ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Wareham Town Hall, Lower Level Cafeteria
54 Marion Road
Wareham, Massachusetts 02571

Date of Meeting:  October 25, 2006

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at ______.

A.	Roll Call

Members Present:
Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman
Donald McKinlay, Vice Chairman 
John Cronan
Michelle Zollo 
David Sharkey, Associate Member 
Mary Scarsciotti, Associate Member
Richard Secher, Associate Member

Member Absent:
Michael Martin

II.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes:  9/27/06 & 10/11/06
B.	Public Announcement:  Re:  legal ads in newspaper.

NOTE:	TAPE STARTED WORKING CORRECTLY AT THIS POINT

C.	Water Wizz – Ray Kells – Clarification of Building Inspector’s denial letter.

Present before the ZBA:	Ray Kells

Mr. Kells proceeded to discuss his plans to take the miniature golf course out & put a pool area there.  He stated this is a footprint theory.  The miniature golf course was approved by various entities.  K.Ferreira stated Mr. Kells has never been before the ZBA.  Mr. Kells stated he came before the ZBA in 1982 at which time all plans were approved.  All he wants to do is utilize the basic foot plan that he has.  He has gone before the Planning Board who stated that they didn’t know why he was before them because there are no problems w/ parking, site work, drainage, etc. after the Building Inspector denied the building permit.  He submitted the letter from the Building Inspector.

K.Ferreira reviewed the letter from the Building Inspector which notes Article 15, s. 1520 which was changed at the Spring Town Meeting (5/9/06) to the following:  “Site Plan Review is required for any new development, expansion, or change of use which requires ten or more parking spaces regardless of the number of existing spaces on the premises & shall be permitted only upon issuance of a Special Permit from the Planning Board.”  

K.Ferreira feels the Building Inspector has quoted this in the letter because Mr. Kells is doing some changes which require ten or more parking spaces regardless of the number of spaces he already has.  Mr. Kells stated the changes he is proposing doesn’t require ten or more spaces.  Once the parking lot is full, no more people are allowed in.  The proposed activity is pulling out the miniature golf course in & putting a new activity in.  He asked the ZBA to overturn the decision of the Building Inspector.  K. Ferreira stated if this is what Mr. Kells wants, he needs to apply for the proper paperwork, MGL 48, s. 10 which allows the ZBA to review the situation & determine if the Building Inspector made a mistake & then the ZBA can overturn the Building Inspector & direct him to issue the building permit.  This can only be done after Mr. Kells has filed the appropriate application, notice to abutters, newspaper advertisement, etc. & a hearing is held.  He suggested one option is that Mr. Kells should speak to the Building Inspector to try & convince him that he should issue the building permit.  The Planning Board is the entity that issues Site Plan Review in this instance, not the ZBA because it is not a non-permitted use.  Mr. Kells stated he is before the ZBA to appeal.  K. Ferreira explained that anyone can appeal any decision of the Building Inspector, but the proper application needs to be completed.  Discussion ensued.  

D.McKinlay stated if Mr. Kells has already been through the Planning Board for a hearing, they are the permit granting authority for this issue & they should issue a finding to the Building Inspector stating they reviewed the plans & in their opinion, no further action on Site Plan Review is required.  Mr. Kells described the timeframe of events that led him to the Planning Board.  Discussion ensued re:  suggestions on how Mr. Kells should proceed & timeline of events leading up to him appearing before the ZBA.  K. Ferreira offered to discuss this matter w/ the Chairman of the Planning Board.

III.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

NOTE:	The following items, A-C are already on the agenda under Public Hearings.

A.	83 Sandwich Road – Terry Smith
B.	82 Swifts Beach Road – Leonarda Laporta
C.	7 Holly Tree Lane – Marc A. Bianco

IV.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#149-05 – Dugan Marine Realty, LLC, d/b/a Wareham Boatyard & Marina, Inc. – 69-73 Leonard Street (Rose Point) – c/o Richard M. Serkey, Esquire.

Present before the ZBA:	Richard M. Serkey, Attorney

Attorney Serkey submitted the green abutter cards, but there is one party of interest to whom notice inadvertently did not know, so he asked that at the conclusion of tonight’s proceedings the matter be held open to another date so that a waiver can be secured from this party of interest.  He doesn’t have proof of ownership of one of the parties.  K. Ferreira asked if this party (Dorothy Peterson) was present this evening.  No-one in the audience responded.

K.Ferreira is not in agreement w/ Attorney Serkey.  He doesn’t see the point in holding a hearing, having all the facts come into evidence, & then if an abutter shows up & says they don’t want to find a waiver & they want to hear the testimony live, make comments, etc.  He can understand holding the hearing open, but it shouldn’t be started (relative to taking evidence) until a waiver is secured.

Attorney Serkey stated two parties were not notified & he was able to secure a waiver from one of the parties.  Part if the issue is he received the abutters list the fourteenth day prior to this hearing tonight, thus one party was missed.  Discussion ensued.

Present before the ZBA:	A woman

The woman stated based on what the lot number is, she assumed this is an empty lot & has been this way for many years.  It is owned, but never been built on.

Brief discussion ensued re:  how to proceed.

Attorney Serkey stated that Mr. Cronan has questioned issues relative to licensing.  He is confused & can submit the information he has to answer these questions.  K. Ferreira feels this is taking evidence & does not want to take evidence at this time.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to continue the public hearing for petition #149-05 - Dugan Marine Realty, LLC to November 8, 2006 at 7:30 P.M.  D.McKinlay seconded.	

Unanimous (5-0-0)  
(I am not sure how many members were present due to tape not working at beginning of meeting)

K.Ferreira stated that there will be no further notices to abutters re:  this matter.  

Ms. Pfinister, member of the audience, asked what is the distance for abutters to be notified.  K. Ferreira stated those to be notified are the abutters, abutters to abutters w/in 300 ft. of the property line & all the abutters across a public/ private way.

B.	#37-06 – Marc A. Bianco – 7 Holly Tree Lane

Present before the ZBA:	Carl Wakefield

The public hearing notice was read into the record.  The Board of Health letter was read into the record that stated they would require that plans be submitted for an upgrade to the sewage disposal system conforming the sanitary code 310 CMR Title V:  15.000 & local rules & regulations.  
(TAPE STOPPED RECORDING AT THIS POINT)

(TAPE STARTED AGAIN AT THIS POINT)

J. Cronan wants to stay w/ the ZBA’s condition of a deed rider relative to the in-law apartment.  He noted what the Building Inspector’s letter states.  K. Ferreira would like more definitive numbers re:  square footage & a cap that the in-law apartment doesn’t become larger.  Brief discussion ensued.  Mr. ____________discussed the gross floor area of not to exceed 800 sq. ft.  D. Sharkey wants to make sure this matter is tied up tightly because it is the first time the ZBA has approved to detach an in-law apartment.  One of the considerations the ZBA could utilize is it is in an R-60 zone which will help w/ restrictions.  K. Ferreira remembers one other application in the past re:  a detached in-law apartment on Gibbs Ave., but was an existing free standing structure.

The ZBA members proceeded to discuss the applicant’s list of conditions.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #37-06 – Marc A. Bianco.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

The ZBA makes a finding & recognizes & has studied the physical restrictions which make it self evident that this structure cannot be successfully attached to the house at ground level as is customary

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved & J. Cronan seconded to grant a Variance for petition #37-06 – Marc A. Bianco with the following conditions:

•	Standard required deed rider shall be recorded at the Registry of Deeds w/ proof of recording prior to issuance of a building permit;
•	All requirements of all other boards & commissions shall be adhered to or met;
•	Details in letter, lettered A-L shall be included as conditions; &
•	Project shall be constructed & in substantial performance as presented in plans provided to ZBA as part of the application on file.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Brief discussion ensued re:  the appeal period.
	
C.	#38-06 – Leonarda Laporta – 82 Swifts Beach Road

M.Zollo recused herself from this hearing.

Present before the ZBA:	Nazi Ellkallasi

The public hearing notice was read into the record.  The Board of Health has no comment as records indicate municipal sewer is available at this location.

The green abutters cards were submitted & abutters have been notified.

Mr. Ellkallasi stated Ms. Laporta is the owner of the property.  This home was inherited by Ms. Laporta from her mother & father.  It was built in 1977 & there has always been an apartment downstairs & the house upstairs.  Ms. Laporta approached the Building Inspector indicating that she wants to build a house, get rid of the apartment in the basement, & instead of the apartment, attach a duplex.  The Building Inspector stated this was fine.  He stated the building permit was issued based on the two family.  Based on the issuance of a building permit, construction commenced & was built to the installation stage.  Ms. Laporta’s bank contacted the Building Inspector asking him for a letter stating that it is a two family apartment.  The Building Inspector instructed the bank to go to the Assessors & the Assessors stamped the paper, but the Building Inspector reviewed the record & could only go back 25 years on the record & could not find any information on the permit for a two family, even though the Assessors building card states a two family & has been since it was built.  Thus, the Building Inspector issued a cease & desist order & directed him to come before the ZBA.

J.Cronan asked when the building permit was issued & work was stopped.  Mr. Ellkallasi stated it was issued on 8/29/06 & work was stopped 9/28/06.  Mr. Ellkallasi again stated the bank wanted a letter from the Building Inspector stating it was a two family house, but the records file only went back 25 years.  Discussion ensued.  Ms. Laporta explained that her & her mother approached the Building Inspector in 1992 to convert the home back to a single family home & were denied because it was considered a two family.  Discussion ensued.

M. Scarsciotti stated the Assessors records are only based on an individual going in & making a notation of exactly what is there.  J. Cronan questioned how many years the taxes have been paid for a two family home.  K. Ferreira stated the structure has not received a building permit in 25 years, thus it appears to have been a two family.  He expressed confusion re:  what the Building Inspector can’t find in the record.  M. Scarsciotti feels this matter makes it legal non-conforming; it doesn’t currently meet the zoning.  Discussion ensued.

Present before the ZBA:	A woman

The woman stated she knew Ms. Laporta’s parents & she doesn’t remember an apartment in the basement.  (???????????)

Discussion continued.  Mr. Ellkallasi stated the lot is 22, 000 sq. ft. & there are two separate sewer connections, two water bills, but one water meter.  He discussed how the connections for two water bills were done.  K. Ferreira feels this matter is a Special Permit for a prior existing non-conforming use build, alter, or extend the prior non-conformance.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #38-06 – Leonarda Laporta.  R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved & D. Sharkey seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #38-06 – Leonarda Laporta with the following conditions:

•	The ZBA finds to grant a Special Permit to continue this use because the two family use existed, even though there is no record;
•	Basement kitchen to be removed; &
•	Off street parking to be available. (???????????) 

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

D.	#39-06 – Terry Smith – 83 Sandwich Road

Present before the ZBA:	Terry Smith, 83 Edgewater Dr., Wareham

The public hearing notice was read into the record.  The Board of Health would require that plans be submitted for an upgrade of the sewage disposal system, conforming to State sanitary code 310 CMR Title V:  15 & local rules & regulations.

Mr. Smith submitted the green abutters cards.  He stated he was told he needs a Special Permit to operate a 501C religious non-profit organization.  K. Ferreira stated the Building Inspector has determined what Mr. Smith wants to operate a retail store to sell donated items in an MR-30 district.  Brief discussion ensued.  Mr. Smith stated he was told he needed a Special Permit.  Some ZBA members feel Mr. Smith needs a Variance.  D. McKinlay stated the public notice states Variance/Special Permit.  

Mr. Smith submitted the denial letter from the Building Inspector.  K. Ferreira read the letter into the record which states that since a retail business is not an allowed use in an MR-30 district, a Variance is needed before a building permit is issued.  He explained the difference between a Special Permit vs. a Variance & other businesses on this portion of a roadway.  He added that this property was the subject of a Variance in 1963.  Mr. Smith stated this Variance was for a used car lot.  

K.Ferreira expressed concern re:  definition of a thrift store.  Mr. Smith stated it will be strictly used as a thrift store, not for selling milk, videos, etc.  It is strictly a charity operation.   He recently purchased the property, it was a thrift shop at one time, but not for many years.

Present before the ZBA:	Nazi Ellkallasi

Mr. Ellkallasi stated he is the next door neighbor to this property.  He has no problem w/ this proposal as long as it doesn’t become like a department store.  He questioned if there is a 30 ft. buffer required from a residential home.  D. McKinlay stated when a business goes in next to a residential use, but Mr. Smith is already there.  Mr. Ellkallasi stated Mr. Smith is not licensed yet.  K. Ferreira stated that the building on Mr. Smith’s property is approx. 28 ft. from Mr. Ellkallasi’s property line.

Mr. Smith briefly explained how his business will operate.  Discussion ensued.

Brief discussion ensued re:  plan submitted in 2002 & parking indicated on the plan was for the original application for Terry’s Home Oil, not for Mr. Smith.  Mr. Ellkallasi stated there are three 40 ft. tractor trailers at the site & he would like to minimize these.  Mr. Smith stated they will be removed eventually.  He is using them as temporary storage.  K.Ferreira stated tractor trailer bodies are not to be utilized for storage bays.  Mr. Smith stated he doesn’t want them, but needs them right now.  There will be no bathroom in the facility & there is no sewer connections either.  Brief discussion ensued re:  what is located on the site.

Mr. Ellkallasi stated he insists on the 20 ft. buffer w/ a landscape of trees & removal of trailers; otherwise he is fine w/ the proposal.  He is located on the east side of the property.

M.Zollo expressed concern re:  future plans for the building.  K. Ferreira stated any expansion or enlargement would require an additional Variance from the ZBA.  Brief discussion ensued re:  getting rid of the trailers.  J. Cronan expressed concern re:  not having a bathroom.  M. Scarsciotti feels to obtain an occupancy permit a bathroom is required.  Brief discussion ensued.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #39-06 – Terry Smith.  J. Cronan seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to grant a Variance for petition 39-06 – Terry Smith.  J. Cronan seconded for discussion w/ the following conditions:

NOTE:	K. Ferreira stated this is a situation where there is a non-conforming structure that has been abandoned for a period of time which renders it not entitled to special protections by a Special Permit, thus it is a Variance.  It has operated in the past as a commercial use.  Given the proper conditions & the right not to expand, it can be cleaned up & be a positive.  Brief discussion ensued.  

K. Ferreira discussed rules re:  Variances granted under the old Chapter 40A, s. 5, prior to 1978 are good forever.  After 1978, Variances granted have a one year shelf life or abandonment takes them away, thus it would appear to be a valid Variance.  D. McKinlay stated it would appear to be a valid Variance & as a condition of an additional Variance, that one could be null & void.  This would lessen the non-conformity.

•	The Variance previously granted in 1963 would be deemed null & void.
•	Any expansion or alteration of existing building on site would require a modification of this Variance in front of ZBA.

Mr. Ellkallasi feels the distance of the landscape buffer needs to be at least 200 ft. to go beyond the house.  Brief discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira stated the tree line is approx. 130 ft. according to the plan.  200 ft. would take it almost down to the wetlands.  He feels 150 ft. would be appropriate at this time.

•	A 20 ft. landscape buffer should be installed along the easterly property line for a distance of 150 ft. from Sandwich Rd. southerly along the easterly property line.
•	No tractor trailer bodies be utilized for storage on site & the trailer bodies currently in existence on site be removed w/in 90 days from said Variance taking effect.
•	All other boards & commissions rules & regulations to be met, specifically the Board of Health & the Conservation Commission for any construction or alterations that take place on site.
•	No kitchen to be installed in the structure.
•	Any installed lighting shall not shine off the property or into the roadway.

Brief discussion ensued re:  parking.  Mr. Smith asked for clarification re:  the 20 ft. landscape buffer.  K. Ferreira explained the regulation relative to a 20 ft. landscape buffer.  He suggested Mr. Smith work w/ the Building Inspector on this issue.  Mr. Ellkallasi expressed concern re:  the buffer & his property.  Discussion ensued.

D.Sharkey asked if there is an adequate definition of what a thrift store is.  K. Ferreira feels a definition may need to be made because it is not addressed in the By-law.  R. Secher read letter from __________ which states the property is currently zone for a retail business specifically a neighborhood grocery store.  K. Ferreira explained that MR-30 allows an applicant to apply for a Special Permit through the ZBA to put in a neighborhood grocery store.  R. Secher asked what Mr. Smith will be selling & if the ZBA should limit this.  K. Ferreira feels the ZBA should define “thrift” & discussed.

•	No food or other beverages to be sold.
•	No new items for resale.

VOTE:  (4-1-0)
R. Secher opposed

E.	#40-06 – Yvonne Vieira Cardoza – 140 Minot Avenue

Present before the ZBA:

Brief discussion ensued re:  if this is a Variance or Special Permit & what the Building Inspector’s letter states.  It was determined it is for a Special Permit.

Brief discussion ensued re:  the application.  ZBA members feel the use that is being proposed is appropriate.  D. Sharkey doesn’t see a provision for a Site Plan for parking or vegetation.  D. McKinlay asked re:  anticipated use by people.  Mr. ____________ explained.  (Could not be heard on tape).  D. McKinlay stated that parking may become an issue if a large number of people come to the site & the traffic on this roadway & intersection.  There will be two apartments there so there will need to be a minimum of two cars per apartment.  K. Ferreira stated the property is approx. a 10,000 sq. ft. lot.  D. McKinlay stated the building is approx. 40x32 ft. (1,300 sq. ft.), thus, there may be an overhang.  K. Ferreira stated according to the Wareham Zoning Bylaws, the area  required to provide parking is four parking spaces, two per dwelling unit, four spaces for the residential & will be required to have an additional six spaces for the commercial use.  Thus, off street parking for ten cars will be required.  Brief discussion ensued.  D. McKinlay determined that there will need to be a minimum of ten parking spaces & adequate parking to the use provided off street.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #40-06 – Yvonne Vieira Cardoza.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved & D. McKinlay seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #40-06 – Yvonne Vieira Cardoza with the following conditions:

•	Project to be built in accordance w/ plans submitted dated 10/25/06 (Exhibit A);
•	All boards & commission rules & regulations be adhered to;
•	Parking adequate to the use will be provided off structure with a minimum of ten spaces.
•	Assuming the East Wareham Village standards & guidelines are adopted at the Fall 2006 Town Meeting, the landscaping, signage, & other amenities & improvements to the lot shall adhere to the guidelines of the East Wareham Village.
•	All site lighting will be done in a manner that doesn’t leave the site or shine onto the road.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

F.	#41-06 – Douglas R. Beaton, Eagle Holt Co., Inc. – off Blackmore Pond Road
G.	#42-06 – Douglas R. Beaton, Bayside Agricultural, Inc. – Parker Mills Bog – off Charge Pond Road.

Present before the ZBA:	Glen Berkowitz
				Ian Ward
				Peter _____________

K. Ferreira would like to open up both hearings simultaneously.  

Mr. _____________ stated re:  petition #42-06 relative to advertising is all set.  As for petition #41-06 the advertisement for this was only advertised once.  He requested a continuance for petition #41-06 to make sure the advertisement requirement is met.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the applicant’s time constraints.  K. Ferreira clarified that only petition # 42-06 will be opened.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Mr. Berkowitz stated he is seeking a Special Permit under the Town’s wind & heat solar Bylaw to put up a temporary anemometer tower at Parker Mills Bog.

Mr. Berkowitz discussed the two parts of the application & the objective to study the feasibility of wind turbines.  There is a need to better understand wind speeds over land in Wareham.  He discussed the 192 ft. tall turbine.  He discussed section A of the application, plans to place the anemometer town in the middle of the parcel, & the specifics of the anemometer.

K.Ferreira assumed that a temporary tower of this nature to measure wind speeds would require the same Special Permit as a permanent wind tower.  He asked how long this anemometer will be at the site.  Mr. Berkowitz stated between six & 12 months.  He spoke re:  the Town Bylaw & everyone involved, including the Building Inspector, agreed to follow the Bylaw.  The Building Inspector, after hearing the time period the anemometer would be there, stated he didn’t have the authority to issue anything that is temporary.  K. Ferreira stated the Bylaw doesn’t address the temporary masts to measure wind speeds.  Mr. Berkowitz feels it does, but it doesn’t state “temporary.”  It is located in section 572 – Definitions of Wind Facility.  Discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira asked if a year is enough time.  Mr. Berkowitz asked for fifteen months.

Audience members had no questions or comments.  Mr. Berkowitz submitted a letter from Dr. Collins, Superintendent of Schools in support of the application.  D. McKinlay read said letter into the record.

J.Cronan asked why a light doesn’t apply to this structure.  Mr. Berkowitz stated it isn’t required because it is under 200 ft.  J. Cronan asked if the permanent tower will be placed in the same place.  Mr. Berkowitz stated the anemometer is placed in the general vicinity where it is thought the turbine may go.  K. Ferreira clarified that at the end of 15 months when the anemometer is taken down, a wind turbine is proposed, & a new application is filed.  He feels the ZBA needs to review the Bylaws relative to turbines.  M. Scarsciotti asked if MA Maritime or Upper Cape share any information.  Mr. Berkowitz stated MA Maritime didn’t conduct any studies & Upper Cape did provide data.  The best data he has is from NOAH which he discussed briefly.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #42-06 – Douglas R. Beaton, Bayside Agricultural, Inc.  J. Cronan seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved & J. Cronan seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #42-06 – Douglas R. Beaton, Bayside Agricultural, Inc. with the following conditions:

D.McKinlay asked how likely it will be that there will be nuisance activity at this site & site restrictions.  Mr. Berkowitz stated in the order, the general public is not allowed at the site.  Brief discussion ensued.  J. Cronan feels the gate onto the property should be used.

•	The anemometer tower shall be dismantled & taken down 15 months after the original building permit is issued.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

V.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A.	#30-06 – Frank M. Alexander, c/o Edward A. Breault, Agent – Assessors Map 129A-1, Lots 7,8, & 9 off of Maple Springs Road.

Present before the ZBA:	Edward Breault

K.Ferreira asked if Mr. Breault knew if there had been abatements on property taxes.  Mr. Breault is not sure.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #30-06 – Frank M. Alexander.  J. Cronan seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	R. Secher moved & D. McKinlay seconded for discussion to grant a Special Permit for petition #30-06 – Frank M. Alexander with the following conditions:

NOTE:	J. Cronan stated the taxes have been paid on these lots.  D. McKinlay noted that this situation is complicated because they owned Lots 5 & 6 regardless that it was in the husband’s name & not his & her.  K. Ferreira stated another issue is that they owned & sold Lots 5 & 6 & Lots 7,8, & 9 were owned only by Mr. Alexander & what constitutes checker-boarding under rulings.  He expressed concern re:  this lot being in a water supply area & needs to be protected.  He feels there are special regulations for small lots & sensitive areas under the rules & regulations of the Board of Health.  Discussion ensued.

Discussion ensued re:  who owns the abutting lots (5 & 6).  Mr. Gary _____________ stated he purchased these lots from the Alexander’s in 1991 & he has no concerns re:  a home being built on the lot next door. 

•	All boards & commissions rules & regulations be met & adhered to, specifically the Board of Health.  If the Board of Health does not have a requirement for advanced treatment of the sub-surface sewage treatment system, there will be a need the applicant do this on their own (provide advanced treatment) at the direction on the Board of Health.
•	Maximum of two bedrooms.
•	Connect to Town water.

M.Zollo expressed concern re:  missing extension & field card information.  Mr. Breault stated he will supply this information.

•	Standard parking adequate to the use provided off street.
•	The front yard, side & rear yard setbacks meet the requirements of the R-30 district.

VOTE:  Unanimous (3-2-0)
M. Zollo & D. McKinlay opposed

NOTE:	K. Ferreira stated the motion failed to carry because the vote is not a 4/5 majority for a Variance.

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item VI.  New Business/Discussion – A.  Board to vote for November/December meeting schedule.
Brief discussion ensued re:  month of November.  It was stated there are no issues in December.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to not hold a meeting on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (7-0-0)

B.	#34-06 – Charles W. Gabriel – Re:  3 Fathom Lane

Present before the ZBA:	Dennis Conry
				Charles W. Gabriel
				William Cody

K. Ferreira explained that this hearing was continued to allow the ZBA members to read case law that was submitted & to drive by the site.  

M.Scarsciotti drove by 191 Main St. & the homes on Fathom Ln.  There are only three houses on the street.  She feels the company has failed to provide adequate parking for the vehicles that they own & have shifted the burden of responsibility of the commercial vehicle to its employees, & by extension it is a burden on the neighborhood.  A commercial vehicle should not be parked in a residential neighborhood.  Most of the ZBA’s decisions in the past have been for residential property owners who own businesses which include commercially registered vehicles.  The ZBA has allowed them to park their vehicle in their yard w/ conditions that protect the environment, neighborhood, & the overall residential character as well as other limitations.  She feels this issue is clearly none of those things.  She doesn’t feel the principals of this company park company vehicles in their neighborhoods & it is not a good idea to allow a company to have commercial storage of vehicles in residential neighborhoods.

D.Sharkey feels this issue is blurry.  If he was a salesman & had a company car, technically, he would be in violation of the position M. Scarsciotti is taking.  A company car is still a commercial vehicle.  M. Scarsciotti stated company cars are not registered commercial, they are not the average size of a commercial truck, & it doesn’t impact the neighborhood the same way a commercial truck does.  D. McKinlay spoke to the Building Inspector re:  this matter.  He interpreted the Building Inspector’s comments to be that an employee taking one vehicle to their home is acceptable under the Town zoning Bylaws.  He did visit this neighborhood & around Town & sees people bringing school buses home.  K. Ferreira noted the pictures of the truck(s) parked at this employee’s home that were submitted previously & explanations given.  Discussion ensued re:  said pictures.

Discussion ensued re:  property lines.  Mr. Conry stated giving people the right to park commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods because they are commuting in it, will destroy the residential neighborhood & not protect its integrity.  The vehicle(s) in question have noise issues, such as back up beepers.  Mr. Gabriel stated at the last meeting Mr. Cody implied that he built the garage to accommodate Mr. Gabriel.  He doesn’t feel this is accurate, it was to accommodate the truck.  He briefly discussed property lines, placement of the garage, & parking of the truck.  He doesn’t feel this truck is a commuting truck; it is a mobile workshop.  He discussed the two vehicles; one of which left the property a day before the hearing opened & hasn’t been there since.  He discussed the facts that are not in dispute.  A fact that is in dispute is whether the truck is being used on the property for business use.  He feels Mr. Cody is using the garage for commercial purposes.  He discussed the Bylaw pertaining to this matter & feels there is a violation of said Bylaw.  D. McKinlay stated he asked for the Building Inspector’s input on this matter.  What he was told was he has not had a chance to get out to this site due to all the construction in Town.  D. McKinlay then described objectively the issue at hand & then that is when the Building Inspector stated what he did.

K.Ferreira stated a letter & work order has been received from William J. Cody, 3 Fathom Lane.  He read said letter into the record.  Mr. Cody stated the garage was moved to the rear not to the lot line.  Discussion ensued re:  the garage.  Mr. Cody tries hard not to create a problem in the neighborhood & respects the rights of others.  He is an employee of the company, not an independent contractor.

Mr. Conry stated Mr. Gabriel sent a letter to Mr. Cody before he went to the Building Insepector & received not response, thus, Mr. Conry spoke to Mr. Woodland, owner of the company, & asked why there was no response.  A woman stated that a letter was sent by Mr. Woodland & she has a copy of said letter which K. Ferreira read into the record (faxed to ZBA on 10/23/06 from Cunningham Woodland, Inc.).

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #34-06 – Charles W. Gabriel.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to grant the request of petition #34-06 for Charles W. Gabriel to deny the commercial vehicle parking & any commercial use in a residential neighborhood.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  (3-2-0)
K. Ferreira & D. McKinlay opposed

NOTE:	Brief discussion ensued re:  if a simple majority vote is needed for an administrative appeals.

Mrs. Cody asked if this means that everyone who parks a commercial vehicle on their property has to remove it.  K. Ferreira stated the ZBA’s decisions on specific cases don’t set precedence, but sets a tone for the Building Inspector to follow.  Brief discussion ensued.  Mrs. Cody feels she & her husband have been discriminated against.

*TAPE ENDED AT THIS POINT.

VI.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	Board to vote for November/December meeting schedule.
(DONE)

VII.	ADJOURNMENT

Attest:  _________________________
	Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman

Date minutes approved:  _____________________
Date copy sent to Town Clerk:______________________
Date copy sent to Wareham Free Library:  ____________________