PRESENT: Mike Cassavoy, Chair; Ed
Cassidy; Anne DeSouza-Ward; John Sadowski;
Gerry Marcus; Bob Mercado, Tom Pawlina, Carla Francazio and Richard
Connolly
ABSENT: None
Mr. Cassavoy arrived at the Planning Board meeting at 9:20 p.m.
City Planner, Denise Gaffey and Janet Graf,
Secretary, were present for the meeting.
MINUTES
The Planning Board
members read the minutes from the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on June 12,
2006. Mr. Cassidy
recommended a change to the minutes. Mr.
Mercado MADE a MOTION to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION as amended.
All in favor. None opposed.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Case SP06-001, 897-911 Main Street,
Mark Investments (continued public hearing)
Appearing for the Applicant Mark Investments were Bill
Goebel, the engineer from Bohler Engineering and Patrick McAvoy the Attorney
from McAvoy and McAvoy.
Ms. Gaffey stated there are two technical issues left open
from the June 12, 2006
meeting: drainage and retaining
walls. Ms. Gaffey had drafted a Decision
for discussion purposes. Mr. McAvoy
reviewed and edited the draft Decision.
Mr. Goebel stated he had been present for all but the last meeting. He gave a brief overview of the drainage and
retaining wall issues.
1. Drainage:
Technical discussions had been held with the Conservation Commission because
the site is in a flood plane regarding additional storm water management
elements. They are providing additional
flood storage capacity; a 10% increase in flood water storage at the
Conservation Commission’s request. He stated
the project will increase the green space – the current building has no green
space, being 100% pavement. The
infiltration system will provide a 30% reduction on average in peak rate of
run-off in a two year storm. Deep sumps
and water inlets will improve water quality and provide greater than 80% TSS
removal rate and they have received positive feedback from Public Works
Department on the design. Mr. Cassidy
asked Mr. Goebel how he felt this design would have handled drainage after the
storm in May. Mr. Goebel replied that
the design decreases the run-off rates and increases the water quality. The improvement is seen after the smaller
drainage ‘events’. Mr. Pawlina stated
that the Applicant has done a good job of addressing the Board’s concerns: roof run-off, increasing green space and
adding storm receptors. But he feels
they could do more, i.e., adding leaching system as other applicants have done
in similar projects that have come before the Planning Board. Mr. Pawlina listed the four projects and how
they have addressed their drainage issues.
He stated that the storm water attenuation would be a benefit to the
City of Melrose. Mr. Pawlina stated a leaching system below
the parking surface of three inches of storage would be adequate. He described the site as large and stated
that anything would help in this area because it frequently floods during
storms. He feels the Applicant should
take that next step consistent with what other applicants have designed. Mr. Goebel pointed out the additional
improvements this Applicant has made for sanitary sewerage and in the
infrastructure, which will be an added benefit to the City. Ms. DeSouza-Ward had a question for Mr.
Pawlina about what would he feel would improve the drainage design. Mr. Pawlina stated a leaching system could be
put in the front of the building. Water
will flow into that and leach out, not going into the City’s drainage system. The Planning Board feels the decision is
still up for discussion. Mr. Goebel
replied without a set policy and familiarity with the other projects’ details,
it is hard to compare them. He stated
the Applicant has made a significant investment into the property. He stated that the work on the project also
is being coordinated with the Main Street Reconstruction Project. Mr. Connolly questioned if, without the
leaching field during the last storm, would the site have flooded? Mr. Pawlina replied that it would not
affect a 100 year storm event but would improve flooding during 2, 10, 20-year
storm events. There was discussion about
how the smaller storms have a greater impact.
With the larger storms, flooding will still happen with all the storm
water management systems in place. The
Board members feel that every bit helps.
Mr. McAvoy cited the Site Plan Review standards and stated that the
Applicant has met the standard as it pertains to drainage.
2. Retaining wall. Mr. Goebel stated standard detail was
added. The walls will be poured in place
– not real tall walls. Mr. Mercado
pointed out the retaining wall adjacent to the condominium building – how will
the wall be installed without impacting the abutters? He asked for a cross-section. Mr. Goebel said the wall is four feet at the
highest point. The property line is
three to four feet behind there. There
may have to be shoring done. He stated
the Applicant cannot have tiebacks on adjoining property. He stated it will not affect abutters. A
working easement will be needed. There
was discussion among the Planning Board as to whether this would affect the
abutter. Mr. Goebel stated that by
shoring, they were utilizing the existing portion of the building. Sheeting will be put behind it so no problem
occurs. Sheeting will be about 7 feet
long (3 feet below slope grade). Mr.
Goebel stated that the Applicant is having the building ‘poured’ to limit the
amount of height.
3. Sidewalk fund: The Planning staff added this condition because
it had been offered by the Applicant at an earlier meeting as reflected in
previous minutes of a Planning Board meeting.
Mr. McAvoy stated he did not remember hearing about a sidewalk
fund. He stated the Applicant has
invested quite a bit in this project. He
mentioned they are ‘working at risk.” The
Planning Board did not feel strongly about the sidewalk fund contribution and decided
to delete it.
Mr. Sadowski mentioned Mr. Beshara’s memorandum and the coordination
with the Main Street
project. He has concerns with the
existing curb being re-cut. He feels
that this could be easily overlooked.
Mr. Goebel said the plans have gone to Mass
Highway.
Mr. Sadowski stated that the contractor has probably already had the
curb poured in a certain radius to follow the current plans. There could be a conflict when the Main
Street project starts in that area. Mr. Mercado feels it should be the
Applicant’s responsibility to follow through.
Mr. Goebel stated that there have been many discussions with Mr.
Beshara’s office. Mr. Beshara has not
made any comment on this issue and he has the plans. Mr. Sadowski reiterated that the Applicant
should be careful surrounding this issue – he feels Mass
Highway will do what they have planned without
consideration of this Project’s plans.
Then, you may have vehicles turning right over what this Applicant has
built. The Planning Board discussed the
schedule date of July 10, 2006. Mr. Mercado stated if there are any changes
on the driveway, he would like to see the plan from the Applicant. Mr. Sadowski pointed out that it may be best
to hold off on the sidewalk work until after the heavy construction is
completed so as to not damage the new sidewalk.
Mr. Goebel stated that it is ‘easy to replace a sidewalk’. Further discussion of conditions
included:
·
Drainage issue
·
A-E – make it condition #5 – approved prior to
July 10
·
Sidewalk Fund – delete it
·
Signage:
Noise ordinance should be adhered to; trucks should not be idling – discussion
about how long trucks should be allowed to idle; it was felt 15 minutes much
too long. Perhaps any idling is
too much some Members feel.
·
#4 : as-is – Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated
construction will be coordinated with the Main Street Reconstruction Project or
later date as determined by the City Engineer.
There was further discussion about drainage. Mr. Pawlina
MADE a MOTION suggesting one additional condition requiring a subsurface
leaching system equivalent to 3" of runoff. The MOTION was SECONDED by Ms.
DeSouza-Ward. Mr. Pawlina
emphasized that this was an important opportunity to take steps to minimize
flooding in a very flood prone area. The
Applicant responded again that it was an onerous request and difficult to
address without standard guidelines. Mr.
Pawlina cited the letter from the Planning Board sent to the Applicant dated May 25, 2006 requesting 1 1/2"
capacity in a leaching facility and noted that the Applicant was completely
unresponsive. Mr. Connolly agreed with
Mr. McAvoy’s statement that the legal test is if the plan has a detrimental
impact on the neighbors and he doesn’t feel it does. The vote on Mr. Pawlina’s MOTION failed with
two members voting in favor (Mr. Pawlina and Ms. DeSouza-Ward) and all others
opposed. Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION
to approve the Site Plan subject to the conditions set forth by the Planning
Board. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the
MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.
SUBDIVISION
Continued Public Hearing: Definitive Subdivision Plan
Submission, Blueberry Hill Lane
Patrick McAvoy, Attorney from McAvoy and McAvoy, and Mr.
Gianquinto, the Applicant, were present.
Ms. Gaffey distributed a Draft Decision of the Definitive
Subdivision Plan and asked the Planning Board members for comments. Mr. Sadowski stated that this is a difficult
site and it has been a long process.
Applicant and his representative were cooperative at the beginning but
Mr. Sadowski has reservations recently about this project. He has a hard time supporting the waivers
given that the Applicant has not been forthcoming with details. He feels the Planning Board could possibly
give approval for this particular Applicant’s request, then another developer
could come along and “build whatever they wanted – possibly cutting behind the
right-of-way and going up 25 feet".
He states the Planning Board should make this a condition of their
approval. Mr. Cassavoy asked how the
condition should be expressed. Mr.
Sadowski stated it could be very forthright:
no extreme cuts, impervious areas.
Mr. Cassidy stated the Planning Board doesn’t want to deal with new
participants and players after going through this long process. He mentioned three different developers had
been involved with the Nordic Way
project and, thus, it had a disappointing outcome. Mr. Cassidy asked for Applicant’s reactions
to Planning Board’s recommendations/thoughts.
Mr. McAvoy voiced concern about Mr. Sadowski’s perception that the
Applicant is not as cooperative as he had been in the beginning of this
process. He stated the preliminary plans
are still on record. He explained that
the subdivision plans may change many times in the Special Permit and Site Plan
process so Applicant was reluctant to delve into details now. He hopes the Planning Board approves the
Subdivision Plan tonight and agreed to a condition requiring the Applicant to
return for Planning Board review. Mr.
Cassidy stated this is subdivision approval, not design review. The Planning Board retains authority to
control cuts and fills and locations consistent with the development that comes
forward; only circumstance where control would be lost would be if the Developer
builds single-family homes. Planning
Board could make a condition that the Applicant returns before this Board if he
plans to build single-family homes. Ms.
Marcus stated the traffic, drainage and water flow issues have been addressed. The Planning Board should approve the road
designed for townhouses. Mr. Pawlina
feels that the Applicant has tried to make the best use of land. The Planning Board discussed approving the
application with the understanding that the Applicant comes back if he changes
to single-family homes. Mr. Sadowski MADE
a MOTION to approve. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED
the MOTION as amended by Ms. DeSouza-Ward.
The following members voted in
favor: Mr. Cassavoy, Mr. Cassidy, Ms.
DeSouza-Ward, Mr. Sadowski (with reservation), Ms. Marcus, Mr. Pawlina and Ms.
Francazaio. Mr. Mercado voted
against. Mr. Connolly abstained.
Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to move Case SP06-002 out of
order. Station Crossing will be the next
project to be discussed. All in
favor. None opposed.
Mr. Connelly departed at 10:20
p.m.
Station Crossing
Ms. Gaffey stated there is a letter in the packet from Mr.
Luther, the Building Commissioner. The
Architectural Access Board is interested to know if the Planning Board endorses
the new garage as a reasonable solution to the problem of the accessibility for
the handicapped van. A letter is needed
from the Planning Board. Ms. Gaffey will
draft the letter to the AAB. Mr.
Sadowski MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the AAB supporting the proposed
garage in concept subject to review of the details. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor.
None opposed.
Case SP06-002, 406 Main Street,
Edin Masic
Edin Masic, the Applicant, and Mark Levesque were present. Mr. Bell, the Attorney, was present.
The Planning Board received the zoning analysis requested at
the June 12, 2006
meeting. Mr. Cassavoy suggested the Design
Review Subcommittee go over the plans in more detail. The Applicant distributed some sample
materials. Mr. Bell described a change
on the site plan – The city engineer states the client may beautify the
westerly boundary line, but no trash receptacles on it. The Building Inspector and the Board of
Health were fine with the trash receptacles underneath the stairs. Additional detailing was described –
hardiplank which is durable. Mr. Masic
stated that he has in mind the recently remodeled Love’s Furniture building in Stoneham
as an example of this. Mr. Cassavoy said
he had gone through each drawing thoroughly.
He stated someone had worked very hard and that the work was very
schematic. He feels it has improved
significantly and can be ironed out by the Design Review Subcommittee. He feels more time could be spent on the
design. The Board discussed scheduling a
Design Review Subcommittee meeting on July
10, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Ms. DeSouza-Ward made a MOTION to continue
the public hearing until July 10, 2006. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor.
None opposed.
SMART GROWTH
Ms. Gaffey discussed a public forum that was held on June 21, 2006 to discuss rezoning the
area of lower Washington Street. The public was very positive and open to
mixed uses in that area, which is consistent with the recommendation in the
Master Plan and the thinking of the Smart Growth Task Force. The Task Force will draft the zoning amendment
over the summer and hold another public forum in September.
Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor.
None opposed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:50
p.m.