MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting & Public Hearing

Monday, December 17, 2007

7:50 p.m.

Mayor’s Conference Room

PRESENT: Mike Cassavoy, Ed Cassidy, Richard Connolly, Bob Mercado, John Sadowski, Gerry Marcus, Anne DeSouza-Ward, Tom Pawlina and 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, November 28, 2007

Mr. Connolly had several edits to the minutes. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes with the revisions. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

ASSENT CALENDAR

15 Green Street, Epoch Senior Health Care of Melrose

Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor with the exception of Ms. Marcus who recused herself. None opposed.

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 07-033, 41 Forest Street, Ciulla

The Applicant, Richard Ciulla, was present with his engineer, Anthony Salamanca. The Applicant explained to the members that he planned to build the proposed duplex for retirement purposes. Ms. Gaffey presented a history of the proposed project. She stated that the Applicant had spoken to the former building inspector who reviewed the application and approved it. The building inspector was unaware that a special permit for the two-family use was needed – it was an oversight. The interim building inspector also overlooked the Special Permit requirement and issued a building permit. Ms. Gaffey said the proposed duplex also requires frontage relief. Through an abutter's inquiry, this oversight was noticed. According to Ms. Gaffey, the existing building was demolished and construction has gone as far as foundations. Ms. Gaffey stated the Applicant stopped construction right away. Mr. Pawlina visited the site with the materials provided and had trouble making sense of the proposal. Ms. Gaffey passed around an Assessor's map of the parcel to offer the members more context regarding the property. Mr. Pawlina stated that since this application had "obviously gone through plan review and city hall, he takes no exception." Mr. Pawlina added that he feels the Assessor’s map should be appended to the application. Mr. Mercado asked about the frontage. Mr. Cassavoy stated there is no frontage – the parcel is landlocked. Ms. Gaffey explained that the City Solicitor considers the proposed change of use from a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling a substantial change that nullifies the pre-existing non-conforming status associated with the lot. Mr. Mercado asked if there had been any other recent rulings in the area that involved frontage issues. Ms. Gaffey replied Lot 29A off of Lebanon Street. The Applicant in that project received relief for frontage. That structure has been constructed. Mr. Mercado asked how the house will be located on the site. The Applicant stated the house would be perpendicular. The Applicant was asked if there is access on Forest Street to which the Applicant replied there is access. Mr. Cassidy asked about Lot 28. Ms. Gaffey stated that Lot 28 is a half-acre lot with a two-family house with frontage on Forest Street. Mr. Cassidy inquired whether the Applicant had spoken to his neighbor regarding the proposed project. The Applicant stated that the neighbor does not have a problem with it. The Applicant indicated that the rear and front setback relief is related to the farmer's porch. The members indicated that the farmer’s porch is not noted on the site plan. The Applicant passed around an updated site plan that showed the farmer’s porch. In response to the whether there would be a roof on the farmer’s porch, the Applicant responded affirmatively. The Applicant's engineer spoke about shortening up the length of the house. Ms. Desouza-Ward questioned the access and parking layout for the proposed project and also added that a two-family does not appear to be out of place. She feels a special permit is not out of the question and asked if the Applicant is planning to keep the garage. He replied he is planning to keep it. Ms. Desouza-Ward asked if the road leading to the site is paved and the Applicant replied it is a dirt road. The Applicant stated that the right of way is ten feet wide. The Applicant indicated that he intends to pave the access to the lot. Mr. Cassidy questioned whether the Applicant operated a business on site. Ms. Desouza-Ward asked about the nature of the business and was told by the Applicant it was a concrete business. The Applicant stated that presently they only have one truck in use. The Applicant indicated that previously he had maintained a larger business. Ms. Gaffey stated it was a pre-existing business. Ms. Marcus asked how many cars were stored in the garage and was told by the Applicant two cars. Mr. Cassavoy provided an aerial photograph of the site to the Planning Board members. Ms. Gaffey asked the Applicant when the house was last occupied and was told by the Applicant it had been occupied immediately before being demolished. Mr. Cassidy stated that the site plan does not appear to agree with the architectural plans for the new structure. Mr. Cassidy explained that the Planning Board only found out about the size of the porch by questioning the Applicant. He added that the fact that the Applicant’s business was not disclosed until this meeting is a material fact which should have been noted in the application. Mr. Cassidy stated that this proposed structure is a big change to this neighborhood. Mr. Cassidy asked what setback relief is being sought and he was told by Mr. Cassavoy side and rear setback. Mr. Cassidy stated a site plan was needed which reflects the requested relief. He added that the application does not hold enough information in order for the Planning Board to make any kind of recommendation.

Mr. Cassidy began to draft a letter to the Board of Appeals that states that the Planning Board met with the Applicant on December 17, 2007 to discuss his application for a special permit for a two family house. A Frontage variance has also been requested to build a two-family house on this lot. In questioning the Applicant and reviewing the materials provided, we are left with what we feel is incomplete disclosure of intent regarding the following issues:

1. Special Permit for the two family use in the URA zone;

2. Access from Forest Street is not paved;

3. The operation of a business on the existing lot that involves construction; and

4. The lack of a site plan that shows the parking layout, access to the lot, designated open space, as well as how the elevation of the proposed two-family fits with the surrounding structures. The site plan should also illustrate the front and side setback relief required for the farmer’s porch, in addition to how the proposed dwelling and garage will share the lot.

Mr. Cassidy continued that the foregoing represents significant omissions from the submission and the application should be withdrawn until the gaps are filled in.

Mr. Pawlina stated that the members recognize the application has been reviewed by three building inspectors who have provided guidance to the Applicant. Mr. Pawlina stated that the Applicant showed good faith efforts. Mr. Pawlina added that the application is incomplete. The Applicant stated that he was given the permit and that the inspectors came to the site to see it. He feels he did everything correctly; as a result, he knocked the house down and built the new foundation. Ms. Gaffey said the Applicant will have time to supplement his information before the Board of Appeals' hearing on January 9, 2008. Mr. Cassavoy mentioned the farmer's porch on the structure. The Applicant stated that he put a lot of time and effort into the design. Mr. Cassaovy stated setbacks should be indicated on the site plan. The Applicant replied that he had called the Building Inspector and was told as long as the farmer’s porch was not higher than four feet that the porch would be permitted. MOTION was MADE by Mr. Cassidy to send the letter outlined above to the Board of Appeals. Ms. Marcus stated she feels the letter was too strongly worded regarding the reference to the withdrawal of the application. Mr. Cassidy amended the letter to reflect that the Planning Board is unable to comment authoritatively on the merit or disadvantages of this proposal as the application is deficient in its level of specificity regarding the following issues:

1. Information pertaining to the operation of a business on site.

2. A site plan that shows the parking layout, access to the lot, designated open space, as well as how the elevation of the proposed two family dwelling fits with the surrounding structures. The site plan should also illustrate the front and side setback relief required for the farmer’s porch, in addition to how the proposed dwelling and garage will share the lot.

Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-035, 1715 Broadway, Aggregate Industries

The Applicant's attorney, Bob Bell, was present as well as the Applicant’s permit specialist, Tim Jones. Mr. Jones provided a brief summary of the application. Mr. Bell stated that Mr. Luther, the former building inspector, had determined that the container being built was not a building structure but manufacturing equipment, which is permitted in the Industrial District. He said it was determined it was a building code issue only. Mr. Jones explained that construction of the containment structure was later stopped when it was determined that zoning relief was needed. Mr. Bell explained that the plant is a state-of-the-art facility that includes land in both Melrose and Saugus. According to Mr. Bell, the Melrose section does not have any frontage on Broadway. Mr. Bell stated that there have been several owners since the early 1990's and indicated that as the new owner, the Applicant is in the process of taking care of all outstanding permits. Mr. Jones stated the Applicant is requesting relief for height to install a new 300 ton hot mix asphalt storage silo and a Special Permit to construct an above ground storage tank containment structure. Mr. Cassavoy asked if there were any fire department-related issues. Mr. Bell indicated the Melrose and Saugus Fire Department have both been consulted and have expressed satisfaction with the fire safety aspects of the project. Mr. Jones explained that the plant was originally designed to include six (6) 300 ton hot mix asphalt storage silos, but only five (5) were erected. The additional silo will enable the company to add flexibility to the products offered. Mr. Jones added that the proposed liquid storage tank containment structure will replace a temporary tank that has been permitted annually. The Applicant's representative stated that the Applicant also requires renewals and licenses separate from these zoning issues. The members discussed the traffic impact of the Applicant’s proposal. Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION stating that the Planning Board reviewed the proposed changes to the site and noted that the Applicant represented that five (5) silos, identical in height to the proposed new silo exist on site. According to the Applicant, the facility was originally designed to include six (6) silos, however the sixth silo was never constructed. With respect to the Special Permit for a liquid asphalt storage tank, the Applicant stated that the proposed new tank will replace a temporary tank that has been permitted on an annual basis. From a planning perspective, the Applicant’s proposal is viewed positively because it advances an existing industrial use without generating a significant impact to the Broadway neighborhood. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

SITE PLAN REVIEW

Case 07-002, 532-546 Main Street, Mark Carroll

The Applicant, Mark Carroll, was present as well as his representatives, Attorney Bob Bell and Architect Chris Poravas. This is a continuation of the public hearing. The Applicant had been asked to come back before the Planning Board with additional information pertaining to parking, stormwater and sewer, and Main Street storefront design standards.

1) Parking availability

Mr. Bell stated that the parking space allocation is under the control of the City Engineer, Bob Beshara. There are spaces available on Berwick Street. Mr. Bell said that these spaces are adequate from the developer's standpoint. Mr. Bell stated that Mr. Beshara does not know the specific number of spaces available at the present time but the time is coming when 'they will have to truly count.' Mr. Bell stated certain areas are tight – behind Eastern Bank is mixed use with residents and merchants sharing spaces and the Shaw's lot is fully subscribed. Mr. Sadowski confirmed that individuals who obtain permits to park in City lots overnight are designated to a specific lot.

2) Storm water and sewerage

The Applicant has engaged Rand Associates. Mr. Bell explained that Rand is very familiar with Melrose and has been in touch with the Department of Public Works. Ms. Gaffey reviewed with the members comments from the City Engineer regarding the application. A hydrant flow test will be required. The City Engineer indicated that the installation of a storm interceptor system to capture the drainage from the roof should be explored. The Site Plan should show the proposed domestic and fire service connections as well as sewer and drain connections. Mr. Beshara commented that the water and sewer service needs to be replaced and that the Applicant will be required to make an Inflow/Infiltration contribution to the City. Mr. Beshara indicated that the sidewalks may need to be replaced should they deteriorate during construction. The Applicant stated his engineer is under contract and will do what is needed.

3) Main Street storefront design standards

The Architect, Mr. Poravas, presented more information about the design details for the Main Street façade. Mr. Poravas stated that the existing doorways and window length will be maintained. Mr. Poravas indicated that the wall structure in the plan is new. He showed that a lower panel system will run the length of the building. The transom will have simulated divided lights. Mr. Cassidy asked about colors and the Architect replied that it would be a painted system and depend upon the manufacturer. Mr. Cassavoy stated these changes should be documented and the details are important to the Planning Board. Ms. Gaffey stated the Applicant will have to go back to the Historical District Commission for review of the ground level storefronts. Ms. Gaffey explained that the Historic District Commission specifically did not review anything pertaining to the Main Street storefronts. Mr. Cassavoy added that the Planning Board is looking for a concept and will leave the details to the Historic District Commission. Mr. Pawlina asked if the public hearing should be kept open and Ms. Gaffey replied that would not be necessary as the Historic District Commission has closed its public hearing and issued a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Bell acknowledged that the renovations of the storefronts are tied in with the roll-over of the leases of the commercial units and that the Applicant would return to the Historic District Commission for approval for the storefronts. Mr. Sadowski stated that there is a possibility that the current owner or a future owner would let the first floor 'just sit' and the Planning Board needs to recognize we may not see it renovated for some time. Mr. Cassidy questioned the Applicant on the size of the sign band. The Applicant stated that it is not fully developed and will depend upon the individual tenants. Mr. Cassidy felt the size was not proportionate. Mr. Cassidy requested that a detail be sent to the Planning Board showing the sign band, lighting, and spacing. The members reviewed with the Applicant the materials he intends to use. The Applicant indicated that he plans to use composite, pre-finished black, double-hung windows. Mr. Bell added that the Applicant is under the commitment from the Historic District Commission for colors. The Applicant said he is very open to a third color – he cannot imagine everything being black or khaki brown. Mr. Cassidy stated that he hoped the plan is to use a high-quality wood door for the retail storefronts. Mr. Cassavoy added he felt it should be a durable, commercial material, not necessarily wood. Mr. Sadowski stated he thought the door should look like wood, not aluminum and should also have divided lights. Mr. Pawlina suggested that as the Applicant gets into greater detail he could come before the Design Review subcommittee to hammer things out. Mr. Cassavoy stated that any changes have to go before the Historic District Commission. The Applicant stated his intention is to design nice entryways for the storefronts on Main Street. He added that he will have to change these doors as 'they are all over the place.' The Applicant indicated that he is apprehensive about wood doors. Overall, the members emphasized the use of high quality materials.

Mr. Sadowski raised the issue of the number of residential units proposed by the Applicant. Ms. Gaffey suggested that this topic should be discussed for the record. In response to the Board’s request for her opinion, Ms Gaffey stated that she did not feel that the number of units should be a concern. In terms of traffic, Ms. Gaffey referred the members to the Traffic Impact Study performed for the previously proposed mixed use building with 28 residential units and 9,000 square feet of commercial space that indicated that traffic impact on surrounding roadways would be minimal. Mr. Mercado asked about the minimum area of living space required and was told by Ms. Gaffey that it is 450 S.F. Mr. Sadowski stated that the Planning Board would rather see a smaller number of units, but can understand why the Applicant wants to go in this direction. Mr. Sadowski spoke about the conditions needed for approval and Planning Board’s interest in seeing more regarding the concept for the first floor storefronts. Mr. Sadowski inquired whether there should be a timetable. Mr. Cassavoy expressed he is reluctant to set a time limit. Mr. Connolly agreed and stated he feels a time requirement is inconsistent with site plan review. Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to close the public hearing and noted that no members of the public are in attendance. Ms Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

The Planning Board next discussed and the following conditions which the Site Plan Review would be approved upon:

· Inflow/Infiltration contribution. The payment shall be based on DEP Title V equal to 150 gallons per day per bedroom at $1.40 per gallon. The final amount shall be determined by the City Engineer.

· The 1” copper water service and 5” sewer service shall be replaced and/or upgraded by the Petitioner in accordance with the Rand Associates Consulting, Inc. letter dated December 12, 2007 and under the direction of the City Engineer.

• A hydrant flow test shall be required in coordination with the Water Division of the Public Works Department.

· Adjacent sidewalks shall be replaced at the City Engineer’s discretion should conditions deteriorate during the construction of the project.

· The Petitioner shall increase the frequency of the trash pick-up service and/or the size of the trash dumpster, if necessary, so that at no time will trash overflow from the dumpster. Trash will be picked up privately.

· The members discussed the City Engineer recommendation to install a leaching type basin system with an overflow to the City storm drain system to capture the runoff from the roof drains. The City Engineer stipulated that the installation of such system would only be required should the Petitioner’s proposal increase or change runoff patterns on the site. Members of the Board indicated that they did not foresee an increase in the flow rate of the runoff. The Planning Board also suggested that the Petitioner evaluate further whether the foundation of the building would be put at risk should a drainage system of this nature be installed.

Mr. Cassidy spoke of his interest in seeing a section of a typical storefront elevation about ten feet wide including one doorway as seen from Main Street that clearly shows the sign band, lighting, and door. Mr. Cassidy emphasized that the Applicant should provide a clear description of the design intent of the ground level storefronts, graphically or verbally. The members discussed the process that the Applicant would need to abide by to submit the additional materials required by the Board. The Board agreed to add the following condition:

· The Petitioner acknowledges and agrees that relative to the ground floor of the project the doors and the indirect lighting shall be of a high quality material consistent with the architectural style of the existing structure and the surrounding buildings The Petitioner shall provide a typical storefront detail, a 10 foot wide section of the first floor elevation from the sign band to the foundation that includes the proposed design of the lighting and commercial doorway. This detail shall be appended to the final plans and submitted to the Planning Board for review.

Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to approve the Site Plan Review with the aforementioned conditions. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. Approved unanimously by roll call.

OTHER

Patriot Way Subdivision

Ms. Gaffey informed the members that one house has been constructed and is now occupied. Ms. Gaffey described the road work as essentially done except for the curb installation and indicated that the City Engineer has recommended the release of Part 4 of the developer’s bond. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to release the bond. Ms. Desouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Lower Washington Rezoning

Ms. Gaffey informed the Planning Board members that they will be hearing more about the Washington Street Rezoning effort in the coming weeks. Ms. Gaffey stated that there was a neighborhood meeting recently to present the draft and it went very well. Ms. Gaffey briefly explained the objectives of the proposed amendment. It is structured as an overlay and permits mixed use as of right. Ms. Gaffey added that zoning includes strong design standards as well. Holly Regan will be sending out an email to the members to setup a special Planning Board meeting to review the draft amendment.

Walgreens Signage

Discussion occurred concerning the Walgreens signage. The reader board has been changing every 30 seconds which can be quite distracting. The Planning Board discussed the intent of the condition related to the reader board and agreed that the lettering on the reader board is required to stay constant. Mr. Cassavoy stated the building inspector should write a letter if Walgreens is not following the conditions set.

Ms. Desouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.