← Planning Board · 2013-09-23 · Planning Board Regular Meeting
Agenda Items
Agenda original PDF
Minutes original PDF
ne-story addition on the back of his house with a deck on top. The addition would allow for the creation of a workout room for Mr. Ciulla’s wife who has numerous health issues. Mr. Sadowski noted that to the extent the Applicant is proposing to extend the existing structure, he would question the impervious area calculation indicated on the Site Plan. Other than that, Mr. Sadowski felt the proposed plan did not seem objectionable. Ms. Gaffey noted that the Site Plan is indicating 30% building coverage but it appears that this figure is not counting everything on the site. Mr. Sadowski stated that he sees the civil engineer’s stamp but not a land surveyor’s stamp, and therefore he questioned the setback distances of the existing and proposed structures. Mr. Mercado noted that the engineer’s stamp and the surveyor’s stamp are two very difficult verifications. Ms. DeSouza-Ward indicated that she was not sure if the Building Commissioner required a land surveyor stamp on the plans. Mr. Ciulla indicated that this is the original Site Plan drawing from 6-7 years ago and he had the plans adjusted per the instructions of the Building Department. He went on to note that the architect then used this plan to draw up the rest of the proposed plans for the project. Mr. Sadowski noted that the issue is that the addition is drawn as an extension of the house so it is very important that setbacks on the Site Plan are accurate. Ms. Morelli informed the Applicant that the Planning Board was debating the amount of actual building coverage on the lot compared to what is permitted in the zoning ordinance. She added that the calculations indicated on the Site Plan appear to be a little off. Ms. DeSouza-Ward noted that the Building Commissioner’s letter references a 5 foot rear setback and asked where this dimension is located on the Site Plan. Ms. Gaffey stated that the 5 foot rear setback is located opposite of Cottage Street where there is an existing stairway. Ms. DeSouza-Ward then pointed out that the Site Plan does not appear to show the new staircase. Mr. Sadowski indicated that he felt the drawings were a bit misleading. Mr. Ciulla stated that he had visited the Building Commissioner Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 2 of 8 several times about this project and the Commissioner indicated that he was comfortable with the current plan set. Mr. King confirmed that the access to the addition really comes from the basement level and Mr. Ciulla indicated that was correct. Ms. DeSouza Ward indicated that she felt this project deserved a neutral letter to the Board of Appeals as it is a difficult property being a corner lot with two front and two rear setbacks. She also noted that the addition follows the line of the existing house. Mr. Sadowski asked if the location of the stairs was moving and felt that if they were, this change should be called out. Ms. Gaffey asked if the stairs could be located in a different spot. Mr. Ciulla stated that the proposed location for the stairs seemed to be the only spot that made sense. He went on to indicate that the deck will only be about 6 feet higher than the existing grade and the rest of the addition would be dug down. Mr. Cassidy asked if the decking is running perpendicular to the slope of the roof and wondered if that would work well or not. He suggested that it may be better to run the decking in the opposite direction. Mr. Cassidy indicated that the bottom line was that the drainage needed to be thought through here. Mr. Ciulla indicated that the decking and drainage would be done correctly. Mr. Sadowski then suggested making a motion for a standard letter to the Board of Appeals. He went on to note that a careful comparison review should be made between the Site Plan and the architectural plans. Mr. Sadowski stated that the existing external stairs, while remaining in the same orientation, are proposed to be relocated alongside the new addition which will create a slightly smaller rear yard setback opposite Cottage Street than is shown on the Site Plan. Mr. Mercado noted that the Building Commissioner cites that a 7,500 square foot lot is needed in the UR-A district and this property only has 6,000 square feet. Mr. Sadowski then stated that the Building Commissioner was simply listing the zoning district requirements in his denial letter. Mr. Mercado then stated that he was surprised the Building Commissioner did not pick up on the land surveyor item. Ms. DeSouza-Ward wanted to be sure the letter to the Board of Appeals indicated the Planning Board is concerned about the Site Plan’s indicated measurements, setbacks, and lot coverage figures for the zoning district and these items should be double checked. Ms. Morelli asked if the Applicant might be better served by getting a land surveyor’s Plot Plan. Ms. DeSouza-Ward noted that he will likely need a Plot Plan to get a Building Permit. Mr. Sadowski added that if the measurements are accurate on the Site Plan he felt the Planning Board would be comfortable issuing a standard letter to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Sadowski then MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals which notes that the Planning Board has concerns about the Site Plan prepared in 2006 as it was prepared by a civil engineer. Specifically the Planning Board is concerned about the setback dimensions and other indicated measurements, the accuracy of the pre and post construction lot coverage figures, and that the existing external stairs, while remaining in the same orientation, are proposed to be relocated alongside the new addition which will create a slightly smaller rear yard setback opposite Cottage Street than is shown on the Site Plan. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor. None were opposed. Document: ZBA Application Case # 13-023 Case # 13-024, 585 Lebanon Street, SiriusXM Radio Peter Cooke from Peter Cooke-Wellman Associates was in attendance on behalf of SiriusXM Radio to discuss the application with the Planning Board. Mr. Cooke indicated that SiriusXM Radio is looking to upgrade the existing wireless communication service facility at the Melrose-Wakefield Hospital. Mr. Cooke went on to indicate that since Sirius and XM Radio have merged, they need to be able to support both cellular and satellite radio equipment at their facility locations. Currently there are roof style antennas with an existing satellite dish on the hospital. Mr. Cooke indicated that the new proposal would Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 3 of 8 decommission a larger whip style antenna on the building and install two new panel antennas, a satellite dish, and an equipment cabinet. He went on to note that the application materials include some photo simulations which display the before and after views for the proposal. In View #1, you can see the new panel antennas and part of the new satellite dish. View #2 is much closer and in this photo simulation the new panel antennas and the top part of the new satellite dish are visible. Mr. Cooke noted that the new satellite dish is setback about 18 to 20 feet from the edge of the building and efforts were made to locate the dish as far back from the edge as possible. Mr. Sadowski asked questions regarding the federal law regulations, how the Melrose Zoning Ordinance addresses this particular project, and what use category the project falls into. Mr. Cooke indicated that the use is a two-way communication device, a repeater. He went on to indicate that he had spoken with the Building Commissioner and the Commissioner felt that the use fell under the City’s Wireless Communications Service Facilities Ordinance. Mr. Cooke also noted that this application is a request to modify a previously approved Board of Appeals application for this site back in the early 2000s. Mr. Sadowski noted that most of the equipment seems to be setback a bit from the edge of the roof. Mr. Cooke indicated that was correct with the exception of the two panel antennas which will be mounted to the façade of the building. He went on to note that the application drawings will likely need to be updated before the Board of Appeals hearing to show that they are complying with the 12 inch off set detail. Mr. Sadowski noted that the satellite dish looked rather large and asked if it would be visible from the ground level. Mr. Cooke indicated that the dish had a 6 foot diameter and would be visible even though it is setback from the edges of the building. Mr. Sadowski then noted that these wireless communications service facilities need to be viewed on a case by case basis to attempt to regulate these devices on various structures. Ms. Morelli asked if the proposal called for the removal of any existing equipment and Mr. Cooke indicated that the whip antenna at the front of the building would be removed. Mr. Cassidy asked why no photo simulation was provided for the view from Lebanon Street. Mr. Cooke indicated that the engineers did not believe any of the proposed equipment would be visible from this particular view. Mr. Cassidy stated that he felt the proposed equipment would be visible from Lebanon Street if you were far enough away. Mr. Cassidy also asked if there would be cable trays or raceways for the equipment and Mr. Cooke indicated that there would be and they would connect to a cabinet at the back of the roof. Mr. Cassidy then asked if any of the trays would dive over the side of the building and Mr. Cooke indicated that new cable trays would run across the roof and connect with an existing downward chase way. Mr. Mercado stated that he did not like the look of the dish at all and asked if there were any other dishes of this size in the city. Mr. Sadowski indicated that he did not believe so and then inquired about the size of the RX unit. Mr. Cooke stated that they could ask the company to look at a slightly smaller size dish prior to the Board of Appeals hearing. Mr. Mercado asked if SiriusXM had facilities in other locations in the area and Mr. Cooke indicated they have facilities in Winchester, Newton, Belmont, Boston, and Marblehead, among others. Mr. Sadowski then asked if any existing equipment would be removed and Mr. Cooke indicated that the existing cabinets would be swapped out and the old GPS antenna would be removed. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that it appeared the satellite dish could only be viewed from certain angles and Mr. Cooke confirmed that it would depend upon the angle of the view. Ms. DeSouza-Ward then asked where the cabinet would be located for the equipment and Mr. Cooke stated that it would be situated on the lower roof area. Ms. DeSouza-Ward responded by asking if the cabinet was as far back from the Grove Street side of the building as possible. Mr. Cooke indicated that they will try to set it back as far as they can and noted that they do have flexibility in terms of the color of the cabinet so that should help to camouflage it as well. Mr. Cooke continued on to note that he would like to call out the mounting details a little more clearly in the drawings. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that she was glad the equipment would Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 4 of 8 primarily only be visible from the backside of the building. Mr. Mercado indicated that he would like to see photo simulation views from Lebanon Street and East Emerson Street. Mr. Cassidy indicated that he would not be surprised if you could see the wireless equipment headed southbound on Main Street and asked if the equipment could be screened in any way. Mr. Cooke indicated that they would have to see if the screening would potentially interfere with the operations of the equipment, but noted that it could possibly be done. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that the standards for wireless communications service facilities in the Melrose Zoning Ordinance talk about minimizing the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. She went on to indicate that she thought the Board of Appeals should explore the possibility of screening of the equipment, potentially moving the equipment, and making the equipment as small as possible. Mr. Sadowski noted that the wireless equipment devices are getting quite large and screening them is becoming more necessary. Mr. Cassidy then MADE a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeals which expressed the Planning Board’s concern and disappointment with this latest proposal for wireless communication devices on the Melrose–Wakefield Hospital. The Board is particularly concerned about the visual impact of this expanding device farm on the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed satellite dish is very large and highly visible from the surrounding residences. The Board requests that screening be installed to block the view from Lebanon Street and Rowe Street, through the use of parapets or fencing, and encourages a modification to the size, angle, and placement of the satellite dish if it can be accomplished without interfering with the functionality of the equipment. This wireless communications device farm has long had an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood and this plan not only continues the proliferation, but exacerbates it with an outsized satellite dish which the Board views as unacceptable. The Planning Board therefore cannot recommend approval of this requested Special Permit to add to and alter the wireless communications service facility unless modifications are made to reduce the size and visual impact of the devices. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor. None were opposed. Document: ZBA Application Case # 13-024 The Planning Board then took a brief recess so that the Design Review Subcommittee could hold their meeting regarding the project at 185 Essex Street which was supposed to occur prior to the start of the Planning Board meeting but the Applicant was not in attendance at that time. SITE PLAN REVIEW & AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT Case # 12-004, 160 Green Street, Eric Kenworthy (continued Public Hearing) The Applicant, Eric Kenworthy, was in attendance with his partner David Ingemi, Engineer Rick Salvo, and Attorney Steve Singer. Mr. Kenworthy began by noting that they have put an angle on the rear balcony which is closest to the exit driveway to make it easier for larger vehicles to make the turn. He also noted that there were questions at the last meeting about the details of the mansard roof. Mr. Kenworthy spoke to this item by describing the detail plan he had brought and by indicating that trim would be placed around the windows and trim panels would be used above and below each window. M