MELROSE PLANNING
BOARD
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
Monday, February 25, 2008
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 (in part), 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 &
Public Hearing, January 28, 2008 & Special Meeting February 4, 2008
Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to
make a minor edit to the February 4, 2008 minutes and then to accept both sets of minutes. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
BOARD OF APPEALS
Case 08-004, 128 East Emerson Street, Ricupero
Mr. Pawlina requested the
application be taken off the Assent Calendar.
The Applicant's representative, Robert Bell, was present. Mr. Bell stated that the Applicant has owned
the house since the 1970s. The
homeowners would like to connect the garage and the house. Mr. Bell stated that this improvement would
be beneficial to the Applicants as they get older. Mr. Bell explained that because the house is
situated on a corner lot, once the structures are connected the garage will no
longer be an accessory structure and will violate the rear setback. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to send
standard letter to the Board of Appeals that notes as with similar variance
requests of this nature, the Board expressed caution that future changes in the
use of the garage may occur. Mr.
Sadowski also advised the Applicant to show the proposed connection on the
plan. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the
MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
Case 08-003, 112 Highview Avenue, Lavasseur
The Applicant was present and
stated he wishes to put an addition on his home to accommodate his growing
family. Mr. Sadowski inquired whether
the deck shown in the floor plan and elevation is included in his application. The Applicant indicated the deck is not
included. Mr. Sadowski stated that
the Board has seen similar additions proposed for single-family homes. To reduce an elongated appearance, he
suggested that the Applicant may want to consider offsetting the addition a
foot or two to create architectural interest.
Mr. Cassidy agreed with Mr. Sadowski’s suggestion and added
that he thought it would not seem to interfere with the utility of the
space. The Applicant noted that the
proposed deck shown on the plan is not going to be built at this time. Mr. Cassidy stated the matter of the deck
should be left to the Board of Appeal's discretion as to whether or not they
wish to permit or exclude the deck being constructed. Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to send a standard
letter that notes for architectural reasons, the Board suggests that the Applicant
shift the addition two (2) feet to the north away from the side property line
to avoid the construction of a long and continuous south wall and to allow for
safe access to the side wall of the newly constructed addition. Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
Case 08-005, 98 Lynn Fells Parkway, Dillon
The Applicants, along with
their representative, Robert Bell, were present. Mr. Bell indicated to the Board that a
conventional garage in this location would be cost prohibitive based on the
terrain. Mr. Bell pointed out there is a garage on the adjacent
lot. Mr. Bell explained that the
proposal will not require a lot of maintenance to the storm drain and described
the drainage improvements included in the Applicant’s plan. Mr. Bell indicated that the Applicants have
been in contact with the Public Works Department. Mr. Cassavoy spoke about the safety issues
involved with backing out onto the Fellsway and inquired regarding the sight
lines at the proposed structure. The
Applicant explained that the garage is necessary because currently they do not
have enough parking spaces. Mr. Cassavoy
asked whether any discussion has taken place with the Building Commissioner regarding
whether a Slope Protection Special Permit would be required. Mr. Bell indicated that he understands the
Building Commissioner feels that the Slope Protection applies and asked the
Board for their feelings on the matter.
Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked how close the proposed structure would be to the
sidewalk and front lot line. Mr. Bell
explained that DCR did not construct the sidewalks to the authorized
width. Mr. Mercado clarified whether the
garage would be large enough to house two or three cars. Mr. Mercado pointed out that widening of the
curb would be required. Mr. Bell
indicated that the application includes a three car garage. Mr. Sadowski questioned whether a three car
garage is necessary and explored whether the proposed office space addition
could be situated on a different part of the lot. Mr. Cassidy expressed that adding
occupied space within the front yard setback over a garage is going a bit
far. Mr. Cassidy shared his concerns
from a safety perspective and indicated that he was not aware of any precedent
of locating a structure of this nature along the sidewalk of a high speed
boulevard. Mr. Pawlina stated that he
felt that the slope protection issue is di minimis and that the structure is
oversized. Ms. DeSouza-Ward added that
she did not feel that the proposed location was the best spot for such a
project. Mr. Pawlina MADE A MOTION to
send a letter to the ZBA that notes that the Planning Board does not recommend the application as proposed because the
three car garage with occupied rooms above would be located on the front lot line
and would block the driver’s sight distance when exiting onto the Parkway. Its proposed location, on a curve and on a 30
MPH road where speeds often exceed the limit will create a dangerous situation. The Board views the proposal as too intense
of a use for this location; however the Board may support a smaller project
that could include parking for two cars in a garage with open sides without
occupied space above. The Board defers
to the Building Commissioner regarding whether the Slope Protection Special
Permit is required. The Board compliments
the application for the inclusion of mitigation work associated with a drainage
problem for which the Applicants’ property is not the source. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All
voted in favor. None opposed.
Case 08-006, 25 Willard Street, Long
The Applicant, Brian Long,
was present. He stated he wishes to
construct an in-law apartment within the existing space above his garage for
his mother. Mr. Long explained that his
application also includes a request for a variance to construct egress stairs
that encroach 3’ 8’’ on the Dana Street setback. Mr.
Sadowski reviewed the conditions of the City’s in-law apartment requirements
with the Applicant. Mr. Pawlina MADE a
MOTION to send the standard letter to the Board of Appeals that notes that it
appears that the Applicant is aware of the City’s in-law apartment requirements
and has met the necessary criteria.
Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.
All voted in favor. None
opposed.
Case 08-007, 60 Meridian Street, Tarquinio
The Applicant, Richard Tarquinio,
was present. He stated that he is the
process of constructing an addition onto to his home to accommodate a
handicapped relative, which does not require a variance. Mr. Tarquinio explained that his application
involves a request for a variance to build a deck. Mr. Tarquinio shared that he has communicated
with his neighbors regarding the project and they have expressed no problem
with it. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to send the standard letter to Board of
Appeals. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the
MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
560
Lebanon Street: Request for Extension
Patrick McAvoy was present on
behalf of the Applicant. Mr. McAvoy
explained that the Applicant received Site Plan Review approval from the Planning Board two years ago for 10 units to be built on 560 Lebanon Street. The Planning Board approved the Application on February 27, 2006. Mr. McAvoy
indicated he is before the Planning
Board on behalf of the
Applicant to request a one-year extension.
Mr. Sadowski stated that the Applicant’s letter presents valid reasons
for the proposed extension. Mr. Sadowski
MADE a MOTION to extend the site plan review approval one year from today. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED
Carlida
Road/Cranmore Lane/Boardman Avenue, Green Morningside Nominee Trust
The Applicant's
Representative, Louis P. Izzi, was present as well as the Engineer, Richard
Williams, from Hayes Engineering. Mr.
Izzi requested the ANR be withdrawn.
Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to allow the withdrawal of the
ANR. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the
MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
SUBDIVISION – SLOPE PROTECTION SPECIAL PERMIT
SP 08-001, Boardman Avenue, Green Morningside Nominee Trust
The Applicant, Linda Bulman,
was present along with her Representative, Louis Izzi and Engineer, Richard
Williams from Hayes Engineering. Mr.
Izzi opened his presentation by recognizing the Applicant and describing the
location of the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Izzi explained that the Applicant’s father, Brad Hutchinson, and grandfather
bought the undeveloped parcel as an approved 23 lot subdivision in 1961. Mr. Izzi shared that the family came forward
with a development proposal in the 1980s.
Mr. Izzi highlighted the drainage issues in the area. Mr. Izzi explained that the City was granted
a drainage easement at approximately the midpoint of Cranmore Lane by the previous owner at around the time of the
original subdivision approval. A
drainage pipe was installed but never connected. The Applicant’s father was advised that the
pipe would be connected for discharge to Howard Street upon the determination of the lay-out of the
subdivision. Mr. Izzi also shared that some
years later the City directed additional drainage onto the Applicant’s land at
the terminus of Boardman
Avenue. Mr. Izzi expressed that the Applicant plans
to raise her family in one of the homes in the proposed subdivision. Mr. Izzi stated that the Applicant has the
best interests of the neighbors at heart and wishes to develop this site in a
manner the neighborhood will appreciate.
Mr. Izzi expressed that the Applicant has sought out the neighbors'
input. Mr. Izzi explained that the Definitive
Plan that has been submitted meets all the technical requirements of the City’s
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and that the Applicant will defer to the
Board regarding the waivers it deems to be appropriate. In terms of Slope Protection Special Permit,
the proposed plan preserves the natural topography of the site and will not
have a negative impact.
Mr. Izzi turned the meeting
over to Mr. Williams, the Engineer, who detailed the proposed access off of Boardman Avenue. Mr. Williams
indicated the current road has sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Williams stated the land contains a large
wetlands system that has been delineated by the Conservation Commission. He said the wetlands are at the low point of
the property. Mr. Williams
explained that the proposed subdivision is zoned SR-B, which requires 10,000
square foot lots with 80 feet of frontage.
Mr. Williams showed the proposed 50 foot road layout of the Boardman
Extension that includes sidewalks on each side and a cul-de-sac of 118 feet. Mr. Williams spoke about connecting the
subdivision to the City's water main, in addition to tying in the subdivision’s
8" sewer line into the Boardman line.
In terms of drainage, Mr. Williams explained that he has evaluated the
existing conditions of the flows in the area and has tried to mimic these
flows. Mr. Williams stated that the project
is designed to meet storm water management guidelines in all storms for every
one, two, ten, 100-year models. Mr. Williams
highlighted the two stormwater management systems included in the plan. Mr. Williams explained that a swale is
proposed to intercept groundwater and divert it to the first stormwater
management system located behind Lot 5. The second
stormwater management system features a level spreader and rip rap area at the
end of Boardman
Avenue. Mr. Williams stated that the project will not
increase the rate of runoff into the wetlands system. He said while the proposal does not fix the drainage
problems in the neighborhood, it also does not exacerbate them. Mr. Williams explained that the watershed in
the area is huge. Mr. Williams concluded
by informing the Board that several locations on the site meet the Slope Protection
requirements and that the Applicant will be meeting with the Conservation
Commission. Mr. Hennigan read a letter
from a resident of Cranmore
Lane, Sanford Monsein, into the record. Mr. Cassavoy opened the meeting up for public
comment.
Leonore Monsein, 31 Cranmore Lane. Mrs. Monsein shared that her family has lived
in their home on Cranmore
Lane for 40
years. For the past three or four years,
they have experienced flooding, which has required them to shovel sewage out of
their home.
Fred O'Brien, 27 Arlington Road. Mr. O'Brien
asked if there would be any blasting.
Mr. Izzi replied that there could be blasting and it would be done
under the purview of the Fire Department in a manner that would be respectful
to the neighbors.
Jan Crafts, 171 Boardman Avenue. Mrs. Crafts
stated her house is the last house on Boardman Avenue that abuts the proposed subdivision. Mrs. Crafts said there is a huge flooding
problem in this area and that the City of Melrose has to address this before they can approve the
proposed subdivision. She stated that
the proposed mitigation field is larger than her home and will have a negative
impact to her property.
Louis Crafts, 171 Boardman Avenue. Mr. Crafts
stated he is very concerned about the mitigation field. Mr. Crafts asked what the depth of the
mitigation field would be and whether there would be water in it at all
times. He stated that the mitigation
field would be ten feet away from his house and questioned what this would do
to his property value. Mr. Williams
responded that the mitigation field would be two feet deep and explained that
it probably would be full in the spring months.
According to Mr. Williams, the mitigation field proposed at this
location is at the low point on the property.
Paul Ormand, 25 Arlington Road. Mr. Ormand
stated he is a civil engineer, who feels that there is fundamentally inadequate
drainage problem in the area. Mr. Ormand
compared the drainage basin at the end of Boardman Avenue to something one might see at a suburban office park,
which is not typical for a community like Melrose. Mr. Ormand
explained that the Applicant is not at fault, but rather doing what needs to be
done to reduce the velocity of the water.
Mr. Ormand stated that the real solution involves reworking the
drainage system on Cranmore
Lane.
Jim Fanikos, 37 Carlida St.
Mr. Fanikos stated that he has
lived at his home for 42 years. This
past year was the first year the sump pump activated. Mr. Fanikos stated his home is at the low
point and the area constantly floods.
They are concerned with the drainage problem.
Kathleen Driscoll, 23 Cranmore Lane
Ms. Driscoll stated her
concern for the condition of the wetlands and expressed that she feels that the
water table has risen higher each spring in recent years.
Kevin Hegarty, 11 Cranmore Lane
Mr. Hegarty indicated he has
also has noticed a rise in the water table.
He asked City authorities to include Cranmore and Carlida within the
scope of the City’s drainage mitigation project for the area and emphasized
need for help with this neighborhood’s drainage issues. Mr. Hegarty asked exactly what 1, 2 or
100-year flood is able to tell the engineers.
Leonore Monsein, 31 Cranmore Lane
Mrs. Monsein spoke about a
recent article in the Free Press that described water from a project at the
Colonial in Lynnfield flowing towards Melrose. She said this
is going to cost the City of Melrose a lot of money.
She stated that the Army Corps of Engineers should be alerted that wetlands
are being tampered with.
Robert Callahan, 211 Bay State Road
Mr. Callahan stated he and
his neighbors have lived through the construction on Mount Zion Road and spoke about the effects of blasting. He mentioned blasting as the possible cause of
fissures that may have contributed to the change in drainage patterns in the
area and the destruction of his neighbor's lawn.
Elin Agustsson, 17 Arlington Road
Ms. Agustsson inquired about
the size of the proposed homes. She
commented that she would not like to see large homes built near small
homes.
Kevin Hegarty, 11 Cranmore Lane
Mr. Hegarty asked for the
estimated percentage of the property that would be covered with impervious
surfaces. He inquired where the water
flows after it leaves the proposed mitigation field near the Crafts’ home. He expressed support for the Applicant’s
right to develop the land as well as concerns regarding the impact of this
proposed development on the neighborhood.
Mr. Cassavoy asked for Planning Board members' questions and comments. Mr. Sadowski asked why the Applicant chose
not to submit a Preliminary Plan. Mr.
Izzi responded that a lot of time and care was taken to put the plan together and
that all of the City’s subdivision requirements have been met. Mr. Izzi highlighted that the input of the
neighbors was also sought. Mr. Williams
added there were not a lot of options based on the terrain. When asked the elevation of the wetlands, Mr.
Williams indicated 65 to 68 feet. Mr.
Williams explained the wetlands run along the property line of the Applicant
and the homes along Cranmore Lane. Mr. Izzi
added that much of the growth of the wetlands can be attributed to the
discharge by the City. Mr. Cassidy asked
Mr. Williams to explain the function of the level spreader. Mr. Williams stated that the Definitive Plan
calls for the addition of two catch basins at the end of Boardman Avenue. The level
spreader includes a stone buffer, which is the last stop for the storm water
before it flows into the wetlands. Mr.
Pawlina asked about City easement for the pipe that discharges into the
Applicant’s property and the location of the proposed drainage systems. Mr. Williams explained the drainage systems
are positioned at the low point and that level spreader at the end of Boardman
is designed to serve the 15 acre watershed in the area. Mr. Pawlina commented that a surface
system is necessary and inquired whether there is a stream within the wetlands. Mr. Williams responded that no stream is
mapped. Mr. Pawlina expressed that this
area definitely has a bigger drainage problem than this small development
proposal. Ms. Marcus asked whether the
subdivision would have any effect on the properties and was told by Mr.
Williams there would be none. Mr. Cassavoy
asked about any waiver requests for the width of the roadway. Mr. Izzi responded that the Applicant is not
requesting waivers and added that if the neighbors have requests, the Applicant
is open to them. Mr. Cassavoy
commented on how reducing the volume of pavement would reduce runoff. Mr. Williams agreed. Mr. Cassidy recognized the contention in the
room and stated it might be exacerbated due to the lack of a preliminary plan. While Mr. Cassidy expressed sympathy for the Hutchinson family, he showed uncertainty as to whether this will
be win-win situation for all involved.
Mr. Cassidy emphasized the need to seek common ground as the land will
be developed. Mr. Cassidy cautioned that this will be a long process and
speculated if the City needs to do something to resolve the drainage issues in
the area. Mr. Mercado suggested the use
of porous pavement. Mr. Connolly
confirmed whether Lot 10 will ever be built upon. Mr. Izzi indicated that Lot
10 is not buildable due to the presence of the wetlands. Ms. DeSouza-Ward inquired whether a reduction
in the roadway width could offer the ability to move the drainage system
further away from the Crafts’ home. Mr. Williams
suggested that there might be an opportunity to look at the drainage systems
differently depending on road width and sidewalks. Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked for
additional information regarding the size and location of the homes. Mr. Williams indicated that the size of the
homes reflected on the Definitive Plan are about as big as they can be. Mr. Izzi stated that the Applicants wish to
live in the subdivision and that the appearance of the homes is important to
them. Ms. DeSouza-Ward questioned whether
covenants would be involved. Mr. Izzi
replied affirmatively, but exact verbiage has yet to be discussed. Mr. Pawlina questioned if the Applicants
have spoken to DPW about additional sewer capacity for the subdivision and Inflow/Infiltration
situation on Cranmore
Lane. Mr. Williams stated the Definitive Plan was
submitted to the DPW. Mr. Mercado
questioned the location of the swale. Mr.
Williams explained that the swale will cut off the flow of run-off onto the
abutters’ properties. Mr. Sadowski
commented that the preliminary plan is useful because it provides a greater
context regarding the surrounding properties and he expressed topography and
sections of the abutting lots are helpful. Mr. Williams explained that he did not have access
to enter the abutting properties. Mr. Cassavoy said perhaps USGS maps could be
utilized so the surveyors would not have to go on abutters' properties. Mr. Cassidy stated he would like a
better understanding of the locus of utilities and the characteristics of sewer
system on Cranmore
Lane.
A question was asked by a
member of the public regarding whether the need for the detention pond would be
reduced if the City drainage pipe was connected to Howard Street. Another
member of the public supported the reduction of the roadway width.
Mr. Williams addressed the
issue of continuing a more narrow width of Boardman Avenue into the cul‑de‑sac as far as possible. Mr. Connolly reminded the members of the
timelines associated with Subdivision and Slope Protection special permit
applications. Mr. Connolly MADE a
MOTION to continue the public hearing until the next scheduled meeting. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
The Planning Board agreed to provide a list of additional information to
be supplied for the next meeting.
Ms. Francazio left the meeting for the evening.
SMART GROWTH DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT
Ms. Gaffey shared and
reviewed with the members some changes to the draft amendment that have been
made since the Special Planning
Board Meeting held on February 4, 2008. Ms. Gaffey
also presented new language pertaining to signage. Favorable discussion took replace regarding
standing signs and blade signs. Mr.
Cassidy inquired whether any language is included that allows for signs to be
shaped as objects. Ms. DeSouza-Ward
raised the issue of signs that can be viewed through windows.
Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to
adjourn. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the
MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.