Planning Board — 2021-03-22

Minutes

MELROSE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, March 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Board Regular Meeting, February 22, 2021 Mr. Mercado made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members present by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Planning Board Special Meeting, March 8, 2021 Mr. Mercado made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. King seconded the motion. All members present by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Design Review Subcommittee Meeting, February 11, 2021 Mr. Mercado made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members present by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Zoning Subcommittee Meeting, March 8, 2021 Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Welch made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Mercado seconded the motion. All members present by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Ms. Petrillo appeared at the meeting. SLOPE PROTECTION SPECIAL PERMIT Case 20-003, 22 Montvale Street, Armando Plato (request to continue to April 26, 2021) This case has been continued several times. It has taken the development team some time to generate revised engineering plans and although the team has said that they finished the plans, they did not submit them in time for this meeting. The members discussed that if the development team is not ready to present at the April meeting they should withdraw their application and reapply when they are ready. Mr. Sampson made a motion to continue the case to April 26, 2021. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members present by roll call voted in favor of the continuance. None were opposed. SITE PLAN REVIEW & AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT Case 20-004, 40 Vine Street, 39 Tappan Street LLC (continued public hearing) Ms. Delahaij is not able to vote on the case because she missed the first hearing. The Engineering Department reviewed the revised materials and found them to be satisfactory. Attorney McAvoy, Michael Carter, Civil Engineer, Jim McClutchy, Architect, Daniel Galvin, Developer, Edward Mitchell, and Kevin Carter, appeared to present the case. Mr. Carter, described the changes to the site. They are proposing granite curbing in response to the concern about cars driving onto neighboring properties. They have done a test to determine the ground water depth and since it is higher than anticipated they moved the building forward and elevated it 17 inches. This caused the ramp to access the front door to be more substantial. There will be landscaping along the side of the building. The previous version of the site plan had the driveway next to the building. There will be 20 hemlock trees along the fence. The utilities will be coming in from a different point on the site than was originally proposed. The driveway aisle width was increased to 20 feet. The Planning Board asked questions and discussed the following about the site. The curbing will be 5 inches not a full curb height reveal for a granite curb. The curb will be concrete. The caliper of the trees will be 2.5 to 3.5 inches. The back out space will still be tight and cars may hit the fence. They discussed the lighting and the ramp design and suggested that they should be more residential in appearance. The ramp location in terms of prominence, access and location directly in front of a unit is unfortunate. Mr. Carter said that the water table is the issue that caused the building to need to be elevated. As proposed the building is as low as possible. Members asked if the rear entrance could suffice for handicapped access. Another idea was to build a berm at the front of the property so that the ramp is integrated into the landscape. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 Page 3 of 6 The Board also asked questions and discussed the following about the building. The reason that they would construct a basement would be for bicycle and tenant storage. They discussed if constructing half of a basement would work so that the front of the building would not have to be elevated. Another ideas were that there may be a better solution for bicycle storage and the units are relatively large and may not need storage in the basement. They could go back to no basement but the bike storage would be moved outside at the corner of the building. The bike storage room in the basement would be about the same size as the outside space. Ms. Gaffey said that the original plan submitted to the Board did have a basement. The team was referencing a previous plan that was not submitted as part of the application. Mr. Galvin said that it is financially difficult to keep revising the plans. Members said that the design process is iterative and it takes versions of plans to get to the finished product. They discussed how some aspects of the site would function. There is no irrigation shown. They reviewed the stormwater management plan and the driveway slope. The driveway slopes towards the street. They graded it this way to balance the stormwater in the same way that it flows today. Members felt that it would be a good investment to install vehicle charging stations. Mr. Carter said that the spaces will be assigned, which may make it difficult. At the last meeting Mr. Galvin was amenable to installing this infrastructure during the construction. Deliveries to the building will be to the front door. A delivery vehicle driving to the back would have a difficult time getting out. Because this is the Rail Corridor Overlay District there are standards for landscaping. There should be a ten-foot buffer with six-foot tall shrubs when a site abuts a residential district. Attorney McAvoy said that he will review regulation. The zoning determination letter references the plan with the driveway on the other side and does not address the design standards. The utility plan caused the driveway to be flipped to the other side of the lot. Mr. McClutchy was filling in for the architect and he was asked to explain how the height of the building changed with this revised proposal. He said that they lowered the height of the building so that it would be the same overall height as before even with raising the building 17 inches. They reduced the decking height of the structure or the amount of structure between the floors. The building height will be the same from grade as originally presented and the floor to ceiling heights will be the same at 7.5 feet. The Board commented on the façade on the left side of the building and the front windows for the first floor units at the last hearing. The revised plan has bay projections on both sides on both sides of the building. The first floor front windows changed from sliders to two-over-two windows. The Board asked for the architect to explain the other changes to the building but the team was not prepared to fill this request. The Board opened the meeting up for people who would like to speak. No one appeared to speak. They left the hearing open. The Board asked in the past for the specifications of the condensing units on roof and screening, changes to the articulation and general massing of the building, and signage and lighting plans. A new request was to get more information about the buffer requirement. The Board would recommend more screening but would be willing to decrease the ten-foot requirement. They Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 Page 4 of 6 would be less compliant with moving the building and having parking in the buffer area. They asked if Mr. Galvin had reached out the neighbor to the left. He spoke with the abutter on this side and he said that she was concerned about dust and noise. She was also concerned about the height of the building and shadow. She was not sure that the property lines were accurate. Members felt that changing the front façade to include two-over-two windows on the ground floor was a good move to make the building look more residential. The plans should not revert back to the original façade. The pattern and the vertical panels on the elevations need to be detailed. The material look like EIFS. They requested a narrative of the changes so that they are easier to follow. Mr. Galvin said that the condenser units will be in the middle of the roof. He felt that a screen around them would be seen more than the equipment itself. The request was for information on what would be on the roof. The condenser units will be 30 inches in length, width and height. The Board requested the specifications of the units to know the SEER rating. Mr. Sampson made a motion to continue the case to April 26, 2021. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor of the continuance. None were opposed. Documents: Architectural Plans dated 3/2/2021 Updated Civil Plan dated 3/12/2021 Response to DPW letter dated 3/16/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW Case 20-002, 138 Main Street, Metro Credit Union Attorney Tolley requested to withdraw the case without prejudice. They withdrew their application before the Zoning Board of Appeals because it appeared that they would not get a favorable vote. Mr. Mercado made a motion to approve the request to withdraw the case without prejudice. Mr. Sadowski seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Document: Email from Attorney Tolley RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Case 21-010, 34 & 45-55 Summit Avenue, North Shore Residential Development (April 14, 2021) The Board was unable to provide a recommendation on the request with the information given. They found that the use of the property for one or more two-family dwellings may be an acceptable use, but members had concerns about numerous aspects of the proposal that are not addressed by the current plans. In particular, the Planning Board had concerns about the length and accessibility of the street, the size of the lots and the slope of the land, the large footprints and sizes of the houses, and other site considerations. The Planning Board was of the opinion Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 Page 5 of 6 that the use of the property for two-family dwellings can only be fully assessed following the necessary subdivision, site plan review and slope protection special permit processes. Mr. Sampson made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with this information. Ms. Morelli seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Applicant materials for Case 21-010 Case 21-005, 62 Slayton Road, Jeffrey Reed (April 28, 2021) The Planning Board had no objection to this application. It did not appear that the proposed addition would negatively impact neighbors. The second floor addition had been designed to respect the form of the house. It does not increase the footprint of the structure and is below the maximum height allowed. Mr. Sadowski made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with this information. Mr. Sampson seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Applicant materials for Case 21-005 Case 21-006, 330 West Emerson Street, Paul Casey (April 28, 2021) The Planning Board had no objection to this application. They believed that this case involves judgments that can best be determined by the Board of Appeals based on the application materials and the information provided by the applicant and abutters at the public hearing. Mr. Mercado made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter of no objection. Mr. Sampson seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Applicant materials for Case 21-006 Case 21-007, 1 Birch Hill Road, Joseph Sullivan (April 28, 2021) The Planning Board had no objection to this application. They found that the addition matched the character of the structure. They believed that this case involves judgments that can best be determined by the Board of Appeals based on the application materials and the information provided by the applicant and abutters at the public hearing. They thought that it will be particularly important for this proposal to understand if the closest abutter to the north has concerns about the impact of the addition. Mr. Sadowski made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with this information. Mr. Mercado seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Applicant materials for Case 21-007 Case 21-008, 25 Oakland Street, Caroline Himamshu (April 28, 2021) The Board recommend approving the request. The proposed portico will be no closer to the front lot line than the existing landing. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 22, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Mr. Sadowski made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with this information. Mr. Sampson seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Applicant materials for Case 21-008 OTHER Design Review Subcommittee Update, 419-429 Main Street Ms. Morelli gave an update on the review of the items that were constructed at 419-429 Main Street that do not conform to the Site Plan approved plans. The last issue that the Subcommittee discussed was the location of the trash storage since the dumpster area was not built behind the building. The development team insisted on it being in the alley. The Subcommittee will require that they submit a detailed waste management plan that includes that the trash will be picked up from the rear of the building in the parking lot. They will be required to check back in six months. The sides of the tote area in the alley will be screened. Members felt that the trash storage affects everyone around them and applicants should do a better job of having as it as an integral part of the building’s design. They discussed some of the changes to the open space and landscape plant. The meaningless landscape that was on the sides of the building was consolidated in the back. The revised plan widens the depth of the landscaped bed. The landscaping will screen the ramp in the rear. Zoning Update The incentive and parking standards zoning amendment was filed with the City Council. They will be coordinating with the Planning Board for a joint public hearing date. Staff will send notices to all of the property owns in the affected area. April 15 or April 29 are possible dates for the hearing that will work for the Planning Board members. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Ms. DeSouza-Ward nominated Mr. Sampson to be Chair of the Planning Board. Ms. DeSouza- Ward offered to be Clerk. Mr. Mercado seconded the nominations. All members voted in favor. None were opposed. Mr. Sampson, as Chair, appointed the subcommittee members. Ms. Morelli will be Chair of the Design Review Subcommittee. Mr. King requested to change to the Design Review Subcommittee. Mr. King, Mr. Welch, Mr. Mercado and Mr. Sadowaski will be members of this subcommittee. Ms. DeSouza-Ward will be Chair of the Zoning Subcommittee. Ms. Delahaij, Ms. Petrillo and Mr. Sampson and will be members of this subcommittee. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, April 26, 2021. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 pm.

Transcript

▶ 0:00 And we are recording, I think. All right. Yep. Thank you. Hello, everyone. This is the March 22nd, 2020 meeting of the Melrose Planning Board. My name's Ann D'Souza Ward and I'm the chairman. Due to the pandemic, we're meeting remotely, 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 12, 2020 order, amazing that this is Now, more than a year, uh, 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.

▶ 0:46 No, in person attendance of members of the public is 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. A recording of this meeting is being made and will be posted on MMTV's website, which is www.mmtv3.org and www.cityofmelrose.org, the city of Melrose site, as soon as possible following its conclusion. I want to remind planning board members that we should mute our microphones as much as possible, except when we're speaking, to minimize feedback and keep the meeting easy to hear. all votes must be done by a roll call vote in remote meetings so during the public meeting part members of the public can see and hear us but they don't

▶ 1:36 participate applicants can be invited to speak as needed and they'll be seen and heard when they are speaking during the public hearing members of the public will be able to speak when they're recognized all right so we're going to start with some regular board business the first thing on our agenda tonight are four sets of minutes uh the first set is the planning board regular meeting of february 22nd 2021. did all the members have a chance to read them and are there any amendments um or changes or uh can i have a motion on the february 22nd motion motion to accept by bob is Is there a second second second by Jack? Okay. Um, please say your name when your name is called for the roll call vote.

▶ 2:29 Yes, yes. Hi, John. Hi, Jack Welsh. Hi, great Samson. Hi, Carla. Hey, hi. Hi, all right those those minutes, Terry, they're approved. Uh, we also have. Minutes from our planning board special meeting March 8th, 2021. Did everyone have a chance to those of that was a special meeting about the zoning amendment. Any comments amendments or emotion. Motion to accept the special meeting of March. Thank you. 2nd. Okay, thanks. 2nd, by Paul discussion. All right hearing none, please say iron a, when your name is called. Hi, Paul King. Hi, hi. Hi, hi. Hi, hi. Hi, all right, and now we have the, the minutes from the design review subcommittee meeting, which was February 11th, 2021. Same same procedure amendments changes, uh, comments or emotion.

▶ 4:23 Motion great 2nd. Thank you any discussion. All right, then please say about the design review subcommittee. Minutes, Paul McArdle, Paul King, John Sadowski, Jack Welsh, Greg Sampson, Karla Morelli, Beth Delahaye, Amanda Scissor-Wood. Hi, all right, those are approved and the last set of minutes we have for tonight are the zoning subcommittee minutes from March 8th, 2021. Comments, amendments? Move to approve unless there are comments. Okay. Motion second? Second. Second by Bob. Is there any discussion? All right. Then final vote on minutes, please. Say aye or nay when your name is called. Bob McArdle. Aye. Paul King. Aye. John Sadowski. Aye. Jack Walsh. Aye. Thanks, Greg. Greg Sampson. All right. All right.

▶ 5:49 All right. All right. So all our minutes are approved. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the slow protection case for 22 Montfield street. It's case 20 dash 0, 0, 3. Uh, the applicant is Armando. Plato, and, um, I know his attorney could not attend tonight, but we had have received a request to continue to April 26, 2021. And this case has been continued a lot and it's been a long time a lot of. Members of the public have had to come to a lot of meetings, so I believe you can. You know, obviously give us more detail Denise, but I think the applicants been told if they're coming the 26th. Of April, they really need to get a lot of materials to us way ahead because it needs to be reviewed by.

▶ 6:48 Denise Gaffey: Your your office as well as the engineering department, as well as the department heads. And we don't want to we really, I, I feel we can't keep stringing along this case for this long unless they want to withdraw and. and come back when they're all ready with their materials yeah they have indicated that they um have received they just today received the revised engineering materials i mean it's a complex site and it has taken them a while apparently so um and i have conveyed and i think if that's the case and they're ready to submit the materials to the planning office then we can do whatever the internal review that we need in advance of the meeting in april and um i did make it clear and

▶ 7:33 and they agree that if they're not ready to present in April, they would ask to withdraw and then resubmit if need be. I think it's given the circumstances, I think it would be okay to continue that one time further to April 26th. Okay. Great. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board? Make a motion to continue to April 26th. motion to continue to uh april 26th second second thank you is there further discussion from anyone all right then we'll vote on the motion to continue uh please say i or nay when your name is called bob micardo hi paul king hi john sadowski scott welch hi greg simpson All right. Carla Morelli. Aye. Beth Delahaye. Aye. And Anderson DeWard. Aye. All right. So, the next case is a public hearing, and it's continued.

▶ 8:57 It's case number 20-004. It's 40 Vine Street, which is site plan review as well as an affordable housing special permit. And I'll try and reiterate the process when it's a public hearing, we'll most likely, we'll leave it up to the board, the order in which we do things, but we will get further information from the applicant. There'll be a point where there's time for question and answers from the board, and then a time for public comment. Members of the public, in order to be recognized, you can use the chat button on your screen. You can email if you like to the city planner, and either way, let her know that you want to be in the queue to speak, and then we'll give an opportunity to everyone who asks to

▶ 9:51 speak to speak. Their picture will not be on screen, but we will hear your voice on screen. public hearing is still open too you can all make all your comments uh in email or in writing and they will be entered into the record they'll be as long as they're received while the public hearing is still open and we're still open for comments okay um i know it's a slow process and we need your patience but so now we're ready to continue with the vine street case which is a public hearing the applicants here i believe right yeah so there's a couple um they're in as attendees so i'm just going to bump them up um i don't see patrick's name here um just let me know if i should add anybody else okay is there are you expecting uh your attorney to appear and speak

▶ 11:13 tonight? Oh, I think everyone's muted from the applicant. All right, you're all unmuted now. So, Patrick McAvoy. I didn't think Pat was going to be here. Okay, well, we'll give them a few minutes. The case started, I should point out a couple of procedural things. This case started before Beth Belahe was on the board, so she is eligible to participate in discussions and make her opinions known and obviously help us in our deliberations but we'll not you will not be you're not eligible to vote because you didn't hear the first night of hearing we've had only one night of hearing on this it's been continued since then let's see and I do believe there's there has already been review by engineering if I'm correct here we've had a response from the

▶ 12:20 applicant so most of the engineering issues have been uh reviewed and were satisfactory i think that design is a big issue that we're working on now and there have been some changed plans that have been submitted yes yeah um we sent the updated materials to engineering and they said they that all looked fine from their perspective okay great um and we have patrick here now so i just made him a panelist great thank you thank you patrick yes i'm just just getting in there okay um i know that the engineer wanted to um share some slides so should i give him screen sharing you or did you want to summarize the changes that you're proposing up with the new plans tonight or did you want to the screen to be shared now with the slides my name is Mike

▶ 14:29 Carter that's fine I can either summarize or I can share whatever you would like sometimes it's easy to see it sometimes it's nice to be you can summarize while you're showing us the pictures that's always okay why don't we do that okay all right one second okay okay can everybody see this yes all right so this is this this is the color real simple color of what we submitted um basically a couple of big things last time that we talked about were um the parking area putting granite curbing in landscaping i'll go to the landscaping plan in a few seconds here we added some of that um we kind of modified the entrance um from what it was originally the front of the building is the same but the sidewalk coming in and the stairs

▶ 15:43 coming in so in general what we've done is remember this is hanford's end and then it's parking back here to the rear entrance here and then the front door entrance is here one of the comments from the board various board members was concerned about probably being so close to the building and then the driveway being so close to the lot line so what we put in is granite curbing that along the side of the building is actually a ballard right here um granite curbing and then there's granite curbing everywhere so that i'm concerned with some of the comments were well they could drive over directly to the fence and drive onto the lawn in korea so the granite curbing should address that it'll be there forever no plows could knock it out that's one of the things

▶ 16:27 that we did the another thing that we did was um the as the architectural plans get more developed um we had to see we've done a test out there where the groundwater is um and we want to make make sure the basement floor is above the groundwater so that pushed that elevation the front of the building the height of the building hasn't changed with the elevation the first floor went up so originally we were walking it was a straight walk straight ramp coming in now what there is is the walkway here which as you can see we do three steps up and then this is the handicap route this is five percent of the landing area that i ramp up into the front of the building and then safely going out the back grade-wise with the architect talk

▶ 17:14 we talked we shrunk the basement floor down to the minimum that we can and use certain kind of construction methods to keep that building as low as possible but the water table is um i actually in the soil evaluator we've done a tempo prior to even the first middle to verify what the water table was out there to make sure we don't have it around the building. Then what I will do is I'll just go to the landscape. So basically if you look here what we've done is we've added actually another big important thing is along the side of the building there's green space here now. Originally, the pavement went right up against there. There'll be a lot of plants in this area. As you can see, there's, I think these are Hinkberries,

▶ 18:02 five Hinkberries, the pan is switchgrass. This is a nice, well landscaped grass island along this side of the building. There's landscaping in the front, which includes hydrangeas. As you can see, there's all kinds of planting to try to make the building look nice from the streetscape um one of the other things that we did along the back um there is a fence that goes around six foot vinyl fence that goes around the whole thing but we've added 20 hemlock trees here a group of trees over in here and then along the back same thing these are rhododendron so if you look over here on the table just so you get a sense it's quite a few you know you look at 24 switch grass there's a substantial amount

▶ 18:53 uh landscaping going in for um actually for this area we added that to the project um switching back let's see let me just go down this is just the grading plan the dumpster that hasn't changed we looked at um one of the comments was the you got a variance from the zoning board to go down to 19 feet here we're trying to maximize it to 20 feet still have 18 foot stalls we did look at this and i mentioned that the last being backing out of this spot is not easy it's going to require multiple it's not a three-point turn where you back out and drive it's good and we addressed that in our package that we submitted um and the other thing that did change but it was really driven by um landscaping in this walkway is that utilities

▶ 19:43 were originally coming in this side utilities are coming in this side of the building as my understanding the architect can correctly but down in the basement this is where the like storage area is so we adjusted that accordingly that's what the changes are from the site development i don't know if the architect would like to just kind of go over what those changes are or if you You want to see it at this point, and should we take this in parts? And if we have questions, ask them now in terms of the site and then your architecture, whatever. That's what I'm wondering if we should try and what's the feeling of the board members? Because I have questions about just what was said so far, but I wonder if it's a good idea to hear everything before.

▶ 20:28 Do all our questions suggest that we take it piece by piece. Okay. I agree. Yeah, the questions I have don't relate to the architecture. Okay, then why don't we if that's it for site right now. Then, why don't we let's open it up to the board members that just to ask some questions about site. The site changes that have been made and what we've heard so far. John and Carla, you each had questions? Yeah, Carla, do you want to go or do you want me to start? No, go ahead, John. Okay. Just if we could on the granite curb, is that a VA-4 standard curb with a 6-inch reveal? Yes, it's a 6-inch reveal. Let me just go over that detail sheet. Pretty sure it is the context. There you go. So it looks like at the 5 inch. It's not a full 6 inch.

▶ 21:36 Okay, and you do have concrete though, because I think where you have such little backing in some cases here. Make sure that's well founded. Yeah, I typically do it here. I know some people like it behind the curve too. That's. That's the personal that's what I'm more than here. I think as long as it's in concrete, that's the right direction. And then in terms of the driveway where it's so narrow there, that's grant curve as well. Yeah, give me 1 sec at the property line. Yeah, it's great for both sides. Okay, I mean, for 1, I'm glad to see that we do encourage that and class factor go to slope edging, but you're so tight here. I think the vertical makes sense. And the 5 inch. Okay, and with the water table that you raise the 1st floor.

▶ 22:28 I assume that you look back at your drainage calculations and structures to make sure they're not immersed in the water table at times. Yeah, so I did the, I did the test prior to do my drainage design. So the drainage design is I have an appropriate 2 foot 2 foot plus separation from the water table. Okay, and there was a bike rack. I thought I saw somewhere and we made a comment about the units on the 1st floor. In terms of it being kind of awkward to have a patio in the front. Uh, yard, I'm not sure I heard correctly. You said the racks are now interiors opposed to exterior. Is that right? That was the storage and maybe we should let the architect. Okay. So we can address that with the architecture. Yep.

▶ 23:13 And how about the trees in general? What's the caliber of the trees? Probably 2 and a half pages, but I want to make sure. Typically, what we use. There are 2, 2 and a half pages to 3 inches for the pear tree is 3 to 3 and a half inches. Okay, you only have like a few trees, correct? Yeah, we only have 3 trees basically to 1 dog. Okay, yeah, the trees that I prepared, they're out there, right? Basically out here on the street. Okay, so that's more of a vertical tree that won't spread so much in terms of interfering with the traffic and pedestrian sidewalk. Right? Yeah, it's a flower tree. It doesn't get too big. I don't believe it gets much bigger than 25 feet. It's a great street. Let's put it that way. Yeah, no, I know what it is. Okay. And it's vertical. Okay. And then the snow storage.

▶ 24:17 It just looked like it was very minimal in that, you know. Sort of the end of 1 of the parking spaces. And it's very minimal. I won't agree with you. Totally. It's going to have to require snow removal, you know, usually in our conditions will specify a certain number of inches that will require removal off site. So we can address that. In the conditions, and yes, I note as you do, that looks like it might be somewhere between a 50 and 70 point turn to get out of there. But I think by making the aisle with 20, that does help with it. Yeah, and there's curb on the back side of that as well. I think that's the only other issue. I think that anyone backing out of there is going to be inclined to hit the fence. You don't have enough distance between the curb and the fence to.

▶ 25:02 You know, stop the wheel in terms of the overhang of the car. So I would just point that out. Okay, and then lastly lighting what was planned for lighting? Was there any changes there? And is it all contained within the site? Yes, it wasn't any changes. It is contained. There's a. Do you see this what we did is we had a lightning analysis 0 on the parameters. Okay, and just another comment, I don't know what you're planning on for bollards, but. If they're sort of industrial, you might want to consider something more. Residential, if you will, you know, like a park sometimes has a wood. Guard rail, so to speak, just just a thought anyway. Okay. All right. So that's all I had. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Carly. You had some questions.

▶ 25:51 Yeah, could you zoom? You can stay on this plan. Can you zoom in on the. Please in the front of the bill. Yeah. Yeah. Let me go to the right degree right here. Yeah, I just wanted to convey that. I think it's really. Unfortunate that you need to place a ramp in front of the building. It takes the majority of your yard also. It's in of directly in front of the unit. You know, to the front door, right? Um, which is, you know, which is really unfortunate. Did you look at any other way you could possibly accomplish it? Yes, the real issue is the water table here and we're only 10 feet from the street water table isn't deep and, you know, basically needs 7 and a half feet. We went back and forth with the architect since we last met with you back and forth back and forth.

▶ 26:50 They've actually changed. I'll let him tell you what he's changed. I'm not. For you to look, we tried to go with to get this as low as possible and, um. They weren't aware that the water table was that shallow. I don't you can't change the water table and I'm sure that probably some of these houses along the street are in the water table in the basement. I can't really get any more than I, and it is right now. To meet the basement, I did use a chair Late instead of a ramp. Chair Late out front. No, we're going up. basically 585, 55, 56. We're going up about a foot and a half or 18 inches, 19 inches. So it's not that huge. I mean it's basically the ground here where my hand is to finish grade is about 18 inches here. It's not a massive ramp structure.

▶ 27:58 And I get what you're saying. I totally agree with you. We went back and forth. We've done multiple versions of this try not to have to do it what is it to get ada access we need to do it and just close both the front and the rear where you know presumably someone might park in a handicapped space and then enter by the rear where's that apartment from access that they otherwise would need is that okay project that carla say that again excuse me i didn't call I'm sorry, so I sort of interjected with Carly here, but the code requires you to have both front and rear and it would, it would bar someone from accessing. That's handicap at the front in terms of overall access. Or quickly just the rear suffice.

▶ 28:48 I'm sure it's both, but I will, you know, I'm not the architect. I agree with Carla. Yeah, you know, I thought, and I know that this is not your 1st choice, obviously. It will really, you know, the look of the building, there's no question about it. Have you thought of burning up the landscape from the curb up to the ramp so that. The level of the landscape is, you know. Sort of obscure the ramp rather than. You know, something like that, so it feels more of the ground than an intrusion in the landscape, because I don't know, just just about, you know, that's a really good point. We can put right in where my mouse is. We can make this like, it's almost only 6 inch reveal. Like, it's almost, you know, so you don't see 18 inches. I just want to go to a landscaping plan. Just.

▶ 29:46 If you look right here, what we tried to do. is hide it but grade wise what we can also do is raise the grid have a grade only six inches in this top of the landing have it down six inches then grade to the street yeah i think maybe you know you can look at it as an integrated system where the landscape is integrated with the rent because basically it's your entire front yard you know and then do something as a focal point on the other side like you like you've tried to do that's a good idea as we're talking i mean i hate to change it but what i could do is sometimes you can do is you put on the back of sidewalk a vertical curve that's that get you six inches and softens the slope that's probably the best idea to soften the appearance

▶ 30:36 that's really the question that i had on on the site and it's really architectural so i was going to say other questions go ahead denise you had something Well, I just wondered if if there had to be a basement. Like, if there was no basement, would you need to have that way? Can I can I interject on that 1 please? Most of the reason for the basement is for bike storage and additional storage for the unit owners. Originally, we're going basically slap on grade, but it would be nice to have storage for bicycles year round whether or not out in the weather. So, we can certainly bring the building back down. I'm sure and go back to the original plan, but then it's just a small bike rack. I'll back.

▶ 31:24 But you have half of the basement, you know, like, originally, we had no basement whatsoever. We can try to do half a basement and. I guess, you know, 1 of the biggest things is, you know, we've gone back and forth with the plans. It's just, it's costing us a fortune at this point. So, it's getting a little bit difficult financially to keep going back and forth. We get the full basement to try to, to, to get more storage for bicycles and make things better for people that are going to be using bikes rather than cars. And that's that's what we came up with this plan. Yeah, I would just design process is iterative and that's how you get through as a fast design. So, you might have underestimated what it takes.

▶ 32:14 Yeah, and I would, I would also comment that you could probably build the Taj Mahal of bike structures for less than what it would cost you to to. Construct those and do all that work. So, you know, if it's just bikes that we're worried about, then I think you could, you might be able to come up with something. For the bikes, you know, the sides or something, something other proof if it's about the storage for the tenants. I think, you know. Maybe do it, but, um. It's certainly, I think it would certainly be preferable to. Having to accommodate the ramps in the front of the back of the building. Yeah, I also wanted to follow up on the, the raising of the building. How much higher did you have to raise the building? And is it the whole building or only a portion of the building that's in the water table? It's it's it's it's the whole building. 18 inches is basically roughly.

▶ 33:14 17 to the teenagers wow and the height of the building is also 18 inches higher now that would be correct so in um patrick's email when he sent over the materials he said that the building is shorter now is the architect here he could have answered i mean i think looking at the zoning table that the the building had actually been what was not The overall height of the building is not higher. Is that not accurate, Mike? Let's go here. This is the table I believe you referred to. Yeah, and I checked with the old, the old table had- The height of the building hasn't changed. We just, we wait. It's gone down a little bit. So you must've reduced the floor to floor then. Something had to get, right?

▶ 34:18 Yeah, we started reducing, at least in the basement, we reduced the floor to floor. I know that. I can't speak to the architect though, but I'd say it reflects what the latest is. Why don't we leave the height issue to the architect then when we get there? Because that also sounds unfortunate to have short ceilings because of the water table. It needs code. It's seven and a half feet. If you think about a house, a house ceiling is seven and a half feet. Yeah, but in a house. Not in Melrose. Also, this is a big building. This is not just your everyday single family. I think that's all I had. Other members of the board, do you have slight questions here? Yes, I have a question. Okay, Bob. Can you show me the detail on your infiltration system?

▶ 35:15 Sure, infiltration system. I'll go into details first. It's back here. Basically, there's a catch basin here with a storm scepter in it. Do you have a cross section on that? Yep, I do. You might see that in the details. I'm just curious, what do you have on it, sir? No problem. I'll get to the right page. So basically, we have pipes, three row pipes right here. And then there's stone around it, wrapped in a fabric. This is how the pipes in the network look like. They're all interconnected. here's where the catch basin is um they're all h20 right yes they're h20 there's adequate cover over um the the pipe so that they can handle a track not that the track material the truck is going to make it back there but they can have an h20 loading and then this is a cross section of the

▶ 36:14 storms i believe it's a it's not a storm sector it's a contact my next question is your uh your planting do you have an irrigation system on your uh landscape um i am there's no irrigation shown i am not sure um dan i don't know if you planned on doing irrigation or if you wanted to address that but we don't answer your questions i don't have a child so you don't know okay uh can you show me your grading plan again on the driveway place sure so part of the driveway is uh draining towards the street am i correct this part from right right here says high point right this this part right here correct okay do they allow you that the city allow you to do something so what we what we try to do is when we design our storm

▶ 37:14 water we try to match the volume going to so what the site sets set up we try to match the volume going in all directions so we're not adding more water to the street or less water to the street than goes there today same thing in the back there we don't add more water or less water so that was why we picked this as our high point to equally balance the storm water as it is today and not not add more and less somewhere else it's a balancing act is what we do okay is that Is this the existing curb cuts or that's a new one? The existing driveway is right here. We're going to block that out and we're going to put a new curb cut over here. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from members of the board at this point?

▶ 38:06 I mean, obviously, there'll be time later. I have a question. Okay. Have you considered equipping the parking area to allow for electric car charging in the future? We had this conversation last time quite lengthy. Sorry, I wasn't around then. No, I don't remember how it went. And honestly, but it's not right now. It's not playing for it. There's a discussion about doing it. Yeah, you know, the state's goals for electric vehicle. Penetration over the next 1020 years, it seems like it would be a good investment. But most likely 1 of the issues, I think, and I'm just speaking off the top of that. These spots will be assigned to the units. So, you know. I guess you can switch the spots around. I'm not sure if they're condos or apartments, but.

▶ 39:05 And that might be, but I agree that's something that we talked about last time and I don't remember how it was even just the discussion kind of like. Something that we're going to commit to, it would be great to my confirmation. I thought that. Agreement last time was to install the infrastructure, the conduit. To make, yeah, that's what I'm going to call her. For me at the moment, but yeah, he was definitely in favor of installing the infrastructure for future use. So it would be in place. Okay, my apologies for missing that. Okay, that's to do the further questions at this time. No, I'm all set for now. Thank you. Okay. Other members of the board, I had 1 question on the site. I was curious what is anticipated for deliveries. Will everything come through the front door or are you.

▶ 40:10 Looking to have, like, you know, deliveries down in the back. Did someone want to answer that? That's out of my civil engineering experience. More than likely it would be fun because, you know, like, Amazon prime or stop and shop, they, they pull up to the curb front door. That would be my guess. Individual owners. Okay, was I heard? I think only just. I'm wondering if there should be some kind of signage to indicate that it's. You know, access to the back is for residents only. I just can't imagine if you get a delivery vehicle driving down that way that they'll have to get out. Okay, good point. I do have a question about the landscaping that is. A little bit complicated, but. Because this is a real quarter.

▶ 41:23 Overlay district, there are design standards in there. And there, I think there's some flexibility by the planning board on them, but there is 1 that looks for 10 feet, a 10 foot buffer between when there's. A multi family and a, and a residential, a nearby or the real quarter overlay and the, and then budding residential zone. And that kind of conflicts with the driveway side being so close. Not having a 10 foot buffer there. And I think it also has some requirements for height of shrubs, like. 6 feet of shrubs or something like that. So, I wondered if you know, this is probably a Pat McEvoy question. Have you looked at that? And if you thought about your sideline setbacks and your rear setbacks as well as in conjunction with this requirement for a buffer zone.

▶ 42:30 Which doesn't really room for it. I think the requirement buffer zone, I'm fairly sure the properties, the West are in the real quarter. Just are they I mean, is that still residential or is that not required there? The other side, the other side is the only okay. And what about the rear side? The residential. Not the rear. Okay. So just that side. Yeah, yeah, and I don't think you even have 10 feet on that side either. Right? Yeah, we have 7 feet here and then it's greater than 10 feet here. So, I mean, I think there's some flexibility for the planning board to. Decide that something less is appropriate, but I, and I didn't have a chance to look at the height of the landscaping here, but are you aware of that requirement? I think it's a pretty high buffer zone. That's required. I don't.

▶ 43:29 Even know what the 6 feet is this part of the real card a district or part of you saying it's a, it's a buffer zone that's written into the ordinance already. Real quarter overlay. Yeah, there is a 10, I'll have to, I'll have to review the plan with that. I didn't it didn't come up in a zoning review. So I didn't. Yeah, because you're zoning your zoning review was based on having the driveway on that side. I was on the other side then remember well, that's right. It's for the driveway on the other side, right? On this side, yeah, but then we moved it and we did go back and we had the, you know, we had the, the department heads meeting and we discussed with Paul, whether the variance would hold up if we move the driveway to that side and he, and that was fine.

▶ 44:21 Yeah, the buffer issue never came up, but we can certainly look at it. And yeah, I think you overlooked the buffer issue. So, just so the reason for moving the driveway, so everybody knows is there's a utility pole right here. And this is the existing conditions, but what happened was, you'd have the driveway going the way that was going before we would run on the driver was. Over to the utility pole, so that's why it got flipped. Just definitely. Right, and it really so that's that's why suddenly this comes into play. It's the, uh, I think it's G in the real quarter overlay district. It has a whole set of design standards. Um, they're worth looking at just because now you've got the residential zone over there.

▶ 45:15 And the, uh, the building commissioner did say the variance, uh, well, is fine for the change driveway location. It wasn't tied to that. Yeah, he didn't have he didn't have a problem with the driveway moving across to the other side. Okay, great. Thanks. All right. I do think you should look at those, the design standards and, you know, we can. Talk about that was we look at the landscaping plan. Okay, further questions from the board members or should we go ahead and hear from the architect? Okay, if you're ready, I think we could at least talk about the different design from the architectural standpoint. Is the architect available? Kevin, it looks like he's muted if. Yeah, do you have a way to reach my phone or text?

▶ 46:56 I'm not the architect. Mark is the architect. Oh, where's mark I'm sorry. Is he not here right now? Should we. I don't see Mark. I'm trying to text them now. Do you want to open up the public portion? I was going to say, we, if he just. He just responded saying he can't get unmuted. Oh, it's Jim. It's not like it's Jim Jim. Oh, okay. Emma, you need to bring him in. Oh. I didn't know that. No, we didn't. We didn't know that. Okay. All right. Thank you. I see you now. Okay, Jim, sorry about that. Jim, I see his name. So, Jim, if you're there, we'd like to hear. From you about the changes in the plan, I think he's having difficulties. I'm going to try to call them with me for a minute. All right. It makes sense. We should give him a minute to speak before we open the public hearing because we'll most likely have a lot of questions.

▶ 49:41 He's saying that he keeps pressing on mute, but it won't on mute. He's unmuted right now. I don't know if he can do it himself, but Emma has unmuted him. He's been pressing on mute as well. He shouldn't need to press on mute. He should just be able to speak and we should hear him. He's speaking. Oh, there you are. We can hear you. Well, it's on my phone, but if that'll work. If that'll work. Hello, if you're comfortable using the phone, we would like to hear from you. Jim, can you just talk to my phone loudly and they can, we can do it this way. Can you can anybody hear me? Yep, can hear you. Okay, can you see your screen so that you can talk on the phone and and. Look at the plans at the same time I have an unmute button here, but it won't unmute.

▶ 50:50 It says the host has muted me. And it shows on our screen that you are unmuted. I'm sorry. Technology, it's still the host. Oh, okay. Jim, if if you could, if we could just talk to the phone, we can hopefully get through this. Sure, sure if you can go ahead, if you can see the screen, he's sharing, he's sharing the screen of your plans. You can go ahead and speak through the phone. Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, yes, Mark was not available at the last minute this evening, so I'll try to stand in for him here. I've worked on a plan. I can try to answer your questions. Okay, I think if you can, we probably do want to look at the elevations And talk about the changes to the plan from what it looked like originally the changes are for this 1 that was just submitted in March.

▶ 52:11 We're all very aware of the ramp on the front, but if you could tell us what else changed. Yes, when they added the ramp, we changed the 1st floor from doors to windows. Those 1st floor units have windows facing on the street. Okay, there was a question about the ceiling height. Did you change all the ceiling heights and building height to a legal height at 7 foot 6 and we, we lowered the, the. Overall state of the building, so all the floors are 7 foot 6 inches, including the basement and all 3 floors. We changed the floor to floor heights. And the main reason was to add the bike storage and storage and all the utility areas into the basement and keep that out of the water table. The plans that were submitted as part of our park package show the same floor to floor height as the original plans.

▶ 53:36 Except for the basement. Except the basement. Correct. So only the basement changed. Is that correct? well the building is you know the overall height wound up being the same so the floor to ceiling height changed we changed the structure of the building and that's added structure so the floor members are smaller so it is true that every floor changed the depth of the structure is reduced is what i'm hearing it is i'm sorry the depth of the structure is what you reduced in order to maintain the floor-to-floor clear area and then uh to not alter the height of the building from what it was that's correct that's correct i'm not sure i understand what that means are the ceilings all seven and a half foot ceilings and they were higher before

▶ 54:49 um you know we kept the overall building height the same mostly by lowering the the floor to ceiling uh space you know the amount of structure between the floor and the ceiling they're asking about the actual indoor ceiling height for each apartment right right i believe that stayed the same uh okay and that's the seven and a half foot so if you had an 18 inch beam for example and you reduced it to 12 inches in depth you'd be able to maintain your floor to floor clear area and you're reducing the depth of the structure and you either need more members or you know some other design in order to maintain the you know clear right actually yes they changed the structure of the the the structural integrity to

▶ 55:39 to maintain the interior dimensions but but decrease the the structure right and the interior dimensions are what i'm asking they're all seven and a half foot ceilings I believe that's correct correct. Okay. And that's what was proposed right from the start. That's correct. Okay, thanks. Other members of the board, I'm not sure what else changed architecturally with the plans. Well, and I understood they were going to be walked through what the changes are it. Otherwise, we have to separately, I guess, put the plan side by side, but I was hoping that someone was prepared to walk us through. All the changes from before. Yeah. I was thinking the same thing and especially because. You know, I looked at the 2 sets of plans.

▶ 56:33 And I'm not seeing, you know, the Florida Florida appears to be the same to me. So I was struggling with this whole conversation because it doesn't line up. There's a few things that just don't seem to add up. Um, I mean, I will say, I kind of agree with Carlos point right off the bat as far as. Not liking the ramp and, you know, it seems easy with the size of these units. Maybe you could forego the basement altogether because. You know, these are relatively large units compared to a lot of the developments we see. So, maybe the story isn't as essential as it would be in other cases, but, um, I'm just so the ramp is a concern and I'm still struggling to understand fully what the changes are.

▶ 57:19 So, the suggestion is to go back to the original plan that we submitted a few months ago and just stick with what we've what we had originally. Which is fine with me, right? 100% fine. It sounds like it's up to your. That the need to raise the building wasn't something the board asked for. Was something that you've discovered to accommodate the bike store. We were asked about a bike storage, so we went through this exercise just to try to get more storage for bicycles. And at the same time, it actually gave the tenants of the building more storage as well, but but we can, we can continue on with the exact plan that we had a couple of months ago and not raise the building at all. Which would mean no basement at all. No basement at all. Slab on grade. Correct.

▶ 58:17 That's what that was the original plan and then where would your bike storage be? It was originally shown on the corner of the building on the original plans that we submitted at the last meeting where the ramp is in the back of the building. 6 week high and it's okay. I don't have the original plans here. Is there something there? You can show us. Would you give me a 2nd? I'm going to bring them up for you. I think. Great. Thanks. With me, that's why that's not the right 1. It's back here, I'm trying to find it, but it's back in this here where the ramp is is back where we were going to put it. Give me 1 2nd, I must grab the wrong 1. I just curious how many more bikes obviously bike storage is important as we move towards trying to limit.

▶ 59:18 Vehicle usage in Melrose with an eye to the future. So I'm just wondering how big that bike storage is compared to the bike storage that was being proposed for the basement. And if. Probably at least double, if not more doubled in the basement. I'm sure if you look at it here. See, this is the bike storage area down here plan to give you an idea. So that's. That means you're going to try to do this, but it's. So that's 15 feet this way. I want to say it looks like it's probably at least 20 feet that way. So 15 by 20. If we go to this area right here, which is where the original bike storage was. Yeah, these are 5 feet 5 feet. That's 10 feet. It's probably like 14 feet here. Okay. And the length here.

▶ 1:00:12 It's probably like 14 by 20 right in this area, but not much. So it's very close to the same. Yeah, not a big difference. It's about the same space as a pocket space. Just look at it. Yeah, it's about it's about 10 by 18. You got to clarify there was a bike storage in the basement in the original plan. That's what was shown in general. Right, and it's a lot different having storage these days with what bikes cost. And you think through the winter, that interior storage is a whole different thing than having bike storage outside. So, if you're really going to encourage transportation by bikes, you really want interior storage. Well, I was actually thinking of enclosed storage outside in the back because it certainly would still cost, to Carla's point, cost a lot less than a full basement. Yeah, you could do that. Yep.

▶ 1:01:10 There's enclosures for that's something to explore, but the original fund has a basement already. Isn't it for the bike? The original plan never had a basement. That's what it was. It is what was submitted actually. Oh, I mean, I'm not saying I'm not advocating for it. I think it. Would be unfortunate to build a basement just. For that purpose, and have a ramp in front of the building. It was shown that way. Yeah. And I still look at, I mean, again, these are 12, 1300 square foot units, which. You know, compared to the 4 to 500 square foot units we've seen. These, these are big, it's an elevator that serves all the units. It's, it's very feasible for people to be bringing their bikes in and out. Not that everyone's going to want to do that.

▶ 1:02:15 I'd love to see basement storage for the bikes, but at the expense of the changes to the site, I think I'd lean against the basement is my opinion. I would tend to agree with that. Yeah. It certainly seems like it's something to be explored. Are there other members of the board that wanted to weigh in on some of the architectural changes or actually because I think we should consider opening up the hearing for the public, but I'm probably getting ahead of ourselves. Is there anything more the applicant wants to draw our attention to as far as architectural changes in this plan versus what was before us in January? This is Mike Carter. I'm not the architect, but I think if I'm correct, one of the comments last time was the facade on either side of the building.

▶ 1:03:09 We originally had these bump outs on this side and there was none on this side. correct me if I'm wrong now, they've added those on the side to kind of . That's absolutely correct. So I was going to ask about that because I guess our expectation was that that would be something to be addressed or at least commented on. Yeah. So if you look here, you see the yellow bump out on the other side. That's been added. I think it shows this rendering. if you remember last time this side of the building was just flush i think all all the windows in the front were they look like sliders in the previous submittal correct they look like sliding doors uh at ground level the windows in the front in the previous submittal

▶ 1:04:08 the architect did say that they said they changed these were sliders like almost yeah it looked like sliders i remember there were comments on there that they you know they faced right to the sidewalk and all so it looks like those would change to more of a window type look and it sounds to me like we don't have uh really the architect here that's able to walk us through the changes so i don't know how you want to handle that but i'm i'm finding this inadequate in terms of uh they're being prepared to present the changes i'm still struggling to figure out what the difference is between the original and now also um it's uh it's the whole um whole presentation tonight hasn't really hung together as a it's a cohesive thing he's trying to make

▶ 1:04:58 some sort of decision on um but certainly doing away with the ramp is is a huge thing i mean that that just jumps out at you um it's still a little difficult to see where we Hey, right. It's difficult. Well, we know we must have members of the public here that would like to comment. So why don't we do have a motion to open the public hearing to comment from the public to open up the hearing to public comment? Is it already? Oh, sorry. Yeah, you're right about that, Greg. Thank you. This is a continued public hearing, so we probably don't have to go through the motion and the whole remote roll call vote, which would save us some time, correct? So, I think it's probably a good time, unless any other member of the board wants to ask a specific question first, to maybe hear from any members of the public that would like to speak that would have

▶ 1:05:59 Comments on what's been submitted. All right then do we have members of the public that have comments or questions that they'd like to. Make some requested to speak. I haven't heard anybody request in advance that they want to speak. So, if you do just. Raise your hand or type into the chat. I think we can probably move on, right? Sounds like, um, yeah, no, I'm not. I'm so technologically challenged. I'm always thinking someone might be trying to figure out a way to let, you know, they want to speak, but it looks like we have no 1. Raising their hand right now is that correct? Not that I'm seeing. Yeah. Okay. And no 1 asking by chat. All right. So we'll leave the public hearing open and, um.

▶ 1:07:30 Go to members of the board and we, we had a list. Of things that we did want to hear for this for this meeting. And we have obviously, we have new plans. I don't know what what is members of the board think. I, I, I would like to return and be better prepared with a presentation on this. Architecture should we at least review what that list of let me see if I can find it. A list that we've had from the last meeting to make sure that we're. There isn't anything else we need to ask about this had a lot of information. We were requesting information on the condensing units on the roof and screening. And then, of course, the overall design. The mass in the articulation, uh. The ramp, those are things that we would be.

▶ 1:08:30 You know, if there's anything else we want to point out to the applicant, that would be helpful. And it looked like signage. And lighting was something we were interested in, right? Yeah, we usually like to see the actual cut and then I think that as Michael brought up the articulation 1 side versus the other. I would like to hear from the architect as to how they address that. I think one of the new things, Anne, tonight is this screening requirement and how to the extent that the supplier complies or doesn't comply. I did look over the rail corridor ordinance on that particular issue and it's a little bit, I think it got a little bundled because it's a little inconsistent in that there's a five-foot setback there unless you're next to a URB district,

▶ 1:09:30 which this is not, this is a URD district. But then if you do bring further into design parts, there is a 10-foot buffer zone that's required, but can be adjusted by the planning board. That's how the ordinance reads out. Right, I know I see the inconsistency with the 5 feet versus 10 feet. I mean, if you have a real, I don't. I don't see, I mean, we can always we'd have to to avoid it. We flip it back to the other side and put the driveway on that side. But I can imagine that helps a whole lot. We could certainly pick up the screening on the setback that we have there, but it'd be very helpful for us to know from the board what their preferences would be in that respect. Can I ask if you've been in touch with the butters on that side?

▶ 1:10:24 I don't know if we've heard from them at all. It's a 2 family residents. I think. I have heard from Elsa and I spoke to her today. She, I emailed her on Thursday. She got back to me yesterday and today and she, her basic concerns were. When the building is being demolished, whether or not there was dust and I explained to her that there would be dust control and she was concerned about noise from construction, which unfortunately, you know, we work within the city's guidelines on hours of operation. But, you know, that's the most we can really do with that. And she was also concerned about the height of the building and shading our house, which, you know, not sure what we could do with that.

▶ 1:11:12 that was her own concerns other than when she saw what the engineer put for the points of our property lines she wasn't sure if she it was accurate and I assured her it was and she's always you know able to check it herself but we I think we went to great pains to get the survey done properly all right thanks for that i think as one member at least i'd be despite the fact you don't have 10 feet and you don't you aren't required to have 10 feet side setback so i see that i see how there's a conflict there but i do like the idea of some buffering happening on that side of the building knowing that it's a residential house and this is a this it is residential but it's a pretty big multi-family residential so i'd probably look for some kind of screening there and and but be

▶ 1:12:11 willing to i i know there is some discretion by the board on that 10 foot buffer zone so i i'd be willing to use discretion to make it less than 10 feet but i'd like to see i'd like to see anything there i don't know what other members of the board think i agree with you i agree with that and and when you said 10 feet uh it looks like uh at the back of the building is about seven and a half feet but that the front is uh is uh way more than 10 feet so but partially of the building will be within uh encroaching on the 10 feet am i correct in that plus if you put the driveway back on the same area i thought i heard from someone that the existing utility utility fall on the street will be right in the on the driveway well that's i mean that's certainly an issue so yeah i mean

▶ 1:13:04 truly both can be moved i think but it's very difficult obviously yeah well i don't think we'd like to keep 12 of it does it we'd like to keep the building where it is and have the board you we can certainly build up the screening and the buffer zone on that side. That would still comply with the actual zoning requirement. This wouldn't be, we would need to be in agreement with what's put there as far as a buffer. If we move the building to the other side, it's not the same issue because it's not abutting a residential area, But I mean, it is against, I mean, there's four residences over there that would probably have the same issue. But you have to solve the problem by moving the building, because you then would have a parking, you then have a driveway instead of the building that would encroach on the buffer, right?

▶ 1:14:03 Because it would be less compliant. Yeah, you'd be less compliant. So, well, yeah, I guess. yeah so i mean i i i am i'm i agree with ann and bob essentially i'm willing to be you know reasonable and flexible it would it would help to know to what extent what we have complies with the real corridor and how much of a deviation is requested if you get you know as close as possible that's a different analysis for the board than you know right i mean the measurement i'm not we're never gonna we're not gonna exceed the 10 feet we're not gonna be able to get to 10 feet as far as the width of the buffer zone goes uh except for what's there now but we can certainly i mean there's no real limitation on building up the buffer zone in in the area that's there now

▶ 1:14:59 look at the requirements and you know the spacing and the heights and all that stuff and see how How close we can get, I guess. Okay. I thought. So, I think my thought is that if you could. If you could achieve the intent, and we've got on average, 10 feet between the 7 and a half and whatever it is. You know, 12 feet in the other end, but you built up between the fencing and maybe there's some tall, narrow trees or landscaping. It could be added in addition to create more of a buffer. I think that's going in the right direction. Okay, so, I mean, I think there's not much further we can go here until we, we're going to take out the basement. I was going to lower the building and it's going to be a different architectural design. Next time we come, we can certainly be sure the architect makes it to the meeting.

▶ 1:15:50 And I don't, I mean, I think the. The engineering and layout of the site was was fairly well received. The architecture is obviously still the issue and the buffer zone is still a bit of an issue. Is that accurate? I agree with that. I believe my opinion is yes. Although I would agree that, you know, we did have a laundry list of items from the last meeting, including in the condensers and. Um, some treatment of the front, uh, where the patios are and a few things like that that might come back. So I. You know, if we address everything in the last meeting, that is part of the new information submitted. I think we'd be in good, good shape. Right? And so when we take when we take out the basement, obviously, the front of the building is going to change back to a lot of what was there before.

▶ 1:16:49 And we can address those issues then, but it'll have to be a new plan. Can I make a comment? I just wanted to say that. I think in terms of, you know, something positive, I think the changing of the front facade of the building. With the dump on 2 over 2's and really getting rid of the floor to ceiling sliders as windows. Has really done for this building and has really made it look much more residential. As opposed to residential commercial, which is how I, I, I, how I perceived the initial the 1st, 2 simple. I hate for you to lose ground there. Um, it was a pretty big, because I don't know that people need terraces off the front of the building and, um. I would say the same thing goes for the ground floor units as well. So.

▶ 1:17:56 i would not say that it's a given that if the basement goes the design reverts back to the initial submittal because i think we've had a lot of comments on the initial submittal and i do think you've made progress here on um you know starting to fit this building um into the vernacular that's around it um i just hope you don't lose that ground in the next email i i would agree with that yeah i would too i i was happy to see the sliders go and the windows there instead i think they look nicer um so uh if you do come back without the basement i do think uh i i would echo carla's comment don't go all the way back to the initial design because you addressed some of our criticisms and i made some nice changes other members of the board have

▶ 1:18:56 things they want to pass along or the planning department to if the applicant's going to come back with more the next time yeah and i'm going to say that um i'm i'm you know having trouble following the plan um iterations from uh you know set to set to set i would really like the um drawn elevations to be really clear as to the pattern and the building materials I understand the vertical panels, and I don't think that has changed that detail and where they're placing the vertical panels, but the way this could be a rendering issue, the way this is rendered, it almost looks like, it doesn't necessarily look like a clabber type. Party board product, so if the architect could be very specific.

▶ 1:19:46 In the elevations and have the elevations and the rendering match, it would give us a much better sense of how this building would look. Anything else from any other members anything else on the planning staff that we should be thinking of asking the applicant for here? I think it would just be helpful if when the, um, they do submit revised material that they also explain in narrative form. What's been changed or what they're what they're addressing just so it's. Easier to follow. Okay. All right, I think even that at this point, it doesn't sound like we can do much more. We'd like to hear a little bit more from the applicant and we're now asking for more changes. Uh, what. Would the applicant like to do would you like to.

▶ 1:20:47 When do you think you want to come back and. Um, no, go ahead. We, we should, we should talk between me, Mark and solving Gallivan and find out, you know, when we can get a new drawn plan and. And then request a new handle. Well, do you think it'll take so can you put us on for a month and then. We could continue if we don't make that or would you rather than. I'm sure we can make it within a month. You think? Okay. I would think so our next meeting is April, April 26. so I think that's it might actually be 5 weeks, but, you know, you do have to get your materials in ahead of time. So they have a chance to look at them at city hall 1st. We can, we can get as many changes as we can and submit it before the meeting.

▶ 1:21:47 Okay, did you feel like you're clear on all the things we're asking? Yeah, the 1 thing is the screening for the condensing units on the roof. Yeah. I mean, they're going to be lined up in the very center of the roof. They, they wouldn't be seen unless you're in a helicopter. So I'm not exactly sure what kind of screening is requested of us. I mean, we could do an equipment screen, but I think that would be seen more than the equipment would be more than the equipment. I don't remember if there's a detail of how high the equipment is to any board members remember exactly. I don't recall it being specifically a screening question. I thought that we were looking for information on what was being put on the roof.

▶ 1:22:34 It's just we talked about that last time. It's just. uh basic carrier condensing units they have probably 30 inches square probably about 30 inches high they'd be set in the middle of the roof so they'd be they would be they'd be almost impossible to see them unless you were above the bed sometimes an acoustical issue so the sear rating uh we'd like to know the specifications on them that would be the other information let's see all right make sure we have no noise issues there will not be any noise issues there'd be at least a 16 cm rating but i mean we'll see that i can give you the submittals if you i can email you the submittals tomorrow if you would like to review them i can i mean that's my business i'm an hvac company so if if you want i can email

▶ 1:23:26 your submittals on the equipment if you want to review them um i i would like to have it all as one package yeah as long as as long as you can clarify what it is uh when you when you send to the plans i think that's good okay all right i think that's all we have uh do you have a motion from the board then i move that we continue to april 26th second all right further discussion All right. Please vote aye or nay when your name is called, please. Chair Metrillo? Aye. Bob Micardo? Aye. Paul King? Aye. John Sadowski? Aye. Jack Welch? Aye. Greg Sampson? Aye. Paola Morelli? Aye. All right, so we're continued till April 26. um. And we'll look forward to getting revised plans and talking with your architect then. Okay.

▶ 1:24:51 Okay, great Thank you. Thank you. All right. So. Of course, I've completely lost my agenda here. Next item on our agenda up here we are. Sorry next item on our agenda is a site plan review case. It's case 20-002. this is the Metro credit union case at 138 main street. I understand we've had a request to withdraw the application. Yeah, they withdrew their application from the zoning board of appeals. Did not look like they were going to get a favorable vote. On their plan, especially with regard to the drive through. So, they withdrew and they've asked to withdraw this case as well. Excellent. Okay, so motion to accept the withdrawal. Okay, most of the withdrawals. 2nd, yeah, okay. I'm assuming this is like a withdrawal without prejudice, meaning they could come back.

▶ 1:26:03 Although it sounds like they wouldn't get all the approvals. wanted exactly so if they came back it would be quite different if they came back it would be a different plan yeah yeah yeah this is a good outcome yes all right any um any discussion all right everyone please vote iron a on the request to withdraw when your name is called John Petrillo? Aye. Bob McArdo? Aye. Paul King? Aye. John Sadowski? Aye. Jack Welsh? Aye. Grace Sampson? Aye. Carla Marley? Aye. Hi, all right, so central credit union has withdrawn, and now we have our recommendations for the board of appeals. We have 5 cases tonight. These are, uh, as, you know, they're just recommendations to the board. It's not a public hearing. It's just for the.

▶ 1:27:06 Planning board to decide if they want to make a recommendation and the board of appeals will be the 1 who holds the public hearing. I know we have people who are here who might be interested in some of these cases. But this is not a public hearing. The public hearing is before the zoning board of appeals. So, the 1st case that's going to be before the zoning board of appeals on April 14th is case 21 dash. 10, and this is 34 and 45 to 55 summit Avenue. North your residential development. Did everyone get to see the, the, uh, what of appeals case? I think there's a brief from the. Planning department. Yeah, we're making me a presenter. Okay, thank you this proposal is for. the use part of this subdivision and redevelopment.

▶ 1:28:19 So it's a special permit for the two-family use for four of the lots. So the site previously had a seven-lot subdivision from 1979, and there's only one house that was built. The new plan also includes 34 Summon Ave, which wasn't part of the original subdivision. The proposal is to build for two-family houses and then two single-family. The staff review of this is that it's difficult to look at the intensity of this use without considering all the other factors. Like, the slope of the land, the stormwater runoff, the long length of the road, the grade of the road. This will need approval from your board for changing the subdivision and also for your slow protection special permit. So, it would be back before you, but at this point, we feel that the zoning board would

▶ 1:29:39 have a hard time knowing kind of what that 2 family use on this land would be like, with all those other factors taken into consideration. And then another point is that the design of the houses as submitted. Aren't really typically for Melrose. House, they have large garages along the street and also driveways to driveways on a lot for the 2 families that are that are very close to 1 another. All right. Thanks. Members of the board, so this case, this is only, this is only asking the zoning board of appeals to give them special permits for 2 for 4, 2 family dwellings. On lots that have not been. Approved yet and the subdivision plan on a road that hasn't been approved yet and also in an area that has full protection.

▶ 1:30:44 Uh, and we'd have to give, I think there'd be a slow protection special permit, right? So, it's, uh, they, it's going to be a difficult decision for them. I'm sure. But do we, what do we think about a recommendation to them about. Putting for 2 families on the lot. Well, without knowing more, um. i don't see how we can have a favorable letter and i think that we certainly should raise the concerns that uh lori just articulated uh as a minimum um because we just don't you know and it's their prerogative to go to zba before site plan review and i know why they do that um but i don't know what else we could do beyond that but just to comment you know and raise our concerns about the viability and certainly i don't think i for one

▶ 1:31:39 would be willing to give up on a slope protection uh and without seeing the degree to which it approaches or what the hardship is which is a zba issue um i think we just need to raise the concerns we have yeah i have a question i'm sorry john i also have a question um as to whether or not um given the fact that summit avenue is a dead end street uh and we're gonna continue the length of that dead end street um and it may not be applicable to whether the two families are are uh desired or not but are we also um exceeding the length of a cul-de-sac so to speak Yeah, you'll be exceeding the length of a dead end. Our subdivision rig requires 500 or stipulates 500 feet maximum dead end length and this will probably be about 750.

▶ 1:32:41 So, the plenipotent will have to grant a waiver to that dead end provision. Which we have in the past, but I think that we have no means for fire access to turn around, uh be it a hammerhead or a cul-de-sac that's quite an extension beyond what the limitation is yeah there's a lot of uncertainty that's the point that's that's our concern yeah yeah yeah so to me this is a problematic site and and i agree with john and i don't see how we could send a letter in any way that supports what they want to do but yeah yeah my my thought would be you know the only thing i would feel comfortable say is you know the possibility of a two-family use may be okay but there's too many additional variables to really recommend approval

▶ 1:33:40 at this point without seeing how the road would get built and the property would get developed Yeah, I agree. I think there's enough area, but when you see how much gets taken away with the steep slope, it's obviously going to be a challenging build to make the road and make the area. Obviously, homes can be built in this area, but until we see the plan about how it would happen it's hard to it's hard to recommend two families two families or single families any kind of homes and the the proposed the drawings that i saw of the two families that were the duplexes that were proposed looked really large and and um bulky for maybe what's going to be kind of a funky hot sloped site. I don't know, I'm not a designer,

▶ 1:34:48 but other members of the board, I do think Greg's point is well taken. We can say that it does look like, we wouldn't be opposed to houses being built here, but we can't really recommend. The special permit, I'm sure, requires all kinds of findings, like not detrimental to the area, hard to tell. It's just too many things to be considered. It's very hard to accept the way they want it though. It's also at the top of a very steep grade. This particular development is straight uphill all the way. That's why it's all sloped. The slope that they're trying to protect is all the way up the sides and at the top. I think the reason they want to put multiple families on the lot is because some of the seven lots that were originally scoped out may not be buildable.

▶ 1:35:56 And it's questionable if even as two families, if they're buildable, given that they do require some slope protection. so it's a very steep hill yeah the the section of road they're proposing is is 10 percent the whole new extension straight up and what you mentioned i think about the two families why they're going to i think is spot on jack because if you look at the plan they provide um they actually avoid the slope pot fairly well but they're making up for it you know like in two units on the other lots yeah yeah right so right so again i think that you know the handle in the slow pot as far as i can see and if this plan is is any means anything that i'm looking at um but yeah it's still a steep slope um those units will you know they are rather large and

▶ 1:37:00 will fill those lots uh did i read here that it says that everything uh even though they're two family they will conform yeah the application says that they'll conform i guess we have to see when it all comes to play but yeah yeah it looks like it's another one of those sites you know we've seen obviously a few in the recent past that you know very very tough sites and and they like carve out some homes in there you'd have to see this totality though i agree yeah i think i feel i hear a consensus from the board if someone wants to uh attempt to make it as a motion for a letter to the board of appeals at least carla can i just make one comment before um we we start with that you know i've gone back and forth on the plans and the renderings and i don't think there's any way

▶ 1:38:03 that rendering can represent the plan if the plan is they're completely different shapes so i think they're using a photograph of of something that's built but it doesn't it's not representing what they've drawn in plan so i don't think we should um necessarily visualize what the rendering looks like okay okay good point other comments i mean clearly we're we uh are not going to be able to to recommend to the Board of Appeals, but what should we say? I agree with Greg earlier I mentioned though. I have a motion that the board is unable to provide any strong recommendation at this point, given the limited information available. The concept of a two-family use may be acceptable in the board's opinion,

▶ 1:39:14 but it very much will depend upon how the applicant addresses the subdivision filing, the special permit, and a site plan review. Okay. If that's the motion, is there a second? A second. Okay. Second by Carla. Further discussion by the board? All right. Please vote aye or nay on the letter to the Board of Appeals when your name is called hi hi hi hi hi hi sorry Aye. Okay, so we'll send that letter to the Board of Appeals on this case. The next case on our agenda is, that's not going to the Board of Appeals until April 28th. It's case 21-005, 62 Slayton Road. We also have a brief and a staff report on this one. So this is a residential addition on a single-family house. They need variances for front and rear yards.

▶ 1:40:58 They're going to be basically taking off the half-story and then constructing a second floor over the portion of the house that currently has the sloped roof. so the second floor wouldn't be over this one-story portion or there's a small three-season porch in the back so it wouldn't cover that part of the house. And we thought it wouldn't negatively impact the neighbors. The second floor has been designed to respect the form of the house. It doesn't increase the footprint, and it's below the max height allowed. Members of the board? Short of a standard letter here, with the input from the neighbors at the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing, I think just pointing out what Laurie mentioned is appropriate,

▶ 1:42:02 and maybe it's a no objection subject to input of the neighbors at the ZBA hearing. If that's a motion, no objection, and pointing out what looks like a minimal impact on the neighborhood, Good 2nd, 2nd. Further discussion for members of the board, anything else you would want to put in a letter to the board of appeals. All right, then I think we should vote on that as our letter to the board of appeals. It's a neutral letter taking no objection. Uh, let's say, I, or nay when your name is called, please. Sharon Petrillo? Aye. Bob Mercado? Aye. Paul King? Aye. John Sadowski? Aye. Jack Welsh? Aye. Greg Sampson? Aye. Carla Morelli? Aye. Beth Delaegh? Aye. Ann D'Souza-Ward? Aye. Okay, that motion carries. Next case is also April 28th before the Board of Appeals. Case 21-006. This is 330 West Emerson Street.

▶ 1:43:24 This case is for a deck that would be in the side yard. It would be 7 by 9 feet in a line with the existing side of the house. It was in fairly low to the ground 2.5 feet of upgrade. It doesn't care that it would be detrimental. It is close to the property line at 2.5 feet, but there's a distance to the residential neighbor and there's some great change there. So. It feels pretty separate when looking for this, this abutting property. Comments or motion from the board members. I agree, I think that's more like a standard letter with the input of the neighborhood. Makes sense. I wouldn't object to this myself. It's close, but it's just a deck deck. Is that a motion Bob? 2nd by Greg. All right.

▶ 1:44:41 Any further discussion, please vote on your name when your name is called. Hi, well, Ricardo. Hi, John. All right, well, hi, Samson. Hi, hi. Hi. Hi, okay next case is. 21-007 this is one birch hill road okay this is um for a residential addition in the rear yard this is a corner lot and they're proposing to build a two-story addition the back will have a small one-story portion and it's um it's slightly smaller than the if this was not a corner lot and the side garage requirement would be 10 feet so it's it's slightly smaller than that for the setback um and it seems like if this north um neighbor isn't opposed that there you know it wouldn't be detrimental um if they are it seems like if they at least set it back 10 feet um that that should be acceptable

▶ 1:46:18 Yeah, I would agree. I mean, we usually were sympathetic with the corner lots. In fact, again, we've talked about altering the zoning with respect to corner lots considering that there's no side yard. Then looking at the plans and the architecture, it looks to me to be really well done in terms of maintaining the character of the existing structure and expanding it in such a way that it maintains a lot of the character and detail of the existing residents. And there would be a favor letter again, set it to the input. I would suggest here in this case, another no, no objection letter. All right, is that a motion John? It is 2nd. I agree with John there. I'll 2nd that the only thing that I can say is that they should get approval on the next door neighbor.

▶ 1:47:16 It seems like that's based on the staff review. Seems like that's very important to get that abutter approval on the construction. With the input from the neighbors, we could emphasize in particular the neighbor where the extension is proposed, abutting where the extension is proposed. Right. The neighbor to the north. Further discussion from board members? Please vote aye or nay when your name is called. Sharon Trullo? Aye. Bob Micardo? Aye. Paul King? Aye. John Sadowski? Aye. Chuck Welsh? Aye. Greg Sampson? Aye. Carla Morelle? Aye. Beth Delahaye? Aye. Sandra Scissor-Whorst? Aye. Okay, and our last Board of Appeals case is 21-008. This is 25 Oakland Street. This is a pretty minor request. They just want to build a front portico over the front door.

▶ 1:48:24 There's an existing small landing there. And they'd need front yard variance for a front yard setback. And in the staff review, it will kind of add an interesting architectural element to this to this house. That's pretty flat and tall right now. and we don't anticipate that it would be detrimental. In fact, as I recall, the ordinance allows some structure like this. I don't remember the details, but within the front yard, if I'm not mistaken. Up to half the depth, although the building commissioner didn't cite that because it's likely because it's over four feet in height. So that's how it was written in the letter as needing a variance for a 22-inch and it would be seven feet, one inch. Right. The commissioner is the authority having jurisdiction,

▶ 1:49:36 so I have to yield to him. But I think maybe we make that point, You know, that it is permitted, but perhaps because of the. I, but otherwise, I think that adds to the architecture. So. Again, so the input in the neighbors, I would either not object or support. Yeah, I would just check. I think it would be an improvement, frankly. Yeah, yeah. So, if we can make that a motion, I would do so 2nd. 2nd, any further discussion. It's no closer than I think we could point out to that. It's a. Just no closer than what's there is simply putting a roof over it. Yeah, I, I don't want to I wouldn't want to argue with the building inspector, but I don't think this one needs a variance. I don't think the last 3 year to variance either. But this 1 in particular looks like it.

▶ 1:50:39 It actually would be as a right, but for that reason, I definitely would separate it. Yeah, I, I hesitate to bother to put into a letter that. We're not sure we agree with the building inspector because there's probably no point in doing it, but this 1 does feel like I like the idea of supporting too. You put it out in the past. It's up to the, really? They're the final. So here they can make a letter a favorable letter on this 1 though, right? Yes, that's what the motion is and the 2nd. Okay, any further discussion? All right, then please go on your name when your name is called. Hi, hi. Hi, hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Okay. Well, those are all our board of appeals letters and the next 2 items are subcommittee updates design reviews.

▶ 1:51:56 1st, you just met shortly before this meeting, right? We did, I'm happy to report that. I think we resolved. The remaining conflicts to the best of our ability, John, unfortunately wasn't there, but John, so for the whole board. After examining a number of factors that did not conform to the site plan review decision, and the applicant successfully resolved many of them, the 2 that were remaining were where they're going to store the trash. Either in the side between main street and the rear parking lot, this is 419 main street. So the building next to the new construction, the brick building and. The trash insisted on locating. In the alley where people can cut through straight to main street.

▶ 1:52:52 And we also had some issues with their open space, their landscape plan. We specifically asked them to to move the trash to the rear of the building. The way it was indicated in the site plan review, even though they don't have a restaurant. And they declined to do that number of times. So what we settled on tonight, because it was clear that the applicant was not going to do what we asked. Was that they submit a detailed waste management plan to plan for how many totes they needed in the side area when they were at full occupancy. And what their plans were for waste management. We cited a concern that the trash not be picked up from Main Street that it'd be picked up from the rear of the building, like all of the other commercial spaces along that side of Main Street.

▶ 1:53:48 everything's picked up from the rear so we want them to put on record a plan a detailed plan of how they plan to manage that and then we have something um with which to go back and see how well they're managing it so they're planning for full occupancy of the building including two commercial tenants and that's something that we can check back in in six months and uh with them and see if they've had to add totes or uh increase the frequency of their pickups And so that's, that's how we decided to resolve it. Yes, I'm sorry. My apologies for missing that again was not intentional. There was discussion about screening. Is it going to be screened at all or or not just the side that they've always been proposing.

▶ 1:54:36 Yeah, and so, you know, we plan to check back in with them. They're going to go on record as what their plan is and we plan to check. And double check how it's how it's. Behaving and no threats again. No, not this time we. And we resolved it, we don't, we can, we don't have to. Do anything else with this applicant? We have something to hold them to. And, you know, just some lessons learned for next time. Let's just say, and with the rear landscaping also the other. Discussion point, they, they enlarged, they, they took away the meaningless landscape around the sides of the buildings that that was basically the drip edge of the building and they concentrated everything in the rear as we suggested.

▶ 1:55:30 and they widened the depth of the planting bed to allow for more layers of planting, so they would effectively screen the ramp from the rear lot. And then coordinated size between tenants was the other item, I think. Yes, that was from the last meeting. So we didn't address it again because it's in the record. I think you did the best you could under the circumstances. I agree, I agree. Oh my God, a lot of work. I'm glad you're at that point. Good job a lot of patients. Can I make a note of that, Colin? I'm glad you noted the trash thing and I know you've noticed that I've made issue of the trash operations on some proposed developments. As more and more developments get done. They just seem to be an afterthought to the developers.

▶ 1:56:25 Now, again, you know, we worry about a lot of internal site issues, how people park, where they walk and the trash operations of buildings affect not the people in that building, but everything around it. And as it multiplies, you know, they just get that. And I think we really need to make sure that they prove themselves in the operation of their trash bunch. It's going to become a problem. the earlier one the guy says oh it's just the same as the previous well no you're adding 24 units to the same trash function without very much thought enclosing it in a structure that in my opinion you cannot even get at it we just give this guy the key to one of the biggest developments we're going to be doing down the street the same guy keep an eye on because this is just going to

▶ 1:57:16 get worse those trash things they really affect everybody around and as they grow older just more and more you'll be trash pickups happening at 6 a.m. all over the place so you know we've got to keep that in mind and it should be really part of the integral thinking of how the building functions and how it looks or how people inside use it but how it functions emanates to the area around it No, I think that, you know, really rigorous in our initial site plan review and make sure everything is spelled out and we leave nothing to chance because some applicants will take advantage of that. Not this applicant, although given the same instructions that every developer is given. That a site plan review in decision governs what they're supposed to build did not come back with significant changes. And I keep fault with the instructions because everybody else follows them to the letter.

▶ 1:58:22 Yeah, so so, again, it's, it's, it's, it's on a developer. Right, right. So, you know. We just have to make sure that they're that they give the same thought and effort to designing all the elements of the of the development as they do to, you know, as they're supposed to do it to the architecture. So. This is just a general question. Does the city ever require a clerk of the works on any of their projects? They have to be a certain size. So what we require. Yeah, I can't hear you. Are you asking if the city requires a clerk of the work for private developers? Yeah, in general to make sure that things are built the way they're supposed to be. Or a resident known as rep or something like that usually just for subdivisions in terms of.

▶ 1:59:16 Both large projects usually have that kind of. That kind of oversight, I mean. This 1 was not well managed. We'll just leave it at that. Yeah, yeah, I changed hands and it was a scramble there at the end and. Yeah, a lot of trouble getting out of the ground. It's finally up finally up. Yeah, unfortunately. Uh, it looks like it's on us to make sure that a lot of our. Conditions are followed carefully. Oh, thanks Carla. I'm glad to hear that you can be able to take a break from that 1. Yes, so let me leave too. Thank you. We also have a zoning update on the. The zoning that we all had our special meeting on 2 weeks ago. Yeah, that's just a report that the zoning amendment was filed with the council.

▶ 2:00:20 Denise Gaffey: So, it is now in the stage where they're kicking it back to us to, um, work with them on scheduling a joint public hearing. And, um, I've got a couple of suggestions if you want to look at your calendars. I know we're all really busy these days. Mostly home, but, um, I think. Either April 15th or April 29. Could work, those are both Thursdays, so if you hate Thursday and it doesn't work for you, please let me know. But if you think either 1 of those dates will work, then I'm just going to throw it back to the council and. Figure it out, um. You know, we do need enough time in order to place the notice and. We do plan on sending out notices to all the parcels in those districts that are affected. So we want a little time to do that.

▶ 2:01:17 So, it sounds like the 29th might be safer. It might be a little safer and then the weekend between his vacation week school vacation. So I stayed away from that. Does anyone have any objection to a Thursday meeting with the city council? Awesome, so we'll start with those dates. If those are problematic, then we'll just reach out over email and mail this down. Great. Great. That's good. It's going to be very interesting. I mean, to do a joint public hearing in this format. I'm, I'm kind of dreading it, but I can't imagine. And it's, it's not easy. It's a zoning. It's a zoning change. That's kind of a complicated 1. It's going to be kind of cumbersome. I'm sure. Yeah. Yeah, we'll get through it. Glad that it's glad it's with them though. I'm glad it's finally going to happen. Yes.

▶ 2:02:12 We might need a refresher of. Their rules, because it's there, they have their arcane. Process they do, and they usually don't really ask us to speak much at all. They pretty much take over. They do. And they don't they don't know. They don't even let us answer the questions. Oh, that's or something. So. No, I mean, I think, you know, the way the process works by by law is that the. We have to have a hearing and we have to review the zoning of a public hearing and then send them our review and recommendations based on what we heard at the public hearing and what we know. And I always feel like, well, what we get at that meeting is we get the public input and then we can do our own review and recommendation because.

▶ 2:03:02 Denise Gaffey: They don't seem I agree. It's difficult for us to speak. It only took about 10 years to get site plan review process through the city. So that gives you some sense for it. I don't know. What do you think Denise? Do you think we should. Is there there's really that that seems to be how it works pretty much. We get the public input, but we don't, we don't really hear from us much. If they hear from you a lot, they ask for the planning staff to speak. Yeah, we'll give a presentation. And, um, I mean, the strange thing about how their meetings work is they usually have public comment at the beginning. So, it's, it's oftentimes it's not all that. It's not all that useful because. Members of the public who are commenting haven't seen the presentation yet.

▶ 2:03:53 Denise Gaffey: But that's how that's how the process works. We'll give the presentation and then they generally ask a lot of questions. And, like you said, we take it back, mull it over, issue a report. And then they might keep it in committee and have another another, you know, session. But they've all as we've, as I've mentioned, they've all been exposed to it. So they have a pretty good understanding of what we're trying to accomplish. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't think it'll be too. It's just the format. It's going to be so the remote format is going to be crazy. Okay, well, if there's anything you can tell us to help, that'd be great about how, how they're going to work that. Yeah, I mean, the other, the other interesting challenge here is.

▶ 2:04:47 It's all new members, this is a almost a completely new cast. From the other zoning changes. So, wow, I can't entirely predict how they're going to. Yeah, well, once we have a date, maybe we can, we can talk about it a little bit how it's going to work. They may want to, they may want to talk about how it's going to work since they're all new. Yeah, okay, we'll work through it. All right. So now this is the fun part of the meeting. This is our annual meeting at tonight. It's the election of officers. For the planning board, and I've been chair for a number of years now. And I think that we're ready for change. So I want to nominate. A new chair to take over for after me, and I'd like to nominate Greg Samson to be the next chair. I think he'd be great at it.

▶ 2:05:49 Hasn't he hasn't done this before so time we tortured somebody else and. I'd also, we also have to nominate a clerk. And I don't, I don't even know who's been the clerk up until now. It's been great. It's been great. Perfect. I'd be more than willing to be the clerk. If you know, but. It's because it has a lot to do with it's not really an important position as much as I like to think I'm really important. I think it's. The fact that I barely work that I work just part time from home, it's sometimes it's having to go down and things for on behalf of the board. It's kind of a clerical. Position, so I'd be more than willing to step into that role. But if someone else wanted to, too, we should have a nomination for clerk and for chair.

▶ 2:06:45 And we should vote, so let's everyone think. I 2nd, the nomination. Greg and I didn't hear it. I 3rd, my 4th, it's the usual power grab on the planning board reverse power grab. All right well. Then, I guess we should have a vote on the. sleep oh do you want me to be okay yeah sharon petrillo hi uh bob ricardo yeah greg and then good team paul king hi john sadowski hi jack welch hi great samson hi carla morelli hi And the first thing that the chairman, the new chairman should do is appoint his subcommittees. And also Beth Delahaye has to be appointed to a subcommittee tonight because she's not been on one, but it's time. Well, Carla, we're hoping that you'll continue to be the chair of the design reviews.

▶ 2:08:17 acceptable completely acceptable happy to fight the good fight okay um and then beth we're hoping you'll be on the zoning subcommittee i'd be happy to does anyone else have any strong feelings about changing current committees yeah i think i'd like to go from the zoning to the site committee if they'll have me Of course, yeah, just being a civil engineer, it seems to be more in line. Okay, a big, a big complex sites that we have, we will probably still call on your assistance on some occasion as we work through future rezoning efforts, Paul, but we'll let you go in the meantime. Anyone else? All right, so then I think we have the design review committee is chaired by Carla and includes Jack, John, Bob, and Paul, and then the zoning subcommittee.

▶ 2:09:27 Is there anyone interested in chairing that? I know Ann said she's willing to, but if there's – well, we will keep Ann as the chair of the zoning subcommittee, and that will be Ann, myself, Sharon, and Beth. Does that sound right? We need to vote on this or is that just that's just an appointment, right? Right that's up to you. Yeah. So be it. That's right. Good job. It's a lot of power. Well, congratulations, Greg. Very nice, you know, yeah. I am sorry you're going to have to do the meeting with the city council. I noticed the timing on this 1 works out. Let's not forget to congratulate in. Yeah, that's right. Congratulations. I've done a good job and thank you. Thank you. Bob. Still a job, it's always good to make a change. It's good to have a.

▶ 2:10:27 Good to have someone who will be more patient than me. I think. I don't know. We'll see about that. All right. Well, I think well, with patients tonight at 1 of the earlier hearings. Oh, my goodness, I know I had to hold myself back as well. Yeah, it's tough, especially if there's members of the public that are coming and listening and waiting and. It's not ready, but. We'll see blaming the planning board for a long gated design process. Oh, my gosh, I was going to I went berserk when I heard that. Yeah, yeah, I think we ask ourselves. What would add Cassidy do and what would my cast before I do? That's that's sort of I now I have 2 little little gremlins on either. So I have 1 on each show that says.

▶ 2:11:25 Make sure they answer. Yeah. Ed would not have been patient with the remark about. It's a very expensive changing plans. Not as fine as any board could be. That's right. Yeah, I know. All right. Well, it's been great. I'm going to I'm continuing to serve. So I'm going to see you guys every every month like it or not. But it's been a good run and being chair and you're all you're the best board in the city as far as I'm concerned. Well, thank you for your time of service and. I really appreciate that because it was a long haul. So, let's take them back though. Thanks. Thanks. All right. We'll all see each other in April and. Greg will be at the helm, right? Bring the gap. Yeah. All right. Good idea. Good night everyone. Good night. Thank you. Thank you.

Original documents

• Minutes (CivicClerk PDF)
• Agenda (IQM2 PDF)
• Agenda (IQM2 PDF)
• Bulletin (IQM2 PDF)
• Minutes packet (IQM2 PDF)
• Agenda packet (CivicClerk PDF)
• Agenda packet (IQM2 PDF)
• Agenda packet (IQM2 PDF)
• Other (CivicClerk PDF)
• This meeting on the city portal