Planning Board — 2022-01-24
Minutes
MELROSE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, January 24, 2022 7:30 PM Remote Meeting PRESENT: Tim Bailey, Beth Delahaij, Anne DeSouza Ward, Brian Gregory, Paul King, Robert Mercado, Carla Morelli, Greg Sampson & Jack Welch ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Denise Gaffey, Director and City Planner & Lori Massa, Senior Planner The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Mr. Sampson. Pursuant to An Act Extending Certain COVID-19 Measures Adopted During the State of Emergency signed by Governor Baker on June 16, 2021, this meeting was be conducted via remote participation. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and/or parties with a right and/or requirement to attend this meeting could be found on the City of Melrose’s website, at www.cityofmelrose.org. No in-person attendance of members of the public was permitted, but every effort was made to ensure that the public could adequately access the proceedings in real time, or in the event that we are unable to do so, they would be post on the mmtv3.org website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. A link was also available on www.cityofmelrose.org. Meeting access information was found at the following link: www.cityofmelrose.org/remote- meetings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Board Regular Meeting, December 20, 2021 Mr. Mercado had an edit to the people that made the motion and seconded the 87 Essex Street decision. Mr. Welch made a motion to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Mr. Mercado seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. None were opposed. SITE PLAN REVIEW Case 21-004, 8 Crystal Street, Trinity Properties LLC c/o Neal Ryan (Continued public hearing) Neal Ryan, Applicant, appeared to present the revised materials. The Board was satisfied with the information provided. They appreciated seeing the gable and hipped roof options. After seeing them, they found that their scale was similar and there was not a strong preference for one style over another, although some members preferred the hipped or gable dormers over the original shed design. Mr. Ryan said that he was amenable to any of the dormer styles. He just wanted the bedrooms to be a sufficient size and they would be with any of the options. When Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Page 2 of 3 asked, Mr. Ryan clarified that if the shed dormers end up being the chosen style, the front door will be centered on the building. The elevation with the shed dormers was not updated to reflect the updated door location. Consistent roof types on the building was another goal of the Board when asking for a dormer redesign. The Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) will consider the roof types of the dormers, roof over the door, and bay in the final approval of these details. The Board discussed the grading of the land, which will not change from the existing condition despite the proposed change in ground cover. The plans should clearly state that the grades will not change. Asphalt will be removed in the location of the rear green space and front yard and the land will be brought back to its prior grade by filling the space with pervious materials. Members found that the few remaining design details, and any minor changes that are identified as the Applicant goes through the building permit process, could be finalized with the DRSC. They discussed conditions drafted by Planning staff. The conditions regarding submitting plans for traffic flow, bicycle storage, site lighting and bollards were removed because these items were incorporated into the approved plans. Requiring maintenance of the rip rap and installing signage and line striping related to traffic flow were added as conditions. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to the application. Mr. Mercado made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Morelli seconded the motion. All voted in favor. None were opposed. Ms. DeSouza Ward made a motion to approve the waivers requested. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. By roll call all voted in favor. None were opposed. Mr. Mercado made a motion to approve the Site Plan with conditions as discussed. Mr. King seconded the motion. By roll call all voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Staff Memo, Jan 21, 2022 Front Elevation Options, Jan 17, 2022 Civil Plans, Jan 18, 2022 Updated Under Deck Layout, Jan 19, 2022 OTHER Housing Production Plan Update Ms. Gaffey gave an update on the Housing Production Plan. This plan has had a robust public process over the past 15 months. The draft plan was posted to the website and residents and City Councilors and Planning Board members were asked to comment. If members have any comments they should submit them to Planning Staff before the Advisory Committee meets next week. Mr. Sampson is the Planning Board’s representative on the Committee. Many of the strategies and actions relate to the work of the Planning Board. Some members had initial comments that the plan will be helpful in setting the foundation for future work, the strategies are practical and the new Housing Choice MBTA Communities multi-family zoning requirement should be referenced in the plan. Feedback will be discussed with the Advisory Committee and Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Page 3 of 3 the final draft will be presented to the Planning Board on February 28. The Planning Board needs to approve the plan. The plan will then go to the City Council in March and if approved, it will go to DHCD for final approval. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Board of Appeals Public Hearing on February 9, 2022: Case 22-001, 23 Linwood Avenue, Jeremy Garczynski The Board found that the revised plan with a smaller dormer was much improved over the original plan and was more consistent with the intent of the half story definition to allow for some useable space in the half story, while not creating a three-story house. The Board was not opposed to the small variances requested for setbacks and the requested relief for the dormer length; however, they recommended that the Applicant provide more information on why the dormer cannot be reduced farther to become conforming, considering it will partially be used for closet space. A member pointed out that the original plan included two proposed bedrooms on the top floor and the revised plan reduces the bedroom count to one. The other proposed bedroom became a smaller office to accommodate the narrower dormer. Ms. DeSouza Ward made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with this recommendation. Ms. Morelli seconded the motion. By roll call all members voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Applicant materials for Case 22-001 NEXT MEETING Planning Board Meeting, Monday, February 28, 2022 The meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm.
Transcript
▶ 0:02 All right, I see we're recording. So, tonight is January 24th, 2022, 7 30 p.m. It's the remote meeting of the City of Melrose Planning Board. Pursuant to an act extending certain COVID-19 measures during the State of Emergency signed by Governor Baker on June 16th, 2021. This meeting will be conducted via remote participation. As everyone knows, the copies of the recording will be available on the City's website. Any questions or comments contact the department of community planning and community development. So, the 1st, we have all board members are in attendance. Brian Gregory was had signed on, but he was having trouble, so he's signing back on. But in the meantime, we might as well start rolling with, um.
▶ 0:57 Minutes of the planning board regular meeting from December 20th 2021. I don't know if anyone has a chance to read these. If they look good, if we've got a motion to approve, if there's any questions or comments. Can I make a comment? Yes. That's on page 4 and 5. On the under the K17003 on the 87th street. I have my name there. I made the motion to approve it, but it also shows I've seconded it. I don't know if I can do that. I motion to approve it, but I don't know who's second it. It may be different. I can look at my notes and fix that. Okay. Yeah. All right, that's the only comments to him. Okay, so, ending that correction, I would move that we accept the minutes of 12, 2021. 2nd, it. Okay, the motion a 2nd, all in favor to say, aye.
▶ 2:05 Hi, hi, hi. Any abstains or nays? All right welcome back Brian. We just figured we'd get started on the, um. Minute, so I'm glad to join right when we started. So, um. Okay, so the next item of business. On our agenda is a continued site plan review case case 21 dash 0 0, 4. 8 crystal street, attorney properties, LLC care of Neil Ryan. We got some new material responding to some of our requests. And we had an updated. Memo from the staff with some additional. With some minor changes to the conditions in response to the updated information. So. Mr Ryan, do you want to give a quick statement or. Let everything speak for itself or, um. I'm happy to you want me to review the project in general, or just up to the updates and anything of significance in the updates that you just want to call our attention to. I think is probably helpful. Um, we all saw the material and there was a nice summary of the changes.
▶ 3:18 But anything you want to highlight would be great. Yeah, I'd just like to say, I, you know, convened with the architect and the civil engineer trying to, um, take. As many items into consideration as possible. I hope you're happy with them, but we can run through them by the line item if we want and discuss anything we need from there. So, I am, I wanted to take Greg through you that I was happy with the responses. They were responding. There was a response to almost everything we brought up. I think the big question is, or at least one of the big questions for me is the gables, or the dormers, the shape of them, because they're full of options now. So, what I thought was the best was just to give you the options. Obviously, there's the dog house style dormer or the gable dormer, the hip roof dormer, and then the original shed roof dormer.
▶ 4:28 I have to admit early on in the process when I discussed all the dormer options with the architect. Um, you know, we originally decided on the shed roof dormer. Just because we felt it kind of there's kind of the 2 separate dormers left and right and then a smaller dormer in the middle. That's recessed. We just kind of felt the shed roof happened to tie in better with that recessed section. To be honest, I'm fine with any of the three styles. You know, normally I like the doghouse and I like the hip roof in this particular instance because there were the kind of three different dormers tying together. decided on the shed roof but i'm a lot more concerned with the footprint of the dormers than the actual style of the dormers um i will add in case it comes up for consideration
▶ 5:33 when we were going for the variance um i don't know if any of you recall from about a year ago when we were first in front of the planning board here um you had mentioned that you wanted to see a couple different options on the dormer um so we were able to prevent excuse me to present the uh both shed roof and the gable style dormer to the board of appeals um if you i'm not sure if any of you actually read their decision but they essentially replied about it saying that they are fine with either is the way i read their decision um and that they would look to you guys as you know look to the planning board as the deciding factor on which one to use they did say in that same sentence that they felt the shed roof was appeared smaller um compared to the gable roof but
▶ 6:31 as i said any of the three styles are fine by me my bigger concern is the footprint of them Um, as they sit right now, the front bedroom inside those dormers is only, I believe it's, it's 10 by, I think it's either 12, 4 or 12, 6, which is a relatively small dormer. Excuse me relatively small bedroom by today's standards. Um, so, you know, my concern is not wanting to have. That reduced, it's important to have at least 2 usable bedrooms in the unit. So I don't think there's a lot of leeway on the footprint of the dormers. But again, the style. I'm fine with any of the 3, if you guys all want to take a vote or make a decision, it's fine. We just happened to pick the shed roof at 1st. Because that's what we felt tied in together and felt a little smaller, but.
▶ 7:33 Any of the 3 work, so thank you. Um, anyone from the board have any strong opinions. Our comments that this is a little unusual for us to be doing is is picking options. I mean. we we're really not the design team we're here to approve somebody else's design in my opinion so um and i guess i don't particularly have an architectural background so a lot of this is subjective rather than objective i guess um um which of these three were you planning on proportion originally it was the shed style again just because that shed style dormer happened to tie into the middle section a little smoother than the other shots um i would just say i kind of felt a little something similar like i i i'm looking at it right now as
▶ 8:56 being the shed dormer as the proposal and i guess i would ask if any if anyone from the board has any concerns about that and you know suggest an alternative is a better uh reason otherwise it kind of would leave it to the applicant's preference as well um so we can kind of twist it a little bit in that main jet because you know we'll go with it let's let's assume the the shed dormer is proposed and if there's any concerns or comments that would suggest that a different style is more consistent with the building, then we could focus it that way. I have in my notes though, that that was what was proposed and I thought as a board, we actually, there were some suggestions made to consider different style dormer to make it look uh i thought my notes had less massing but i'm not
▶ 9:56 trained as an architect either um we do have architects on the board so i defer to them but i feel like we did ask the applicant to consider a different style um so i just i guess i'd be curious if there are any architects on the board that think another style is more appropriate i I think they're all so close. It's not a big issue, but we did ask him to do this, and that's why he brought us three different styles. Yeah, and I was actually going to chime in on just that. So, I think I had originally asked to study the hip group option, and I mean, I don't think it makes, you know, I don't think any of the three options are dramatically different. so i do think it's more of a style preference so i think i think it could go with any of those three
▶ 10:49 options for me i do like the hip roof and the gable style better but that's you know i don't think it's it's that important it's just it was part of our design review uh process to ask about possibly changing style it's a matter of what the consensus of the board is um i do like the others a little bit better but on the other he not strongly enough to assist on yeah it looks good we appreciate the uh the different options to look at it certainly helps when you can see the options it's yeah no no it's it's great yeah you know again no no with all trained architecture or visual is good uh it's just that on the shed on the others um the non-shed when you did move to sit the door to the center would you do that with the
▶ 11:44 hip roof as well absolutely um i have to admit i was expecting the architect to do that on this uh this option but i think he just left it where it was for the sake of time but we can absolutely center it yeah i presume the interior layout would be the same regardless of the roof style i guess right as long as except the footprint uh like you said the concern for the footprint area was there um yeah i think the centering the door it makes it goes a long way and i think i agree with everyone i you know it's hard to pick a preference really um actually i think the hips are my least uh favorable for some reason and i thought they i thought they would be my more favorable yeah that's a that's my point again when you actually can see it you know it it's
▶ 12:35 your perspective is is all very important but you know this is very good you know um you know good thanks for the work in the various options uh you know i'd actually go with the hip one with the door centered um in the gable one as well probably the hip is my least favorite but if i had to rank them i mean i guess we can we can our decision can essentially reflect that you know we don't necessarily have to decide and if if we're if we're as a board comfortable with the options as presented we could just ask for the final uh as selected by the applicant to be presented you know with the final building permit plans we don't necessarily have to direct the decision And again, I feel unarmed in this one
▶ 13:35 because I'm not able to weigh in from a real substantive point of view. I think they all look very similar and Paul, good catch on the door. I think that's a good point that as long as it's centered, I think that's a benefit for all of them. So just moving on, there were a number of changes to the plans the elevation some updates on the riprap maintenance update on the landscaping traffic flow um if there are any comments from the board i i thought all of that was helpful and really kind of kind of filled filled in some blanks for us and i thought they were uh good responses any other questions comments from the boards members harlow i think you're on mute i think um the The reason that we asked the applicant to come back to study different styles for the style of dormer, I think was a reaction to the fact that there are a number of different styles as you went around the building between different style rooms and projections.
▶ 14:49 And what we were trying to do is make them a little bit more consistent stylistically. So, I don't know if there's a right answer, but I think we were just trying to make them a little bit more consistent. choose one style or maybe two but not have three or four and so i think and i don't mean i don't mean that facetiously at all but i mean it was already there in the existing building it wasn't something you did um so i and i and i think they've done that i think i think shifting the door um to the ascended door on the yellow front elevation really helps and um i don't really i feel that the hip or the gable is a little bit better but i don't feel terribly strongly about it i think i think the moves that have been made are go towards in the direction that we were we were
▶ 15:32 trying to recommend and if the board feels comfortable having the design review committee work out with the applicant whether it's a hip or a gable if we prefer that those two styles you know to the shed i think we're all comfortable doing that you know i i also am looking forward to the design review subcommittee and letting the new members really start to explore um you know their participation in that committee so i think it's something we would relish working with and i also just want to say to the applicant that you know the goal is not to make something look a certain way and sacrifice occupiable space in the building right you're you're trying to create space um and and that's that's a serious goal and we need that and so we don't want to minimize it
▶ 16:14 for the appearance the function you have to balance both right and so yes i just wanted to offer those comments greg thank you thank you i also wanted to say that um i had uh i had pushed for more details i did i really do appreciate the you know the parking bollards showing where the uh bicycle parking will be and uh the striping and the um traffic flow pattern that's there i think a lot of the details that we were were lacking i really appreciate that now they're there and i feel much more comfortable with the project and i think there's very little that will end up with design review which is nice because a lot of things already have been resolved and and um presented but i think still most likely landscaping and lighting and
▶ 17:09 i'd be happy to leave gable design to design review for final approval but other than that i'm comfortable with uh all the other things that you did provide and i appreciate it all right you're welcome thank you greg yep bob can i have a question about the civil plans on your uh I think there's revised civil drawings. I don't know if you can put it on the screen though, Laurie. It still doesn't, I'm still looking for some sort of like a spot grade comparing to the existing grade. Is there any drawing that makes sure that I didn't see? It should be on the proposed high plan though. What? I thought you were looking for. Plan number three or something. Yes, so my understanding was you were looking for more of the spot grades. Yeah, they proposed comparing to existing grade.
▶ 18:20 So, the grade is not changing at all. The proposed compared to the existing. So, all that will be staying pretty much right where it is. I should say pretty much spot on where it is. Yeah, it should have mentioned it probably because it shows on your legend there on the right hand side. you'll have some like a bold printer that says proposed grade it really doesn't exist all right it's mentioned in the summary and in the I guess the what did we call that section the site plan notes and details that were submitted with the you know formal application at the beginning that the elevations aren't changing and part of that well there's several reasons for Um, you know, 1st, and foremost, the back corner of the property, not only is the property in the 100 foot buffer zone, the back corner encroaches into the 15 foot setback that the city has off the water, which is, as I understand it.
▶ 19:27 ended it's essentially a not necessarily do not disturb zone but a very limited extremely limited disturb zone and then a 20-foot setback for a limited disturb zone so we were trying not to change those elevations in addition we have an existing retaining wall there which is real close to the pond so we didn't want get into changing that and then I guess most importantly is that we have the driveways for three different properties this one being one of the three all come together at this corner so if we start changing elevations we're messing or potentially making things more difficult and less suitable for the butters so the goal was to really try to keep that elevation as spot-on as we could so you're proposing that's
▶ 20:24 existing paving there now you're not putting any new paving am i correct or you're just gonna live the way it is we're removing a large portion of it um i forget the actual percentages i could look it up for you if you'd like um because right now that entire back is essentially all pavement So, the whole rip rap area is being removed that whole green space area in between parking spots. 3 and 4 is being removed the whole left side of the building. That's concrete. It goes uphill, but that's being removed as well as the patio, you know. All right, when you are, you're changing any grade because, you know, are you putting it on the same grid back? especially on the storage area there you know i mean there's no storage area there's an existing
▶ 21:18 paving there now you're taking that out you're cutting the paving out and putting some sort of like a grass area there or what are you putting there yes grass several bushes and closer to the the structure you can see the um the patio in the kind of not hexagon shape but you can see the patio paver so the garden level basement unit will have its own seven by fourteen foot patio off the back of the building but aside from that it'll all be grass and bushes and plants okay so you might be changing the grade there right if you're adding some sort of a planter there you may be adding maybe six inches of topsoil for the plant or you know i think you just showed that or something you know whether it's six inches higher than the existing grade because of the loom
▶ 22:10 you know you just should uh put some sort of uh if you're not changing any grade because there is like a the dotted line there that shows the existing grade that the you know the very light tank yes make it solid there you know right beside it to put a block or you know you're in the same grade or something it's just very confusing the way you have it you know you putting up a new baby i mean a new area but you're uh you're saying it's not changing any grade i think you should show something there that you're following the same grade though make it yeah you know our thinking was that it's gonna still be even though we're removing the asphalt there's gonna be three or four inches of asphalt that's gonna get removed i assume this crushed stone
▶ 22:57 underneath there and maybe some stone dust depending on how they built it when it all went in originally so that will be removed as well and then that will be filled back into the original grade and that was our understanding trying to keep everything as as level but i mean we're trying to keep it spot on but if it changes you're drawing though you know if i seen it because your proposed site plan is still showing some uh existing grade there but it doesn't show any proposed grade if you're using the same existing grade as your proposed grade you probably should put it like a bold line right beside it or put it on a circle that's the proposed grade and that's all my comments the way it is now if you build the way it is everyone will
▶ 23:42 be saying you know that's the existing grade you have it on the lifeline there but where is the new grade you would say yeah we understood that you're going to put it on the same as the existing grade but it doesn't show on the plan though gotcha but i can discuss that with the civil um just i think the solution might just be a note added to the plan when he goes to follow a building permit to just clarify that you know okay the proposed grades are the same as the existing grades so you know some note with the building permit application i think would make sense All right, any other board member comments. Obviously, we can continue anything that comes up is fine, but we do have, um. Denise and already sent over a memo and have some updated conditions.
▶ 24:52 Um, I. Would think it'd be helpful if we, we looked at those and see if there's anyone has any thoughts or comments on the conditions unless unless anyone else has anything else they want to bring up 1st. But I think that might be the next step. Hearing no argument, Denise. So, Laurie, would you be able to just pull those up and kind of run through anything of significance? A lot of boilerplate, I just wanted to ask if you wanted to see if there's anyone that wanted to speak. Oh, yes, thank you. Any members of the public have any comments or questions they'd like to. You can either electronically raise your hand. Or you can send a chat message to the host Laurie. And we'll recognize you and allow you to speak. I don't see anyone. Do you.
▶ 25:59 Denise Gaffey: We'll keep it open in the meantime, but so we prepared this list for the last meeting and modified it. Um. With based on the new information that was submitted, so if you want to. You can focus on the highlighted, um, provisions. Again, a lot of this is, these are boilerplate conditions. For, um, in many instances, but this 1 is the sort of some standard language around the design of use of committee. We felt like just about everything on this list was presented in advance. I know there's some discussion about. The dormant design, so the question is, we want to keep the provision in here for design review. And are there any other design related issues you want us to. Uh, list, Carl, I'll refer to you on this 1. I, I mean, to me, it looks like.
▶ 27:15 You can probably take traffic management off, um. Plant species were addressed. Bicycle storage location was addressed, but if it makes sense to keep the rest on just for a final check and the consistency. Review and make sure it's consistent with what's been presented that that's okay. But anyone from design review committee can weigh in. Excuse me is the front yard material does that is that does that mean a planting plan for the front yard? It's not shown on the plan on the site. So, if I could jump in and try to clarify that. we uh we don't have a formal landscape design on it um and to be honest in the interest of time and trying to get the revisions uh back to you guys as soon as possible we didn't have the plant
▶ 28:15 species listed on the updated um site plan but we did it in the i forget the name of the form or how i titled it but in the updated items for the site plan review i listed a couple of the species to use we just didn't designate the exact location they were going to sit it's such a small strip of land about three feet wide by i think it's like six or eight feet on one side and eight or ten on the other um we we usually do um look at a landscape uh planting plan for even strips like that so um it's definitely something that you could bring to a design review subcommittee we could we could review it then it's not something that has to be hashed out tonight gotcha and we're comfortable with that all right so it would uh the condition
▶ 29:10 itself would you know design or features related to um dormer design lighting fixtures plant species and front yard material is that accurate i would just say planting plan okay yeah written in that way because it wasn't clear if it was going to be what the front yard was going to be so but it sounds like it's landscape um plants so we can make that change okay so we'll eliminate some of the the items here that are no longer needed and um this will require a subsequent meeting with the design review subcommittee when you're ready um and before you pull the building permit to review the final design and the landscape plan okay can you repeat that you were kind of muffled i apologize so we're going to keep this condition in and it will require a
▶ 30:18 Denise Gaffey: subsequent meeting with the design review subcommittee which is a subcommittee of this group and um once you have the landscape plan ready you can let us know and let this what lori or me know and we'll we'll schedule that meeting and you'll just i think it'll be a pretty straightforward meeting um i think you can expect some you know final decisions around the dormer design and then the landscape review of the landscape plan all right that works yeah i also think i mean you know design review committees also it's an important step in our process because a lot of times we see you know changes from the site plan review to the time the building permits ready to go you obviously have a lot more certainty in your construction materials and your costs and
▶ 31:08 Denise Gaffey: as people make little modifications like that they can be effective and it's the design reviews these kind of role to make sure what your final proposal is is also consistent with the site plan approval so just for a little context that's that's part of why we do that All right, no, it makes sense. I'd much rather do that than have to come back through the whole process again. So it absolutely makes sense. So, then a lot of the. Subscreen conditions are engineering. They were. Pretty much standard, um, are very typical engineering items that are. They were called out in the engineers memo, so we've made these conditions. You did modify this 1, number 27, which we think is no longer needed because it's being shown on the plans.
▶ 32:03 Denise Gaffey: So, if you agree with that, we'll take that 1 out. Yep, I'm okay with that. Okay. We're okay. Yeah. Excellent. And let's see. Um. Okay, so here we just have a condition that puts the responsibility for maintenance of the building and all the amenities that are being reviewed and approved in the applicant's hands. And then we've added this provision around the condominium documents or the apartment management documents to make sure that the rip rap is maintained. As described here, and as was presented in the. Material submitted, so this is just going to codify that. All right, well, it's a perpetual condition. All right, and let's see, I think the final 1. We modified is relative to the, um.
▶ 33:15 Denise Gaffey: The site just to clarify. That the sign that's posted at 792 main street will be updated to just better direct the traffic. And avoid conflicts. With the other building at 8 crystals at a 792 main street rather. So, those are all the conditions. That we've proposed and, um. I guess our feeling is that this application as condition meets the, uh, meets the. The regulations, um, approval guidelines. We have any waivers. So, yeah, we did have a way we had a waiver for signage because there is no signage being proposed, but there's also a waiver for the traffic. For any kind of traffic plan or, um, level of service analysis. For this 4 unit building that did not seem to be needed. So we will need a, uh, a motion to approve the waiver.
▶ 34:36 I'll move to, um, grant the waivers. Traffic traffic study and the, um, and the signage that is correct. 2nd, 2nd, Jack got there 1st. Okay, it was Bobby and Bob at 1st. All right. So we have a motion in the 2nd to approve the waivers. All those in favor just say, aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye. Any abstained or nays no. All right, I think we're in position to. You know, call for a motion to approve the project subject to the conditions. Outlined in the memo we read tonight. Does anyone have any further questions, comments or discussions before we do that? Is this still open on the public hearing or should we close that person? Just the public hearing. Um, yeah, we can. I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. Okay. Motion to close the public hearing.
▶ 35:43 2nd, thank you all in favor. Say aye. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. Any stand? Nice. No, okay. Public hearing is closed. I'd like to make a motion to approve this potential condition for a December 17 2021. Motion second 2nd. Okay, so we are all in favor. I'll do a roll call on this 1 for the formal vote and. Yes, Brian. Yes. Yeah, yes, Carla. Yes, Jack. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yes, yes, Tim. Yes. And I am a yes as well. Hey, you're all set. All right, thank you very much. Everyone is greatly appreciated. I'm sure we'll be talking to at least some of you soon. All right, good luck. Thanks for the work.
▶ 36:59 Denise Gaffey: No problem. Thank you again. All right. Thanks everyone. So, uh, next item is, uh, housing production plan update. So, um, we put this on the agenda just to, um, to specifically call your attention to the fact that the plan. Has been, um, drafted so, as, you know, we've been working on this effort for, um. Oh, I don't know, maybe about 15 months or so a little longer than we originally planned, but these things always take longer and we had staff changing changes. And consultant changes, um, but we are at a point where we have, um, I think a pretty solid draft. And we submitted this, or we posted it to the website. A couple of weeks ago, and we've been getting some, some public comment on that, which is great. We actually closed the public comment.
▶ 37:54 Denise Gaffey: Tonight, so, and then the advisory committee. Which Greg remember we'll meet next week. To review the comments that we get on the plan. And then we will be able to really finalize the plan based on the comments that we receive and the discussion. Amongst the committee members, and then we will be formally coming back to the planning board and the city council. For an approval, so this document. Statutorily is required to be approved by the city council and by the planning board. So, we weren't intending to do that tonight. No pressure if you haven't read it yet, but we will, we do hope to, we are planning to bring it back in February. for a more robust discussion and then a vote. As many of you know who have been following this
▶ 38:49 Denise Gaffey: process, we've had a pretty robust public process throughout. We had an open house, kind of a robust virtual open house in the middle of the process when we were assessing needs and reviewing existing conditions around housing and then we had another series of another open house and a webinar um when we were developing strategies and you saw in in that plan as you go through it you see the um the strategies that are that we are recommending so we we did get a a lot of input during the process on um on all of this um so we feel like it's in pretty good shape but we really look forward to hearing um any final comments that we get um so it's particularly important for the planning board to uh review this document because as you notice so many of these strategies are going to require
▶ 39:52 Denise Gaffey: planning board activity um zoning in particular there's lots of recommendations for zoning changes zoning amendments in order to tackle the issues that we have around housing. So we know there'll be a lot of work ahead of us. And we also, I think one of the other nice features of this plan is we spent some time looking at potential development sites and very interested in and hearing the board's feedback on on that um so the only other thing i'll mention and then we can sort of chat a little bit further about if anybody has any initial impressions um is we could talk about trying to have a joint meeting with the council on this in february as opposed to having two separate meetings so i'm curious about how the board feels about doing that um and again this
▶ 40:52 Denise Gaffey: Our hope is to have a final document for the planning board and the city council to vote on in February. And then we, the final step then is to send it to the department of housing and community development. For them to certify it, so those are the steps. Very interested if anyone's had a chance to look at it yet has any have any initial feedback. on it I did the I did the surf was it a one-hour survey I did that and then I also have read quite a bit of the plan haven't finished it and I'm impressed with the work I actually have been making notes because I have more ideas so I feel a little bit and not quite ready to verbalize them but I do I I think it's something that merits discussion and I think it's really well done and very thought provoking.
▶ 41:54 Denise Gaffey: Um, I'm just a little worried about the process with city council, because if we get to city February, that's our only chance at that point, it will be the final document. And we would just who were not approved. So any more comments, my comments, I guess we're doing by today by the end of the day. I guess 1 thing, if you're, if you're able to review it. This week, or before the advisory committee meets. Next Tuesday, Tuesday morning, a week from tomorrow. That might be helpful because that'll just be more information that we can kind of. Stir into the pot when the, when we meet. I'm sure the advisory committee members would take your comments into consideration as they consider it as well.
▶ 42:40 Yeah, I mean, it's not a lot, but it's just, I was kind of hoping that public brought some of these things up and I don't know what they brought up. You'll be you'll you'll get to see all that. Great. Yeah, but I'll try and get something to you by the end of the week. But otherwise. I did like it. I, um, I was very interested in it. I feel like we need a lot of that stuff. It needs to we send comments directly to you through email or do we just submit them publicly through the portal? Because it looks like they they're ending today. Are they accepting comments beyond today? Yeah, you know what send them directly to me. Until Lori, the portal is probably going to get closed at the end of the day.
▶ 43:25 Yeah, I'll just add that. I think it's I've had a chance to review it cursorily and I think it's fantastic to have also this basis of understanding about where housing is in Melrose. And so I think just the data aggregation alone is just really helpful as a foundation to sort of treat test a lot of people's assumptions, perhaps. So, I think that's just going to be infinitely beneficial moving forward. And I did really appreciate sort of going out on a limb there and looking at particular sites, or at least suggesting sort of, let's say, soft sites that are opportunities. I thought they were decently well distributed in terms of their location. And in terms of. The sort of qualities of the sites, so I think they sort of act as examples for for yet more sites that are potential opportunities to introduce housing. So.
▶ 44:16 I think it's, it's really helpful. Great. Thank you. Anybody else? No pressure, but again, you know. Encourage you to take a look at it, send us any comments that you might have. Over the next week, that would be very helpful. Even if you don't have time this week, and you have the little time over the weekend. You know, if you can send it to us next week, Monday. Sorry, no, I was going to say, I apologize. I, I haven't had a chance to look through it, but I promise I will this week. It's a, it's a, it's a lot. It is a lot. Um, but if you only have time for the strategies, you know, focus on that and see if there's anything you think. You know, we were missing, we'll say, you know. Obviously, it's a part of the process a little bit, but, um, I thought a lot of the strategies were.
▶ 45:19 Very practical, um, you know, unfortunately, a lot of them are going to, like, did he said lead to some work on part of the planning board to. Update some zoning and do some additional analysis and. But I thought they did target a lot of low hanging fruit that we could. Make some changes that would be really effective in. Producing some housing, so Denise, this is unrelated, but I know that the Department of housing community development put out the. Um, MBTA communities guidance. Yes, it's probably something we want. So that requires Melrose to have into certified. It has. The zoning district meeting the minimum criteria. Um, probably something more, which I imagine we actually probably have.
▶ 46:18 Maybe maybe I was a little, I think we were a little surprised when we, I, we just painted in the webinar. Maybe it was a week or so ago where, um. I think we are at that, or I might have to remind me, but like, the 25%. Um, threshold, I think we have the higher, you know. Um, requirements for the 50 acres is a lot of land area. So that's right. Yeah, which we still have great. sorry zoning in place so yeah we do have a great zoning in place and i assume the 50 acres is like a compilation of all the different areas where we allow for dense development yeah it's just uh in that in existing zoning provisions can satisfy that too it's but it could be a good you know dual track approach here is to to wrap some of these
▶ 47:24 Strategies from the housing production plan into any, any approach we take to address the MBTA MBTA communities. Yeah, that's a great idea. And, um, and we will be looking at that a little bit more closely in the coming weeks. Great, because we know there is a requirement to go. To meet with the city council, I think. I want to say by I forget the deadline, but maybe by May. Coming out, so we'll take a look at that. Okay, um, we do have any other comments on the proposing production planner. So, I think we have 1 recommendation to the board of appeals for appeals public hearing on February 9th. Case 22, 0, 0123, Lynn would have. Just close a minute. Okay. So this is 2 family house that is requesting a dormer variances for a dormer.
▶ 48:53 They need a side yard setback and front yard setback. Variants and then also the, um, the length of the dormer needs to set that needs to get the variance for its size. So, the original proposal had a shed dormer that was 43 feet long. And didn't meet the setback requirements from the gable end. And then the applicant submitted a revised dormer that was much smaller. It's 26 feet, 7 inches. And so that dormer complies with the setback requirements, but it would still need the. Front yard setback, side yard setback, and it's 4 feet over the allowable width for a dormer on one side of the roof. So, the comments here are that the smaller dormer is much better proposal, more closely meets the intent of that half story definition to not
▶ 50:00 Um, have the creation of a 3 story houses. The only, um, you know. Question with the stormers, it's showing head room for closet space. And so really understanding. Why that can't be removed. Um, there's that space also for the stair, which is understandable. They're not going to move that and that bathroom. which may meet, you know, be in that spot because of the plumbing stack, but there may be potential to remove the middle portion of the dorms that have two dormers, or maybe there's a rationale for why the board would grant the variance for that four-foot difference between the buy-right length and one that needs a variance. Okay. Any comments from the board? Carla? It was well said by Lori. All these variances are now much smaller, much more de minimis than
▶ 51:18 the original dormer. It's very close to the requirement, the new dormer, it's just four feet. The front yard and the side yard, I can see why. I mean, it's 1 foot yard and it's, let's see, a foot and 5 inches if my map is right on the side yard. So it's close. I would not be opposed, I guess, so I'd consider sending a recommendation letter saying we're not opposed to the small variances to make this design, but I would be interested why they couldn't keep the dormer length up to the half you know four feet smaller and not need a variance for it there may very well be a good explanation so i guess i like the idea of pointing that out to the board and maybe taking their letting them make that judgment call thanks ann
▶ 52:20 carla i just wanted to point out to the board that originally they were asking for or I think it was two bedrooms upstairs, a playroom and a full bath. Now, because we've recommended diminishing the length of the dormer, of the shed dormer, the back space is now labeled as an office. That's because you can't get to a bedroom through another room. You're not supposed to go through it. And that room in the back also doesn't have any closets. So, I think that might be partially why the plan is evolving that way. And I'm guessing we can ask, you know, I'm guessing that it's the stack. That requires the bathroom to be where it is and I think they were just had some leftover space at the top of the stairs and they just decided to create some storage space because there's not in the back.
▶ 53:15 I don't know, but fundamentally, they're asking for 1, fewer bedrooms. As well, thanks for pointing that out. That's good. Anyone else? So, I, and I kind of like your, uh, recommendation. I think it's consistent with Carlos and too, it's seems like there might be justification. We should just. Obviously, the, the pre existing nonconformities are kind of a known issue, but as far as the dormer. This request that they provide that, you know, justification and. Probably note that, you know, the modification certainly helped to make it much more consistent with. What we like to say, you want to make a motion to that effect. Moved with a 2nd. Okay, all in favor. All right. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Any abstain or nays.
▶ 54:37 All right, thank you. That one's good. Uh, and that that's it right next meeting Monday, February 28th. Going back to Denise's point, anyone have any strong feelings on a joint meeting with the city council for the housing production plan? Realize we didn't quite get to your question. Denise. Yeah, I think we're. i guess what we're thinking about there is that it could get awkward if one board meets and approves it and it goes back and there's changes and then we have to go back and forth i don't know um you know that that said it's not likely we don't expect that to be very very many changes i don't have strong feelings either way sorry i was gonna is asking if it was going to be in person by then or or online do you think it would probably still be a virtual
▶ 55:42 meeting which i know gets a little bit awkward with that many people but we've done it we have done it all right well we don't have to completely decide that tonight unless somebody has strong feelings you know opposed to it either one either way or the other but um is it a public hearing Well, I mean, I mean, I know if it's, I know any meeting with the council as a public, as a public, but, um, I don't believe we have to advertise it. I don't I don't think we would vote that night. Um, yes, so at the same time as the February 28, uh, meeting, uh, so right now, that's our regular meeting date and we're definitely, we will be meeting on February 28th. For sure, and I think what we're talking about right now is whether.
▶ 56:51 The housing production plan will be on the meeting on the agenda for that meeting for a vote, or whether there may be a separate meeting in the month of February. We talked about Laurie and I had talked. With the consultant at about maybe mid February, the 16th or 17th, I think it was. Possible dates, but. I haven't explored the idea of the joint meeting with the council yet either. It's just I thought I would start with you. Very good. All right. Yeah, more to follow. We can communicate over email regarding. Setting up a meeting, so look for that and and I look forward to getting your comments. If you have a chance. All right. Well, I guess we can adjourn unless there's anything else. Nice quickie. I know it's nice and quick and I'll let you go because Denise probably has to go eat for a ticket more. Okay. I am working to eat today. I know. Happy birthday.
▶ 58:04 I don't want to belabor this, but I just wanted I did that. I did that. Oh, God, that required meeting. On the ethics law, as well as the open meeting law. And I just had some questions, which I imagine is something I could take up just administratively with you, Denise and Lori, but about when we need, I didn't realize we had to do an oath even the years we aren't being reappointed. We'll have to do a re-oath every year. And if there was a latest ethics commission training, Maybe I missed it because I feel like I've done this every other year for a while, but wondering if I missed 1. so is there should we be checking that? We're up to date on these things. So, the, the idea, what did they tell you? You don't think it's 1 in every year.
▶ 59:04 Yes, it said they said, even if you're you oh, I'm sorry not every year. An oath or a re oath, even if your term is expired and you're just continuing. So, every 5 years in the case, all right. And then the, the, uh. Well, 1st of all, I imagine you take care of the annual report, listening to all our requirements. I thought, whoa, I'm not doing anything. It'll report to the city. That was a lot to put on all of you guys. Yeah, you're lucky you have staff. Yeah, that's what you just kept thinking that he says, like, I kept saying, well, I kept hoping you had this, but I kept thinking, am I supposed to be checking to make sure. No, so I'm not going to worry about it. But that was the in the ethics committee.
▶ 59:56 Commission training that we have to do and get a certificate. Happens it'll probably be happening this year. Do you remember? I don't remember. I feel like I do mine every 6 weeks, but. Every time you see it, you think I just did this. I think we did it in 21, right? So, I don't know, I can follow up on that if I missed it. If I missed it, the city clerk would have been after me. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right, thanks. No need to belabor it. I was just floored by the amount of. Things we have to do, so thank you very much for taking care of 21. Yeah, right. 21. so you've got another year. Wow, wow, Jack, that's good. Probably not ethical to have jack sir circulate that to all of us and put our name on it. Right? Can you make a copy of that? Jack? I can do 1 this with PDF now.
▶ 1:00:59 All right, okay, seeing everyone end of February. Thank you. Thank you.