Planning Board — 2021-02-22
Minutes
MELROSE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, February 22, 2021 7:30 PM Remote Meeting PRESENT: Beth Delahaij, 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 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. Ms. DeSouza-Ward introduced Beth Delahaij who is the new Planning Board member. Ms. Delahaij filled Michael Cassavoy’s position. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Board Regular Meeting, January 25, 2021 Mr. King made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Sadowski seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor, except for Sharon Petrillo and Beth Delahaij who abstained. None were opposed. Design Review Subcommittee Meeting, January 20, 2021 Mr. Mercado made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor, except for Sharon Petrillo and Beth Delahaij who abstained. None were opposed. SITE PLAN REVIEW & AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Case 20-004, 40 Vine Street, 39 Tappan Street LLC Attorney Patrick McAvoy indicated that they would like more time to explore options for the site. Mr. Mercado made a motion to continue the case to March 22, 2021. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. SITE PLAN REVIEW Case 20-002, 138 Main Street, Metro Credit Union This case is currently before the Zoning Board of Appeals and Attorney Tolley requested to continue the case to March 22, 2021. Mr. Mercado made a motion to continue the case to March 22, 2021. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Document: Email from Attorney Tolley from February 19, 2021 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Case 21-003, Comprehensive Permit Application, 12-16 Essex Street, Carroll Essex LLC (ZBA continued to February 24, 2021) Ms. Gaffey gave an overview of the proposal and explained the support for it. The Board asked how the Applicants responded to the Planning Board’s previous concerns and the Zoning Board’s comments; particularly the blank wall on the northwest elevation and sight lines and safety coming out of the driveway. Mr. Carroll stated that the northwest façade will be a darker color as the Planning Board recommended in the past and they are redesigning the façade materials to create interest with textures. They did not want to draw attention to the wall with a lot of detail. Mr. Carroll sought a traffic study that confirms that there will be no significant traffic due to the proposal. The number of parking spaces has been decreased to 9 to make room for on-grade bicycle parking. A car will never back out of the driveway. The driveway is an existing condition. The vehicle exit sign which will be a two-sided, LED sign will be affixed to the Main Street building. He submitted the cut sheet for the sign. The sensor will be triggered when the vehicle exists the garage. There will not be an audio warning unless requested. A member asked the Applicant to check to see if it is an ADA requirement. Even if it is not, members recommended the audio warning since this is what will catch pedestrians’ attention. The bays have not changed in size from the proposal that the Planning Board approved. Attorney Bell has been in touch with the City Solicitor regarding if approvals are needed to have the bays project over the sidewalk. The history of Essex Street is in question on if the street was taken by easement rights or owned in fee simple. Roads owned in fee tend to be State roads. If the City owns the street by easement, the bays do not interfere with those rights. If the City owns the street in fee simple, the City Council will have to approve the projection. Many of the buildings Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Page 3 of 5 on Main Street have projecting bays. They are continuing to research the ownership and the approvals needed. Mr. Carroll said that the bays are part of the historic vernacular in a new and modern way. The Architect made some changes that meet in the middle with the design. The revised plans will be submitted prior to the next ZBA hearing. The revised plans will include a more defined cornice line, textures on the northwest wall and design changes to the bays. The Board discussed the trash operation. Currently trash is picked up at 6am on Friday mornings. The truck backs into the driveway. The 4-yard dumpster will need to be moved by a machine. There does not appear to be the space to move the dumpsters around and it will be enclosed which restricts movement. The dumpsters will have wheels and will need to be pulled out and lifted by the truck. Mr. Carroll said that the dumpster situation is the same as it is now with a 6- yard dumpster. They may have to increase to two trash pickups per week. Mr. Carroll does not have a tenant in mind for the commercial space. It could be a food service. The building will be efficient. It will comply with the stretch code and may be LEED certifiable. Mr. Sampson made a motion to write a letter to the ZBA in support of the project. Several of their concerns were raised by the ZBA as well and they felt that they would adequate address the outstanding issues. They appreciated the Applicant’s willingness to work with them. The proposal will help boost the affordable housing numbers and this is an appropriate location for multi-family housing. The Board was supportive of the original proposal with design modifications. The number of parking spaces is reduced from the proposal that they approved; however, they are not concerned about parking. The Planning Board was glad to see the adding bicycle parking in the garage. Ms. Morelli seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Comprehensive Permit Application Materials, Case 21-003 Board of Appeals Public Hearings on March 10, 2021: Case 21-002, 40-40A Chestnut Street, Magalie Valcin Board members had mixed opinions on the proposal. Some had concerns with a principal structure being so close to the property lines and rewarding an illegal use in a large garage. The history of how this came to be would helpful in understanding the situation. On the other hand, the structure would not be changing a great deal and could provide another unit of much needed housing. With the close proximity of the structure to the property lines the abutters’ comments will be particularly important in evaluating this proposal. There was a general consensus on the follow recommendations. The proposed deck should be smaller and it should be shown on the site plan. At the proposed size and at the second story height it would loom over the small backyard. To the extent that the Board approves the proposal there should be clear findings that are specific to this situation that utilizes an existing structure. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Sampson made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with these comments. Mr. Sadowski seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application Materials, Case 21-002 Case 21-004, 4 Wentworth Road, Marina Winkler The Board had no objections to the proposal. The property is a corner lot with onerous setback requirements and the requested relief of a half of a foot is minor. The drawings are well planned for the addition. Mr. Sadowksi made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with these comments. Mr. Mercado seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application Materials, Case 21-004 Case 20-010-R, 423 Pleasant Street, MPower Energy, LLC Generally, the Planning Board had no objection to this application except for one member who recommended denial. This member, as well as others, had concerns that the business will need more than four on-site parking spaces on an occasional basis. Other members felt that the business will make it work considering that they have worked through the appeal of the case. To alleviate the parking concerns the Board recommended that MPower Energy submit an employee handbook or similar document to give assurance that the employees know that there is an expectation that they use public or alternative transportation to commute to the office and if they do drive they will not park on the street or block the driveway. Mr. Sampson made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with these comments. Mr. Sadowski seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor except for Mr. Welch who was opposed to a letter of no objection. Documents: Application Materials, Case 20-010-R OTHER Zoning Amendment Update Ms. Gaffey explained that the Planning Board last reviewed the zoning amendment for incentive zoning tools and parking related modifications in December. She has since met with the City Councilors to review the proposal and they provided some comments. She also reviewed comments from the Building Commissioner today. These changes could be incorporated into the amendment before initiating it with the City Council. The amendment could also be made consistent with recent legislative changes in the Housing Choice Law that allows for approval with a simple majority vote. The Board will meet on March 8, 2021 to review the amendment and initiate it to the City Council. Design Review Subcommittee Update The subcommittee met on February 11, 2021 to discuss the 419 Main Street case. For this meeting they asked for an analysis of the changes from the approved plan to what was built. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Page 5 of 5 They have reached an agreement on most items but have still asked for a comprehensive solution for the rear of the building for trash, landscaping and parking. Once they get to a resolution they will come back to the full Planning Board with a presentation of where they would like the project to end up. For future projects, the Planning Board may want to mandate a check-in during development so that this situation does not happen again. The timing of the check-in will be important; however, depending on when builders deviate from the plans it is difficult to catch all changes along the way. NEXT MEETING The next special meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 8, 2021 at 7:30pm. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 22, 2021 at 7:30pm. This will be the annual meeting. Those interested in being Chair or Clerk or changing subcommittees should inform Ms. Gaffey. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 pm.
Transcript
▶ 0:00 All right, hello. This is the February 22nd, 2021 meeting of the Melrose Planning Board. My name is Anne D'Souza Ward and I'm the chairman of the board. Due to the pandemic, we're meeting remotely under authority of executive orders from the governor, and I'm going to read a statement that's required by the state at the beginning of every remote public meeting. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law And the governor's 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 of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the governor's executive order.
▶ 0:53 Recording of this meeting is being made and will be posted on, uh, which is W. W. W. dot. And also in the city of Melrose website as soon as possible. Following this conclusion. I want to remind planning board members, they should mute their microphone as much as possible, except when speaking to minimize feedback and make the meeting easy to hear. All votes must be done by roll call vote in remote meetings and don't have any public hearings scheduled for tonight. So I won't read the paragraph about how to handle public hearings. Actually, we do have public hearings, don't we? But request for continuance before we tonight's agenda, though, we do want to introduce our, our newest member. Hey, everyone can see her on the screen. She's been appointed to fill the seat that Mike recently left when he retired from the board.
▶ 1:55 And you have very impressive credentials and background Beth. So we look forward to having you. I think you'll be a great addition to the board. Welcome all right. So, on to our agenda for the night. 1st item on our agenda is we have 2 sets of minutes and 1st set of minutes is a planning board regular meeting from January 25th 2021. Did everyone get a chance to read the minutes and are there any common suggestions amendments? Or a motion to accept 2nd written and 2nd by John. Any discussion? All right. If you're in favor of accepting the minutes say, I, when your name is called, otherwise say, no. I don't think it should vote on those because that was the meeting where I got the technical difficulties. I was going to get the best of me and I just gave up and signed off. So, what little of that meeting I heard.
▶ 3:09 Um, I don't know you can say it if you like. Yeah. Okay. All right. Hi, hi. Hi, hi. Hi, I guess I'm Anderson's award. Hi, all right so the motion carries those minutes are accepted. We also have a set of minutes from the design review subcommittee meeting, which was January 20th, 2021. Comments amendments motion to approve by Bob 2nd by Jack. Any further discussion? All right. Please vote. Iron or nay or when your name is called. All right, those most of those minutes are accepted. Also. 1st case in our agenda is cycling review and affordable housing special permit for 40 vine street. We already started this public hearing at our last meeting. And I understand there's a request to continue to our March 22nd meeting.
▶ 5:05 Yes, the, the attorney had indicated that. The applicant in doing some additional site. Survey work came across, um, some additional information they were trying to explore. So, um, they weren't going to be ready for tonight's public hearing and asked to continue to the March 22nd. Okay, is there a motion from the board? Well, you took a request to continue. 2nd, by Jack any further discussion by any board members. All right, please vote aye or nay. When your name is called to continue 40 by street to March 22nd. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hello. Hi. All right, so the motion carries that will be on our March 22nd meeting next item of business is a site plan review case that also has been spending for several meetings and it's still continuing.
▶ 6:28 It's 138 means to use the Metro credit is 20002. I understand that this also would like to like, to continue to March 22nd. Yeah, I just want to mention this case. It's still in front of us. Yeah. And we continue to have 10 meeting. Um, I think I have a story. My question right? So it sort of makes sense for them to resolve any, any issues. Decided on if it's going to move forward, I recommend. Okay. I think you move too. Yeah. Okay, and 2nd, there's a 2nd, a little concerning how many cases we might have in our 22nd meeting. Is there any further discussion from board members? All right. Sorry, vote. I, Renee, when your name is called. Okay, so the next thing on our agenda is recommendations to the board of the team.
▶ 8:19 And the 1st recommendation we need to make involves the comprehensive permit application is for 1216, Essex street from Carol LLC. Denise, I think this is a comprehensive permit, which we don't see very often. So you wouldn't mind giving us a overview of what's happening and what our role is in the process. Please. Oh, of course. Yeah. So, I know we talked about this very briefly at the last this project has been followed. The regional proposal was not issued a certificate of appropriation. And without approval of that, they could not go for essentially the start distribution, as opposed to the demolition of the project to prior to that. the building board of appeal and the planning board approved the prior project the way the
▶ 9:43 Denise Gaffey: comprehensive permit program works comprehensive permit applications put the affordable housing ahead of other concerns and it also consolidates the review of the proposal in front of the in the dba so any permits that would have been required by other boards and commissions are all possible and melrose as many of you know belarus is subject to this type of quality or non-permanent proposal because we have less than 10 percent can i just ask everyone thank you that's much better um so so because we have less than 10 affordable housing on the subsidized housing inventory we are subject to 40 proposals like this um the proposal is still a four-story mixed-use building and um instead of 14 residential units there's 24. um so there are so
▶ 10:52 Denise Gaffey: there are many most of these are single uh sorry one bedroom or studio sized apartments and three of them are three bedrooms which is a requirement of the um state financing agencies um that that that there'd be a certain percentage of family units. This is gonna be a rental development. So six of the units will be affordable, will have to be rented at affordable rates, but all 24 units will count on our inventory. So that will bring our affordable housing percentage from roughly 8% where it is today to about 8.2%. It doesn't make a huge jump, but it is everything, you know, everything helps and it is, it will make a difference. It will. And the units are certainly much needed. So, I can say that we, you know, we are generally supportive of this proposal just as we were with the prior project.
▶ 11:51 Denise Gaffey: It has many desirable features. It's consistent with our master plan. Which encourages development like this in our transit oriented location. it essentially conforms to our zoning regulations which allow for four-story buildings in the ba1 or the downtown district um obviously the affordable units are essential and um the mixed use is also very desirable to the community in our downtown location um and also parking um is really not needed for a project like this in a location in a downtown location um so the project has a lot of support it has a lot of support um from the administration the mayor is supportive of it the former mayor was supportive and the ward counselor is also supportive of the project um so in terms of procedure the vba opened the public hearing
▶ 12:43 Denise Gaffey: last month um in january they've continued it to this month january february 24th which is two days from today um and i don't know if many of you had a chance to either watch the proceedings last month or watch the reporting but um i thought the zba did a really great job they asked a lot of really good questions and it's very clear to me they're going to provide a thorough review of this project um there was also an independent design review that was commissioned by the financing agency for this project mhp and they raised many good points around um around the building design around massing and articulation and also some issues of concern around vehicle circulation so so there's been a lot of good issues raised already um i think these are the kind of issues involving
▶ 13:35 Denise Gaffey: safety or site features building design that are all relevant to the zba's review and i think it would be appropriate for the planning board to um to raise these kinds of concerns as well and um and i think it would be appropriate for the planning board to you know provide the support for this project ultimately um i'll also mention we don't we don't get a lot of 40b proposals um the last one we had was in 2006 it was a 40b development for a single room occupancy Development on buying street, 15 units of single room occupancy. And that project ended up going through the comprehensive permit. Project approach, because they couldn't get the license that they needed from them. The board involvement at the time, so, and the planning board was supportive of that of that project too. I couldn't dig up the I couldn't dig up the support letter unfortunately, but I know from.
▶ 14:34 Denise Gaffey: from reviewing the decision on that case that the planning board wrote a supportive letter they also pointed out some concerns that they had about building materials and and landscaping and lighting and other features and i think that's you know i think um those issues are i'm sure the vba would be interested in hearing any any feedback from the from the planning board at this point so um they need again as i said they meet again on wednesday I think if the board is able to pull a recommendation letter together tonight, that would be ideal. I will point out that the developer is Mark Carroll and his attorney is Bob Bell, and they are present this evening. We didn't think that we needed necessarily
▶ 15:19 a presentation, but they are available if anyone has any questions. We could call them in, So, and if I may just comment along the lines of what I did attend the hearing and listen through it and I can vouch for what. I didn't start in summarizing what took place at the hearing. It was thorough comprehensive and it sounds like it will be continued in a couple of days, but I didn't expect or hope at least that. We'd have the opportunity to review this evening. I don't know how the other board members feel. We're certainly a comprehensive submittal that we all received a while ago and to the extent that everybody reviewed that and understands the project. Maybe that suffices, maybe an abbreviated presentation would make sense. But what comes to my mind is still fresh in my mind is the prior application issues that we have raised, many of which I think still apply to this.
▶ 16:17 and probably worth going back to between you know traffic the tightness of the site distance uh entering more importantly coming out of the driveway uh the blank wall on one side uh whatever period of time there may be a development next door inevitably that's uh developed and those kinds of issues other than the architecture itself and and the smaller units as i recall then I really would expect to see or maybe permitted in terms of the sort of micro units I heard on this day. I'd like to propose that we not hear a summary statement from the applicant because we're also familiar with the project and we have a lot of materials like you say and a lot of us probably did hear some or all of the Board of Appeals case I did listen to the
▶ 17:12 recording so I thought we might try because that we have there's probably a lot to talk about to kind of go over our list of things and what we are all aware of and if we need to we can ask questions of the applicant or ask them to kind of review sections that are interesting to us or things that we need to make our recommendation what do other board members think this is great I i i agree um i think it would be helpful to hear um i i watch the recording as well and agree that they cba did a great job um covered a lot of the issues we uh would have raised um so it'd be great to hear uh from the applicant as to how they're responding to those issues um because i think that would be a short list of items that we would be raising including what john's john's mentioned
▶ 18:08 most of the items that i thought uh would come up as well so um those two responses would be helpful other members of the board so the blank wall on the west elevation right is one question and was the other one that the turning radius john for vehicles just to clear the site distance upon exiting with the uh proximity of the buildings to the Back at the sidewalk, I recall the devices that alert pedestrians. From a safety standpoint to the extent someone was coming out. I, I, I'm sure other members for do, but why don't we start by asking the applicant about those 2 and then we can the other members of the board way. And I think it's clear our recommendation will involve mostly design and yeah, I guess mostly design. I mean, it's allowed and it's a comprehensive permit.
▶ 19:26 So we have very limited input, but design would be something that we can weigh in on. All right. So either attorney bell or Mr Carol yourself would someone like to talk about the. Vehicular accident, you know, safety exiting the premises and also the blank wall on the West. Elevation please. Sure. I'd like to. Okay, thanks, Bob. You're okay with me running for the commit. Oh, yes. It's up your alley. Hey, good to see everyone. How are you? Um, we, you know, it's interesting because it's easy to ask the same questions. Mark, we're having trouble hearing you, Mark. Okay, hold on. John will handle it. Yes, he's at the tea department. Yeah, yeah. Oh, there we go. Hi, gang. Can you hear me now? Yep. Much better. Thank you. Great. Well, it's interesting because we have a
▶ 20:41 an edited package that we're giving to To Laurie tomorrow with with all the questions you guys bring up. Tim has edited the plans I remember remember and recall John asking about. The big blank wall on the Northwest section. So, there's, um, there's some articulation now that Tim changed. And I do recall John requesting that it's, it's, it's a darker color. So, so we're on that we're on that we're aware of that. Um, I took the liberty of getting, uh, Bob, a traffic study. From, uh, McMahon associates, although the just requested a short letter. Um, we paid for a full traffic study that, um. That confirms that is, there'll be no added activity. um at this site for obvious reasons we have 10 parking spots there now um it will continue to
▶ 21:50 be existing in fact uh denise we're going down to nine because we committed to leave one spot for uh bicycles so but now we're decreasing that and uh so we we all understand that that it's uh It's something we addressed before. In terms of the sidewall that faces Cerritonis, that will be fully addressed. The traffic study, was there anything else you guys were interested in asking? I think, Woody, Sean, I think Sean was concerned about the egress, if you would run the visa B, people walking on the sidewalk. Could you explain the solution to that? Sure. If you can recall, John, we have a vehicle exiting sign that will be on a sensor. It's a two-sided sign that will be mounted onto the main street building.
▶ 22:57 Anyone walking down Essex or up Essex will know if there's a car getting out. never will a car be backing out of that driveway. I laugh, we talk about it, that the driveway is 13 foot 6, and in fact, even wider than that at the front of the facade, based on our facade design. That's a ton of room. We fit boom trucks up there and all, but more importantly, nobody backs out. If you look at the garage design, we'll clearly get that to you. People are able to pull into the garage, three-point turn and exit out face forward. It's really an existing condition. In fact, a major improvement based on the warning sign that we'll be putting up. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the sign? Yeah, we have a, we have a full cut sheet for the sign. It's in here. Hold on. Let me my son pull it out.
▶ 24:17 Yeah, let me. Yeah. So, I mean, you know, I believe it. What am I looking at that camera? We have a full model number and a full spec sheet on it. We can certainly forward to you. I think what's important is that it's a two-sided sign. It's an LED product and it's basically the sign notes caution vehicle exiting. Now, they don't sell a sensor. The sensor is by others that we supply through our electrician. but we know the location of it. The sensor is going to be very similar to what a garage sensor would be. When the vehicle is coming out, it will recognize the vehicle and trigger the sign. It does not have audio. We can add audio, but we don't feel it's necessary. I think we're going to be setting the sign at eight and a half feet.
▶ 25:28 The big mistake that people make is it sounds too high, but at eight and a half feet, people walking back or forth will recognize it. Again, we get hand audio, but to me, it's annoying. But if you don't have a request, we can get you full cut sheets. As I had mentioned with Laurie, we have a full edited package coming to her tomorrow sometime, for the ZBA to get a review prior to the meeting, Laurie. So I think we already have that cut sheet up on the website. That was the original package. I also think it was approved by the planning board. It was part of the original design. I was going to ask, that's the same sign that you, when you first were doing this project, not as a 40B, correct? Yes, yes.
▶ 26:26 With a little more detailed perm request from the ZBA, they wanted mounting assemblies and how it operates. There's more detail. Yes, same sign. It's the same sign we've already seen. That's helpful. Thank you. Yeah. Ann, I just wanted to verify that because I'm treating this as a new application, so that's confirmatory for me. I don't know how the other board members feel, but I think the visual is probably adequate. It's a double-edged sword with the audio. I can see where it has some advantages, I can see where it clearly has disadvantages, but no matter how loud it is, it could be as loud as Mark said. Aren't there any ADA requirements on that? Because if there are, then it would have to have an audio.
▶ 27:14 It's a great question, Paul. Clearly, this building is going to be fully accessible. Regarding the warning, not the accessibility. Yeah, yeah, great question. You know, Julie noted, right? Yeah, so we may have to upgrade into the audio. Yeah, I've seen that work. I don't know if I mentioned last time I walked to my office downtown, walked by a few parking garages, and they have those at the exits and entrances. And the audio is actually what catches your attention first. Yeah, it catches my again. I cross them. They're very busy. They're very wide and big, busy garages. Sure. But, um, and they have those signs and the audio really catches catches you. It catches your attention. Really? If you're looking, you're not looking that way. You know, you're trying to watch traffic coming or something. You're not necessarily looking at the sign. You hear that audible thing. Yeah, it could be annoying. I guess if it happens a lot.
▶ 28:21 but I don't really see a whole lot of entrances and exits coming out of that place. It's a great point. It's a great point. I mean, it's an easy change. It's probably a switch and turn on and off on the thing. That's all. Exactly. Exactly. No, it's here as an option, certainly. Yeah. I think the question for us as a board would be, Would we want to support that being required or would we say, we'd leave it up to the code, whatever it does, whatever it requires. Yeah, I would say if the code covered that. Yes. But I would recommend the audio my site recommended the audio. Okay. I'm in favor of the audio as well, and it doesn't necessarily have to stay on 24 hours, but I think certainly during the times of day where there's a lot of foot traffic over there.
▶ 29:21 You know, kids are walking down the street, they're staring at their phones, they're not paying attention to signage, you know, that's for sure. And, you know, Mark, from a liability perspective too, it's probably not a bad idea because it is relatively blind, you know. And, you know, you're the developer, you're retaining ownership of it. So it might not be a bad idea from that perspective perspective as well. Yeah, no, I agree. I don't have a problem with it with attaching audio at all. My, my 1st reaction was don't do it, but. You know, valid points had been brought up. A lot of elderly there and everything. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, it is too. A lot of people are looking at their phones when they're walking. Why don't we agree to do the audio? Right? You convinced me already. I mean, from a liability point. They're all after me. Yeah.
▶ 30:24 You know, so, yeah, it was great. Right. Okay, I was curious about the base. There was a lot of discussion with the zoning board of appeals about the base coming out over the public way. And I, I think the design has changed a little bit as far as what the base looked like, when we approved this project when it was not. A comprehensive permit. Yeah, they have not changed in size with the exception of the left. Big being taller. Then then the right day, but the projections are identical. Okay. I know I'm sorry. Go ahead boss. Okay, well, I'm in the, I'm. In the middle of discussions with Robin camp and the city solicitor on the subject. Who does not have a general perspective. I guess that he did render some sort of an opinion regarding the formal coffee, tea, and me building that cause them to not go forward with their, their base.
▶ 31:36 Well, they weren't represented by council. They were represented by the architect, but the whole question is, it's interesting. We don't know where, what the status of Essex Street is in the sense of was Essex Street, when it was created, taken by the city, what we call in fee, the total title to the street or did they do what they typically have done in Melrose when they create streets is to to take easement rights. And the easement rights consists of, you know, the right of passage for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, you know, for all purposes for which a way can be used. That type of generic language is what Melrose typically uses when it takes street rights by easement. And the vast majority of streets in Melrose
▶ 32:44 done by easement um there are roads that are owned in philly tend to be the state roads uh which you know consists of like portions of upham street i think main street you know main street is a colonial road it was the road from south reading to boston and um essex street I can tell you from tighter research did not until after Melrose was created as a town I know this from the titles to properties because we started with the deed into George Baldwin in 1844 that was before the railroad and before Melrose was incorporated as a town and the boundary line to the north of these properties was the land of the of the person who sold to him it wasn't it was not found by a street it's found by main street on the east well what what they then called the road from south
▶ 34:07 south reading to boston but it's main street um the next time anything shows up in the title it's in the 1860s and it's called new road it's not even named essex yet and then the next time we pick it up it's then essex street so rob has the uh unfortunately street index records at the registry of deeds that are available online only go back to 1896 and the registry is closed for in-person research or stuff like this which i in olden days i would have sent my title examiner in to manually go through the street index cog catalogs that still exist if you know where to find stuff that's not available so rob van campen is having the city clerk go through the old records if she can find out anything the reason i the reason i give you all this
▶ 35:11 explanation is that we can't know whether it if the city has it by easement that is for passage of vehicles and pedestrians and the bays don't interfere with those public rights denmark has every legal right to have projecting bays because the city took you know for limited purposes it did not take total title it did not take air rights it did not take mining rights etc so this this matters and in melrose in in most cases when we've had projections um it's turned out that it was it was completely legit so if it turns out that that the city um owns the street totally in fee then we need an action of the city council for which i've teed up um the president that this may be coming down the pike but uh
▶ 36:21 brock van campen and i are figuring that it's gonna uh we're not gonna have the answer of this for wednesday's zba meeting it we're aiming to have it ready uh by uh by march assuming that that there's going to be a third meeting for the project. Although, unfortunately, it's looking like Woody had pretty much wrapped up all the other issues and we might've been able to get finality on Wednesday, but this one is going to be hanging fire for the next few weeks until Rob VanCamp and I can come to a mutual agreement about what the status is. Well, can I ask you some questions? Sure. So, if. So, are you saying that street is has never been accepted by. The city of rose as a public way. Oh, we don't know yet. Um, we don't know.
▶ 37:25 So, if, if, if the city only has easement rights, who, who owns the fee? What what do you do? Well, to the middle of the. The street for all of that 6th street. Yeah, yeah, I mean, you know, because I don't get those rights. Yes. So, let me ask you in the preliminary plans that you submitted to, um, to get your project eligibility letter. Did you show, um. Did you show that were you showing those base those window base? Yes. yeah you know what if i can just chime in here for a second we've been over this and over this um you know i don't know if people recall that the two bays that are above the now beacon hill wine and gourmet never existed it was never an issue for us to project uh beyond the city lot
▶ 38:29 line because it's a better design period we shouldn't look at this as a favor from the city but more of a benefit to the city don't we want to have projection on a street scene i think the question is not really whether or not we want them it's more um what's the legal process Is it something that's allowed or is it something you need city council approval for? Well, I'm hearing a lot of feedback. Sorry. The thing is that there's no generic answer to these questions. Along Main Street, at least in the block between Upper Essex and Foster, on the west side of the street, Most of the lot lines project about 18 to 24 inches out into the what we think of as a city sidewalk. The actual boundary lines are out there.
▶ 39:39 So, and I don't recall Mark what our story was on your building on Main Street, but I know that several of them, you know, do project out like that. So I mean, there are bays in the building, what I still call the Marie Wood building, the building where Edward Jones is, that has historical projecting bays. I think in the past, this has come up in the past, We had a projecting bay on up on Green Street that he approved and that he created, I don't know, five or six years ago. I had a bay on it, but honestly, each of them gets resolved on its own, just like this one will. And this one, unfortunately, you know, we're going to have to go back in the antique records. At least there was a break to find out that the street was created after the town existed
▶ 40:55 so that, you know, it's not something that's free in corporation where we might have to go into Malden records because we were not Malden at the time. that would just go to the city council for approval if that was the case. But in this case, we may be able to ferret out the actual answer to what the rights are in Essex. I'm not going to be surprised if it turns out that it's an easement, because that's generally how Melrose does things, by easement. So, the question for the board is what we think of the base, obviously, and the legal process for getting them there will be something we won't decide. Okay. Other members, though, do you have something to say about the design? Yeah, I just wanted to say that I, I also listen to the hearing it and I was very, I was very impressed by the with which they examine the project.
▶ 42:03 and um agree with any of the of the points they brought up and the salute that you were discussing mark and so one of them i thought was really interesting for the members that didn't listen to the meeting was the fact that the building on main street the new cafe nero building whatever the address of that building is um they changed slightly of that building on the facade facing the back of your building And then you changed your design to compliment their redesign. And so I like the fact that you're there for now you're changing things to respect the folks that are putting their, their privacy and they're used to their outdoor space. And I thought that was, yeah, I thought that was done and I know that the, the, the, the base are sort of somewhat debatable in terms of their what the historic mission,
▶ 42:59 maybe thinks they should be in terms of how they're rendered as both in the Marie Wood building and other buildings in town you know the base is part of the historic vernacular and I see no issue with your architect your project trying to replicate the vernacular in a new and modern way so I can appreciate it both ways either with a lot of ornament or none at all you know it seems and so um i think that the new design um keeps some of the interesting elements of the old design as it um mixes up some of the materials um and i think it's also maybe a little quieter a little more which is a good thing i think that's an asset so um i i was very much in agreement with the way things were progressing at the zba hearing yeah that's good actually you know we think about
▶ 43:58 it that we kind of meet in the middle and remember the first design was so ornate yeah and now we have a you know basically a more contemporary design um tim did some uh editors and changes that i think everyone's going to be happy with um obviously continue to say we're going to get Get them to Laurie tomorrow and we'll kind of meet in the middle with that. So, yeah, I, I appreciate it. Yeah. Significantly more defined corners line to get to give them a couple of the elements of the changes. But we had to keep talking about the Northwest wall as the, as the bay returns around the Northwest wall, we have some textures in different changes going on there. The, the, the base has some changes in them and the big, the big line I am involved just mentioned, we get basically like a splay, very contemporary crown on top of the base.
▶ 45:06 And we went back into this kind of, like, temporary pool bell assembly. So I really like what Tim did. I think I don't know if you saw him today. He brought in some core bills. They weren't nearly as, you know, it was space. people lodge everything trying to be happy i really like the design where he's at we're well aware of you know the direction we want to go you know i think you should i think you should try to to hold to that i think you're trying to do something modern with a historic element and i think that's the challenge for a designer you know for architect today yeah yeah i laughed because when i first come up with that model and that design you were savvy enough to know you get too much action going on here can you dumb it down a bit and keep like three colors as opposed to six
▶ 46:06 i i still look at that design it was a great design i put my heart into it but you know what can i do i mean we've been at this now for years this one particular particular building that's right right well i think i think your efforts are paying off i think you have a really good team your architect is is um he's very astute and you know i think you're doing some really interesting work and i hope that it meets with approval across all of the boards and commissions yeah and i think great now one of you guys to trust me we've been together for a while now it's going to be a great building i'll do a great job other members of the board have questions about the project uh yeah i i do um okay and i i did make mention this earlier and
▶ 46:58 i've looked into it further and i have a lot of concern about the ability for that trash operation to function as it's shown uh do you have one guy contracted i don't know who's going to be doing it yeah this is the right question paul um listen we have noticed if they had acne waste since 2007 they're our contractor um i don't mind telling you it's six in the morning every friday he backs into the trash screen removes the product and goes no one ever sees them we don't get any complaints but as i'm looking at things you say he backs in right how does he move how does he get to that four yard dumpster that's inside of a building that weighs probably 1500 pounds well i i don't know he pulls it he doesn't he doesn't well wait a second the first problem is i don't get up till
▶ 48:06 10 so i'm not up at six in the morning watching him but every friday it's spotless it isn't accessible see uh dumpster needs to be lifted by a fork the truck comes in and the forks are usually in the front yeah they lift the dumpster with forks and dump it and put the dumpster back down nobody moves this thing to hand this thing weighs more than is ever going to push or move well he must be pulling it by machine so so yes okay so you gotta now remember that's a 13 foot wide highway yeah that truck is either gonna pull in or back in there he's taking up that whole thing he backs in okay so he's got to move that two yard dumpster out of there and dump it yeah and where does that go and where does he put that well he has to go and get the four yard dumpster
▶ 49:02 that's in the back of it well this is not a functional i don't see it being a functional thing and that's all inside of a building this truck can't get out of this thing well i respectfully disagree it's been a it's been a system that's been going on since 2007 the service is 14 units we have another 24 units of which all units have disposals we don't deal with spill 90 of the project is getting recycled so a lot of these recycled products come out in wheelbarrows i'm not really i'm sorry barrels with wheels so that's it i think there's two separate pickups for that um i said i'm looking at a four yard dumpster right there let me say this i don't want a dumpster i'm not going to have a dumpster does anyone like
▶ 49:57 a dumpster no there'll be no dumpster okay if you just get a hand pick certain items If you pull them out and take the recycled items on a smaller truck, that's what we'll do. We don't want a dumpster there. Well, it's probably going to have to be there at that location because it's the only place we could be. But it needs to be how inaccessible where the truck can get at. Okay, but did I hear you say you want a 40-yard dumpster there? No, no, no, I don't get I don't miss you. Did I? No, no, I said you have a 4 year dumpster. Not a 40. plan. It's a little sketchy with the hearing feedback if anyone's not muted. Well, that's probably what I had anyway with their microphones. Thanks. I will. What is shown there is is not what's going to end up being.
▶ 51:01 I disagree. Okay. Okay, so in the end, in the end, the onus is on me to make sure we have a full sanitary site. If you notice on the plan, we have a hot and cold water bib. We have a, a metal to be a sanctuary, but it needs to function. It needs to be able to be done. And I don't think the truck can get at that for your dumpster. As it's configured right there, I just respectfully disagree. Is it. How? How does he get that dumpster out of that building? Well, Paul, we haven't built the trash assembly yet. So that is, it's a very vague drawing on it. So why couldn't it have either sliding doors or swing doors to access and pull the rollout dumpster? The dumpster's on wheels. Are you aware of that?
▶ 52:00 Yeah, most are, yes. Okay, so it's on wheels. So really, you only have to push it out eight feet to pull it. And we do it now, Paul. It's inside a building now? No, no, no. It's inside a trash screen. I'm confused about a building. I'm confused about that. What do you mean a building? That's shown as a building. No. On the architectural plans, it's a sprinkled enclosure, it says. No, it's a trash screen with a roof shed roof. Well, it's not a building, Paul, but it has words. The dumpster cannot be lifted by the fork mechanism of the truck. It has to be pulled out of that enclosure and yes, because yes. Yes, not inside that assembly, but look at, we can all agree and say, geez, we don't want to put a roof on it. Then we have snow.
▶ 53:02 that we have to deal with you may have um you know smells or whatever it's a much better product as opposed to the trash screen that you see now um it's an existing existing assembly that we manage now oh there's one in there now at that location exactly in that location that's my point are you aware of that no does it have a roof on it too no the only difference is it has no roof and it's a little larger so we're doing this now okay acme waste is our contractor he comes in he backs in at six in the morning he he he has recycle and then he has trash there's more recycle than trash this is what we do now there will be there will be more uh quantity of product and as noted in in what law we will see tomorrow we may have to upgrade
▶ 54:02 into two two pickups a week but right now we're doing it now so so that that dumpster that you see that's on wheels he pulls that dumpster out now he pulls the barrels out now and he right now It has been since 2007. There's more quantity and a little change to it, but it's something that's been working since 2007. . Let me finish. There's one dumpster in there? It's one dumpster in six barrels. Six of four sizes of single barrels that are on wheels. It's not just one dumpster. In the dumpster that's in there was a six yard existing. Okay. Got it. Okay. Thanks, Mark. Okay. Thanks, Paul. That you submitted right now, right? On the drawings, I've seen on the drawings right now, Mark, the size of your barrel.
▶ 55:11 Right. I'm having trouble. And 1, 4 yards and 1, 2 yards. When you call them, so the, I think the, the 50 gallon, usually they never get to. Paul, I don't think they pick it up with a fork. When the thing, when the smaller ones, you know, we did a lot of guys loaded by hand. I think that's when they come in there. They do it, you know, it's interesting. I only have a problem if there's a problem. And then I'm notified really the minutia. Of of of how he takes it out of there. It's his job. Well, in fairness, I do understand how it's also a design question. You know what? Get it out. I agree you pull it out, you pick it up. So the big 1 does get picked up. In the air and loaded into the shock and the small ones are emptied by hand. Yeah, actually let me well, it's so interesting.
▶ 56:41 The dumpster that we have in there now. Is bigger than what we're proposing. So, because we're enlarging the trash screen. With more as Robert mentions, I heard every other word. With, you know, barrels that take recycle and that are on wheels. The dumpsters are going to be smaller. Then what they pull now, and they're pulling the dumpster out the dumpster, the 6 yard dumpster that's in there now is a steel dumpster. Which I certainly think we can upgrade to, you know, a plastic or composite dumpster. and it just wheels out and it gets picked up, and the barrels get picked up manually. You're proposing only four and two yards, and I don't see any problem wheeling those out and then they pick it up.
▶ 57:34 Exactly. Neither do I. Okay. So, Paul, is that helpful? Yeah. I'll see you in the house. I'll believe it when I see it work. Well, you know, if it doesn't, because we'll get the calls, you know, it's not going to bother me. It's not going to bother me in that alley. It will bought me quite a bit. So, you know, we're on our game. Other questions from the board members about design. Anything else that we might want to address in our letter to the board of appeals. The 1 thing that I'm thinking is, we haven't tonight yet talked about the blank wall at all. I know that we talked about color change, but is there anything else to distract from the mass of that? That's planned. In the upcoming drawings, you're muted.
▶ 58:43 Boy, get me on. Yeah, in regard to the northwest wall, Tim basically redesigned that, showing basically different textures. We can get that to you and forward that to you. I do go back, and I won't forget what John said months and months back, that we don't want to bring attention to it we want to have it a a uniform color and a darker color does that ring a bell john uh i i don't i don't know if i want to go i don't know if it was a darker color but i think that the the assumption is that something's going to get uh developed there eventually yeah this could be we all expect five years ten years and i think that any articulation any treatment of that that is not you know excessive but uh could be subtle but other than just a sheer blank wall
▶ 59:50 we're going to be looking at for a long time potentially is you have to step forward not adding a lot of cost or effort but i think you know and this new design is certainly not that and um you know boy come here i'm getting some feedback a lot of um a lot of my instruction to tim on this was based on the planning board's decision and your approval which i will say i always respect you guys are a bunch of savvy individuals and you know your business so i instructed tim that yes we do want to change some patterns but we want to keep it a uniform color maybe with the exception of the bay returning over but it's a core wall it's a wall with no penetrations it's a two-hour fire rated wall um you know there were plenty of
▶ 1:00:47 developments that just run up with the cmu block this is actually a very attractive design that we will um forward to you guys for to take a look at okay thank you the other quick question it's not really designed but it's part of the project do you have any um any idea of what you might have for a tenant in the retail part what kind of it like yeah honestly i don't know i mean it's topsy-turvy now um with with um you know commercial tenants especially um corporate tenants uh they're in a position to re renegotiate uh i don't know what you know expect to build a project to begin in 2022 with this of this uh not this spring but the following spring and um who knows that is a real to be determined um i i we're going to certainly adapt it to any type of use
▶ 1:01:49 um we do have in the plan a a uh a future event system if it turns into any type of food service that's going to be part of our construction and uh really we're anxious to find out who will be okay thank you would that be fire rated like we call sometimes for a commercial downtown black iron oh yeah was that john saying that yeah yes john okay one hundred percent uh 100 absolutely um we have an allocated spot in the plan same spot we've had when we were approved by you guys way back in the day and um it's going to have to be iron welded yes yeah that's great because you know threading that needle afterwards is a nightmare no it's not we we we have allocation for it um we all seen people that do it at a later date
▶ 1:02:52 and it sticks out the side of the building so so that's not right yeah so i mean we're gonna We're going to put it in the fact that it's a portfolio property, a property that Denise mentioned that we hold in portfolio and we rent, meaning we fully control tenancy. If it's sold out as condominiums, you have other mines involved. It's more important than ever to do a future event to open the doors for food service. Are there questions from members of the board? Are we ready to do? We have a consensus on a letter to the board of appeals. We've looked at this in great detail when it was 1st presented. Uh, is a just a mixed use. A multi family dwelling without. The 40 B connotation now it's changed slightly, but we certainly have looked at this property a lot. So.
▶ 1:04:01 And we did recommend it in the past anyone care to make a motion about a letter to the board of appeals for the comprehensive permit. Can I ask a question to Mark? Sarah, go ahead. Is this building has a. Are you doing any lead on this building? You know, like, you know, for energy conservation or something, you know. well yeah great question we're uh we're required to um comply to stretch code um which is pretty intense on its own um you know we're going into heat pump systems uh electric HVAC systems um I I can't suggest that it's going to be lead certified but if it isn't it's close and it may based on the stretch code requirements it's going to be quite efficient the building I I think stretch code basically may supersede that all right
▶ 1:05:12 so and I you know I'm inclined to suggest that we make a motion door that we prepare a letter in support of the project I think we can raise some of the issues that we spoke about tonight and you know say we appreciate the applicant's willingness to you know again several of them were raised by the zba as well um and we understand the applicants presenting some uh revisions to address you know certain items including the you know the architecture and the wall um but overall i think you know i'm inclined to to write a letter in support um and if people want to add conditions recommending conditions or um notes that's fine with me i would just add greg or ann um what denise preface with in terms of adding a moderate
▶ 1:06:13 you know low-income housing stock to belrose which only helps boost our percentage uh in the right direction and uh i can tell you i just talked to somebody that's on a vba board for That would be Belmont. I think their percent is 2% and they're up in arms over a 40B and they've got, you know, little or no chance of any consideration from the state. So I think we'll want to stay in the percentage range we're in and continue to include that. I agree. I think that's a positive reason to support it and to put it into our letter. I also think the general considerations for affordable housing belonging sort of in the center of the city where it's a really walkable site and has a lot of public transportation that we should note that too is one of the reasons we support it because we are
▶ 1:07:03 generally supportive of more affordable housing in areas like this. Other things that we might want to include in our letter to the board of appeals, we could recount the history to that. We were supportive of the original project. With design revisions, obviously I would be in favor of adding that. I would feel and I think the parking is slightly less now, isn't it than what we had approved previously? So maybe just add that to for the event in which they are concerned about the parking. Right, yeah, the board of appeals actually. Is the 1 who raised the idea of decreasing by 1 space to put up bicycle parking. And instead, which was a very forward thinking of them. Actually, a quick question on that.
▶ 1:07:57 Is that a permanent like, is it built in storage or is it something that if it if it ends up being not used that you can revert to a parking spot? I was just curious how you approach that. um well originally we had bike storage in the basements and um you know a couple of board members as eba members brought it up that it's it's it's not a great idea and i agreed so we we you know you if you come down on the elevator and jump in the garage you want to jump on your bike and go um i said that's a bob they made made a lot of great points and that was one of them And I think that once the bikes are in there, and to be honest, we're giving up a prime spot that has a three-foot, let's say, access space next to it, there's a fair amount of space you need to put a bunch of bikes there.
▶ 1:08:52 Tim has had our architect on this latest plan that's going out tomorrow. And, yeah, so we agree with that. I would say it's permanent. Once the bikes are there, they're there. Okay. No, totally. That's good. I was just curious, but I support the change as well. Yeah. We're going to have some electric bikes there as well. There's a hybrid mix. The gentleman from the Ped Bike Association is all over it. He's telling me what works and what doesn't great guy which is named cool Finn great guy Finn McSweeney so we're on that we're on that down jump in a moped and go great idea and I would add that to the letter because I think as other members would acknowledge we're having an increasing number of speakers at the public hearings that are promoting
▶ 1:09:55 bike storage and bike usage and we're trying to promote that in terms of making For more, you know, better by points throughout. All right. So I think that's an important point. Okay, with all those revisions, that's. I think that's a motion for a letter. We can still have further discussion, but can I have a 2nd for discussion purposes? Okay, so now. Any further discussion anything else we need to add to this letter. All right. All right. Hearing nothing, we'll take this to a vote. So please say aye or nay or abstain when your name is called for that letter to go to the Board of Appeals for their Wednesday hearing. Chair Catrillo? Aye. Bob McArdle? Aye. Paul King? Aye. John Panelski? Aye. Jack Welch? Aye. Greg Sampson?
▶ 1:11:01 All right, unanimous. Good job. Everyone. Thank you. Bob and Mark for coming tonight. We'll send that letter to the board of appeals. No worries. Thank you guys for your support. Thank you. Okay, good night. Oh, you're welcome to stay and listen. Let's see more of an agenda here. The next recommendation to the board of appeals is a case 21, 0, 0, 2. this is for 40 to 48 chestnut street. That's the application to you do have a brief from the planning department to make a separate dwelling right on the same lot of 2nd, principal. Well, I know we'll pull up the brief and I can either be a prisoner please. So this proposal is to take an existing accessory structure. And legalize the 2nd floor to be a unit. So this would be the 3rd unit.
▶ 1:12:35 On the property, there's a 2 family. That that exists there now, so they would need. Variances for a lot area for the 3 units, the rear yard setback. And the left side yard, and then also to have 2 principal structures and a lot. The list that they need to parking variance, but they are showing 6 parking spaces. On the site plan 3 would be in the garage and 3 would be behind the building. The denial letter also notes that they, the applicants could apply for variances for the existing 2 family to legalize that. So the 2nd set of variances listed. Are for the existing 2 family, which isn't proposed to change. At this point, and then. Our staff review of this. Is that there's only a few exterior alterations needed. They are taking the roof off, but it would be constructed with the same slope as the existing roof and maybe taking off a dormer. That's in the back of the.
▶ 1:13:52 The roof right now, they would be adding new windows along the 2nd floor, rear facade. And adding a deck on the right side for egress. So, if the neighbors don't have an issue with those windows, it really. Seems like a good use to add another unit on the site. The deck on the side could be reduced to just be a landing because it will. It's 10 by 10, and there's a small backyard there, so it would kind of cover. The grassy area that does exist, so that could be reduced, but still work as an address. um for that unit members of the board what do you think about recommendation to the board of appeals about this this is similar to two other cases we've had recently uh one on franklin street and one on warren street and um it seems like pretty much the same kind of a situation that
▶ 1:15:04 we've had with both of those um so i don't certainly have any problem with it i hate to see another garage disappear in this city but other than that i don't have any problem with it i get so my only question was i think on those other cases we have a little bit more history as to how it came to be this i couldn't quite tell like you know i hate to reward people who do things that they shouldn't and eventually, you know, essentially create three families where one family is only allowed. Assuming it goes back for a good period of time historically, that's fine. You know, to me that makes sense to just allow it or to legalize it. So that was my only question Yeah. How did this come about? It's not a new thing, I assume, and everyone's comfortable that no one's intentionally skirting the rules. Is that a fair statement?
▶ 1:16:11 This property actually has its own address. It's 40A Chestnut Street. And so I'm not sure when the current owner purchased the property. I didn't do that research. It hasn't been used as a, as a unit, um, in kind of the, the short kind of past, but, um. Long term, it's been, it's been a unit for. For quite some time, you know, that the fact that it has an address. And the other proposals like this that we've seen. Um, the, the Franklin street 1, they were converting it to a unit that was not used in the past. To my knowledge for residential use. So, you know, most of the ones that we've seen. In the recent in recent memory is ones that they're converting to asking for it to be a unit. Um, this 1 from Paul's letter sounds like.
▶ 1:17:15 You know, it's had its own address. It's to look at the floor plan. You know, it's, um, seems like it's been an illegal unit for, um, for quite some time. Yeah, I always feel like even someone definitely did do this without getting the right permits, but. At least someone now is interested in making everything legal, which I think is always a positive. Other members of the board concerns about this in terms of. You know what I know we try to hesitate using the word precedent, but. I do have some concerns about what the implications will be and what will what future cases will be. Might follow this that will point to this and I think therefore the history is important. But, you know, would we ordinarily want a principal single family with these kind of setbacks that are not even consistent? I think with the.
▶ 1:18:22 You know, the garage setback requirements, so it's a concern here. Obviously the input from the neighbors at the will be a factor as well. And then there's that deck that I think that the, at least the document we're looking at now had some comments on. We should take a look at as well. It is really close to the lot line. The garage has is he's I think the building inspector indicated it was already. Nonconforming as a garage, so that's not. Great and I understand that. And I do think we could add to our letter that we would recommend that the deck be scaled down. to you know sufficient egress as a landing but not a large deck what does everyone else think Ann sorry I am of two minds about this I on the one hand I think it's good to have more
▶ 1:19:35 housing on the other hand there's a there's a house you know like around the corner on the corner of, I think it's East Wyoming and Chestnut, where they had a garage in the back corner of the property, very similar to this, and they wanted to make a living unit above. And I don't think, I think we were against it, and I don't even know if the ZBA approved it. I can't remember. But, you know, bringing up the precedent word again, Does this mean that people that have large or garages that are built without the proper permits are going to be converting these all over town? Now? I just. I wonder about that Denise, you might remember the history. I thought the 1 around the corner we approved, but the board of appeals denied.
▶ 1:20:27 Yeah, I think the no, I don't think it was in my, I think the planning board, I think it was converting to a detached garage. I do, and it was a 3rd unit or a 2nd, I think it was a 2nd unit to bring children. I think children, maybe the parents were going to move to the back and the kids were going to take the house or something like that. If I remember, it's a little fuzzy, but, um, and my plan was okay with it. But the zoning board, I think there was a. I know I know there's only 1 didn't support it and I don't know whether there was a lot of pushback in the neighborhood. Lori might remember that. Yeah, they were the neighbor. They didn't get they didn't get full support. I. From, I don't remember the details either. They were constructing a new, they were altering the building quite significantly for that proposal that all these cases are so different.
▶ 1:21:45 You know, that's yeah, take them case by case. um that you know it does bring up the point that somebody made a decision you know willful decision to construct a big big garage uh in the rear in the corner of the of the lot with you know two feet to the rear yard to the free line and um i i just think there'll be a lot more of these so um that's that's the comment i'm making i do agree about the deck i think it's i think it's well advised to put a big deck like that off of the second floor i don't understand um why the stairs are in the middle of it i would run those down the side of the thing for stability but i think if it was just a landing um then it would be better you know be better i don't
▶ 1:22:43 plus it's in shadow most of the time anyway there's also a possibility carla you're without stretching up too much history that you're thinking of the one on like pine street or something over where there was a also a family wanted to have two dwellings on one lot and they wanted the garage in front but the kids were going to live in one the parents were moving into the smaller one the kids were taking a bigger house and the parents wanted to have they're parking on the other lot and we had issues with that because parking for each dwelling we wanted to have on the same lot as the same area as the dwelling so there are a lot of these and you're right there's a lot of buildings in melrose uh big houses that have an extra detached garage
▶ 1:23:39 or a carriage house that might work for this i just don't have a problem with this one i don't think even though it's very close that's what bothers me is to set that to us i think we have to uh get a consensus from the board before we figure out what we want to say to the board of appeals on this do you want to take a stab at a letter what you would say carla or from other people first if you want to hear my opinion i think it's too you know this is a non-conformance square uh measurement on the garage already and they're going to make it more non-conformist and they make a single home and uh unlike one said i think if you kind of approve this incident on the you know there's a lot more will become i can imagine other members
▶ 1:24:38 I'll take a stab at a possible recommendation or a letter. I think the letter would say that the board generally had mixed opinions regarding the application. There was general consensus that the debt should be smaller so it doesn't violate any trade-in uniformities. There's also some concerns about the use of historic, the history and how it became an illegal, non-conforming, essentially three-family, two-principal structures. To the extent that the Board of Appeals, you know, cease to approve it, we would recommend that it be done with clear findings that are specific to this situation and, you know, the history of the case that, you know, essentially justifies using the structure as, you know,
▶ 1:26:02 is through units and not through someone for violation of the zoning ordinance. It's a lot that it tries to capture. That's exactly what I was going to say. You want to second it, John? Do you think we should note that it's a little concerning to have a principal use so close to the lot line, It wouldn't, you know, garages, except for use as close to the lot line are less problematic. But, uh, I think there's that close there a little bit. We have concerns about it. We should add that we usually close by saying, you know, some of the input from the butter period in this particular case, that's very good for the structure of a setback. that is even required by an ancillary abuse over the lab.
▶ 1:27:08 I'm not sure if in the beginning of your letter, Greg, you did suggest that at least some members were generally supportive of an additional dwelling that could be made in the right circumstances or something to that effect. To the extent I didn't know your degree, that should be added. All right, so it's kind of an unwieldy motion and the 2nd, all 2nd with the, uh, okay. Any further discussion. All right, when your name is called, please vote. I or nay on the letter. Chair Petrillo? Aye. Paul Micardo? Aye. Paul King? Aye. John Sadocio? Aye. Jack Walsh? Aye. Dick Benson? Aye. Carla Morelli? Aye. Jeff Gellahey? Aye. Anne DeSouza-Ward? Aye. All right, we'll send that off. That's a tough one for the Board of Appeals. We have two Board of Appeals cases. The next one is 21-004.
▶ 1:28:28 This is for Wentworth Road. Lori, you have it right there. Thank you. So, this is a corner lot and the applicant would like to do a one story addition uh towards the rear and uh it's a 0.5 violation for rear yard setback the addition would be 14.5 by 13 feet uh and it doesn't appear that it would negatively impact neighbors from what we can see um the the addition will follow the the line of the house along the rear yard and the house is just kind of askew or the lot line is askew, so it doesn't make that full 20-foot setback at the point of the addition. This would seem to be an easy one, at least for me. I think the point you made before, it's an incidental encroachment on the setback and given the fact that it's a corner lot,
▶ 1:29:40 uh we've actually uh been supportive of the subject the input of the neighbors at the vba i think i second that though you know it's uh you're talking only about uh six inches you know on that proposal and uh because i thought the the drawing is a work plan though you know you know okay i have a motion good further discussion from members of the board I think Bob already seconded. I think we've got a motion and a second. So if there's no further discussion, please vote when your name is called. Sharon Patel? Aye. Rob Mercado? Aye. Paul Peen? Aye. Robert Kowalski? Aye. Jack Walsh? Aye. Rick Sampson? Aye. Carla Morelli? Aye. Beth Delahaye? Aye. Anne DeCesar Ward? Aye. Okay, that one's a nice quick 1 and we do 1 more court of appeals case. This is case 20 dash 0.
▶ 1:30:55 1, 0, and it's 423 pleasant street. This is units 1 and 2. you're. Probably all familiar with this property. Oh, yes. I've seen this 1 a few times with the different proposals. So, this 1 is the same as the last, except there's just a revision. This is for power. Energy to have administrative offices here. And the case was approved by the zoning board. And it included a number of variances and special permits. The case was appealed and. Is now back before the zoning board on remand to. Adjust the parking number of parking spaces and the. Condo owner. Appealed the case because they. You know, claim they have access to the parking spaces that. Empower proposed that they would be able to use. So, the revision is to reduce the number of spaces from 8 that they were approved for to 4. so 2 would be on the site and 2 would be on the adjacent
▶ 1:32:23 conservation land and then they would be applying for revising the number of spaces for the special permit for the reduction because they were within a thousand feet of the municipal parking lot at the West Wyoming funeral station. So the Empower Energy is saying that their employees, they're gonna have three full-time employees and their 12 part-time employees They're just going to be at the site for part time and then they go off and their sales or, you know, whatever they need to do off site. So this could still be a, a good fit for. The building, um, or suggesting that they. They send a handbook or some document, um, giving some assurance that the employees will use public transportation or alternate transportation.
▶ 1:33:34 And understand that they can't be blocking the street or blocking the driveway. So, otherwise it's, you know, the. No change to to what the zoning board had approved. Can you just clarify who is the applicant and who appealed relative to tenant and owner? The applicant and power energy, so they would be occupying 2 of the 3 condo units. On the site, and then the 3rd condo owner. Denise, what is the, do you remember the name of that? Oh, they're a testing company. I'm not. Yeah, sure. Oh, so there's more owners here since it's kind of medium set up. Okay, I understand. And did I see somewhere that. that a couple spaces that are being given up is being used for a dumpster or read the plan it is and it's allowed under the um agreement with the conservation commission that they can
▶ 1:34:45 use the spaces for parking or a dumpster so i don't recall the plan showed any kind of enclosure or is it just sitting there and like that instead of the running use so it's um not it wouldn't be in connection with the empower energy um use so it hasn't come up um so i'm not sure of the the answer to that that was you know part of the that was a big part of From what I understand, the kind of negotiations and for this testing company to have their dumpster be accessible and be where they want it to be. I suppose at the ZBA hearing, they'd be the usual notices to your letters that they could extract if there was an issue. Right, yeah, it didn't come up during the public hearings. Are there questions from members of the board?
▶ 1:35:55 I'm in favor of supporting this. I remember when they were before us and then I remember the people before that, that was the photographer or something like that. Um, so I'm, I'm in favor of the tough site and so if someone can use it and not need much parking, it works. Oh, and just a question what happens if the tenancy or rather the. They sell that for some other use that is permitted. It might have a different question. How does that work? If this goes through the zoning condition that. The special permit was for the. The applicant, so another 10, and even if it was the same use, um. We need to reapply to for these, um, these special permits. I'm fine with the suggestion. I would have thought of it as more of a no objection.
▶ 1:37:03 You know. Neighbors, but I don't feel it strongly, but I think there's going to be times when there's going to be a lot of people in that office. It's a sales office and the sales office is just because of what they are. you tend to have a meeting or whatever it is of your sales people and they're all going to be in the office so in my opinion there's going to be times when there's probably going to be minimum 10 people in that office and it's easy to say that they'll park in the municipal parking lot but people are people and i think they're going to end up parking on the street that's just my opinion it's hard to know unless you have a sense for their business jack That's I think that's a legitimate it seems to me. It's, it's, it's a possibility always when people say we don't need many parking spaces that there'll be a day that they do wish they had more parking spaces. But.
▶ 1:38:25 this uh business is willing is bought the property it's gone to court and has made this uh request twice and is willing to work with us they they must feel relatively confident they can make this work for their business i just don't see any reason to object yeah i mean we could like uh maybe somewhat similar to the last one or the one before we could just if there were some concerns ways but otherwise uh you know some of the input again at the hearing we don't object do you want to make that into a motion i will i did okay so the motion is that uh don't object that there were some concerns raised that there might be a need for more spaces than this at least on an occasional basis for this business uh we would leave it up to the board of appeals to uh you know
▶ 1:39:35 uh i guess explore that problem in the course of their hearing i'll take that into consideration but then i'll make a decision based on the input from those that appear at the hearing All right. I was just wondering, do you want to encourage them to submit some sort of a documentation or handbook? Employee handbook for the suggestion here. Right, sorry, that was a suggestion and I just, I, that's a good idea. Something they already offered. You're right. John, would you consider adding that to your motion? Yeah, it makes sense to recommend that the business would, uh, you know, give evidence as to how they were going to inform their employees that they really is not sufficient parking for them.
▶ 1:40:32 Is there a 2nd, right? There's a 2nd, further discussion by members of the board or further changes to the letter. All right. and hearing none, we'll go ahead and vote on it. So when your name is called, please vote aye or nay, please. Sharon Petrillo. Aye. Bob Mercado. Aye. Paul King. Aye. Mark Zydowski. Aye. Jack Welch. Aye. Greg Sampson. Aye. Carla Morelli. Aye. Beth Delahaye. Aye. Hi, all right, so that motion carries and the letter will go to the board of appeals. I think there was 1 day there, right? Yes, but it still carries. Yeah, you don't always speak with 1 voice. It's probably a good thing. The next thing on our agenda is an update from zoning subcommittee. Got a big, big, uh, zoning change that's been worked on for many months.
▶ 1:41:59 Denise Gaffey: I don't know if Denise or Greg are both. We're going to hear from both of you. Right? I'll kick it off. I, I wanted to update the board because when we, we, we last met. Boy, I don't know, maybe it was late November or early December. the board considered the zoning proposal that the zoning subcommittee has been working on i've been working on since last july which provided for a new incentive zoning tool in our transit oriented districts the ba2 districts the three those are the three commercial commuter rail stations neighborhood business districts and the zoning also allowed for some parking related modifications and some modifications other types of kind of almost call them housekeeping modifications around driveway width and aisle width and loading zones
▶ 1:43:00 Denise Gaffey: and things of that nature so we actually had held back on it for a little bit because we want we thought um in consulting with mayor broder we thought it was a good idea it would be a good idea to meet with the counselors in small groups before to provide some sort of an overview of what we were attempting to do with the dummies and just just to make sure you know we were going to have their support or at the very least any concerns that they might have so um so we had an opportunity to do that recently which was great. I met with all of the counselors in a small group setting and I think it was a good way to kind of give them an overview before we get to the public hearing so they have the background on what we're trying to accomplish. So that actually went
▶ 1:43:53 Denise Gaffey: pretty well. Didn't really get any kind of pushback but a couple of good suggestions, recommendations And so we were actually prepared to talk about that in a little more detail tonight in terms of a couple of tweaks that we wanted to make based on those meetings and also based on consideration of a couple of projects that we know that are coming our way that will benefit from this change in zoning. So the snafu that I ran into today is that I finally got some feedback from the building commissioner. We always try to include the building commissioner when we're making zoning changes, and I had sent him a copy of the proposal quite a while back and sent him, reminded him a couple of times, and just heard back from him today, and he raised a couple of issues.
▶ 1:44:52 Denise Gaffey: I don't think they're insurmountable at all, but I think I haven't really had time to review them in any detail. And I'm not sure tonight's meeting is the best venue for that given the late hour. So I think it might be better if we could have a special meeting, say in two weeks where we could just come back, convene again and maybe the zoning subcommittee can meet in the interim and just review some of these comments from the building commissioner. So, I think it would be better to incorporate any of his feedback if we think there's substantial comments into this draft, into the final proposal before it's initiated as opposed to while we're in the middle of the hearing process. So, Greg, do you want to add anything to that? No, I think it is relevant too that there was a significant legislative change to zoning that happened.
▶ 1:45:51 Um, that actually plays a little bit into, uh, this proposal, um. You know, so now many zoning changes can be done through a. Super simple majority instead of a super majority. But also there's a change to special permit requirements. So, there might be some respond to some of Paul's concerns, you know, maybe we shift a little bit. More into the special permit process for us to site plan review as far as how we address the parking. Um, I think it's all very addressable. But, and I think taking a quick pause to make it consistent with. The new legislation makes sense, so I don't see anything. I looked at what they said, I don't see any big hassles. I think that stuff we can do in the next 2 weeks for certain and get it moving after that.
▶ 1:46:48 Denise Gaffey: yeah i just don't want to lose a lot of traction because now that i've got it kind of i've got it queued up i was hoping to initiate it on monday on the march 1st meeting of the city council now you know if we wait till the 15th that's okay but i wouldn't want to get too far out there there there are a couple of projects that are waiting for this like asia but i think we would you know be in favor of but they're going to need this tool and i think it's a good tool for the community as well so um so that you know it's a little bit of a setback but i'm hoping we can kind of keep it moving quickly and meet before the 15th yeah i wanted to uh tell the members too i suggested that we try and just do a quick special meeting on this
▶ 1:47:34 because if we pushed it to our next meeting not only would we set it way back for getting to the city council and it's really been ready for that for a little bit but also um the march 22nd meeting at this point we could have three public hearings it will be horrible and so to try and go over some zoning at the same time would be really it would really be for a long night and i wouldn't be making any sense at the end of the night so this way would be it will be something we can just look at zoning talk about it it should be pretty straightforward and uh get it on track at a good time i'm still hoping one of those public hearings goes away but that's that's not my prerogative unfortunately march 22nd is really busy so if we could possibly meet in two weeks i
▶ 1:48:24 think it's weren't eight yeah it's a monday night can it can everybody check their calendars and tell me if that's reasonable should be very long start at 7 30 maybe we could be done at 8 30. uh no one's going anywhere that works not a lot of wild party plans yet we got a captive audience here okay all right so um greg and you can you and i can be in touch as to whether we might want to convene the zoning group first in some fashion or you know how we might want to you know get it prepared some of these modifications and we'll wake you here by email confirmation that we're scheduled for march 8th for a uh planning board that's for the full planning board right for a full planning board to go over the zoning yep um okay great thank you uh you just made me think of something
▶ 1:49:32 out but oh it'll come up at the end anyway let's uh we also have design review subcommittee update which i understand design review has been working very hard and patiently carla yes we we have been doing our work patiently so um this is on 419 main street case and we've had is it only been two meetings today's it seems like more has it only been two there's been two and then you and i met on the site yeah i've met several times yes the planning and community development office has spent so much time on this case so here's here's where we are we've had two meetings with the full applicant team the developer um the matt and uh also their architect and we've gone over every issue that we asked them to prepare some information that compared
▶ 1:50:37 what they had initially proposed and had been conditioned to what they eventually ended up building and they took us through it item by item element by element explain the changes explained why they made the changes and um you know if you take them all together it seems like quite a bit of uh willful decision making but i think if you step back from that um and the frustration that we've been experiencing i think i think what where we are is you know we've gone over so many issues with them we've gone over site and landscape and open space trash bike storage, awnings, signage, lighting, parking, and occupancy permits. So those are all the sort of topics that we've been tackling. And I really think that we've managed to reach
▶ 1:51:33 a compromise on or an acceptance of most of those. We didn't feel that many of them were terribly upsetting or maybe made for reasonable reasons but where we stand now is we've asked them to get us a revised and comprehensive solution for the rear of the building really the rear of the building is where we've seen most of the changes and we think have an impact and they were supposed to get us some information before tonight's meeting but they weren't able to do that so um i think we're getting there slowly but surely and um i think as soon as they propose this next solution for us for the rear which encompasses trash landscaping and parking i think we'll be in a position to make a recommendation to the full board for review um one of the things
▶ 1:52:34 that came up during our meeting was that there were so many things that we we needed to consider we wondered whether we needed to come back to the full board to review every single one of the elements that we were reviewing and um we we sort of spoke we had diff we spoke with different minds about that since i since our last meeting i've had time to think about it a little bit and i feel like we have i feel like we have it in hand and i feel like we're getting close to a a good compromise uh i feel confident that we can work through these last few issues and then come with a proposal so that the full board um rather than have you spend the time going through all of those um though all of those elements which you know really does take a lot of time it's not been an
▶ 1:53:25 So, I guess what I'm saying to you is, I think, and please the other members of the subcommittee, please let me know what you think here. But I do think in hindsight now that we are, we're well on our way to a compromise and we're, you know, we'll be there soon and that we might just come to you with a presentation of where we think we'd like the applicant to end up rather than having you take the time to go through everything. Time to go through everything. I wouldn't disagree with patients in the next interaction as a threat that they made last time. I'm not losing it, but as I said before, in these matters, we had another case, but some discretion was making changes from the plan. And, you know, I've tried not to take the position and try to keep a cool head, but I had to really fight my time with the last meeting and it makes me wonder, even though I think it's, we may need to emphasize our rule.
▶ 1:54:38 is that approved plans are approved plans no deviations have even made those plans without going through a proper process and then further complicating this uh i think there were some uh miscommunications or issues with other representatives from the city be it the health department the holding commission um but you know with the level of cases that this city seems that i never would see a quiet little melrose over my tenure on board it's understandable that there's going to be some confusion but as i said in the zoning board or rather the subcommittee meeting to the proponent i feel the onus in terms of going to the private process and they're thinking that because they went separately departments uh or not site plan approval process and got approvers for the
▶ 1:55:32 onus is on them to go through the right process you know what that is i i the last meeting we have is august design review subcommittee was far more ready to compromise on issues than the applicant was and um and unless we get a change in attitude on half of the applicant it still may be hard for us to come to the overall building if you say it's it's small items the overall building itself is not the problem but there's enough um enough different elements within the design that they have that are important they vary from that's what i'm stuck denise and i were talking uh about you know making this a teachable moment for ourselves and perhaps changing our process a little bit to build in an interim review sort of a like a
▶ 1:56:48 double check from the planning board during the process of construction that um allows us to be able to see what's going on maybe changing a process to mandate and then you know a check-in rather than rely on common sense um and you know maybe that's a good thing because some things as i was saying to denise you know it's it's a thing that design doesn't change between site plan review and construction documents it's impossible right of course it does usually those aren't noticed by us or they're not that important this was completely different and it's not for lack of our communicating our process it's that particular applicant which chose to do something different everybody else plays by the rules and understands what our
▶ 1:57:38 what our process is except that one particular applicant and so i think we're going to strive to make it even clearer and maybe um you know set in place uh an interim check-in so that these things can't possibly get by us um you know so we're talking about something like that that might might help in the future i think that makes sense uh carla because just by way of example on this one i would venture that we've spent as much time in this process afterwards as we did with the initial approval we know this one was kind of rocky road because of the foundation issues the delay in the construction the change in the in the proponents uh team here and uh it's it's not been a straight line if you do that i what kind of uh impact is the time with the building
▶ 1:58:33 commissioner i thought that may be part of his work is uh you know when we We approve it. They're doing the expecting making sure that they'll go by what's been approved. But I know you want to create another inspection before before he does it. Well, I just wonder how he's going to, you know, it's not official. It's not it's not an official inspection. Bob. It's not a legal inspection. It's a. It's an observation visit, maybe where somebody, you know, whomever, maybe we meet up there as a group, maybe 1 or 2 of us do and with a set of plans that we used what the condition to approval is. And we're looking at what's being built, or we're looking at the construction documents and we can head off problems before they before they're built.
▶ 1:59:23 It wouldn't take a lot of time. It would probably take not more than an hour, but it would save a lot of time on the back end. I think it's akin, Carla, to the requirement that we have in a ground structure like this for a backup. And I think it's the same level of that. This is the 2nd time that we've had in recent times. We've had a project totally deviate approved. The 1st, 1, I can remember was on Laurel street and that got way beyond where it ever should have gone before. anybody caught it and this one so you know i i think when i first got on this board by the people that were developing the properties in that we took together and agreed to something they were people who regularly appeared before this this board and and did work in the city and
▶ 2:00:21 until they knew what was expected of them and now with the amount of work that's going on it seems like that may have slipped i also think there's an opportunity um internally with the city to clarify the fact that um you know occupancy permits perhaps should not be granted if if applicants not built according to a conditioned approval or they cannot it's not it's not allowed for them to go around to different city hall and solicit separate approvals yeah i know so that but that's really that's not i mean that's that is i think denise's um purview well i just want to say i mean a couple of things like it is still very rare for this to happen i have to say especially to the extent that it did
▶ 2:01:19 Denise Gaffey: with this project i mean it was like confounding to me when i went out and did my site inspection um and to see all the deviations and then to have the builders say well this is nothing these are real you know these are real issues these are just minor and they're like such a disconnect there between his perception of what was a major change and i do think we will not i have a hard time thinking it's going to happen again just because I think we are going to be more kind of conscious of this and make sure that every step of the way and every you know condition or just making the conditions clearer and talking about what we're doing I think in the pre-construction meeting all of those touch points just reinforcing how you
▶ 2:02:11 know you do think when it comes to certificate of competency because of the way we've been operating with this remote um you know with studio hall being partially you know for working from home somewhat and i think we're all a little bit disappointed and i think i think that something like in terms of signing off everyone signs the same form and before i sign it i do my inspection she does her you know when we started we all know what the outstanding issues are Okay, we're signing separate documents, not necessarily communicating status to everybody. So, totally frustrating. Not a good fix it, but it's a little unique. Which building is this? The one next to CVS or the one next to Papageno's?
▶ 2:03:19 So, Carl, I will say, you know, in a lot of the other city planning decisions, it's non-uncommon to have some kind of, you know, walk through with the planning. I know sometimes it's staff, but sometimes it's the board members. I think the question is, you know, how does that timing work to actually capture the right issues? Because a lot of times if you do it too early, it's not beneficial. So I'd say that, you know, what your suggestion for a condition definitely is a possibility. If there's a way to do it, I'd probably look at some suggestions for, you know, the right time to do that, to go out and check in, just to make it worthwhile. Yeah, I agree. There's there's, you know, different people, different processes, different teams. So some people are building what's drawn. And so you look at the, if you look at the 2 sets of documents, you can easily pick up the differences.
▶ 2:04:27 Some people take what's drawn and just start doing things, make decisions in the field. And so those are the dangerous ones. There's the opportunity for the owner to sell, there's the opportunity to change the team members that were in front of the board. I think there's an opportunity for this to happen under those circumstances and that's another opportunity perhaps to better understand who the team is and the changes in members of the team. Which I think is part of the problem. Maybe that's another consideration. I think it's nice that you're considering our processes, but I think the disappointing part is, there's this awful lot of a lot of this was behavior by the applicant and the builder just disappointing because they absolutely knew they were supposed to build according to those plans by changing and not raising it themselves just because it's a little bit.
▶ 2:05:38 disjointed now and working remotely and in the field they do change they could easily have handled things differently. Right and I don't mean to suggest by making recommendations to our process that we have any responsibility in what's happened here. I don't mean that at all. I think we're all completely taken aback by it and we know it's no fault of the way we communicate the conditional approvals because everybody responds to those the same way so you know I think I think for me going forward if we if we have an applicant in front of us who shows an awful lot of push box back from the very beginning we need to be very aware that those are the types of applicants that may take the situation into their own hands during the construction process
▶ 2:06:33 And just a little bit more due diligence, you know, along the way, just in case I think it just tends, you know, it's, it's the, it's the type of of personality that we're dealing with. But I do, it is a good looking building from the front. The back needs some work and I think we can get there. I want the design committees members to feel supported by the board. But by the same token, I really don't want to drag the full board through every detail of this. If you're willing to let us handle coming to you with a compromise. I think I think we can do that. I'm absolutely willing to sound terribly frustrating. So, and I understand that, though, but in my opinion, I thought we may create friction between the.
▶ 2:07:33 building commissioner that the the inspecting uh you know the inspector on this construction and then how can you know between us and the inspector and we rely on him when we approve the plan and then if we you know can tell him i'm not going to hear your point is that building inspector approved changes or the deviations from the plan so so when the building inspector is looking at the inspectionist focused on the code issue he's looking behind the wall you know before they seal the wall off he's making sure you know the systems are in place i don't think he's looking at the design details of the built condition to be honest you know we think it upon ourselves before we to sign off on it, to go out and do it.
▶ 2:08:38 And normally, we don't stuff, I mean, you know, little stuff. We don't, you know, major changes to the building, or, you know, how the trash and recycling is done, or the whole back ramp system being changed, and all that kind of stuff. I just don't really know. Wow. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All the members of the design review for your patients. I'm sure it hasn't been easy, but we'll look hearing how things. Last thing before our next meeting is going to be March 22nd. But the last thing we have to bring up is, I sent an email and I've heard from most, but trying to give Mike Cassavoy a little virtual send off by all of us and I had suggested one night next week. Just I'm sure it'll be like, 45 minutes because it's just us and we'll get a chance to, I mean, I personally think we should tell our favorite Mike joke, or we should have a.
▶ 2:10:06 Or Mike story, or I've been trying to figure out how to incorporate his problem with buildings that are 1 foot from the lot line, but I haven't figured that out yet. But, um, I mean, you know, we're going to miss him. He was really a pleasure to have as a member and it makes sense that he's decided to move on. He's retiring or working towards retirement and he has gone a lot. Now. He's been. Well, despite the pre-COVID, summer's on the vineyard and winter's in Florida, so it made sense, but we'll miss him. So, what do you think about next week at 7.30? We talked about March 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th. I would prefer not the 1st, if that's okay, but 2nd or 3rd Tuesday or Wednesday. Anyone for me, and it sounds to me like you want this to be a run span, right? No, no, no, no, no, it can be like, I just think if everyone has a chance to just, we'll probably have to take turns because zoom is so awkward with everybody.
▶ 2:11:14 Talking at the same time, but, you know, you have a chance to either just wish him well, or, you know, thank him for everything he did or definitely. tease him about because he always had a twinkle in his eye but um so second or third preferences anyone 7 30 i know it's one more thing but it shouldn't be long really 45 minutes an hour at the most works for me i think i think wednesday's easy puppy i have to take gene down to uh foxborough for a vaccine and it's it's a late afternoon one so um wednesday would probably be wednesday's better yeah excellent all right then let's put clear on wednesday i'll send an email and uh uh it'll be it'll be short and um i will volunteer to drop off uh like a bottle
▶ 2:12:13 of wine for mike and say you know raise a glass with us tonight and is that all right with everybody okay yeah that's good for me and we will tell mike that we have a very good replacement from him exactly and beth you are more than welcome to join us or you may say i've had it i don't even know those people that's right we'll tell him that we're very fun though when we're not me great serious stuff get to know each other all right so i'll send the invitation we'll show him how we'll do fine without you mike but he uh he it'll be nice to talk to him and i'll i'll hope he's available next week but i'm hoping he's not traveling anywhere at this point all right thank you oh you're welcome anything else we should be talking about denise are we
▶ 2:13:09 ready to adjourn um i didn't know you wanted to mention the annual meeting ah right our favorite topic i was supposed to our next meeting march is always our annual meeting so this is when we decide on our our subcommittees and our of course officers uh the hotly contested chair and clerk like always um so you know anyone who's interested in serving as chair clerk you know contact me we should talk by phone and uh also because mike was on the design review subcommittee we have beth i don't know if you know two subcommittees zoning and design review uh design review does an awful lot of uh follow-up with projects about architecture and landscaping and color and design of course uh lighting signage zoning greg is the chair now and
▶ 2:14:09 that is the all the zoning changes and initiatives and um stuff like that zoning stuff uh so mike was on design review this is you don't have to specifically go to design review you could be on one or the other depending on your preference if and other people might say this is a good time i want to change i've been on this one for a long time and i've you know i might like to spend a little time with the other subcommittee so let me know if you're thinking oh i you know i might like to work with the other subcommittee for a change uh all you people in design review can't say i quit because of this because this really hard case that we have right now but um you know if anyone does want to make a change and work for somebody for a little bit or you know or say i've been on
▶ 2:15:01 zoning and i'm kind of interested in design review it's a good time to make the change because we have to decide in march who's on what uh committee subcommittee okay or get in touch with denise and talk to her about it and let her know how you want me out as a chair okay All right, and we'll vote at the end of our meeting if we aren't completely exhausted next with the public hearing and we have the meeting on March 8th. Right? Right. You'll be getting all kinds of reminders. All right. Thanks everyone. Thank you. I hope you don't have any regrets right now. We're back in person. It gets even wilder. Can't wait. Thank you. Thanks everybody. Good night. Good night. Good night. Everyone.