MINUTES

April 10, 2006 

7:45 PM

Regular Planning Board Meeting

Mayor’s Conference Room

 

Members Present:              Mike Cassavoy (Chair), Tom Pawlina, Carla Francazio, Gerry Marcus, Rich Connolly, Bob Mercado, Anne DeSouza-Ward, and John Sadowski

 

Members Absent:                Ed Cassidy

 

Assistant Planner, Holly Regan, was also present.

 

The meeting commenced at 7:50pm.

 

Mr. Connolly made a MOTION to move agenda item 2A out of order because the matter would be brief.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the motion.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

SITE PLAN REVIEW

Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Case 06-001, 897-911 Main Street, Mark Investments

Attorney Patrick McAvoy representing Mark Investments was present.

 

Mr. Cassavoy recused himself.  Mr. Connolly, the Vice Chair, acted as Chair for this item of the agenda.  Mr. Connolly stated that the public hearing for the Site Plan Review Application Case #06-001, regarding the property located at 897-911 Main Street and involving the proposition for a Walgreen’s Pharmacy was scheduled for tonight.  

Mr. Connolly invited Mr. McAvoy to speak.  Mr. McAvoy introduced himself as the attorney representing Mark Investments.  He stated that his client requests that the public hearing be continued to the Planning Board’s May 8th meeting and that no public testimony be heard at tonight’s meeting.  Mr. Connolly explained that a member of the Planning Board was unable to attend tonight’s meeting.  He added that in order for a Site Plan Review application to be approved, a majority, five of the nine Planning Board members must vote in favor of the proposal.  Because one member of the Planning Board has recused himself, the Application must have five out of the eight.  Any members who do not attend any night of a public hearing by state statute may not vote.  Consequently, if the public hearing for the Site Plan Review Application involving Walgreens is opened tonight, because one member is not present and one member has recussed himself, five of seven members must vote in favor of the application for it to be approved.  He stated that the Petitioner has requested the public hearing be continued to May 8, 2006.  Mr. Pawlina made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to May 8, 2006.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the motion.  All in favor.  None opposed.  Mr. Connolly reiterated that the public hearing had been continued to May 8th.  He added that if any member of the public is unable to attend written comments will also be accepted.

 

Mr. Connolly stepped down as acting chair.  Mr. Cassavoy returned as acting chair.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case # 06-05, 495 Upham Street, Huber

Randy Huber, the Petitioner, was present.

 

Mr. Huber explained his application for a special permit to create an office for his engineering consulting business in his home.  He stated that there will be no changes to the exterior and few changed to the interior to accommodate his home office.  In response to the Planning Board’s questions, the Petitioner provided the following information: 1) the Petitioner will only have one or two clients come to his home a year; he meets his clients at their office; 2) consultants working for him e-mail him all files instead of visiting his office; 3) his only other employee, is his wife who works part-time for him; 4) he will have no signage; and 5) any visitors related to the business will park on Ridgewood Lane, which has on street parking, and will access the office through a rear basement door accessible from Ridgewood Lane.  The Planning Board added that the circular driveway will also help mitigate parking concerns for visitors.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that the application appears to meet all of the criteria of the Home Occupation special permit.  The Planning Board advised the Petitioner to bring a plot plan to his Board of Appeals hearing.

 

Mr. Sadowski made a MOTION to write a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that with the representation from the Petitioner that no other full-time employees will be working at the business, customer traffic will be minimal, and Ridgewood Lane, which has parking, would be the more likely place for visitors to park, the Planning Board believes this application is in keeping with the intent of the Special Permit and takes no objection to this proposal.  Mr. Connolly SECONDED the motion.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

Case # 06-04, 408 Lebanon Street, Omnipoint Holdings, Inc.

Brian Grossman, attorney with Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye, LLP, representing Omnipoint Holdings, Inc was present.

 

Mr. Grossman explained that a Special Permit as well as possibly a variance is required for this proposed installation of cellular communications infrastructure.  He explained that the proposal involves 1) a feaux chimney made of fiberglass and textured to match the building’s brick façade to hold the antennas and 2) three BTS cabinets, which will have a façade treatment to match the building and will be located on the building’s roof.  Mr. Grossman clarified that the cabinets could be screened to look like any materials and are often made to look like brick.  He added that the cabinets sit on a slightly raised platform.  Mr. Sadowski stated that this building is a significant structure in Melrose because of its architecture and that the proposed elements are not diminimus add-ons.  The Planning Board stated that this application is not on par with what they normally receive and wondered why the cabinets are as big as they are and why they need to be located on the roof rather than in a less visible location.  Ms. Francazio stated that if the cabinets are located on the roof they should be designed to match the roof and not made to look like brick, which would bring more attention to the cabinets.  She did not have a problem with the proposed façade treatment of the chimney.

 

Mr. Pawlina made a MOTION to not recommend this proposal to the Board of Appeals and suggest in the letter that the Petitioner should look at locating the wireless infrastructure in the basement, attic or well landscaped area outside the building instead of the roof.  He added that if the request for relief is approved, the Planning Board recommends requiring the cabinets to be screened in a way that will catalogue the cabinets.  Mr. Pawlina continued that the letter should say that the Planning Board does not take offense to the proposed chimney to screen the antennas, which seem to have a reason to be located on the roof and will have less of a negative visual impact.  He added that the Planning Board does not recommend that the request to extend the time period in which a special permit is valid be extended.  Mr. Connolly SECONDED the motion.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

Mr. Cassavoy mentioned to Mr. Grossman that he is very disappointed that the cell towers at Mt. Hood are not being maintained and have become targets of vandalism.  Mr. Grossman stated that he was not aware of the vandalism and cannot confirm that the cell towers at Mt. Hood are owned and operated by Omnipoint Holdings, Inc.

 

 

OTHER 

 

a) Pembroke, approval of street names

 

Tom Walsh, Development Director for Pembroke, Tim Shaw, Construction Manager for Fidelity, and Bob Bell, local attorney for the Oak Grove Village development were present.

 

Mr. Walsh stated that Pembroke has been working on street names for the two private roads within Oak Grove Village.  Pembroke has chosen two and is now looking for Planning Board approval.  Mr. Walsh stated that he has spoken with Denise Gaffey, who explained that the Planning Board is the entity that has the purview over naming new private ways.  Mr. Walsh stated that Ms. Gaffey recommended that Mr. Walsh talk to the Building Inspector, the Director of Emergency Management, the Department of Public Works, the Fire Chief, and the Police Chief about the proposed names to ensure that they see no problem with the name, which he did.  Mr. Walsh explained that an internal committee within Pembroke looked at botanical names, names that have a fidelity connection, and historic names.  Ultimately, the committee chose “Island Hill Avenue” which has a historic reference to Island Hill, which was the name for the area of northern Malden and Southern Melrose and “Oak Grove Avenue.”  Mr. Walsh distributed a map showing the private ways and proposed numbering system for the buildings.  Mr. Walsh described the proposed numbering system.  Mr. Walsh stated that the street signs will be the standard green signs. 

 

The Planning Board asked Mr. Walsh for an update on the development.  Mr. Walsh stated that construction is going well.  He stated that the exteriors of building F and the club house are nearly complete.  Building C1 has been framed and building B1 has been framed and covered with wood.  Mr. Walsh explained that the first units will be available this summer and confirmed that the work on the canal and the pedestrian walks will be completed by this fall.  The Planning Board asked what was happening with Malden.  Mr. Walsh stated that Pembroke needed to seek relief from the Planning Board in Malden to locate three buildings on one lot.

 

Ms. Francazio asked for clarification regarding what Mr. Walsh stated when describing the numbering system and possibly implied that the retail space may not be filled.  Mr. Walsh stated that indeed they anticipate the retail space to be filled and have retained Brad Hutchinson’s real estate firm as the retail broker.  Mr. Walsh added that the retail will be amenity oriented retail serving mostly the development with no fast food or national chains.  Mr. Connolly stated that he did research on the definition of fast food and found a definition that is used in several communities.

 

Other

The Planning Board briefly discussed their concern for the signage on the storefront of Anna’s nail salon.  The Board discussed action they could possibly take.  Ms. Regan stated that Ms. Gaffey and she had talked about walking into the salon one day and offering to provide funds through the sign grant program to make a sign that matches the character of historic downtown.  The Planning Board encouraged Ms. Gaffey and Ms. Regan to take such action.

 

Mr. Mercado made a MOTION to adjourn.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the motion.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:15pm