Planning Board — 2020-03-30
Minutes
MELROSE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Special Meeting Monday, March 30, 2020 7:45 PM Remote Meeting PRESENT: Mike Cassavoy, Anne DeSouza-Ward, Paul King, Robert Mercado, Carla Morelli, Sharon Petrillo, John Sadowski, Greg Sampson & Jack Welch ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Denise Gaffey, Director, Emma Schnur, Senior Planner & Lori Massa, Planning Coordinator The meeting was called to order at 7:55 PM by Ms. DeSouza-Ward. Attendance was taken by roll call. Pursuant to Governor Baker’s March 12, 2020 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §18, and the Governor’s March 15, 2020 Order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the Melrose Planning Board was conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and/or parties with a right and/or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the City of Melrose’s website, at www.cityofmelrose.org. No in-person attendance of members of the public was permitted, but every effort was be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time, or in the event that we are unable to do so, we will post on the mmtv3.org website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. A link will also be available on www.cityofmelrose.org. Meeting access information was found at the following link: www.cityofmelrose.org/remote-meetings . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 10, March 23, & March 30, 2020 Mr. Welsh MADE a MOTION to vote on all three meeting minutes with one vote. A few members expressed that they were absent for some of the meetings. Members can still vote to acknowledge the minutes. Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor by roll call. None were opposed. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 30, 2020 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Sadowksi MADE a MOTION to accept the meeting minutes from February 10, March 23, and March 30, 2020. Mr. King SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor by roll call. None were opposed. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Board of Appeals Public Hearing on April 15, 2020 Case 20-008, 101 Stratford Road, Amanda Waterman & John Doody Ms. Waterman explained the proposal. She also said that a power line in the back yard will be relocated to the front of the house because it cannot be within a certain distance of the pool. She would like for the power line to be as far as possible from the pool and that is part of the reason for its proposed location that requires variances. Board members had varying opinions on the recommendation for the swimming pool setback variances. Some said that the variance setback requests were minor and that they did not object to them. Others felt that if the setbacks met the requirements for a lot that was not a corner lot, they would be acceptable. A member raised a concern about the root disturbance of a tree on the abutter’s property to the east if the pool was constructed close to the rear property line. The Board unanimously did not recommend approval of the fence setback at the intersection. Members said that the visibility at the intersection was critical for drivers of vehicles and also for bicyclists who need clear sight lines before approaching the intersection. There are examples in the city where fences or vegetation are over 3 feet tall at intersections but that is not a reason to create another intersection with visibility obstructions. Additionally, Porter Street is a well- traveled street with fast moving traffic. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to request that the Board of Appeals take this into consideration along with the information provided by the applicant and abutters at the public hearing in making a determination on this case. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor by roll call. None were opposed. Case 20-006, 26 N. Cedar Park, Ky Phan Mr. Ty Phan joined the meeting. He said that the existing stairs to the half story of the house do not have sufficient head height. He would like for there to be a bathroom on this floor where there are two existing bedrooms. He thought that he could construct full length dormers when he bought the house because the house next door has the same dormers on the house and garage. The Board explained that they amended the half story regulations recently to clarify the definition of half stories in 2 ½ story structures, allowing some use of a half story above the second floor, but limiting the negative impacts associated with a full third stories that are prohibited. The Board did not support a variance to this regulation that they gave careful consideration to in order to provide a balanced approach to half stories that allows for some living space without substantially altering the appearance and use of the 2 ½ story housing stock. The proposed dormers make the house appear as a flat-roofed, 3 story house. This is not a good practice architecturally or for rainwater runoff. The proposal is trying to fit too much floor area in the half-story. It is unfortunate that the house and garage next to the property have full length Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 30, 2020 Page 3 of 8 dormers. If the additions to those structures had come before the Board, they would not have recommended approval of them. The Board did not come to a consensus on a recommendation for the variance for the external staircase. Some members saw the stairs as a needed addition to make the existing second-floor unit safer. Also, since the stair would not encroach farther into the setback than the rear portion of the house it would not be creating a new nonconformity. Others noted that the need for a new egress stair was not called out in the Building Commissioner’s letter and may not be required. Those members felt that if the stair was required for egress, they were not opposed to it. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to request that the Board of Appeals take this into consideration along with the information provided by the applicant and abutters at the public hearing in making a determination on this case. Mr. Sampson SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor by roll call. None were opposed. Case 20-007, 99 Washington Street, Oak Grove Mill, LLC Mr. Sampson MADE a MOTION to move this item to after the vote on the Site Plan and Affordable Housing Special Permit for this property. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor by roll call. None were opposed. After the votes on these approvals, the Board discussed the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. During the many public hearings that they held, they gave careful consideration to the aspects of the project that require variances including the parking space sizes, locations and access, the treatment of the front yard including the proposed sign location and the number of residential units. They made the following points. Many of the variances allow for aspects of the project to have a stronger connection with the goals of the Smart Growth District. The need for the variances is due to existing conditions of the buildings and site. The two existing buildings on the site will be renovated and although a great deal of the impervious surface on the site will be removed, much of the existing parking will remain which has nonconforming setbacks. The driveway aisles and parking space widths will be functional. The front yard will be welcoming and the sign in the front yard as proposed will be complementary to its overall image. The number of residential units will add much needed housing in an area near transit. The historic buildings will be restored and a floor added to fit the number of units in a way that will improve the character of the site and streetscape. Transportation demand management practices will be implemented to reduce the traffic congestion from the overall development and the additional units. Mr. Sampson MADE a MOTION to recommend that the Board of Appeals grant the Variances in order to allow for the redevelopment of the site as proposed. Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor by roll call. None were opposed. SITE PLAN REVIEW & AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT Case 19-006, 99 Washington Street, Oak Grove Mill, LLC Attorney David Lucas Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 30, 2020 Page 4 of 8 Ms. DeSouza-Ward reviewed the past hearing dates for this case which were January 27, February 10 and February 24, 2020. On March 23, 2020 the Board continued the case to the current hearing. Attorney David Lucas, and the development team including Christopher Kelly, Insight Partners; Ray Murphy, Eastern Real Estate; Nancy Ludwig, Architect; Brian Jones, Civil Engineer; and Elizabeth Peart, Traffic Engineer; were present remotely for the meeting. Mr. Kelly stated that the development team responded to all of the outstanding items that were in the City Engineer’s memo regarding the case. Mr. Welch MADE a MOTION to open the public hearing. Ms. Morelli SECONDED the MOTION. All members by roll-call voted in favor. None were opposed. Ms. DeSouza-Ward explained that members of the public could use the chat function of the virtual meeting software or email the Planning Director to alert the Board that they would like to speak. Finn McSweeney of 160 W. Wyoming Avenue wrote to say thank you for the constructive and healthy communication that has occurred through the public hearings for this case. Michael Fera of 56 Converse Lane appreciated the addition of the retail and public gallery spaces and asked about the sizes of the spaces. The Board received two letters prior to the meeting. One was from Julie Fischer of 277 Washington Street who had requests for flashing crosswalk lights, tightening the corner of the Washington Street intersection and installing a continuous sidewalk on the west side of Washington Street. The other letter was from Erin and Lloyd Graves of 72 Washington Street who did not want to see the proposed building blocking sunlight to their home where they have a garden in their front yard. Both of the letters also were supportive of having a mix of uses at the site. Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to close the public hearing. Mr. Welch SECONDED the MOTION. All members by roll-call voted in favor. None were opposed. The Board discussed items that members of the public raised. They asked the architect about the concern about shadows on the neighbors’ garden at 72 Washington Street. Ms. Ludwig described the length and direction of the shadow in relation to the garden. The garden is 90 feet due west of the proposed building. As the sun is coming up it would cast a shadow towards this neighbor but the building’s shadow would not reach the garden. Mr. Lucas also mentioned that the height of the building is by-right. The Board discussed the requested off-site infrastructure improvements and where the developer’s purview ends. Ms. Gaffey explained at a previous hearing and again that the City looked at what it would take to construct a sidewalk on the west side of Washington Street for the stretch where one does not exist. There is ledge there and it would cost approximately $70,000 to construct that segment of sidewalk. It would only serve a few houses and the goal when the sidewalk on the east side was improved was to direct pedestrians across the street because it is a safer to walk on this side. Members felt that the developers were improving the Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 30, 2020 Page 5 of 8 streetscape on their side of the street and they were satisfied with the amount of improvements that the developers were making. The desired sidewalk across the street is beyond a reasonable nexus to the development proposal. They asked about the sizes of the gallery and retail space. Ms. Ludwig said that the gallery will be 750 square feet and the retail space will be 450 square feet. The spaces could be modified by expanding them farther into the building in the future. The outdoor space also allows for retail to spill out onto it. The Board reviewed the draft conditions that were prepared by Planning Staff and the Applicant’s requests for changes. They discussed the request to be able to use the retail space for accessory residential space if they could not find a commercial tenant for the space after a year despite good faith and diligent efforts to secure a tenant with commercially reasonable lease terms. The request was to provide the Office of Planning and Community Development with reasonable documentation of the efforts to be able to change the space into accessory residential space. The development team said that they made efforts to put in retail space because it was desired by the community but with the state of the economy due to the pandemic they do not want to be stuck with an empty space at the entrance to their building. Ms. Petrillo commented that the spaces do not have to be appear empty. There could be public art or something attractive in the windows. The Planning Board did not accept the requested change to the condition, except for allowing the designated commercial and community spaces to be interchanged. The large majority of the discussion about the case from the public and the members was the desire for commercial and/or gathering space and the members felt that if these elements were removed from the plan they should be able to discuss and consider the change in a public meeting. Not doing this would be a disservice to the public. It would not be difficult to get a letter from a real estate broker that says that they made good faith efforts to get a commercial tenant. They would want to review the rent sought for the space and the number of parking spaces offered. Since the economy is cyclical the Board would also be able to evaluate the situation when the request to change the condition came to them. Ms. DeSouza-Ward brought up that the uses requested as alternatives if the commercial space was not viable may not be desirable in this prime location in the building. Mr. Lucas requested that the space could be amenity or accessory space for the residential units of the building, including but not limited to fitness area, storage, or property management office space. Ms. Morelli reminded the Board that the plan had included these uses and they were changed to make space for the requested commercial and community spaces. These uses would be discussed further in the future if the Applicants came back to the Board if they were not able to secure a commercial tenant. The Applicants agreed to the condition that they would come back to request a change to the Site Plan Approval condition if needed as a minor modification at a public meeting of the Planning Board. Mr. Murphy said that they will try their best to get a tenant for the space before the residential units are occupied. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 30, 2020 Page 6 of 8 The Board also discussed if they should designate a certain number of parking spaces in the front parking lot for the commercial space. If the commercial space was not filled quickly, the parking spaces may be used by the resident units which would make it more difficult in the future to secure a commercial tenant if there was no parking left. Mr. Kelly said that there will be approximately 10 parking spaces in the front parking lot for the commercial tenant. They want to have flexibility with assigning the spaces depending on the tenant. A member asked why the electric vehicle charging station parking spaces were located next to the commercial entrance. This prime parking location would be an incentive for people to own electric vehicles and the spaces are next to the transformer. The disadvantages of having the spaces here are that they would be more convenient for customers of a retail space and the Board members’ request was for the front lot to be visitor, drop-off and retail parking, not long-term residential parking. Vehicles would be parking for long stretches at the charging stations. Members debated adding a condition about the number of commercial spaces required or stating that the spaces could not be used for long term residential parking. They ultimately decided to let the parking space management be flexible. If a commercial tenant is not secured, the Planning Board would evaluate the parking spaces offered to commercial tenants before approving the commercial space to be turned over to accessory residential space. The Board discussed condition 15 and Councilor Rob Stewart’s comments at a prior meeting about neighborhood complaints about cut-through traffic. The condition specifies that construction vehicles should use main roads and not residential streets whenever possible. Ms. Gaffey explained that there are preconstruction meetings that includes representatives from several city departments for all sizable projects and the construction vehicle route is determined at the meeting. Councilor Stewart’s comments may have been more about residential traffic but limiting construction vehicle traffic will help with the overall concern. Mr. Mercado recommended adding ‘site improvements’ to the condition regarding the Design Review Subcommittee’s list of items to review. The Board ultimately decided not to add this term because most of the site elements were detailed on the plans and the Board would need to approve any changes to the plans. The Board made the following changes to the conditions: #2 - add signage to the list of items that the Design Review Subcommittee will review #12 – the Chief of Police modified the required surveillance equipment #15 – specify that construction vehicles cannot idle #23 – the breakdown of affordable units was corrected. There will be 2 studios, 10 one- bedrooms, and 7 two-bedrooms. #27 – no change; however, it was clarified that the word “initially” was included in the condition because that is how the applicant presented the trash and recycling pickup plan. The schedule was acceptable to the members. #30 – The revised language from the Applicant was acceptable to the members. Best faith efforts to provide a bike share program and Zipcar parking spaces with documentation to OPCD is adequate considering all of the transportation demand management practices Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 30, 2020 Page 7 of 8 that will be implemented at the site. Also, it is not practical to require companies that offer these services to location here if they find that the location is not practical. #31 – Allow for the ability to switch the commercial and community spaces as proposed by the Applicant; however, end the modified condition after the portion about despite good faith and diligent efforts to secure a tenant…, with the applicant/owner “may return to the Planning Board to modify the condition”. Add adequate parking with the reasonable lease term reference. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to conditionally approve the Site Plan with the conditions as amended during the public hearing. Mr. Sadowski SECONDED the MOTION. All members by roll-call voted in favor, except for Mr. Cassavoy and Mr. Sampson who abstained from voting due to their absent at a prior hearing. None were opposed. Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to conditionally approve the Affordable Housing Special Permit. Mr. Welch SECONDED the MOTION. All members by roll-call voted in favor, except for Mr. Cassavoy and Mr. Sampson who abstained from voting due to their absent at a prior hearing. None were opposed. Mr. Lucas asked the Board to make a specific finding for a section of the Smart Growth District in the Melrose Zoning Ordinance to make clear to the Board of Appeals or others that the parking requirements for the development are met. The section is 71.1.F.4 which permits the Planning Board to allow shared or reduced parking requirements for uses having different peak times of parking demand requirements or if a use needs a lesser number of parking spaces than is required. Mr. Welch MADE a MOTION to confirm that the Planning Board has affirmatively allowed for shared and reduced parking as allowed in Section 71.1.F.4 of the Melrose Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Morelli SECONDED the MOTION. All members by roll-call voted in favor, except for Mr. Cassavoy and Mr. Sampson who abstained from voting due to their absent at a prior hearing. None were opposed. OTHER BUSINESS Design Review Subcommittee Update Members of the Design Review Subcommittee visited the material mockup of the brick and mortar colors at 530 Main Street. The consensus was to use the sioux city red brick, which is a traditional brick, and the darker mortar color. They all chose the more monochrome look for the building. The Subcommittee asked for the applicant to bring back plans for the outstanding items to them over a year ago and now the building is nearing completion. They would like to meet one more time to wrap-up the final details of the development. Postponing Annual Meeting Members decided to move the annual meeting when the votes for chair, clerk, and subcommittee chairs are taken to a future meeting when they can meet in person or virtually when there are less items on the agenda. NEXT MEETING Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 30, 2020 Page 8 of 8 The Planning Board Special Meeting & Public Hearing on Monday, April 13, 2020, at 7:45pm for 0 Swains Pond Avenue may be moved to a future date. The next regular meeting is scheduled for April 27, 2020 at 7:45pm. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 pm.
Transcript
▶ 0:00 And also the City of Melrose website www.cityofmelrose.org as soon as possible following its conclusion. I want to remind the Planning Board members that they should mute their microphone except when they're speaking so we'll minimize feedback and people speaking over each other and it'll keep the meeting easy to hear for people who are listening in. And also all votes, as well as attendance, will have to be done by a roll call vote during the remote meetings. This is our attempt to keep the government running. So everyone's going to have to be patient. Things will probably go slowly, but that's our plan for how we're going to do things. We should probably take attendance at this point, Denise.
▶ 0:46 Before we do that, I think I've just been informed that Mike Cassavoy is an attendee. Let me see if I can pull him in. Okay. Hold on. This is our final member who's supposed to be joining us. I just made him a panelist. I'm going to turn on his mic and see if that worked. Mike, are you there? I'm here. Can you hear me? Great. Okay. I just moved you into a panelist mode you weren't you had attendees so I had to go to IT to get in oh goodness thanks okay well I'm glad you made it I know okay I'm just gonna call the roll call vote just just stay here if you're in attendance. Greg Sampson? Here. John Sadowski? Here. Carla Morelli? Here. Michael Cassavoy? Here. Bob McArdo? Here. Jack Welch? Jack Welch? Here. Paul King? Here. Sharon
▶ 2:11 Petrillo and and D'Souza Ward okay great we're scheduled for a public meeting at 815 but beef that will begin after we conduct some of our planning board missus business as a regular public meeting we're scheduled for public hearing did I say that correctly right now it's public meeting the public can listen but they're not participating in this portion we see first order of business uh is our minutes we have three sets of minutes there are minutes from our uh special meeting february 10th 2020 our regular meeting february 27th 24th 2020 and our meeting last monday night was march 23rd 2020. i think it might be easier to consider them all together if that's possible can I have a motion to consider all three sets of minutes as
▶ 3:15 one agenda item this is Jack I will move to consider all three sets of meeting minutes as one I thank you do I have a second second any discussion about the minutes we can common suggestions my castable here I do have a comment okay I was absent I'm sorry I was absent for the Fed I was unable to hear that okay I can see was saying was absent so he's indicated as present that sounds like a correction to consider all three one agenda item all in favor I guess we'll go through the role I'll read out the role Greg Sampson all right john sadowski hi carla morelli hi michael cassifoy hi jack welsh hi paul king hi darren petrillo hi but i was not at the uh the march 23rd meeting but it is noted but my eye won't count for that one
▶ 5:13 this is just to vote to hold all three together okay all right so we're considering all three sets of minutes and I have a motion to accept them amend them I motion to prepare okay there second John Sadowski you need a second I do need a second second yep second by Paul King all right all in favor and I understand some may go present if they were absent but so just signify by saying aye if you're in favor of accepting the minutes or present or nay if you're not all right I'll read the roll Greg Sampson John Sadowski hi Carla Morelli hi Michael Casapoi hi Bob McArdo hi Jack Welsh hi Paul King hi Karen Petrillo hi and and to sue's award hi motion our minutes have carried good job now we're on to our first order of business for tonight
▶ 6:46 we have three board of appeals cases the first one is board of appeals case 20-006 it's 26 north cedar park and i believe we have an applicant who is with us who uh i just made i just made him a panelist let's see if that works um his name is ty fan uh fan is there are you with us strange being shown as a panelist do you have to unmute him denise by any chance he's not muted okay oh i do see him i'm not sure what happened here I just emailed him. Would you like to move on to the next case and I'll see if I get a response because he had been emailing me. Okay. If he can, if you'd like to speak, we'll give him the opportunity. If not, we can discuss the case without him. It's his option. Let's do our next case, which is case 20-008. This
▶ 8:24 is 101 Stratford Road. Is there anyone here for the applicant who is an attendee? Yeah, there is. Hold on a second. See if that works. The name is Waterman and Doody. Yep. I'm here. Amanda Waterman. Okay. Yep. She's here. You're coming up on our screen. Can you hear us, Ms. Waterman? I can. Can you hear me? We can hear you. We can't see you, but if you're... That's fine. Welcome. Thank you. And we have your application and quite a bit of information about your case. But you are welcome to give us a little summary of what exactly you're doing and what you need for relief from the Board of Appeals, because we make recommendations to them. Right. I'll try to keep it short. We want to put in a pool into our yard or on a corner lot.
▶ 9:39 So there are a few setbacks that we have to deal with. and so I talked to all the neighbors that were available and they signed and one had a problem with it but essentially I mean I can't even hold it you can see it right like this diagram that I did oh you mean the part of your application well no I did a new diagram to show you a little bit but so there's um we would like the pool to be a little bit closer to our neighbors lot line um to maximize sort of yard space and then we would like it to be 11 feet from quarter street instead of 15 and that consideration was primarily safety um and a little bit of yard space because we want to try to have yard space still be able to play around the pool but um if the pool is 11 feet from
▶ 10:49 from porter street instead of 15 that would give us more space um by the deep end because we need to have a retaining wall close to our house so it'll be two feet high and so as we get closer down to the um deep end of the pool i would like to have more space there between the pool and the retaining wall just for people navigating around it if the um pool is pushed closer to the house for that 15 foot setback that means that then there would only be five feet of space between deep end of the pool and this two foot high retaining wall um and i have been told by the patio company that the retaining wall as it gets closer to the street will be able to be a little bit lower but if the pool is closer to the house for the setback then the retaining wall
▶ 11:46 would definitely be two feet high there the other safety consideration is that our power lines um unfortunately right now they go across our backyard they have to be moved to the front they will be hooked to the front corner of the house so you need to have ten feet horizontally the power lines and a pool so if we don't get any of the setbacks met that we want it would be ten feet but I'm just thinking as anybody would that I would feel better if the school is even further away from the power line than that ten feet. So if the pool can be four feet closer to Porter Street and three feet closer to our backyard neighbor, that means that the power line connection is that much further away from
▶ 12:39 the water. And then the final setback is the tent. So on a corner lot you need to have a stipulation is it's 25 and initially I proposed 15 they're looking at lots of corner lots around in our neighborhood there are plenty of fences and hedges and things like that that were within the 25 feet they were closer to 15 feet and then I put up a temporary fantasy what it would look like and do that with a neighbor who helped me and sort of thought well I still think it was safe people would probably feel more comfortable having it be when I compromise at 20 feet and I don't know if you can see that on the diagram that I sent but I do have a diagram here that shows it but and that one is to be perfectly honest is about trying to still have yard space I have
▶ 13:47 an eight-year-old and we like to play outside a lot and so just to try to have more yard space for us to play and so it gets us five feet more for us to play instead of cutting off a whole large chunk of the yard and I did take pictures and sort of really try to be cognizant of driving and it definitely it appeared to me and after looking at other corner houses that it would be safe to have a fence 20 feet back instead of 0.5 and I also looked into neighboring towns I don't know if that's a factor or not but most neighboring towns actually have it less than 25 people. We may consider it safe, I guess, is my point. I think that's it. Thank you. Thanks for explaining it. We all have your plans and your
▶ 14:45 application and we have a staff report. Are there questions or comments from board members? And I think it's going to be hard to figure out how we take turns we're all this is John as you know and be happy to start all right why don't we the rest of us will mute and listen to you for a minute all right so understanding and as we do we're advisory of the ZBA and the hardship is really up to the zoning Board of Appeals I'll leave it at that but I have seen this case come up before in my years on the board and I only recall one case similar to this in which we approved but there was a hardship that wasn't related to geography but ultimately the board decided to grant it I'm almost sorry in a way because it does feel to me as though we're kind of forcing an amenity
▶ 15:40 here and something that has a lot going against it I do respect the applicants you know efforts here to try to bring things you know to a more reasonable extent with respect to setbacks and the potential for sight distance issues at the corner and I do recognize that throughout Melrose you can point to last lots of examples which don't comply with the 25 foot suggestion or requirement that's in the letter of the Commissioner but I would have a hard time supporting something that violates that because in to the extent that there was an accident there's accidents in the future where there's other lots with encroachments on that 25 feet, that potentially could become an issue. And I would have a hard time voting in
▶ 16:25 favor of that. With respect to the setbacks, the one thing that I would consider reasonable because of past cases is the fact that it's a corner lot and the fact that there's two front yards. So if the pool could at least be reduced in size or pushed such that it could meet at least the setback requirements for a conventional lot that's not a corner lot, I might be more inclined to um think favorably of the application those are my comments i'm going to quick get my mute button there any other members of the board yeah this jack okay um i i agree with john uh completely on the sight lines um as a bicyclist especially you know what what is a safe sight line when you're driving in a vehicle and come to a stop is different when you're on a bicycle
▶ 17:19 because you're sort of in suspended animation for a little bit when you come to an intersection and um there's too many intersections frankly in melrose that are not safe because there are bushes because there are fences so um i would not be at all in favor of waving the 25 feet or or recommending that the board of appeals wave that 25 feet The rest of it, I don't have a problem with, but the corner sight lines bother me. Okay. Other members of the board? Greg Sampson. I agree with both comments. Thanks, Greg. I feel the same way. The side setback on the corner to not have anything above three feet is a safety consideration. and unless it's really, unless there were some real extenuating circumstances, it would be hard
▶ 18:24 for me to support that. I feel less concerned about the others just because it is a corner lot and I have a little sympathy for that and they're not, they're not really big variances, so it's harder for me to be upset about those, but the side one is hard to support. Any other comments from board members do we have a motion to send something to the board of appeals about this case and this is bob mercado i agree that i think we have to keep that setback though you know and uh not only that i look at the place there is a large tree right next door and uh even when they when they excavate sorry bob i'm not hearing everything but you're concerned about the tree next door on the east side look at that and uh if they do that swimming pool there uh within seven
▶ 19:24 feet i figured you know even they're about at least 10 feet or 15 feet they're going to harm the trade or the large three on the next door label and i i agree with john also and jack they have to maintain the 25 feet for safety so i they have it i don't think i i can support their members of the board hi there I'm gonna keep my comments short because my house is a little noisy at the moment but I do agree with all of the other comments of the other board members and I think that there's the potential for a real safety issue particularly because the side street is Porter Street which people just sort of speed down and I and I do think the sight line is an issue thank you do I have a motion for many members I think we have a consensus at
▶ 20:17 at least on the corner variance. I'm not set back from the intersection. Glad to make a motion. Okay. So maybe just the preamble is that the board members heard from the applicant and who expanded on the reasons that were included in the application, including a potential compromise with respect to the 25 foot setback on the fence at the corner. The board members generally felt strongly that that's something that they could not support for safety reasons, irrespective of the fact that there may be indeed encroachments that exist throughout Melrose elsewhere. So therefore could not support that aspect of the application. As far as the location of the pool otherwise, in terms of the setback requirements
▶ 21:07 and recognizing that it's a corner lot that has two requirements for two front yard setbacks, There were varying opinions of the board members in terms of whether they would support that or not. And we otherwise leave to the Zoning Board of Appeals with the input of the public at the public hearing. Do I have a second to John's motion? I second. Bob Mercado seconded. Bob Mercado. All right, any further discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying aye when your name is called. You want me to read the roll for that or? Yes, please. do a roll call for every vote okay so um here we go greg sampson john sadowski hi carla morelli hi michael casaboy greg casaboy i'm gonna just turn his microphone on
▶ 22:06 on mobile, Mike? Yes, aye. Aye. Bob Micardo? Aye. Derek Welsh? Aye. Paul King? Aye. Karen Petrillo? Aye. Amanda Susan Warren? Aye. I think that was unanimous, so there's no need to say are there any opposed. If you're still with us, I'm looking to see whether... Yes, it's Ms. Waterman, right? So we're going to send that letter to the Board of Appeals. It's a recommendation from us. As you heard, we did not have a consensus on two of your variances, but we could not support the one from the intersection, but the decision will be up to the Board of Appeals. They'll get our recommendation in a letter before your meeting. Okay. All right, thank you for your time. Thank you. Good luck. And now we can go back to our case number 20-006,
▶ 23:24 26 North Cedar Park. Dr. Phan, are you available to speak with us? I'm not sure if you have a microphone. Oh, so he's saying he can hear us. Well, we can't hear him. We can't hear him talking, but we can hear him. I don't have any access to a microphone. Can we send him a written message that we're, Mr. Phan, we're unable to hear you. We do have your application and we have everything you submitted to the Board of Appeals. We are willing to consider your case without your input unless you want to send us something in writing by email and we can read that into the record or if you want to uh do this another way i'm not sure what other way we can offer also a chat option right yes you can you can type
▶ 24:39 comments i don't see anything on my chat option i just asked when do you think i can appear This is scheduled for Board of Appeals soon, right? Yeah, April 15th. April 15th. So we really need to make our recommendations tonight. I think so. We need them to appear now or... we discussed it even without him presenting well we're trying to make we're giving him the option we can do that but if you'd like to speak you would need to either do it by telephone or have a microphone now that might be the best option for him there is a calling number right mr fan we'd like you to contact us now if you'd like to speak can you type something or speak by microphone on your computer or call in by phone he's saying he's for some reason he cannot talk on the microphone
▶ 26:45 on his laptop he can clearly hear the board's discussion so maybe mr fan if we have a discussion about your case and you'd like to make a comment can you write it and send it to the city planner the way you've been sending these messages because i think in writing is the only way we're going to hear from you he's giving me a phone number to call but i'm not sure how to do that right um what you could do is call on your phone but it's likely to compete with the computer In terms of feedback, if I do that, we would hear you, but, you know, it's going to provide feedback more than likely. Can we sent him a call in number and then we can still discuss the case and he could be calling to speak to us.
▶ 27:48 I'm looking to see on my email. Do you have it on your did you have it should be on the invitation? There's usually an option invitation. Is there a number. if he just called somebody's cell phone and they put it on speaker speaker phone so i can do that i can do i can try that and then just turn off my microphone so that i was going to say i had terrible feedback when i had a cell phone going along with the computer oh i'm sending it you will have feedback yes all right greg you just okay sent your number that's the number for the call in the audio oh good okay thank you greg so mr fan if you see that number call that number second number is the access code number to dial in all right so dial in use that access code meanwhile um i think the members of the board should at least
▶ 28:56 look through the materials that they have and i'll entertain any comments this is a case um let's see oh here it is while they're looking at it my initial comments are the violation in terms of the um two and a half story in the dormer certainly take issue with and then as well if i'm understanding that patient correctly there's only a couple feet i believe between the property line and the the residence as it is by further increasing that with a full shed or even partial shed dormer it goes back to the maintenance issue given the pitch you'd have to have with a ladder and i recognize there's rights to actually go on to others property for maintenance but we've ground on that in terms of just as a practical matter being able to maintain a property
▶ 29:48 Well, as Bob, were you trying to speak? They want the house on the property line. I'm just looking at the plot plan. Yes, that is existing. Pre-existing. The side yard on the right is pre-existing, correct? Right. The problem for me as a member of the zoning subcommittee that worked very hard on the rule about the reason that the dormers are limited to one half of um i forget exactly how it works half of the length of the gable end is because we were interpreting the meaning of two and a half stories three story houses are not allowed by dormering both sides it becomes a three-story house a flat basically flat roof three specifically not allowed it's been made clear in our zoning despite the fact that there is a dormer on the house next door
▶ 31:05 this is really not allowed in the area it's choosing it's making it into a three-story house i feel pretty strongly that i couldn't support a variant to do exactly what we don't won't allow by zoning. It's more about the two and a half story limitation. There is this exterior staircase that you all should look at too, because it's a two family house and the exterior staircases for a second means of egress. That one I have a lot less problem with because there's already a preexisting encroachment on the side yard and I see the safety need for the second means of egress. So I'd like to hear from other members of the board on both of those. hi anne this is jack hi jack i agree with you i mean this is really a three-story house and
▶ 31:57 and virtually uh peak is so it's so slight for all purposes it's a flat roof and uh and i could not support it either other members rick sampson i'm the same thanks anyone else yeah paul king yeah i i agree as well i'm looking at the building next door it's on 3d google earth and yeah essentially it's just got a flat roof on it now you know these houses are pretty well set back and not well seen but um and if you look at that side of the house facing the neighbor um if you there's literally like no windows on that side of the house uh and that dormer itself um you know it was like 24 feet long i believe it was it had one little window on it but it was a very enclosed dormer as well it didn't even have any aesthetic appeal to it looked like a dormer okay thanks paul um yes and
▶ 33:11 i i agree with you and the other members of the board i think that the um intent of the of the zoning to not allow a full shed dormer that really spans the entire length of a roof is very clear in the audience and we spent a tremendous amount of time coming up with the correct ratio of dormer to length of roof expanse so to speak it's not not good practice to build a flat roof in general it just architecturally speaking in terms of drainage but I think that I definitely would not support it because it's in it's in clear violation of the zoning ordinance and it's unfortunate that there is an example nearby that doesn't conform to the ordinance had they come before us since we enacted the the zoning changes
▶ 34:08 would have to say that we don't approve it to them as well. So I think we speak with one voice on that issue. Thank you. What about the variance for the exterior staircase, the second means of egress? I'm less opposed to that because they need a second means of egress, but I would, if I were the neighbor, I would want to see exactly what that was going to look like. there's many many different ways to build staircases and um you know if they're going to have a separate unit up there which it sounds like they're going to definitely need a second means of egress and it can't travel through another unit so it has to be on the outside of the building i'm not i'm not troubled by the fact that it encroaches on the setback terribly um we see smaller setbacks than
▶ 35:02 Denise Gaffey: that but i would be concerned about how it would be rendered and I have gotten a comment from the applicant if I can read that yes he says there is no headroom for my bedrooms upstairs and no bathroom stairway is less than 30 inches and steep how can my kids go up and down sounds like it's a challenge to go up and down and I think that is existing I think their bedrooms up there already the house next door is the same and they even have a dormer built on the garage that was clear in the application that's it thank you this is bob mercado i'm going to stay neutral because uh you know you don't see it it's a existing uh it's almost like a hardship to go on the upstairs there you know and uh the headroom
▶ 35:59 and not only that i don't think it's going to negatively affect the area there on all the existing houses on the design of this building if you are the dormant so i'm kind of uh you know i think i will uh in my opinion i think it's just gonna let the neighborhood die you know You know, it's almost like the CBA decided on it with the input of the neighbor. Okay, thank you, Bob. We spent a lot of time working on a definition of a two and a half story house that is allowed, but a three story house is not allowed. And unfortunately, it's true it makes the third floor living space less it makes for a small living space on a third floor or any houses that are in a zone that doesn't allow three-story buildings but this happens to be one of those zones can I just read
▶ 37:04 a couple more comments that the applicant is still he also clarified that the dormer is only extending the existing floor plan and the windows around and then he went on to say I looked at the next house before I bought mine so I thought it should be approved the same understandable that he didn't realize the limitations in the neighborhood that happens a lot but I don't think it sways my opinion but I'd like to hear from any other members of the board unfortunately that's the way the ordinance is written just because it's happened in one place doesn't mean that we would suddenly want this whole neighborhood did they have three-story houses and I started this is John board member I I started with sort of the same basis that I heard the majority of the
▶ 37:54 board do agree with but this is what I feel strongly about this is that you know in fact I would almost say that it works against the applicant to draw an example that is what I certainly wouldn't want to see from a planning perspective perpetuate in the city of Melrose but I think the strongest point is the one that was made about the dormer uh the the subcommittee spent a lot of time relaxing that from what was the ordinance and to then uh suggest that it's uh acceptable to go beyond that um i i would really strongly object to okay john any other comments from board members i'll just read a couple more comments that the applicant has made okay thank you yeah please still I want to make sure he's fully heard he asked how do you want me to
▶ 38:45 extend upstairs so I can have a bathroom and headroom for my kids and then he asked dormer on the right side with bathroom only as a suggestion you're looking at one dormer on one side instead of what he's suggesting you want me to comment on that I'd be glad to this is John again sure so I think that we often do maybe overstep a bit our bounds here by trying to help applicants with suggestions in terms of design. And I always prefer to try to do that. In this particular case here, if the reduction was such that it still would be on the side with the two-foot setback, I would not find that a good direction to go in. And I think that probably the best for the applicant to do is withdraw and and redesign and resubmit um under the circumstances
▶ 39:40 because uh it's kind of tough to try to redesign with an applicant here with the amount of change that i think would bring it to a favorable uh dormer i just want to be um clear a dormer on half the house would be totally within the zoning ordinance and would be all right right i think i believe he's proposing a full shed dormer on each side right now right now one side would be uh would comply with zoning right no no it would still have to be 50 percent of the 50 percent of the roof line even on one side correct that's what i don't remember so he'd have to actually go to the building inspector to clear on how much he could dormer up there the ordinance I think at some point the design change would be so significant
▶ 40:40 would prefer to see it again before we you know would want to make a recommendation as EBA if the other board members agree my point was he might be able to build a partial dormer with no variance required so he's gonna have a but don't variance from two and a half to three stories? That's what he's asking for now. But not as I understand, he might revise it. The only effect would be the exterior exit stairs that encroaches on side yard or other setbacks. Anne, this is Carla. I think the real problem he's encountering is that he's trying to fit a bathroom up there. If he pulled the bathroom out of the plan and just went with a staircase and two bedrooms, then he would be fine. But he's adding too much,
▶ 41:45 he's adding too much occupiable floor area to something that's not supported by the zoning ordinance. If he pulled the bathroom in towards the interior and the staircase towards the interior, towards the middle of the plan and pulled out the walk-in closet, for example, and he's skinning the plan up, I think that he would not have to do shed dormers of the size and scope that he's actually looking at. He's trying to fit too much up there. And I don't think that's a hardship. I think that's elective. So, um, I think I think a redesign is possible. Within the confines of the existing zoning and the sizes of dormers that are allowed. I think that's a good point. You have to make a make a recommendation to the board of appeals on the application as it's presented to us.
▶ 42:37 now, which includes, as far as I know, it continues to include the dormers on both sides, as well as the exterior staircase. It's true, the applicant has asked, is there a way to redesign, and I think the answer is yes, within zoning, except for maybe the staircase. The exterior staircase, yes. I was referring to the interior staircase that goes up to the third floor. Right. I understand. So, he agreed to withdraw and redesign and come back? No, I don't believe the applicant is asking to withdraw and redesign at this time. Mr. Phan, you were not making that request. You were just asking for ideas, correct? I think he was trying to come up with a compromise, like, you know, yeah. I think we should encapsulate what we've said for the Board of Appeals.
▶ 43:40 Does anyone want to make an attempt at a motion? I know order if no one else well I will this is John okay so I think that again just an opening sentence or preamble would be the applicant did attempt to reasonably present his case including a potential alteration of the application with the more modest warmer which you know the board didn't have the opportunity to see and otherwise object to the variance with respect to the former insofar as the subcommittee that ultimately put through the process station if you will of the of the former ordinance in that respect and prefer would not support a variance in that respect and then otherwise with respect to the exterior stair. I'm not sure if we had differing opinions as to whether
▶ 44:52 that was something that the board would support or not, but ultimately felt that the applicant was trying to put too much on the third floor that could be reasonably designed within the what the ordinance of how dormer area. The recommendation as to the variance for an exterior staircase. Well and therefore not grant the variance with respect to the dormer. I'm not sure how the board feels about the exterior staircase. I don't think it's particularly desirable myself. The majority of the board would like to say about the exterior staircase. Are you making a motion then that we did not reach consensus on the exterior staircase and leave it up to the board of appeals or or did you want to see something different?
▶ 45:46 I would prefer that we recommend that they deny the request for the variances and urge the applicant to come back with a redesign. I'd be opposed to the exterior staircase, did not at least bringing that up differently, just as one member of the board, because it is an existing two family and the exterior staircase is the second means of egress. And it's no further, no closer to the side lot line than the house is now. So let me understand the second means of egress is not there and if the applicant were just applying for a second means of egress being a safety issue that that sort of sways my opinion on that. Is that the case? But he still needs a variance if it's close to the side lot line. Then I would retract that and suggest that the motion that I
▶ 46:36 started be revised to suggest that the board felt differently with respect to the second means of egress would would would not or would support that if that's what I'm hearing from the rest of the board members understanding that now more clearly otherwise leave to the input from the neighbors at the design quarter feels very okay I before it I'd like to get a second and then I just want to confirm with city planner that I'm getting that clear in the exterior staircase but for discussion purposes is there a second to John's motion second second by greg um please can you just clarify or someone from the planning staff i am correct right and that it's an existing two family it is an existing two family
▶ 47:32 i can't recall though from the the building commissioner's denial letter this was a requirement um maybe lori do or it's a suggestion denise we could reword the the letter of the motion to say to the extent that it provides a second means of egress that is a safety issue. So it's sort of worded that way rather than trying to make a determination if we don't have enough information here. Can I ask a question? Is the applicant currently using that second and a half story? So is there currently a bedroom there? Anybody know? I just went back and looked at the building inspectors letter and a quick perusal does not help me with staircase information or not suggestion saying that if it's fine what we understand maybe it would be helpful for the Board
▶ 48:54 of appeals I mean and maybe we could do as part of the motion is just again say we're not clear and or that a second means of egress therefore then is necessary but otherwise if that were the case we wouldn't be opposed to it generally speaking amendment to the motion Greg is that alright as a second sure I would say you know personally I I think that can I think the motion stands pretty well and covers both scenarios whether it's desired modification or a required modification I mean it's not encroaching any further than the existing nonconformity I think definitely I'm comfortable leaving that to the discretion of the board. I think this more strong feelings are related to the dormers. Okay, well said. Can I just say something? Looking at the Paul Johnson comments, it appears that the proposed stair and the landing decks, his proposal is
▶ 50:13 We'll come to a six feet away, but the existing non-conformance on the active pack is only two feet. Is there a problem for safety issue, the stair and the landing deck? I can see the problem on the torments, that would be landing deck. Are we voting for both at the same time or one at a time? They're both, they're two, that's one application for two variances, Bob. okay so do we have problem on the deck understand I know I can see that is to leave it up to the Board of Appeals on the exterior staircase okay without objection because it's closer it's no closer to the side lot line than the existing line of the house if it's necessary for safety purposes but not to support the to the full dormer correct in terms of the intent of the motion yes
▶ 51:24 so I have a motion and a second is there further discussion all in favor of sending that letter to the Board of Appeals by saying aye and you could Please indulge us with one more roll call, please. We'll do. Greg Sampson. Aye. John Sadowski. Aye. Carla Marley. Aye. Michael Casaboy. Aye. Bob McArdle. Aye. Jeff Welsh. Aye. Colby. Aye. Sharon Petrillo. Aye. Amanda Cesar Ward. Aye. All right, so the motion carries. Mr. Phan, that letter will go to the Board of Appeals before uh you meet with them and i hope that's clear on what our statement says but you've got a copy also all right is it i'm i can't tell whether because i can't hear you i can't tell whether or not you've heard me or you're clear on this should we should we wait to
▶ 52:34 hear confirmation from him through denise that he received that he's you know he understands next step or can you confirm mr fan that you've heard this and you understand you're going to get a copy of our letter and the letter will go to the board of appeals our discussion here tonight i'm not getting any response i i personally whether it confirms or not it's it's kind of what we're done right i mean we have made the vote i think we probably have to move on because we have a public hearing that was supposed to have started a half an hour um so i'm going to move on to our next board of appeals case this is case 20-007 it's 99 washington street and it's the application for oakland which is the company that is also the applicant in our site plan review
▶ 53:37 and affordable housing special permit the public hearing that's about to start so i'd like a motion from the board to maybe combine this with the public hearing and consider it as a final vote at the end decided on the uh special permit for affordable housing and the site plan review case we'll probably be able to answer um to make a recommendation to the board of appeals based on what we've done on those bases hear this one at the end of the discuss this one at the end of our public hearing by greg can i have a second second second by bob i want to note that i just saw the chat pop up and a thank you from mr fan so he did it sounds like he did acknowledge that he heard us so thank you mr van for sending that uh all in favor of uh considering the board
▶ 54:41 of appeals case for 99 washington street at the after our public hearing uh please say aye with the roll call vote if you're opposed say nay obviously you want me to try the roll call this time yeah here we go uh greg sampson hi john sadowski hi carla morelli hi michael cassavoy aye bob micardo bob micardo you're muted hi um jack welsh hi hey hi and anderson's award hi all right so it's unanimous we'll do that at the end so now we are ready to move on to our i'm sure there are members of the public that are probably attending and listening and we can come on to our site plan review and affordable housing special permit uh public hearing and meeting and i'm going to bring david lucas the attorney for the applicant
▶ 55:55 on as a panelist right now okay okay hi how are you hi david uh i'm going to let you speak and members of your team that are that are also uh available to be part of the meeting one at a time but before we start i just want to view where we're at at the case and then it'll be your turn this is the case i'm sorry i'm just we need microphones to be turned off because yeah otherwise we get feedback so the public can hear it nice and clearly um this public hearing began january 27th it was continued to february 10th we had an extensive hearing that night it was the only item on the agenda it was then continued to February 24th there have been a lot of changes made by the applicant and further submissions introduced
▶ 57:01 on the basis of all the concerns and questions that have been raised it's continued again to March 23rd which was last Monday and given the pandemic and the rule against meeting with more than 10 people. That meeting was not held and it was continued to tonight. Tonight we take up the case again after a lot of public hearing, a lot of information. Two members of the board that are with us tonight are not, will not be voting members because they missed part of the public hearing over all these continued months, Greg Sampson and Mike cassavoy but they can participate in the discussion with us and uh they just cannot vote all the other members will be voting members on this case since february 24th which is the last time we met in
▶ 57:53 public session we have received a set of updated plans we have a response from the applicant to to the city engineer's memo from February. And we have an updated transportation management plan. All the documents are on the website, cityofmelrose.org and can be seen. And before we reopen the public hearing to the public, to make comments, we're going to have an opportunity for the applicants representatives or representatives to speak. David, if you would like to, I'm trying to keep us organized here. Thank you, Madam Chairperson, very much. And I just, as I said to you earlier today, but the public didn't have a chance to hear this, we really, the applicant wants to thank the planning board, the planning department,
▶ 58:54 and frankly, I do personally, as a resident of Melrose, as a business owner in Melrose, you guys and the other city boards for moving city business forward. Unfortunately, not every city and town in Massachusetts is doing this right now, so you deserve a huge thank you, everybody on your board and everybody inside City Hall, for making these meetings work. Because to stop progress sends a very negative message to the lenders, to developers, to business owners, but this says, you know, we in Melrose, we're ready to take your business, please bring it. So this is great. Thank you for doing this. I know online is Chris Kelly of Insight Partners. I know Ray Murphy of Eastern Real Estate is on. I can't see in front of me on my screen a list of who's
▶ 59:42 Denise Gaffey: in the queue and who's not. Do you want me to tell you, David? Yeah, please. I think Nancy is probably on there. Go ahead. You tell me. Yeah, Nancy's on there. Brian Jones is here. Liz Pert is here. and Jeffrey I'm sorry Raymond Murphy Ray Murphy Kevin O'Neill he may be with Nancy I don't see Kevin O'Neill and with icon our architect and there are a couple of other gentlemen on the list they may be members of the public okay Farrah Jeffrey Banta well as was said on March 30 I think this project has come a long way since we first applied our hope is that tonight you'll look at everything we've done you'll be supportive of it as as we said we're looking for site plan approval we're looking for a special permit for affordable housing we're also looking for
▶ 1:00:39 i would call it a finding under the smart growth ordinance regarding number of parking spaces which is section 235-71.1 where it says the planning board may allow shared or reduced parking requirements that means reduced below the 1.25 spaces per unit minimum and it has a list of criteria for that we would appreciate getting having that finding from you and finally we'd really appreciate the planning board's support to the board of appeals for the variances for parking and for density that we're requesting here end up the gospel reading i'm sorry i have to get back i have to unmute my microphone right unless you had something you wanted someone to present about uh things that are um changed i think that we're probably ready to
▶ 1:01:44 move on to comments and questions from the public uh but is if there was anything that you wanted to you know chris kelly wasn't here last time unfortunately um if he'd like to speak up i'd encourage him to do so but but the plans have not changed since since this board has last seen them you submitted new plans that showed all the changes that you proposed correct correct where you you made the changes uh yes yes response to a lot of comments exactly thank you okay um this mr. Kelly do you want to be recognized right now or do you want to wait until we've had a public comment you hear me we can hear you okay thank you I just a brief comment first to echo David's appreciation for everybody arranging to
▶ 1:02:39 do this high-tech presentation tonight thank you very much the I think the questions from the town engineering department have been very detailed we have all of our consultants available on this call if there's any follow-up I think there was one clarification we wanted to ask and that was with the composition of the affordable units that were requested the number that was reflected in the conditions was off by one unit from our application and the question was was this something that the town the city of Melrose wished to initiate as a change or was it simply a typographical error no I can speak to that this is Denise Gaffey and I think I think it was just a question of the percentage kind of broke down a little bit when I did the math it worked out to
▶ 1:03:32 Denise Gaffey: be three studios nine one bedrooms and seven two bedrooms but I think your application was for two studios ten one bedrooms and seven two bedrooms it's the exact same total 19 the only and it's a very de minimis change between one one being one additional one bedroom versus one studio so we've changed I've changed in the conditions which we'll talk about later to update it to have it the way you've originally presented it okay that's fine I was just it was the question was more of a clarification than anything else Okay. Before we open the public hearing, I'm going to try and explain the process here, and planning staff can correct me, because believe me, I'm probably not going to get it straight.
▶ 1:04:20 But members of the public are with us. They can hear us, and they can see us. We can only hear them, not see them, and they may speak one at a time. city planner will be able to recognize them and they'll be able to speak and be heard through our microphones through our speakers in order to request to be heard you either have to use if you're a member of the public you have to use the chat feature which should be on your screen you should see a little speaking bubble and that you can use that to print out a request that you'd like to speak or you can email the city planner which is d gaffey which is d g a f f e y at cityofmelrose.org she has her email up and she'll see it and she can recognize you if you want to speak and you
▶ 1:05:22 aren't able to do it through the chat feature one way or the other you can be heard that way if you want to just give us a written comment or a written question and you can type quickly You can send a written comment through chat or email and we will read it into the record. So we'll make sure that you're we're trying to give you an option to make your comments and your questions by chat by email or verbally with a microphone. You can also call in there's a call in number on the invitation to come to the meeting and we'll get you up on the meet on the the screen somehow one at a time it's going to be slow we're all going to need patience but we want to give everyone a chance to speak that wants to speak
▶ 1:06:10 don't forget to start by saying your name and your address for the record when you speak or write because we everything is going into a recorded record here of the public meeting all right so did I get the instructions pretty much right Denise okay so what I'd like is a motion to open the public hearing for comments and questions member of the board I'll move that we open the discussion to the public thanks Jack do I have a second it's Carla I'll second Thank You Carla all right we have a motion in a second to open the public hearing all in favor of motion of opening the public hearing please signify by saying aye with a roll call um greg sampson all right john sadowski hi carla morelli hi michael cassavoy my cast boy i can see you saying aye you're muted
▶ 2:46:55 Thank you. We're out. Thank you very much. Thank you. Best of luck. Other business. Carla, do you have anything to tell us about design review subcommittee? Just an update on the mock-up is what we're thinking, Carla. Yeah, so is that 530 Main Street? Is that the address? Yes. Yeah. So the Cafe Nero Moynihan Plaza building, the building that's going up on that site, A number of us managed to get by the site at different times and see the mock-up of a portion of the brick detailing with the new windows and there was consensus from the board on using a darker mortar color. they're using a city red brick very typical traditional brick and we all agree that a darker mortar color would be probably a more subtle look it's a
▶ 2:48:00 more monochrome look when the when the water is darker amongst the field of the brick and there were a couple of options on the mock-up and we all chose the same option you know unsolicited we all chose the same monochrome look so we feel comfortable I think that the developers headed in the right direction they haven't really done they haven't done exactly what we've asked them to do but they're you know we want them to get there we want them to finish the project we'd like to take the sidewalk back for the city and so I think we're willing to continue to work with them even though they're not as organized as we'd like that a fair way to say it Denise it's a very diplomatic way of saying it thank you I think there's still some judgment calls that we have
▶ 2:48:59 to make and so maybe you know maybe what we'll round up round them up we did make a condition of us going out there and looking at the sort of atypical mock-up they could keep working that they had to come back to the to this zoning review committee within 30 days and give us all the information that they have had outstanding for a year I don't know if they've set that meeting date yet well I don't think this pandemic has helped yeah well we could do it this way too I suppose in fact I don't know that I actually we've ever closed the loop on committee's review of the mock-up he was really actively trying to resolve that and then it just it's been radio silence I wonder if they're shut down they're
▶ 2:49:56 just not working I don't know I think I think everybody's being very very cautious right now and nobody's worth sacrificing so you know I guess we'll see it so I think they just don't respond the way we would like applicants to typically respond so I think one more meeting for them to wrap everything up however we do it we might have to do it this way with them putting things up on a wall and looking at it but they do owe us information it's ridiculous that it's been outstanding for a year and you should be able to pull it together it is looking good though I took a full tour inside the building it's quite something thing so I think they're doing a good job I agree despite being despite the
▶ 2:50:51 OPM being disorganized yes and difficult thank you for your patience Carla all right and the other business we have this is our annual meeting normally March is our annual meeting and given the circumstances I would suggest that postpone our annual meeting until maybe we have a more normal meeting where we can actually talk and just leave things as is for another month or two depending on how long of course in my head this is all ending very soon but none of us really know say first week of June I hope so Bob so it could what does everyone think about postponing is it safer to postpone to our June meeting postpone for a few months our May meeting I don't know when we'll be back to normal I don't know that you have to decide right now that would be easy this
▶ 2:52:01 isn't a public hearing so we don't have to respond to a date certain do we oh no no okay we could play that by a year i think as long as there's no requirements that you're aware of denise in terms of when we have to have the annual meeting no not that i'm aware of and next month we might find we suddenly have a lot of time to talk about this just us as as of now we have no attendees we have one attendee i think um but in general we don't have many people listening and we might feel like well we have the time we don't have a lot of public that are waiting for another case we could have time to discuss it's mostly just discussing uh you know positions on the board for next year uh chairman as well as the zoning subcommittee and and uh design review subcommittee
▶ 2:52:50 Denise Gaffey: and clerk right those are the ones correct could i have a motion to postpone until next month anyway and hopes that next month we have a little more information about how this is going to go and how about the subdivision hearing is that going to go the subdivision on that uh swing spawn now we're scheduled for april 13th go ahead denise well i was going to mention that next but um i mean it's true we are scheduled we continue to the 13th i think i think we're going to have to really give that some consideration this week because um i have a lot of concerns about holding that public hearing in this format i think it could be very i think it could be very challenging i think the legislature is also
▶ 2:53:36 Denise Gaffey: about to take some action and maybe as soon as tomorrow that will pull the dates deadlines for for cases like this um i'm not necessarily saying that's what we want to do i think we've tried to be as accommodating as we can with this project but i'm just i do have some concerns about um sort of due process um for a case that we haven't really it hasn't really been presented yet and it's very complex you've waited 19 years what's what's two months exactly exactly so i think we'll be we'll be revisiting this that whole this whole um issue this week and certainly report back i mean we'll have to take some action on the 13th because we did continue it to the 13th but unless we get that that legislative um issue but we'll let you know we'll stand by both houses
▶ 2:54:36 Okay, great. Yeah, good. So stay tuned on that one. All right. Okay, motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Do you want a roll call for that? I feel like that's unanimous, right? Thumbs up, everyone. Thumbs up. Hold my cameras over here. There it is. Great job, everyone. Thank you all very much. my gosh you guys did tremendous pat yourself on the back that's you guys on the back pulling it off we're bothering your dog too much Emma she's having the time of her life so if you roll it over back there you're having a good old time loves her she loves loves that we're working for mom oh my gosh back to my regular job bye take care everyone