MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, February 26, 2007

7:45 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

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

Matt Hennigan, Assistant Planner was present.

The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. by the Chair, Mr. Cassavoy.

MINUTES

a) Regular Meeting & Public Hearing, February 12, 2007

The minutes were emailed to the members who have not had a chance to review them. Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to defer the minutes to the next Planning Board meeting, March 26, 2007. Ms. Desouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 07-001. 261-263 Grove Street, McNamara

The Applicant, Daniel McNamara, and his attorney, Judith Clark, were present. Ms. Clark explained the objective of this application. Mr. McNamara proposes to purchase 975 square feet (Parcel A) from the rear of the 261-263 Grove Street lot to add to his property at 23 Faxon Street. Both the Grove Street and Faxon Street lots are non-conforming. Ms. Clark stated that Parcel A is a natural extension of this Applicant’s property. The Applicant’s lot would come closer to conforming if this 975 s.f. could be added to his 6,248 s.f. bringing it to a total of 7,223 s.f. Ms. Clark researched these lots at the Registry of Deeds and discovered that Parcel A at one time was part of the Applicant’s lot. Ms. Clark brought in copies of the 1921 plan to show the Planning Board members. Mr. Cassavoy had a question about the width of the front yard. Ms. Clark said this application is not for a subdivision of land; just one parcel being added to another. These are not buildable lots. Ms. Clark explained that if the Board of Appeals allows the variance, the Applicant will be back before the Planning Board for an ANR. Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to send the standard letter to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-002, 30 Glendale Ave., Arsenault

The Applicants, Paul Arsenault, and Ninoska Rosado were present. Ms. Rosado explained the reason for the renovation is to allow her family more room to live in the house. In order to provide sufficient space for new counter/cabinetry and seating, the renovation requires a small bump-out of 18 inches. The Applicants had previously been denied a permit for the building of the addition to their home. Ms. Rosado stated the permit was denied due to the proximity of the proposed kitchen bump-out with the neighboring lot. She stated the entryway of the house would be in alignment with this bump-out. Mr. Cassidy complimented the Applicants on the quality of the drawings. He stated that the fact that the bump-out does not encroach further than the entryway is compelling. Ms. Desouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the ZBA noting that the Planning Board believes that this case can best be determined by the Board of Appeals based on the input of the abutters at the public hearing. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-003, 24 Granite Street, Shea

The Applicant, Stephen Shea, and his attorney, Richard M. Magnan of 320 Central St., Saugus, MA, were present. Mr. Shea owns a vacant lot that is 14,400 s.f. in size. In 2001 Mr. Shea applied for a variance to build a single-family house on his lot which was denied by the ZBA. In this application, the Building Inspector was asked to render a decision as a preface for the Applicant applying for a variance for his property. The Building Inspector did not respond within the 14 days as required. The Applicant has filed an appeal to ask the Building Inspector to write a decision so that the Applicant can move forward in his effort to obtain a variance. Mr. Magnan suggested that there was a mistake made in 1999 when the lots were subdivided that caused both lots to be nonconforming. Mr. Magnan stated that the Applicant will need some determination from the Board of Appeals and before that from the Building Inspector to start the process. Ms. DeSouza-Ward agreed and stated that the Applicant needs the Building Inspector to start the process before a determination from the ZBA can be rendered. Mr. Pawlina agrees with Ms. DeSouza-Ward that this is a legal issue. He added that he feels the Planning Board letter should yield to the Board of Appeals concerning this legal question. Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to send a letter deferring to the Board of Appeal. Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-003, Dana Street, Stephen Amero

The Applicant, Stephen Amero, and his representation, Mr. McAvoy, were present. Mr. McAvoy stated that his Applicant has been before the Planning Board several times for a single family home to be built on a paper street – Dana Street. Mr. McAvoy stated that when Mr. Amero purchased the lot, it was a perfectly legal buildable lot. Mr. McAvoy said that the Applicant has been asked to put together more integrated plans, designing the lot and the house within the parameters of the slope. The architect, Mr. DiLullo, made a brief presentation concerning why he feels that their plan is the best plan for the lot. In the previous plan, the house was pushed to the front of the lot. In the new plan, the house is moved to the back one-third of the lot where it is flat. The driveway is moved closer to the lot line. A six-foot retaining wall is designed for the end of the street that drops down to a rip-rap slope. Mr. DiLullo stated they have limited the disturbance to the total lot to 25% and the disturbance to the protected area to 38%. The plan basically keeps the house on flat land. Mr. DiLullo explained that the accomplishments of the new plan include: 1) lowering the road as much as possible; 2) moving the house back; and 3) confining the disturbed area to the left part of the site. Mr. DiLullo stated that the water coming down the driveway will flow at a lower rate than it is currently. He stated that there will be a four foot retaining wall at the back of the driveway. Mr. Cassavoy commented on the house being set into the grade. Mr. DiLullo commented that it is four feet on one corner of the driveway and level at the other corner. The top of the retaining wall is 18 feet. Mr. Cassavoy asked if the Applicant considered stopping the road short. The Applicant replied he had, but the City wanted adequate space for the turn-around of snow removal and emergency vehicles. Mr. DiLullo agreed with Mr. Cassavoy and stated that shortening the road would facilitate the project. Mr. Sadowski stated that the ordinance requires the road to go the width of the lot. Mr. Cassidy commented on the possibility of emergency vehicles backing out of the road in reverse. Mr. Sadowski thought the turn-around was a good idea but felt that the road could be shortened. Mr. Pawlina asked the legal ramifications of shortening the road. Mr. McAvoy spoke about the frontage issue. Mr. Pawlina asked how much of the slope protected area is going to be disturbed. Mr. DiLullo replied – approximately 40%. Mr. Sadowski commented that the plans that the Planning Board reviewed for the previous meeting and the plans from tonight are different. He stated that he understands that the Applicant is trying to find his way in the process. Mr. Sadowski said this project is still very much a work in progress and “we have a way to go.” He added that the Applicant needs to complete the grading plan for this most recent submittal. Mr. DiLullo replied that the Applicant is trying to reach a comfort level with the Planning Board. He said that at the previous meeting, there was much discussion that the house did not belong where it was sited. The Applicant and Architect feel it makes sense to move the house back on the lot. Mr. Cassavoy opened the meeting to public comment.

Robert Cunningham, 176 Forest Street. Mr. Cunningham had a question about distance between the structure and the property line. The Architect replied 20 feet. Mr. Cunningham also expressed concern regarding who will be monitoring any dumping that takes place in this area.

Sarah Matthews, 2 Willard Street.

Ms. Matthews asked the Applicant to address the concerns raised by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Cassavoy stated it would be more appropriate for the Applicant to address the Conservation Commission concerns when the final plan is in place.

Marianne Long, 25 Willard Street. Mrs. Long stated that Willard Street is a dead-end street. She said emergency vehicles have never been able to turn around. All the vehicles back up. She stated that she is not opposed to development but she is concerned about the impact of the project. Ms. Long explained that she feels that the construction required for this project seems excessive for this tiny, rural neighborhood.

Mr. Pawlina spoke about how he felt that the slope protection ordinance may well have been adopted to address land such as that involved in this case. Mr. Pawlina questioned how much refinement of the plan will appease the present concerns of the Planning Board. He stated that the project is still left with an 18 foot retaining wall – that a lot of rock work in a tight space would be necessary. Mr. Pawlina does not want to deny this Applicant the right to develop his land, but he feels getting more detail from the Applicant is not going to solve the problem. Mr. Sadowski reminded the Board that their jurisdiction more pertains to the site, not the roadway. He expressed that he felt that the consultants are doing the best job that they can and while he appreciates their efforts, he remains concerned. Mr. Connolly stated he is sympathetic to this Applicant who he feels was caught in a period of transition in connection with the adoption of the slope protection ordinance and has encountered undue delay by the City. Mr. Connolly continued that because of these circumstances, he would be more likely to entertain additional information on this case. Mr. Cassavoy would like to see the retaining wall decreased. Mr. Cassavoy stated that he felt that the amount of fill involved in the project as well as the amount of disturbance of slope protected land to be significant. Ms. Dezouza-Ward inquired about the detention system. Mr. Cassidy stated that he had mentioned at the last meeting that he felt that the Applicant is caught between ‘a rock and a hard place.’ Mr. Cassidy explained that he viewed the construction of the lot and the road to be equal. He stated he feels if the Applicant could remove the turn‑around at the end of the road, the project could go forward. Mr. Pawlina stated he just does not see how the Planning Board is going to get around the 18 foot wall and the slope – he is not very optimistic. Mr. Cassavoy asked Mr. McAvoy if he would like to make revisions to the plan and come back. Mr. McAvoy agreed to do so. Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to continue the public hearing to March 26, 2007. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Home Occupation Zoning Amendment

Ms. Desouza-Ward updated the Board on the status of the Home Occupation Amendment. She informed the Board that a joint public hearing conducted by the Board of Aldermen and the Planning Board has been tentatively scheduled for Thursday, April 5, 2007. Ms. Desouza-Ward inquired as to whether this date is convenient for the Board and encouraged all members to attend the hearing. Mr. Cassavoy commented on the content of the legal notice that will be published in the newspaper. Ms. Francazio suggested that information pertaining to the home occupation amendment be posted on the City website.

Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.