MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting

Monday, August 27, 2007

7:45 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

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

ABSENT: Ed Cassidy

Matt Hennigan, Assistant Planner, was present.

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

MINUTES

a) Regular Meeting, July 23, 2007, and Executive Session, July 23, 2007

Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All who were in attendance voted in favor. None opposed.

b) Special Meeting, August 1, 2007

Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All who were in attendance voted in favor. Ms. Desouza-Ward ABSTAINED as she had not been present at the August 1, 2007 meeting. None opposed.

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 07-026, 8 Angela Circle, Caron

The Applicants, Paul and Susan Caron would like to add an additional floor to their split level ranch. The Applicant’s Representative supplied photographs and plans. The Applicant’s Representative stated that their intent is to build a gambrel. He explained that the basement first level is not used due to dampness. The Applicant’s Representative explained that the definition of a two-story dwelling is what the Applicant is running up against in this case. Because the basement (first level) protrudes from the ground more than four feet, it is considered the first story of the dwelling. The Applicant provided pictures of other homes in the neighborhood – some of the houses are larger and many have additions. The Applicant’s Representative stated they feel they are asking for a modest addition with the Planning Board’s approval. Mr. Cassavoy questioned whether the Applicant is applying for a variance and a special permit. The Representative explained that they are just applying for a variance to build the addition. They are not applying for a special permit for an in-law apartment. The Planning Board discussed the issue of the height limitation. The Applicant’s Representative shared that the proposed addition will make the dwelling 29 feet high. Ms. Desouza-Ward MOTIONED to send the standard letter that reflects that the Planning Board has no objection with the Applicant’s proposal, as the proposed addition is within the maximum height limitation for a residential zoning district. She has also clarified that it is not the intention of the Applicant to apply for an in-law apartment special permit. Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

Case 07-027, 529-531 Lebanon Street, Rhuda

The Applicant, Richard Rhuda, was present. He told the Board that he is applying for a variance to subdivide the existing lot which contains a two‑family dwelling into two lots containing approximately 12,101 s.f. and 7,507 s.f. and to construct a single‑family dwelling on the new smaller lot while maintaining the existing two‑family dwelling on the larger lot. The Applicant stated he and his mother receive two tax bills for the properties so they were under the impression it was two lots. The Applicant explained that he requires a variance because the property is under one deed because it has been held in common ownership for so long. The plan shows that the smaller lot will have a frontage of 49.99 feet. The Applicant stated that 6-7 homes in the neighborhood have similar frontage. The Applicant shared a letter with the Board from his neighbor to the right who abuts the current garage that would be replaced by the proposed single family. The Applicant explained that the neighbor is supportive of the proposal as the garage creates a lot of dampness. Mr. Sadowski pointed out that the proposal will create two non‑conforming lots as well as tandem parking issues for both the single-family and the two family dwelling. The Applicant responded that there is lot area to reconfigure the parking for the two-family dwelling. Mr. Pawlina voiced that the proposal is not significantly different from what is already there and he does not see a negative impact. Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send the standard letter to the Board of Appeals that notes while the Planning Board is usually unsupportive of requests for frontage/lot width relief to this large degree, we acknowledge that the resultant frontage for the two lots would be consistent with the neighborhood. In addition, the Planning Board supports the reconfiguration of the proposed parking plan for the two‑family dwelling to eliminate the need for vehicles to back out onto Lebanon Street. Ms. Desouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to modify the agenda and hear the ANR before the Upham Street case. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED

23 Poplar Street

Judith Clark, the representative for the Applicant, was present. Ms. Clark explained that the Applicant has the appropriate frontage, access, and area. Mr. Sadowski commented regarding the existing garage. Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to approve the ANR. Ms. Desouza‑Ward SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.

BOARD OF APPEALS (continued)

Case 07-028, 354 Upham Street, Gizzi

John Cinella, the Applicant’s Representative, was present as well as the Applicant, Peter Gizzi. Mr. Cinella explained that when Mr. Gizzi purchased the property, it housed Periwinkle’s Gift Shop. Mr. Cinella stated that in the 1960’s the property had been the site of a grocery store. Mr. Cinella noted that the Applicants had met with city officials and informed them that they wished to open a grocery market similar to what had been there before Periwinkle’s. Mr. Cinella shared the interaction that the Applicant has had with the Building Commissioner along with the Building Commissioner’s view that the Applicant requires a variance for a change in use.

Mr. Cinella stated that his clients have invested quite a bit of money into the property in the hope that they would be able to run a similar business to what had previously operated on this site in the past. Mr. Cinella expressed that the Applicants do not feel the grocery market is a substantial change in use. He stated that the property has been taxed ‘commercially’ for fifteen years. Mr. Cinella explained that the Applicant’s proposed use is not a sit-down restaurant, but rather a variety store. The Applicant does plan to prepare and cook the food on the premises for “take out” only. Mr. Cinella said they are not applying for a common victualer license. Mr. Cinella stated that the Applicants hope to get a recommendation from the Planning Board. Mr. Sadowski confirmed the intention of the Applicant regarding “take-out” only and voiced the potential impacts that such a business could generate in terms of deliveries, parking, and disposal of waste.

Mr. Cassavoy stated that the main question of this case is the use itself. He stated that the food preparation is a large part of it. Mr. Cinella stated that the Applicants are appealing the Building Commissioner’s decision which they feel is incorrect. Mr. Cassavoy voiced concern regarding the added traffic, odor, and waste disposal. Mr. Pawlina agreed and said these issues are not insignificant for the neighborhood.

Peter Gizzi shared with the Planning Board members that he had met with city officials last October and described what he wanted to do. Mr. Gizzi stated that many of the “city officials agreed to it.” He stated he feels there is a need for a grocery market of this kind in Melrose with the existence of so many dual-income families. Mr. Gizzi voiced that he understands the concerns of the neighbors and that he purchased the adjacent lot for parking. He said families would be able to order online and then pick up their food. He stated that they do not anticipate rushes at the dinner hour and plan to be open between 8 AM and 7 PM. Ms. Marcus stated the cooking odors can be alleviated. Mr. Cinella said that he spoke to the Health Director regarding the issue of odors. Mr. Gizzi stated that he reached out to the former grocery owners, the Lopez’s, in effort to try to be consistent with products and services that were previously offered.

Mr. Pawlina asked the Applicant about the house in the rear and was told by Mr. Gizzi that it is a three-family dwelling that has a right of way through the parking lot. Mr. Pawlina asked about the 22' right of way on the right-hand side of the property. Mr. Gizzi stated that it is a walkway to townhouses. Mr. Gizzi said they do not plan to make any alterations to the building. The building presently does not have a kitchen but the electrical and plumbing has been updated for it. Mr. Cassavoy encouraged the Applicant to provide the exact dates when the Lopez’s grocery operated on the site for the Board of Appeals hearing. Mr. Pawlina and Ms. Desouza-Ward voiced that according to their recollection the site has functioned as a gift shop since the 1980s. Mr. Mercado asked about the size of the parking lot and Mr. Gizzi answered that there are eight spaces in front of the house, 4 spaces in front of the garage, and an additional 10 spaces in the grassy area. Mr. Gizzi said that he bought the lot of land in front for additional parking. Ms. Desouza-Ward asked if the Applicant will maintain the upstairs apartment. Mr. Gizzi replied they will.

Mr. Gizzi said he respectfully requests the Planning Board’s recommendation to operate the store as it used to be operated. Ms. Francazio stated that she feels this store would be a visual improvement and would be a gateway into Melrose. Ms. Desouza-Ward stated while she feels the Applicant’s proposal is a good idea, she believes it would be too intense of a use for a residential neighborhood. She said that she does not feel like this is good planning to put this kind of commercial use into a residential neighborhood and she probably would not be able to support the application. Mr. Pawlina questioned whether the total number of parking spots had been calculated. Mr. Cinella responded that there will be as many parking spaces as presently exist now. Mr. Pawlina asked the Applicant about the proposed hours of operation and added that the neighborhood impacts can be soothed by the hours/days of operation. Mr. Gizzi stated that he views the business to be a family operation that would be open a half day on Sunday.

Mr. Sadowski suggested that the Board take a “step back” and think about what the Applicant is representing – in this case a challenge to an interpretation by the Building Commissioner. He stated he feels this should be decided by the Zoning Board of Appeals. There was discussion among the members about leaving this decision to Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Sadowski stated that it appears there are varying opinions among the Planning Board members. There was discussion about whether or not a site plan review would be required. Mr. Pawlina stated that the Planning Board is confused about the application based on the advertisement that requests a variance. Mr. Connolly indicated that he views the property to more viable as commercial site than a residential location. Mr. Connolly expressed support for Ms. Francazio’s remarks and stated that he does not feel that the noise/odor generated from the proposed use would be worse than a gift shop. Mr. Gizzi explained that the process of obtaining ownership of the property was prolonged as the previous owner had sold to two buyers.

Mr. Pawlina stated that the members take a multi-faceted position regarding this case – some think the application is a good idea, some do not. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to send a letter outlining that the Planning Board finds the application to be unclear and has concerns with parking, traffic, trash disposal, signage and lighting associated with the proposed use. The Planning Board takes no position regarding the Building Commissioner’s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board was unable to reach a consensus on a use recommendation, however all agree that we would look forward to addressing the concerns referenced above should the use by approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION. All voted in favor. None opposed.

OTHER

Pavement Zoning

Matt shared with the Planning Board members that the Pavement Zoning Amendment was adopted by the Board of Aldermen with one modification to the definition of Building Front Yard.

Boardman Block Proposal

Matt informed the Planning Board members that the owner of the property has decided not to go forward with his proposed project and is now planning to renovate the building.

Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed. Meeting adjourned at 9:45.