land to the City
of Melrose in the event we get consensus. Time is running out. There is another individual interested in
purchasing land. Mr. Cinella stated
that this could generate $50,000 to $60,000 in taxes for the City. Mr. Cinella spoke about the possibility of
‘something else being built which the Board might not have control over.’ Mr. Richard Lyons has been engaged; he is
well known to the PB for his integrity.
Mr. Lyons spoke with Chip Chase who is not interested under any
circumstances in selling his triangular piece of land which would provide
egress onto Dexter
Road. Mr. Cinella said
the use of Nordic
Way and its
extension was an issue with the PB. He
stated that on December 15, 2006 he understands that the Purchase and Sale expires and that other buyers are interested that are
not interested in single-family homes.
Mr. Sadowski stated that he did not have a chance to study the slopes
and wondered how the slope ordinance would impact the proposal. Mr. Pawlina had a quick observation –
one structure appears to fall into slope protection ordinance; most not subject
to slope although he acknowledges that the long deadend
is still an issue. Ms. Gaffey
stated, however, that this issue needs to be reviewed further. It is not clear to her that the engineer is
calculating the slope according to the ordinance. She believes more area would be captured although
it might not make a huge impact.
Mr. Cassavoy questioned if the Applicant
is entitled to submit again. Mr. Cinella stated yes because the proposal has changed
slightly to include the land donation.
Ms. DeSouza-Ward reminded the Board that
she was one of the members opposed previously.
She still needs to see a more substantial change, such as half the
number of lots or a shorter road. Mr. Mercado
stated his concern was the slope. Mr.
Cassavoy added that it is more of a challenge now. Ms. Gaffey reminded the Board that they
had encouraged the developer to consider a more creative approach, such as a
clustered development or reducing the lots.
This is essentially the same plan.
Mr. Cinella stated that the Applicant needs 12 lots to make this work. Mr. Pawlina
stated that Nordic
Way is very
steep, but he is open to revisiting this.
Mr. Mercado stated that there are a lot of neighbors against this
proposal. Mr. Cassavoy asked if it would
be worth it to have the Applicant come back before this Board again. Mr. Sadowski stated that it was the same
number of houses. Modest reduction would
go in the right direction. Mr. Cassavoy
stated that the Applicant needs 12 lots to make the project feasible. Ms. Francazio
stated that it is market-driven. She
added that she questions if this is the right proposal for this design
strategy. Mr. Pawlina spoke about another
project in Melrose where the developer plans to deed over more land for only
one duplex. Ms. Marcus said this
Applicant has spent a lot of money massaging the plans. This was the best plan they could come up
with. Mr. Connolly stated that the plan
did not trouble him before nor does it now.
He said it could be worse – could be better. Mr. Cinella stated that the Applicant has a
difficult row to hoe. He said that they
have to discuss these issues among themselves.
WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE
Conservation Commission
Presentation
Susan Murphy, the
Conservation Commission’s Chairperson, and Susan Gerson,
a member, were present to answer questions the Planning Board might have about
the proposed Wetlands Protection Ordinance. Ms. Murphy said the purpose for
this ordinance is if a homeowner is altering an area which is a water resource
area, they come to the Conservation Committee for a permit. The Conservation Commission has enacted local
bylaws and used as a model what a lot of other communities have used. Melrose Conservation Commission has added to
it. Ms. Murphy stated that no
construction should be within a certain area - 15' no-disturbance zone and 20'
no-construction zone. Ms. Murphy spoke
about the importance of having a buffer zone to the wetlands. She asked if any of the Board members had any
questions. Mr. Connolly asked about
vernal pools. Ms. Murphy said that a
vernal pool dries up for part of the year.
Mr. Connolly questioned how someone would know where the vernal pools
are located and if one could be located near his or her property. Ms. Murphy stated that there are certified
wetland vernal pools. If there is a concern,
people come to us for a Request for Determination. She stated if someone starts to build, the
Conservation Commission can ask them to stop and come before them. She added that there is no official map, but
there is a state map. Mr. Cassavoy
asked about small residential houses throughout Melrose. Ms. Murphy
stated that there is a requirement that ‘everyone has to do this. You don’t have any alternative.’ They are not concerned with building
maintenance. Mr. Pawlina had questions
about isolated land subject to flooding.
Ms. Murphy stated that it has to be a particular size and has to hold
water. Ms. Francazio had a question
about available mapping. Ms. Gaffey said
that all FEMA maps are used. Ms. Murphy
stated that if a map is created then we limit our jurisdiction. Mr. Cassavoy
spoke about more restrictions and asked about someone showing up with a cease
and desist order. Mr. Cassavoy said
people who were never flooded before are now getting flooded in Melrose.
Mr. Mercado asked Ms. Murphy about new development – would it go
before the Conservation Commission or Planning Board? Ms. Murphy said the Ordinance is to put
people on notice so they are not surprised if they intend to build a building
right up against the wetlands. She added
that the Conservation Commission already has authority to issue cease and desist orders. Ms.
Gaffey stated that the Board of Aldermen asked the Planning Board to review
this ordinance and write a letter.
Mr. Sadowski said he would like to compare to other communities. Ms. Gaffey stated there is not a strict
time-line to reviewing and sending letter to the Board of Aldermen. She thanked Susan Murphy and Susan Gerson for coming tonight to discuss this proposed
ordinance with the Planning Board.
Ms. DeSouza-Ward felt a few weeks’ time
was needed to discuss the issues. Mr. Pawlina felt this ordinance broadens the area subject to
their jurisdiction and doesn’t warrant the intervention – he is not sure this
is a good idea. Mr.
Pawlina MADE a MOTION to discuss at the December
11, 2006 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Sadowski SECONDED. All in favor.
None opposed.
ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
Citizen Petition to Re-zone Wyoming Heights’ neighborhood
Ms. Gaffey summarized the discussion
she had with the City Solicitor regarding the question of whether the Board could
accept additional public testimony. She
said the hearing had been closed by Alderman Boiselle. They need to re-open the public hearing if
they want more testimony. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated she is wrestling with whether a city-wide
approach is better than a neighborhood approach. She said there are legitimate concerns from
this neighborhood – hilly, dense and handsome.
Townhouses do seem inappropriate just because of the way they look. It needs to be looked at very carefully. Ms. Gaffey did research and found that lot
sizes are 9,000 to 10,000 S.F. The topography is very sloped. Most of the lots would need Slope Protection
under Special Permit. Streets are narrow
and steep. It was initially compared to
Boston Rock Road which is very different.
The Boston Rock lot sizes are 15,000 S.F. and the houses were primarily
built in the 1950s and 1960s. Another UR-A neighborhood similar would be Cedar Park or Clifton Park. Aldermen
raised two issues: spot zoning and Master
Plan and how does this fit in? Spot
zoning does not appear to be an issue.
Mr. Cassavoy
asked the Planning Board for any comments.
Mr. Cassidy asked why would townhouses be put under special permit but
not multi-family? Ms. Gaffey said multi-families
already require a special permit. Mr. Cassidy
stated that he feels that the UR-A designation for Wyoming Heights is appropriate.
Mr. Cassavoy stated a motion was needed if the
Board wanted to send a letter to the Board of Aldermen. He added that it appeared a majority of the
Planning Board would like to send this letter.
Mr. Connolly MADE the MOTION to send the Zoning Subcomittee
recommendation to the Aldermen. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED.
Five in favor. Ms.
Marcus and Mr. Cassavoy ABSTAINED because they missed the public hearing. Messrs. Mercado and Cassidy OPPOSED.
Proposed Green Space
zoning amendment
Ms. DeSouza-Ward
mentioned that the Zoning Subcommittee briefly discussed this possible zoning
amendment. It needs to be discussed
further as there was some question as to whether it is really necessary. Mr. Pawlina stated
that the Planning Board would be arbitrating taste. This will be addressed at a subsequent zoning
meeting. Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to
adjourn. All in favor. None opposed.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.