Planning Board — 2021-01-25
Minutes
MELROSE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, January 25, 2021 7:30 PM Remote Meeting PRESENT: Mike Cassavoy, Anne DeSouza-Ward, Paul King, Robert Mercado, Carla Morelli, John Sadowski, Greg Sampson & Jack Welch ABSENT: Sharon Petrillo STAFF PRESENT: Denise Gaffey, Director, Emma Battaglia, Senior Planner & Lori Massa, Planning Coordinator The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Ms. DeSouza-Ward. 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 limitations 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. Meeting access 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 was found on the City of Melrose’s website, at www.cityofmelrose.org/remote-meetings. No in-person attendance of members of the public was permitted, but every effort was made to ensure that the public could adequately access the proceedings in real time. An audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings was posted on the mmtv3.org website as soon as possible after the meeting. A link was also available on www.cityofmelrose.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Board Regular Meeting, December 21, 2020 Mr. Mercado made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Design Review Subcommittee Meeting, December 17, 2020 Mr. Cassavoy made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. SLOPE PROTECTION SPECIAL PERMIT Case 20-003, 22 Montvale Street, Armando Plato Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2021 Page 2 of 6 Attorney Bell requested to continue the case to have additional time to submit information to the Board. Mr. Sampson made a motion to continue the case to March 22, 2021. Mr. Mercado seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. SITE PLAN REVIEW & AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT Case 20-004, 40 Vine Street, 39 Tappan Street LLC Attorney Patrick McAvoy, Michael Carter, Engineer and Mark Wilcox, Architect, Daniel Galvin, Owner, Kevin Carter, appeared to present the case. Attorney McAvoy requested to make a monetary contribution instead of providing an affordable unit on-site. Mr. Carter, Engineer, explained the site plan and zoning information. The Zoning Board of Appeals previously granted a variance for the driveway width. The footprint of the building is now smaller than it was originally proposed. This allowed the driveway to increase from 20 to 23 feet in width. The driveway width variance is still in effect. A recharge, infiltration system is proposed in the rear yard for the stormwater runoff. There would be no increase in rate or volume of runoff. There would be a six-foot vinyl fence around the site. Mr. Wilcox, Architect, discussed the design of the building. They will try to use green building practices by buying local and using energy efficient systems. The Board discussed how the application materials included requests for waivers; however, it appears that all of the relevant materials were submitted and the only waiver needed was for a LOS analysis. They did a trip generation calculation but did not include a full traffic analysis or level of service plan for the nearby intersections A full topography plan was submitted even though there is minimal topography on the site. A signage plan was not submitted but only a small address sign is proposed on the front. Mr. Sampon made a motion to open the public testimony portion of the hearing. Mr. Welch sectioned the motion. By roll call vote, all members were in favor. None were opposed. Shane O’Donohoe of 39 Vine Street stated that the building looks tall and out of place on the street. Finn McSweeney of 160 West Wyoming Street was glad to see a project in the RCOD. The MBTA considered the number of residents in the walkshed of the commuter rail station when determining if they were going to close stations recently. He had three questions: Are the dimensions of the elevator being large enough for e-bicycles to access the basement?; What is in the zoning that is precluding the affordable unit from being built on-site?; What is the developer’s perspective on converting the parking spaces in the future when they are not needed?. Mr. Galvin said that installing conduits for future electric vehicles would be a good idea. Mr. McSweeney said that Vine Street has a distinct "neighborhood feel" and it would be nice to understand if the design has any sort of purposeful front yard activation. A bike rack is nice, but it should be covered. The yard could use a couple of Adirondack chairs. Tenants could realistically spend time in the front yard. Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Patrick Jefferson of 34 Vine Street asked about a timeline for the project to begin and if there are any other steps that need to happen. Attorney McAvoy said that the hopeful timeline is this spring. They do not have a timeline for construction. The Board discussed how this parcel is in the RCOD and a four-story building is by-right. They saw no way of granting a variance from the affordable housing requirement that they recently amended with careful consideration. A member asked if there any solar panels being planned for the roof. Mr. Wilcox said that no solar is planned. There will be condensers and the elevator overrun and no room for panels. The panels need to be ten feet from the edge of the roof so it limits the available space. Mr. Wilcox stated that the roof will need to be constructed to carry the load of future solar panels. A member asked if they will use fossil fuels for heat. They were planning to use gas and instant hot water heating. They have not looked into the heat pump technology that Melrose is encouraging. They are not opposed to electric heating. The condensing units will be very quiet. The current building is large but only has two units. The interior was so poorly laid-out that it was difficult to work with. The Board discussed the design and materials of the building. The building is not in keeping with the residential scale of the neighborhood. It looks like a downtown building. It is difficult to fit in with 2 ½ story houses but it is possible to use a mansard roof or other treatments to better fit the residential character. There will be a fiber cement board on the front façade. The upper floors are a Hardi clapboard. They should submit elevations of all sides and a rendering that shows more detail of the building and materials. The front elevation shows storefront windows on the first floor. The residents may feel vulnerable. Mr. Glavin said that there will be a patio in front of the sliding doors. They have to see how much space there is to design the patio. The left side of the building is too close to the property line to be able to have bays like those on the right side of the building. The Architect added wide trim to the windows. The change in materials and horizontal lines help but this side has a flat look. The Board does not want it to be a monolithic building. The developer intends for these to be apartments. If they want to plan for them to be condominiums, they need to consider soundproofing. Mr. Galvin said that they will consider soundproofing even as apartments. A landscape plan should be submitted. There should be functional open space for the residents. Mr. Carter said that he would submit one that takes the comments into consideration. A member asked if residents will have storage in the basement. The plan is to have storage. There will be an elevator to the basement for easy access. A member asked if there a grading plan that shows that the runoff will make it to the infiltration system and not sheet flow to neighboring properties. Mr. Carter explained the grading plan. Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2021 Page 4 of 6 There is also a drainage report. They reviewed the curbing to prevent runoff. It is proposed to be a bituminous curb. The Board asked for it to be a better quality material. There should be a curb or wheel stop in front of the parking spaces. A curb is not proposed because the grade slopes down towards east. The back-out of the parking spaces will require a few turns. A member asked if any protection of the building from the driveway was proposed. The Architect will revisit it. On the southwest side there is a house in close proximity and the Board asked the Applicants to consider the impacts to this house.. There is a seven percent grade at the back of the building that they will look into. If a stretcher can fit in the elevator an e-bicycle should fit. The fence will be PVC, vinyl fence that will be a picket fence. The Board would like to see the specifications on the condensing units, the screening for the condensing units, the overall façade design and articulation, the two first floor unit sliders and the condition in front of them, a full landscaping plan with mature trees, a signage plan, clarity on the materials, curbing for drainage, turning radii and protection of the building. The building and site need to be built as proposed on the plans so the detail should be considered. Mr. Sampson make a motion to continue the case to February 22, 2021. Mr. Cassavoy seconded the motion. By roll call, all voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Site Plan Review & Affordable Housing Application, Case 20-004, 40 Vine Street RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Board of Appeals Public Hearings on February 10, 2021: Case 20-033, 9 Harding Road, Michael Stankavish & Amy Basile The Board did not recommend approving the proposal. They found it problematic to take a nonconforming accessory structure with minimal setbacks and to make it part of the principal structure. The garage did not comply with the required setbacks for an accessory structure and a principal structure has even greater required setbacks. The proposal would exacerbate the nonconformities and be unsafe. There appears to be other options to construct an addition that would be more conforming. Mr. Sadowski made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with these comments. Mr. Sampson seconded the motion. By roll call, all voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application Materials, Case 20-033 Case 20-034, 27 Temple Street, Joseph & Robin Higgins Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2021 Page 5 of 6 The Board recommended denying the variances. There were an excessive number and degree of variances needed for this proposal. The creation of two new lots that are so undersized, especially considering the slope protection regulations, was not warranted. They were sympathetic to the need for more housing but found that this was not an appropriate location for it. Mr. Welch made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with these comments. Mr. King seconded the motion. By roll call, all voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application Materials, Case 20-034 Case 20-035, 33 Ryder Avenue, Joseph Guzzo The Board was supportive of granting the variances for the addition, but not in favor of granting relief for the garage extension. The front porch and second floor addition are designed to fit the character of a typical house in the city and will only increase the footprint of the structure for an open porch. The site plan is lacking the detail needed to know the extent of the work that would be needed to accommodate the garage extension. A fire hydrant may need to be moved and a tree cut to accommodate the driveway. Also, the garage would be close to and very visible at this location on the corner lot. Mr. Sadowski made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with these comments. Mr. Cassavoy seconded the motion. By roll call, all voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application Materials, Case 20-035 Case 21-001, 2 Hemenway Avenue, Eleni Kaplan & Marc Okrent The Planning Board had no objection to this application. The property was a large corner lot and it made sense to locate the addition where it was proposed. Also, ten feet is a typical residential setback. Mr. Sampson made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with these comments. Mr. Morelli seconded the motion. By roll call, all voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application Materials, Case 21-001 OTHER Comprehensive Permit Application, 12-16 Essex Street, Carroll Essex LLC The redevelopment of 12-16 Essex Street that the Planning Board approved for a mixed-use building did not move forward because the Historic District Commission members did not approve of demolishing the building. The number of units, parking lift system and aspects of the design of the building have changed but there are a lot of similarities between the proposal. The blank façade is still an issue. The units are small. Melrose does have a minimum unit size but the zoning dimensions can be waived. Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2021 Page 6 of 6 The Zoning Board of Appeals will open the hearing this Wednesday. Members could listen to the presentation to the ZBA and discuss at the February hearing to provide a recommendation letter to the ZBA. The Applicant’s Attorney could present the case to the Board in February. Members requested for the Attorney to just focus on what is different between this proposal and the last. Documents: Comprehensive Permit Application Materials, Case 21-003 NEXT MEETING Michael Cassavoy announced that he is stepping down from the Planning Board. He has been on the Board for over twenty years. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 22, 2021 at 7:30pm. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 pm.
Transcript
▶ 0:01 All right, so hello everyone. This is the January 25th, 2021 meeting of the Melrose Planning Board. My name is Ann DeSouza Ward, and I'm the Chairman of the Board. Due to the pandemic, we're meeting remotely under the authority of executive orders from the Governor of the Commonwealth, so this is a statement that is required by the state at the beginning of every public meeting. Pursuant to the governor Baker's order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. And the governor March 15th, 2020 order imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in 1 place. This meeting of the Melrose planning board is being conducted via remote participation. No, in person attendance is.
▶ 0:46 Permitted every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for the governor's executive order a recording of this meeting is being made and will be posted on the city of Melrose. website as well as mmtv website as soon as possible following its conclusion i want to remind members of the board that they should mute their microphone as much as possible except when they're speaking to minimize feedback and keep the meeting easy to hear all votes have to be done by a roll call vote in remote meetings so we will have that slow process to work with um and we understand And this is a trying time for everyone, but our goal is to ensure as much as possible that city government in the planning board, continue to function for everyone during the public meeting members of the public can see and hear us.
▶ 1:42 But they may not participate. Applicants are invited to speak as needed and they will be seen and heard when they're speaking during the public hearing members of the public can speak when they're recognized. all right we have some regular board business tonight on our agenda the first item is we have two sets of minutes the first set is the Planning Board regular meeting December 21st 2020 the members got the minutes electronically did everyone have a chance to read them and do we have any comments or suggested amendments for a motion? Motion to approve the thing of December 21. Do I have a second? Second. Second. All in favor? Oh, I'm sorry, I can't say all in favor. Okay, we have to do a remote. Is there any further discussion before we go to a roll call vote?
▶ 2:44 All right. So if you're in favor of accepting the minutes from our December 21st meeting, say aye when your name is called, please. Mike Cassavoy. Aye. Greg Sampson. Aye. Bob McArdo. Aye. Jack Welsh. Aye. Paul King. Aye. Carla Borelli. Aye. John Sadowski. Aye. And Mrs. Ward. Aye. All right. Minutes are approved. The second set of minutes are the Design Review Subcommittee meeting that was december 17th 2020 comments or amendments by members of the board motion no comments but a motion to approve is written is there a second second uh any discussion all right if you're in favor of the uh design review subcommittee minutes uh being approved say aye when your name is called otherwise say no please mike cassavoy hi greg sampson hi bob
▶ 3:56 micardo hi jack welsh hey paul king hi carla morley hi john sadowski hi and if you reward Aye. Okay so those minutes also are approved. The next item on our agenda is a case that's been continued. It is case 20-003, 22 Montvale Street. It's a slope protection special permit case and I understand we have a request from the applicant to continue to March 2021. It's It's March 22nd, 2021, March 22nd. Yeah. Okay, they weren't ready with all the information that was requested at the last. Okay, continue. Move to continue to March 22nd. Is there a 2nd. 2nd by Bob any discussion by any members. Okay, please vote aye or nay when your name is called, please. Mike Hathaway? Aye. Greg Hampson? Aye. Bob Micardo? Aye. Jack Welsh?
▶ 5:14 Aye. Bob King? Aye. Carla Morelli? Aye. John Sadowski? Aye. Ann DeSouza-Ward? Aye. All right, so that case is continued until March. So the next item on our agenda is a public hearing. And I'm a little reluctant to start without Sharon so that she can be a voting member on the case. She's having issues accessing the meeting. I'm trying to help her out with her. Okay. Then we'll wait a couple minutes. I have a, let's see, I have a short. Set of directions about public hearings with any members of the public that might be attending during the public hearing members of the public can be recognized to speak. We'll hear from the applicant shirt 1st, I'm sure and then the board members, but then when a member of the public wants to speak, you can either use the chat button, which is on your screen.
▶ 6:22 The icon in the bottom half of the screen that looks like a dialogue bubble from a comic strip. You can click on it. You can write a message to all participants. You can either write your comment and or question, or, and it can be read into the record, or you can simply ask to speak and you'll be recognized and allowed to speak your comment or question. Your voice will be heard, but you will not be visible on the screen. You can also send an email at any time to the city planner. You can send written comments or questions by regular mail or email. They are included as part of the record as long as they're received prior to the close of the public hearing. So, it's a slow process, but we've been doing it for a matter of months. It should work. All right. Remember, if you do speak, if you're a member of the public, state your name and address for the record when you do speak or write.
▶ 7:18 so we can identify you all right so that's the process a few more minutes to have one more member join us here's that um noise coming from does anybody oh i think she's in the attendee list right now great looks like sharon has made it Karen, so, and it looks like we have everybody. Okay, so the tonight's public hearing is the site plan review and affordable housing special permit for case 20-004. it's 40 vine street and the applicant is 30 Tappan street LLC. You all have seen the materials online and I think the attorney for the applicant is here. I am Patrick for the applicants. We have a couple of issues. This is Mr Mitchell, who is the. End of the manager of the project is having difficulty getting on and so is Mr Wilcox who is the architect. I don't know if there's anything we do to help them, but.
▶ 1:38:23 can you just make me a presenter so this case is for a residential addition they want to add a two-story connection between the house and the garage and then add a second floor to the garage and so they would need left side yard and rare yard variances and in our review you know that the positives are they're not increasing the footprint very much only for that connection piece and there aren't you know close houses to the garage the negatives are that the setbacks are very minimal and the neighboring garage will kind of limit the ability to maintain the two-story structure above the garage now this is a tough one because it is this is a it's close I think on that street it makes the building suddenly look very big and right next door to that other garage so
▶ 1:40:10 so lori do our setback requirements differ between a detached garage and attached garage yes so if a garage is attached then it's just part of the principal structure but if it's detached then it has the accessory structure setbacks so essentially in this case they're they're creating new variance requirements because they're making a detached garage and attached structure it is not conforming right now as a garage because the the setbacks are like four feet okay um and it's 2.4 so it's a ura yeah so um it is not conforming right now as an accessory structure but they're they're not you know increasing that non-conformity by making it part of the principal structure so this is something uh greg just for your information others we we have i have not seen in my years on the board but
▶ 1:41:11 increasingly i'm seeing on occasion this kind of request and i think that's the key issue it's really making the garage part of a principal structure now and i think you know making it more problematic where it already violates the the lesser setbacks for an auxiliary structure so um it's not something from a planning perspective at least as one member of the board i would want to you know see uh occur with any regularity throughout melrose i i i think it's problematic from the standpoint of it being now a principal uh structure yeah to follow up with you john on this um this is a really really close to the property line you know it's you and i always worry about what you do with the bill and all of a sudden you get a building that's right on the
▶ 1:42:01 neighbor's property you can't maintain it it's it's uh it's something i i find this here impossible for me to support when i look at it it's uh we've had some about this bad before but this is a pretty much more egregious i think in some of them yeah and you can imagine that depending on the proximity or the lack of proximity on other sites of the principal structures and garages if this starts to become something that other applicants could point to uh it could it could could be worse than this I agree I think that you make a good point Greg by saying that uh by pointing out that as an accessory structure a shed or a garage can be up to four feet next to the property line but as soon as it
▶ 1:42:49 becomes part of the house it's supposed to be in this case ten feet away and it's very very close and now it's going to be very tall and I totally support having a garage attached to your house i've never actually had one but i think it would be lovely to walk from a garage into your house but um i i think it's bothersome this is a pretty significant variance uh and it changes it's more significant because it's now connecting a big two-story part of the house i'm not sure i can support it either i i do have a question i hadn't thought of this before has does the fire department ever weigh in on any of these variances i mean i don't know how you fight a fire there you know problems that you get with the stuff like that if it's a
▶ 1:43:42 commercial building they would but this is a private residence yeah i think they fight fires in awfully tight areas i don't know that they have any official um yeah they don't review the zoning board cases yeah because the next-door neighbor is gonna another garage right there too you know so right they're um they both have the same problem that's really common to have garages set close uh when you're one story in just a garage right not a house not a house guys exactly if you have a bedroom above there you know they're supposed to have a bedroom window that goes out over some place you can access so a person can get out yeah i'm sure they'll meet the building code but um the question is what what would we say to the board of appeals i
▶ 1:44:32 i don't think i could support a recommendation uh i think it's i think it's self-made issues here yeah and i i would even object to the second story in the garage frankly but the two-story addition is uh this is not a typical application and something that i could support yeah and i you know i think we can reason the comment that you know the issue about the fact that it's you know a detached structure as as an accessory has you know this is more violative if that's a word of the ordinance than um just the typical non-conforming situation um and you know there are options available if they want to raise the garage and build one off the house with an addition above you know there might be an opportunity to do that with more um more ability to comply with the ordinance so i kind of
▶ 1:45:34 i feel the same way i don't support it okay i agree with you i think we should just um i think we just said that uh we cannot support the way it was uh submitted to us yeah we talked about a fire issue should you know every once in a while um while people store gasoline in their garages they have vehicles with gasoline and so now you're going to have a house that's literally going to be right next door to your neighbor's garage should a fire occur in your neighbor's garage your house is going to be instantly involved in that so you know you say it's a a big difference than just having an accessory structure out there. That's true. That's a good point. Does someone want to make a motion? Well, before we do that, Ann,
▶ 1:46:29 I think the question is, do we want to have a softer letter that says we can't support it, or do we want a stronger letter that says we would not recommend approving variances? I would vote for the latter, a stronger letter. Same here. Why don't you make it a motion, and then we can have a discussion about it. That's a motion. Second. Okay, a motion saying that we recommend not approving the variance for the reason that it's a – now, by connecting the garage and house, it becomes a principal structure, and it's even too close as an accessory structure, and it creates a lot of safety issues with the garage as well as the proximity to the neighbor. Yeah, I think you're making the point that it already, the garage as an accessory
▶ 1:47:29 is already not complying with its requirements for an accessory, and then you add to that the key stories, makes it even more egregious. Right, right. Okay, I have a motion and a second. Further discussion for the board members. Anything else that you want to be sure we point out to the board of appeals or do you feel strongly? Maybe we should not be. Okay. If there's no more discussion, please vote aye or nay. When your name is called, please. All right so the motion carries uh the next case is case 20-034 that's 27 Temple Street and we also have a brief on this one this is the one that they want to split into three lots so they received approval in 1977 to split this land into three lots and built three houses and they didn't act on
▶ 1:48:57 that approval they just built a by right house and so now many years later they want to seek variances for a number of different dimensions to build two other single-family houses on the lot. And so they need lot area variances. And this property actually falls under the slope protection special permit but they're seeking a variance from that so the numbers here show the square footage of the land if you just consider what's the less than 25 percent slope so there's they're seeking a variance from the slow protection, which is kind of a strange request. And then there's the frontage lot width variance, lot depth variance for one of the lots, one yard setback, and left yard setback for one of the lots.
▶ 1:50:14 There's also a retaining model setback variance. Paul Johnson interprets the accessory structure setbacks to include retaining walls so they're technically applying for variants um from 10 20 foot front yard setback and a 10 foot side and rear yard setback to construct the retaining walls um if the variances are approved the applicant would be back before you for the subdivision and in our review of it appears that if there's any development on the site um you know might be a better fit to have one house it can't even fit um you know can't even set back the houses enough for there to be a car in front of the garage that wouldn't overhang into the street um because of the slope of the land i can't push the houses back anymore
▶ 1:51:16 um so it's really kind of tight in terms of locating the buildings on on on this land And then just to note, in the denial letter, Paul Johnson notes that they need a variance for dormers, but they would redesign the dormer so that they didn't need a variance for that piece of the application. Well, that's a relief. Yeah. Did you have a... I'm in now, yeah. I don't support this at all. The request here is to take that page of our slope on this and tear it right out of the zoning book and throw it away. That's essentially what this is asking us to do here. I can't support this. It's quite a few variances. It's slope protection, it's lot frontage, it's lot depth. I can't imagine a case where we would just on the frontage consideration alone.
▶ 1:52:22 Now, if it were within a foot or something, that's one thing, but that's not the case here. And then you add in all these other variances, including self-protection. I would put this in the same category as rather than objecting that we strongly urge the Zoning Board of Peoples to deny the requested variances. The one I love it all about this year is they go refer back to 1997 variance that they received. I think Ed Cassidy was 1st, elected to the planning board and got on the planning board in 1977. so that's an error ago. That was, you know, all those only the same sense them. It's unbelievable. It, um, you know, it is an oversized lot for this area. It's, it's got 22,000 square feet versus 15 and we've seen a lot of people come in and say that lots in the area are all smaller and, uh, you know, I would really like to make this into 2, not 1, but making it into 3 is extreme and given the slope.
▶ 1:53:23 The amount of slope, uh, 2 is a stretch and they would need variances even for 2. too uh i just i couldn't support it i think the the slope the extreme amount of variances um the lot area of lot b if you take out the projection is only 1799 square feet it's uh i agree i just think we have to say i would recommend not granting variances to subdivide this into three lots and maybe that's the key point that you made there is that it would be a stretch for one additional lot as opposed to three it's really way overly aggressive given the topography the number of variances and the types of variances as well as local protection but a lot of time in terms of preventing this development right and like I think it was Greg who said it
▶ 1:54:24 ones we have zoning for a reason and this is basically saying they're not going to comply with any zoning to make even if we have non-conforming lots in the city to create two more seem wise I mean and do we go so far as to say we're sympathetic to the you know the need for more housing but this is this is the place for it that's understandable um other members of the board it's shown as an undeveloped yeah i want i want to note that some of those slopes are not only greater than 25 percent but um up to 50 percent so note that as well it is very steep up there yeah all right do i have a motion then i'll move to uh write a letter to the board of appeals saying that the planning board does not feel that we can support this because it requires uh
▶ 1:55:45 Uh, too many, especially the slow protection. I think that's a good 1 before you say, I do have a comment. I think we should not just say we just don't support. I think we should actually recommend that deny it. I mean, it's a lot stronger than just not support it. Yeah, I agree. Okay. amended motion and also a second now second second okay uh further discussion by the board any other comments that you'd like to include in our recommendation to the board of appeals well i assume the objection would be hit on the key points we deliberated over right okay Okay. All right, please vote aye or nay when your name is called. Mike Hathaway. Aye. Ray Sampson. Aye. Bob McArdle. Aye. Jack Welch. Aye. Paul King.
▶ 1:56:51 Aye. Carla Merlion. Aye. Aye. Anne DeSouza-Ward. Sorry, aye. Okay, all set. All right. Okay, tough night for the Board of Appeals cases. All right, they're all difficult ones. The next one is case 20-035, 33 Ryder Avenue. So this is another residential addition. They want to basically take off the roof of the main body of the house and the second floor and then also extend the garage into the front yard. a corner lot um to create a two-car garage um so they they need front yard setback relief and rare yard setback relief um and the second floor addition seems um like it wouldn't be that detrimental it's kind of designed with a character that houses in a city um the garage extension um doesn't seem um necessary or uh i guess um like a good design it's kind of going to be very
▶ 1:58:25 prominent on the corner um and get pretty close to that front yard along whitman um they're they're going to need to remove a fire hydrant it looks like and there's also a really nice tree in that side yard that they would have to take down to extend the garage another difficult one members of the board it's not as bad as the last one this is a couple of little things here um i think that I don't have a problem with adding the second floor to the place, but I do have a little bit of a problem extending the garage over, especially in that front yard area. If it's an existing condition, it's one thing, but if it's existing, it's already there, non-conforming, but to make it worse, I don't think that's the way to go.
▶ 1:59:29 I understand a need for a two-car garage also, but this is as tight a lot as it is. I agree with you, Mike, especially if they're going to displace a hydrant to do that, then I think that's going to be a hard thing to do. Fire hydrant, a tree, and what else? There's something else too. The other thing I mentioned is it's just, it's going to be very visible because of the location of the house and how it's oriented on that corner. the plans are possible they're helping themselves here because we can't even they're not showing in a curb tide or the details are working on the plan as well for that right I'm struggling to even picture it but um based on everything that said I generally agree that I'm not not in favor of the garage
▶ 2:00:40 addition but everything else comes reasonable right the addition to the house feels um doesn't change the footprint except for that front porch but it's an open porch they do have a problem of being a corner lot where no matter what they do they can crunch a little bit on the front yard and it's not terrible it's um 16 feet right or what yeah 16 and a half No, only 11. Sorry, to the porch, 11. I'm sorry. But it's just the porch. So the addition, I would take no, I would not object to at all. The garage is the bothersome thing. Motion from the board. Does someone want to make a motion? Do we feel strongly enough to object to the garage, but we don't object to the other components uh suddenly influence the neighbors if there's any sort of field scaring kind of letter
▶ 2:01:53 i think you're right john okay that would be my motion that's your motion i second it second further discussion should we should we mention that should we mention that we're lacking information um we don't have a site plan we only have a um a plot plan so we're we're lacking information as to the extent of work that needs to be done in the front yard relative to the extension of the garage. And this is partially why we're busy here. Yeah, there wasn't a plot plan provided in the materials? There was, but there's no mention of any work, you know, relating to widening the curb cut or that's my question. Just a plot plan that gives the mentions off the sidelines. It doesn't give any detail of the curbs and the sidewalks or anything like that.
▶ 2:02:52 I think that is worth mentioning because if they decide to withdraw and resubmit, at least we're giving some guidance. Of course, the objection on the garage, we've got to state why as we discussed, I think. I think it's a good point to point out. We don't have enough information to support the garage. What we know of it, we can't support. Okay. Makes sense. That's a revised motion. I second it. Okay. Further discussion? Okay, then vote aye or nay when your name is called, please. Mike Cassavoy. Aye. Greg Hansen. Aye. Bob McArdo. Aye. Jack Welsh. Aye. Paul King. Aye. Carla Morelli. Aye. Aye. Anderson-George. Aye. Okay. Our last Board of Appeals case is Case 21-001. That's 2 Hemenway Avenue.
▶ 2:04:04 Okay. This is another residential addition where they're proposing a two-story addition on the right side of the house, and then there's a one-story portion in the back. It's another corner lot and they need front and rear yard setback relief. They are in a district, so they have, you know, and it's a corner lot, so they have quite an onerous setback requirement. So, 10 feet is kind of a typical setback. So, in our view, it just says, you know, this neighbor isn't opposed, it doesn't seem like it would be, it would be detrimental if they did. If this neighbor did oppose, it seems. You know, like, they said, set the addition back 15 feet, which is this idea. Setback requirement in the zoning district, I have no point with this 1.
▶ 2:05:24 Yeah, I felt the same way. It's a big lot and it makes sense to put the garage on the right side. It is a little close, but it's still almost 10 feet from the neighbor. It's a corner lot. It has a lot of space around it. I didn't have any objection. But if it were not a corner lot in this area of Melrose, the side yard would be 15 feet? Yes. Okay. I don't feel that strongly about it either, obviously. Some people would have been able. Yeah, I'm fine with it also. Take a motion for a neutral letter. Okay. Second? I second. Second. All right. Further discussion? I would just add the neutral letter. It's maybe pointing out it's a corner lot. I mean, that's really the basis from saying. Right that we don't object as much to to encroaching on the setbacks because they do have that problem.
▶ 2:06:43 Right because I think we've been talking about potentially altering the zoning with respect to I don't know where we're going to get to that. I think we discussed that. Okay, right. We are working on that. Okay. Um, please vote. I, your name when your name is called on the neutral letter where we know the, the, uh, a lot of issues. Hi, hi. Hey, hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Okay. Our next order of business. Those are all our Board of Appeals cases. Great job. Next order of business. Anne, can I go back? I just had one comment, and this is – I don't know who put this together, but Emma, the paperwork that i received case number 20 034 it was actually listed as 19 on the what i received so i don't know if there's a looks like it was a typo what document are you looking at um i'm
▶ 2:08:00 Denise Gaffey: staff brief well the staff brief for temples temple thank you i'll fix that yeah great oh good call okay uh this is the comprehensive permit application for 12 16 to 16 essex street i love it i know i i don't know who was surprised by it i was i didn't know that was happening Um, we were not, I'm sure. Um, so, so just briefly the, um, this project was originally presented to the planning board and the board of appeal and the historic district commission because it's. In the downtown district, the parcel. As a mixed use building with commercial on the 1st floor and 14 residential units in a 4 story building. Um, it was approved by the zoning board of appeals. It was approved by the board, but, um, the idea of demolishing the existing, um, building was not unanimously supported by the.
▶ 2:09:18 Denise Gaffey: To start different commission members, so. With that, um, with the. essentially a denial on their request um for certificate of appropriateness for the project the project could not move forward as it was intended so the applicant has elected to pursue a comprehensive permit project for the site which would basically put all of the authority for approving this project with the zoning board of appeals Because of the compelling need for housing in the community, and that is by nature, the fact that we have less than 10% of our housing units in Melrose on the subsidized housing inventory. So that allows the developer to use the pointy tool. I know you, you're all familiar with this. So they have proposed to.
▶ 2:10:18 Denise Gaffey: um they've restructured the project slightly to make it it's still a mixed use building and it's still four stories it is instead of 14 units 24 residential units um and the site plan is essentially the same however the parking structure the sort of innovative that innovative staffed parking is no longer part of the plan because of the expense associated with that and there have And then some other sort of modifications to the design of the building, which I'm sure are apparent to the architects that have also resulted from the change to a comprehensive permit project. All 24 units will, because they're rental units, they will all count on our inventory, which is a tremendous advantage for us. But 24 of the units will actually be affordable units.
▶ 2:11:15 Denise Gaffey: and will be leased through an affordable lottery system. So currently this project is slated to go before the Zoni Board of Appeals this Wednesday. The Chapter 40 statute is very sort of strict about the timeframes and the deadlines for reviewing projects. So we had to schedule the public hearing within 30 days Of receiving the application, which is why the initial public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday. Didn't didn't leave us a lot of time to get notifications out to all the different boards and commissions and departments. But there is a recognition by the zoning board that this case will get continued to subsequent. Hearing dates, I think the expectation on Wednesday is that there'll be hearing will be opened. There'll be some procedural discussion about.
▶ 2:12:11 Denise Gaffey: The zoning boards authority and jurisdiction, the presentation by the applicant comments from the public who do choose to attend and then a continuation to a meeting in February. So, I say that because 1 option for the board tonight. It's preferred would be to consider this case again next meeting in February for our recommendation. And we put it in the interim, um, attend the session on Wednesday, which will be. It will be a virtual meeting. It will also be recorded. We record all of our meetings. We staff is on board with the course and we record those and we post them. So, you could watch it at your leisure at any time as well. We could also invite the applicant and his attorney to our meeting in February. They would be more than willing to come to the.
▶ 2:13:05 Denise Gaffey: Board and answer any questions about this project. I think they're hoping that they will get support from the board. And, um, we, as staff to the, um, support the project. As does the mayor and the word counselor. Um, numerous other people, so that's my quick overview. I have a quick I have a quick question for you. Uh, Denise, these are awful awful micro units. Is there any, I know city of Boston, they had a, they had a special, they had some kind of ordinance as the minimum size of a unit and nothing like that. I know. But I don't think I've ever seen something this small. Other than we actually do have a minimum size. In our, and I think it's, I want to say it's around 450. it's in the commissioner's letter, right?
▶ 2:14:04 All right, it's in the commissioner's letter. Okay. Yeah. 450 is a minimum square footage. And some of these may be slightly smaller. Yeah, they are the marketing issue. I think this particular developer is not concerned about that. And, you know, that there's a big crisis and a strong demand for. Yeah, 450 is in his letter for one bedroom unit. So, I should mention that. So, 23 of them are required to be 3 better units. That's again by the 40 B. 24 will be income restricted. So, Denise, if I may, I think the key question here is, I think I know the answer and I hate to use the word Trump. But this does Trump zoning, right? And all other aspects of the department reviews in terms of historic commission, for example.
▶ 2:15:21 Denise Gaffey: Right, you know, the, the local need for housing supersedes the concerns. um of other boards and commissions at the local level it but it doesn't mean it doesn't supersede concerns about safety and public health and infrastructure infrastructure so it will still be they're still going to be open to hearing concerns and input from from constituents in norfolk related to those issues and of course any design concerns or comments well i'm somewhat trusting in the proponent here that we'll we'll be able to have some dialogue but i mean i i would take it that if somebody wanted to literally push this they could put up a butler building if you know what that is so So we don't have a lot of building projects.
▶ 2:16:24 Denise Gaffey: So the most recent one for a little while was back in 2006 and that was the SRO project on Vine Street. Vine Street, ironically, that was formerly a nursing home that was being proposed to be converted to single room occupancy with 15 Residential units, and the board of all the men at the time refused to issue the. Rooming house license, so sort of similar to what happened here with the district in the sense that the board didn't issue the license. So they, they. Had no other choice, but to use the company. Approach to to to permit that project. And so, but I will point out, it wasn't like. it didn't mean that there was one public hearing and no discussion and it was done there it actually there was still quite a bit of dialogue
▶ 2:17:22 Denise Gaffey: over several months in fact i think it ultimately ended up being a 14 unit sro versus 15 units and there were some you know accommodations made around parking and design and several other features so um like that helps to perspective so again i think the question is yeah does the board want to do they feel like they want to i mean we did also i want to point out i think laurie delivered plans to do all the members deliver the application because we happen to get hard copies in this case so we did distribute them around yeah i i wondered about how we got those like who dropped them off yeah because we got so many we got so many copies that we just thought in this instance we would deliver them um we weren't yeah i mean right now we're mostly getting our stuff electronically
▶ 2:18:24 right right well thank you lori it was it was really nice to have a set of everything for a change instead of looking at it on a computer screen and trying to print out just part of it exactly and so denise i'm not sure i know exactly what you're asking but But my thoughts are this, I'll just say it too bad in terms of the building we had before, because I know a lot of effort went into that in terms of the design, the review and whatever goes there is only going to be there for another 100. So years, so I would have liked to see that other application go through, which, of course, we supported and voted to approve of. But so the historic commission has their responsibilities as well. I guess to some degree we got to respect. But nevertheless, I think it pushes the developer
▶ 2:19:14 into a corner here and I'm not surprised to see the re-application. And it certainly has a good side in terms of supporting low to moderate income and helps our percentage with respect to the state goals of 10%. So that's the clear positive here. I would hope that given the nature of the applicant or the personality here that we could still go through a similar process however abbreviated to respect the time frames we have to adhere to under the circumstances uh and still discuss the materials and the other aspects of the project otherwise i can appreciate why they went for higher density why they went for a lesser uh costly garage uh well that frankly makes sense from a development standpoint yeah i i just repeat i don't think the board should feel compelled to
▶ 2:20:07 formulate any kind of an opinion right but it seems to me that we've already looked at this project extensively we were in favor of the original project we were in favor of a very similar project on this site it looks very much like the original one and we spent a lot of time on that and this one has some positives in that now it has less cars which is something we're always looking for because there's a little less parking with only the time spaces it does have really tiny units but it's six affordable units which is a something that we have been supportive of for years and we can really use this uh in the city and also it means we if it gets approved we would get 24 on our inventory which i know sounds selfish but that really helps
▶ 2:21:01 the city start meeting its goal for affordable housing so i have to believe we're going to be generally positive and we don't need to make the applicant spend a lot of time with us i do think we can point out some things that we if there's some things we're concerned or we'd like to at least ask the applicant to do design wise this is once again something i'm not very good at but i know there's been some changes in the design if there are a few things we're bothered by i'm sure we could ask or at least point out things we'd recommend being so i think there's a few things we could say but i also think it shouldn't be a lot of work for us we could maybe all make a point of trying to listen to the presentation at the board of appeals and then
▶ 2:21:44 And discuss it with an eye on a recommendation next meeting. I don't know. What's everyone think everyone else think. Yeah, I would say if we were to ask them to come to our hearing, I would only want a very limited presentation. I, I hear what you're saying just highlight how it's different, you know, and then, you know, because we're going to get our comments to design type things. You know, we, we certainly appreciate the background and. You know, is the history of our commission going to have them for an informal? I'm sorry, but that, I mean, again, I'd be fine with doing a letter even without them coming, but I do think it would be productive to have them show up and just highlight what's changed.
▶ 2:22:45 I don't know. I just look at the financial statement that they put on that report there. I was surprised. It looks even to be, he's still getting a profit every year though. It may not be as big as what he thought when going forward without 40B though. He's still at $100,000 in net profit a year, though. I have to comply with the limited dividends that will be paid by the state money. I didn't hear you, Denise, if you could repeat that. Oh, we have, in terms of the finances, my understanding is that you have to produce it according to the mechanism. You still have to comply with the limited dividends that are stipulated by the financing agency, in this case MSHP. Yeah, you're like an 8% profit.
▶ 2:23:53 So there are caps he has to adhere to. I just want to say with regard to the architect, if you remember, they gave a very comprehensive analysis of the buildings downtown and all the prevalent architectural styles. Probably one of the best I've ever heard, really. And I have total faith in his architect. The building we looked at last time needed to be restrained a little bit. It was very exuberant, if you remember, with like the model and everything so i think it may go on a little bit in the other direction but i have no doubt that he's very talented and detail oriented and i think it's not drawn yet i don't i don't 100 million percent love what there is there but i think i think it's interesting um blend of
▶ 2:24:46 the cafe nero building and the building next door his building next door i think i think that an architect is talented enough to blend those details together in a very sophisticated way. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on that one. I think we're in good hands. I would agree with those comments. I don't know why we wouldn't just review this architecturally at least, the same way we did before, but with the understanding of the nature of this particular application, We're not going to get into some of the other things, the density and number of units I would expect. But certainly, again, this is an important facade on a side street that is part of downtown. So I think it's important. I'm still concerned about that black facade being up there.
▶ 2:25:46 God knows how many. If that were a building in Boston, There would be a design competition for a mural or something. I mean, there was that for now. I think that's a wasted opportunity. I get it. I understand it. And, you know, it makes sense with the way they've developed plans, but. Too bad, I agree. That's bothersome. Yeah, I think they'd be open to any advice. Yeah, I think we, I think that's 1. And our Carol's not a big fan of the idea, but I do think that the last go around the planning board was successful in getting some additional sort of detail on that blank. It would be worth it would be worth going back and taking a look at that simply quick. Denise. This is not the site planner. He was with a master, right?
▶ 2:26:50 It goes to the Board of Appeals, but I still think it would not hurt to point out something like that blank wall. If we wanted to point it out, at least make a recommendation, then it could be improved. I think it can be part of our recommendation. When do we have to provide a recommendation, Denise? I just want to be clear on that. oh sure so we know that the case will get continued to the february meeting the zba is going to be have special meetings just for the fourth of february and our next meeting is february 22nd so i think the timing is fine to understand correctly we invite them to come to our meeting on the 22nd and then from that meeting we would prepare a recommendation with the zba
▶ 2:27:45 But it would mean we'd have to be ready to do our, make our recommendation that night, right? Yeah, so it could be written up and delivered in time. Yeah, I think we could we could do that. Well I think someone said earlier, you know, those of us who have the opportunity to watch the video, the board's initial presentation, I think that could share some time um on our conversation it will save time i commit to it i know so it's this wednesday but it's also going to be recorded right so we can just go to the city website and there i've never actually had the courage to watch any of our meetings so i have no idea how that works but go to the city website and look for board of appeals and we'll see so it's right on the home page is the link to the recording okay great
▶ 2:28:50 all right is that the decision of the board we could send out that link after that board of appeals that would be wonderful technologically challenged thank you it also helps to keep us keep it on our calendar to remember to have it about it okay all right if that's the that's our decision what to do our next meeting is February 22nd but before we leave tonight we have one very big order of business I think Mike's gonna make an announcement to all of us yes yes I've been the planning board for well over 20 years and I think This last year has sort of told me that I was a little bit older than I thought I was as I approach 80. so I'm I talked with Denise about this about a month ago and I said, I really want to step down and I have work a lot of work that I'm doing at work also.
▶ 2:29:53 So I'm working crazy time and I really enjoyed being on the board to me. It's been a privilege and an honor to do it. And I'm going to miss you all because this is kind of fun. This is fun. I really have to do something. I just can't, you know, this is one of the things I'm going to stop doing. I'll probably watch you on television, though, on the website. Well, you know, because we can't meet in person, Mike, and you've been on the board so long, almost as long as John and I, who are now becoming the true dinosaurs on the board, we have to have, I think we have to have a time, or I would like to have a time to, you know, celebrate your service and thank you for your service and acknowledge all the work you've done over the years and uh so i'm proposing that
▶ 2:30:48 because we're also great with this zooming stuff that we have uh that we have a little zoom meeting for you that's not a meeting that we just put aside a half an hour to an hour and uh and we can tell our mic stories and we can all toast your service to the board and that'll be our that'll be our send-off because we can't do it in person without a fear of our lives wait i missed that jack say it again open bar bring a glass of wine yeah of course everyone bring your own but i am going to drop something off for mike um well i'll send an invitation to everybody and we'll try and you know it's I know you're all going out a lot at night these days, so it's probably really hard to find the time.
▶ 2:31:42 But it's just a little computer time. Get your favorite Mike story together. It's your best wine. Don't move. Okay. I'll send it on down here. Mike, when are you officially done, Mike? This is it. Oh. It's today. I may join the meeting on Wednesday. I may want to look at that and Wednesday, because I, I like what the developer does. He just is a very, very creative guy. He also has a great architect. I agree with. You know, it's just like, what he does. So I may step in. I may join and meet once in a while. Just to see what's happening. 180 day notice, isn't there? We make them be the next next year person. Right? We are that we are in all the way up to the top. No, I was here once for a year and a half. I think a 2 years ago. A long time ago, though.
▶ 2:32:47 Yeah, no, I remember you were oh, boy. All right, Michael. It's going to be hard. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you all. And now I'll see you at the next zoom meeting. All right. I'll send you the invitation. Okay. All right. All right. Later. Bye. Good night. Everyone we're adjourned. Bye. Bye. Thanks.