MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, July 10, 2006

8:00 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

 

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

 

ABSENT:              None

 

City Planner, Denise Gaffey and Janet Graf, Secretary, were present.

 

The meeting was called to order at 8:06 P.M. by the Chair, Mr. Cassavoy. 

 

BOARD OF APPEALS

 

Case 06-19, 16 Willow Street, Boghos

Appearing for the Applicant, Nabil Boghos, was Tom Galvin, Architect. 

 

Mr. Connolly recused himself.  A new set of plans were distributed by the architect.  Mr. Galvin described the requirements set forth by the Architectural Access Board.  There will now be 86 parking spaces – 4 were lost in planning for the van accessible garage.  The building contains 80 bedrooms; 1 parking space per unit, plus 6 on the site.  There are a total of 48 units.  Mr. Cassidy asked the architect about the requirement to provide a sheltered space.  Mr. Galvin stated the first attempt was to ‘house’ a stall with a canopy and to add a ramp.  The Architectural Access Board felt that was not equal to the parking underneath so the solution the Applicant came up with was adding the van accessible garage.  Mr. Galvin stated that if the van accessible garage is not utilized for a handicapped person, it will be used as a maintenance shed for the condominium development.  It will not be used by individual condominium units if the owners are not handicapped.  Mr. Sadowski had a question about the Applicant’s narrative as to whether they were still asking for flexibility in terms of spaces.  Mr. Galvin replied that they were in case they need to make adjustments to the final layout of the garage or create additional green space.  Mr. Galvin added that this plan shows 86 parking spaces; the original had a waiver for 89 spaces.  Mr. Sadowski asked if there are any other changes to the plan.  Mr. Galvin replied that the curb line was changed to give the site additional parking spaces.  Mr. Sadowski stated that the visitor parking appears tight.  He would not like to see any reduction in parking spaces beyond the 86 requested.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that there is no change to the Site Plan Review material – the Planning Board was just reviewing utility issues and parking reduction.  Mr. Pawlina asked about the electrical transformer.  Mr. Galvin stated when the Applicant met with the Planning Board in January the utilities were going to be on poles.  Seeking a variance for setback lines for cabinet.  Continue fence line similar to what is on the plan now.  Three foot buffer around cabinet.  Six foot fence.  Mr. Sadowski stated the ordinance doesn’t allow it; you have to be five feet back.  Mr. Galvin stated the transformer cabinet is 5' 6".  The utility company selected that location.  Mr. Sadowski then read interpretational clause from Dimensional Provisions of the zoning ordinance…over three feet high not restricting visibility for existing vehicles.  Concern with safety and visibility.  The Planning Board suggested the Applicant consult with a traffic engineer prior to the ZBA hearing.  Mr. Galvin stated this had already been discussed with the Building Inspector.  The Planning Board discussed the type of fencing that would be best for visibility for exiting vehicles.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION that the Board reviewed the Applicant’s request and while the Board is frustrated with the issue before them, it does not cause the Board to have any opposition to the structure which will mitigate the handicapped accessibility to the site.  The Board does not like to see the loss of parking spaces.  Secondly, with regard to the transformer, Mr. Pawlina states the City of Melrose is “at the mercy of the electric company.”  The Board hopes that the design of the fencing surrounding the transformer will enable lateral views for good site distance for cars exiting.  Mr. Sadowski elaborated on accessory use of the van accessible garage.  The Board feels it should be solely dedicated to ‘common use of the condominium, not for individual owners’ if it is not being used for a handicapped unit owner.  Amendment to the MOTION:  limit to 86 parking spaces; the Board does not agree with flexibility described in the Applicant’s narrative.  The Board feels every space is critical and doesn’t want any more spaces lost.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

Mr. Connolly rejoined the meeting.

 

Case 06-21, 4 West Street, Grato

Judith Clark, Attorney for Applicants Joseph H. Grato and Jacquelyn Grato Skane was present as were the Applicants.

 

Ms. Clark introduced herself and explained that the Applicant and his sister would like to build a single-family house on a plot of land that now holds one two-family house.  All setback should be met.  The new lot would be 6,766 square feet which is comparable or bigger than area lots.  The Applicant is meeting with the Board of Appeal on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 to request a variance.  They would then need to come back to the Planning Board with an ANR plan for the new house.  Mr. Cassavoy stated that presently the lot is non-conforming because two family homes are not allowed in that area.  The Board had questions about parking.  Lack of curbing was discussed.  The Applicant stated that there is presently parking for eight cars and that people park cars on West Street.  There are plans for a new driveway for both lots.  Mr. Sadowski asked which house will have the corner lot and is it possible to have two corner lots?  A Board member stated that the side yard setback would then not be met.  Mr. Cassavoy had a question about adjacent lots – whether they are non-conforming also.  Mr. Cassidy asked if the Applicant had any plot plans of the neighborhood with them.  The Attorney distributed a plan with lots on it and a discussion was held about the size of different lots.  Mr. Cassidy MOVED to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals.  He stated that the present house and lot have been in the Applicant’s family for a number of years and this project will provide housing for the children.  It is a reasonable action for the Planning Board to take.  Mr. Cassavoy asked if the Planning Board should motion that the two family house will become a one family.  Mr. Cassidy indicated that the Board based this ‘non-position’ on the presentation by the Applicant that the existing two family will become a single-family house and a new driveway will provide off-street parking for both houses.  Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.  

 

Case 06-22, 34 Henry Avenue, Sapp

Chip Sloan, the Architect of William Sloan Associates, represented the homeowner, Mr. Sapp, who could not be present. 

 

Mr. Sloan introduced himself and described the project as building a carport and pulling it away from the property line and bringing it underneath the house.  In addition, the project will include a new front porch.  A variance from setback requirements is needed.  This is a common parking solution for this neighborhood, the next-door house has a covered garage as well.  The Planning Board questioned if the large tree pictured would have to come down.  The architect replied no.  Mr. Sadowski stated that he felt that this carport would be a reasonable use for the property.  The architect stated there would be no change in the stone retaining walls in answer to the Planning Board.  Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that while the Board is always reluctant to endorse or recommend further encroachment on required setbacks, it takes no material objection to this proposal.  The proposed carport appears to afford the Applicant reasonable use of his land which would otherwise be restricted by topography and the Board finds the rear encroachment to be diminimis in its impact on abutting properties.  The only objection the Board would note is the encroachment of the proposed porch on the existing front yard setback which is unfortunate but attractively designed.   Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

SITE PLAN REVIEW

 

CASE SP06-002, 406 Main Street, Edin Masic (continued public hearing)

 

The Applicant met with the Design Review Committee preceding the Planning Board meeting.  Ed Cassidy, Bob Mercado, and Mike Cassavoy were present at the Design Review meeting.  It was felt by the DR Committee that the Applicant had made some progress toward clarifying detail, but not as much as the Board would like to see.  The Design Review Committee suggested rescheduling to continue working with the Applicant.  It was suggested that the Design Review Committee again meet with the Applicant on July 24, 2006 right before the Planning Board meeting at 8:00 p.m.  This would, of course, require that the public hearing be continued as well.  Mr. Sadowski stated he will be unable to attend the July 24, 2006 Planning Board meeting.  Mr. Connolly has missed a meeting and will also be unable to attend the July 24, 2006 meeting.  There will be seven members present.  Mr. Mercado asked if the Applicant was agreeable to this.  The attorney acknowledged that the Applicant agrees to the Design Review Committee meeting on July 24th and the continuance of the public hearing.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to continue the public hearing to July 24, 2006, as well as the Applicant meeting with the Design Review Committee at 7:00 p.m. preceding the Planning Board meeting.  Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

Case 05-38, 814 Main Street, Garofalo

The Applicant, Francesco Garofalo, and his Attorney, Robert Bell, were present.

 

Mr. Bell stated that there was an accessibility issue with the project.  The Applicant has received advice from the Architectural Access Board about the handicapped access to the 6 units.  There was confusion over what had been submitted to the building inspector and what the Applicant had been told from the AAB.  He was then told he had to make the building adaptable.  Mr. Bell stated this distinction caused the Applicant great anxiety.  The Applicant needs the Planning Board’s judgment on two changes:  1) change results in 6" increase in height of the building to provide head space and 2) need to change the parking layout .  The lift takes away a parking space.  Mr. Bell stated the southeast corner remains the same – in the northeast corner there will be a new tandem parking space.  Mr. Bell asked the Board to regard this necessary detail but no substantial change to require new public hearing.  Mr. Bell stated that the Applicant desperately needs this to go forward before financial collapse occurs.  He is begging for the Board’s mercy.  He stated each unit will be assigned two spaces and the adaptable spaces will be assigned to the 2 accessible units on the first floor.  Mr. Sadowski expressed concern about additional tandem parking.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward agreed but felt stuck due to AAB.  Mr. Bell explained the minor impact to the ramp in front, pitch does not have to change.  The Applicant will elongate the walk and the exterior features will not change.  Mr. Bell stated it appears the van can get into the first bay.  Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION in regard to two aspects:  1) increase the height of the ceiling and overall height of the building by 6" and 2) additional tandem parking does not call for a new public hearing.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION.  Mr. Sadowski stated the slope is in excess of 10 percent.  There was discussion about three pairs of tandem parking versus four pairs of tandem parking.  Ms. Gaffey stated that the change will cause the plan to lose landscaping and a small buffer area.  Mr. Sadowski MADE A proposed amendment – unfortunate to add more tandem parking – it translates into new parking, city urban area.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that it was not the Applicant’s making.  Mr. Sadowski stated that the developer should have understood the code.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.  There was then discussion of a possible canopy.  The Applicant mentioned that the AAB noted that the handicapped parking space may need to be covered so a canopy might be required.  The canopy might violate setbacks.  Mr. Bell asked if the canopy would be exempt from zoning.  Ms. Gaffey questioned whether the canopy would extend into the access drive and prevent cars from backing into the end of the drive to avoid conflicts.  The Applicant asserted that cars would still be able to do this.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION that the Board approves the concept of the canopy as long as cars can still back into the space alongside the van accessible space and subject to review of the issue by the Planning Board.  Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed. 

 

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

 

Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.