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

Date of Meeting:  December 13, 2006

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.

A.	Roll Call

Members Present:
Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman
Donald McKinlay, Vice Chairman 
John Cronan  (Arrived at 7:45 P.M.)
Michael Martin
Michelle Zollo 
David Sharkey, Associate Member 
Mary Scarsciotti, Associate Member
Richard Secher, Associate Member

Member Absent:

K.Ferreira explained the procedure for this meeting.

I.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes:  October 11, 2006, October 25, 2006, November 8, 2006, & November 29, 2006.

Not handled.

B.	Faith DeMiranda – Discussion re:  Agawam Green – aka Cranberry Court – Transfer of permit.

No-one was present to represent this business.

II.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES:

III.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#46-06 – Ms. Rebecca Alferes – 35 Blackmore Pond Circle

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the ZBA:	Rebecca Alferes, 183 Leonard Street
				Greg Adelstein

K.Ferreira stated that an associate member will sit in for J. Cronan until he arrives.  He added that Town Meeting has determined that the ZBA should review Special Permits for seasonal conversions.  The primary reason why this was put into the Bylaw was there were a lot of cottages in Town that were not suited for year-round residences due to Board of Health reasons.  The primary condition of this Special Permit is that the dwelling either has to be tied into Town sewer or there is a compliant Title V system.

Mr. Adelstein explained the conversion of a seasonal occupancy to a year-round occupancy.  The property has a septic system on site & is operational.

K.Ferreira asked if the septic system on the plan was constructed in 1998.  Mr. Adelstein stated yes.  K. Ferreira asked if an inspection of said system has been made to see if it is still compliant.  Mr. Adelstein believes when the property changed hand, there was a Title V inspection.  D. McKinlay asked when this was.  Ms. Alferes stated in 1/06.

K. Ferreira asked if there will be any external changes to the dwelling.  Mr. Adelstein stated the home is to be insulated.  There is no heating system so it will be installed & all work will be in the interior.

All parties of interest were properly notified.

Audience member had no questions or comments.

M.Scarsciotti asked just before Ms. Alferes purchased the property, did the BOH make a requirement that there be a two-bedroom limit.  Mr. Adelstein stated not that he is aware of.  K.Ferreira feels this would have been put on as a deed restriction in 1998.  Brief discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira stated the ZBA will put a condition that the BOH will need to sign off on this system as being appropriate.  Many times w/ a two bedroom structure & the lot is small, a three bedroom septic cannot fit, thus a two bedroom system is done, but there usually is a deed restriction stating that this can never be expanded.  He doesn’t see this on the deed, but the design was for a three bedroom home, thus is compliant.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #46-06 – Ms. Rebecca Alferes – 35 Blackmore Pond Circle.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved & M. Scarsciotti seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #46-06 - Ms. Rebecca Alferes -35 Blackmore Pond Circle with the following conditions:

Brief discussion ensued re:  conditions, namely if the well is the required distance from the septic.

•	Board of Health to reconfirm if septic system meets Title V & if well is required distance from septic.
•	No external alterations.
•	Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer may, at his discretion, require upgrade of any aspects he determines to be substandard.

VOTE:  Unanimous ( 5-0-0)

B.	#47-06 – Maria Smiley – c/o Keith Dmytryck – 24 Regent Avenue

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

NOTE:	J. Cronan arrived at this time.

All parties of interest have been properly notified.

Present before the ZBA:	Keith Dmytryck, Old Fearing Hill Road

Mr. Dmytryck discussed the proposal of a two car garage.  The snow & ice have become a difficult problem for the Smiley’s since they have no garage.  He discussed current setbacks & street lines.  He submitted letters from each of the abutters to the property & garage; each abutter has stated they welcome this project.  D. McKinlay read said letters into the record.  Mr. Dmytryck stated the applicants are seeking relief so they can stay in Town.

Discussion ensued re:  if this is a Variance or Special Permit.  K. Ferreira discussed the new section of the Zoning Bylaws re:  alteration of non-conforming single or two family dwelling.  Discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira clarified that this application doesn’t have to have the higher standard of a Variance if the ZBA makes a finding that the setbacks proposed will not be more detrimental than the fact that there is a house on a non-conforming lot.  

M. Martin feels this is a new expansion; they are taking a conforming front setback & making it non-conforming, therefore, he feels this should be a Variance vs. a Special Permit regardless of what the language may suggest.

M.Scarsciotti asked what the immediate abutting property is.  Mr. Dmytryck stated there is a driveway & house. He explained the dimensions of the proposed garage.  He feels the garage will not be more detrimental.  K.Ferreira explained why setbacks at Town Meeting were increased due to lots being so big.

K.Ferreira asked where else this garage could be placed on the lot to get closer to conformance.  Mr. Dymtryck stated it would be an expense burden for the homeowner to push the garage back.  He is not certain if this is an option for the homeowner.  Brief discussion ensued.

D.McKinlay feels the ZBA needs to decide whether to hear this case as a Variance or Special Permit.  He agrees w/ M. Martin relative to side or front setbacks & looking at it as a Variance.  He doesn’t feel this application can be granted as a Special Permit.

Discussion ensued re:  how the ZBA wants to hear this case; as a Variance or a Special Permit.  K. Ferreira discussed what the article states relative to creation of a new non-conformity & hearing it as a Special Permit.  M. Martin feels other portions of the article need to be considered as well.  D. McKinlay stated the article says that if the non-conformity is increasing, you are not entitled to a Special Permit.  K. Ferreira noted another portion of the article dealing w/ a Special Permit w/ conditions relative to non-conformity.  Discussion ensued.

M. Martin feels the applicant needs to show, before subjecting this to a Special Permit, 1) not substantially increasing the non-conforming nature of structure or lot & 2) show the change will not be more substantially detrimental to the existing non-conforming structure or use in neighborhood.  In this case, the applicant doesn’t have an existing non-conformity re:  to front setbacks, thus, he can’t meet test of a Special Permit.  Discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira would like to see more information on what will happen on the other side of the property line to the neighbors & how much Regent Ave. is off incorrectly.  M. Scarsciotti would like information on setbacks of the other homes & sidewalks.

K.Ferreira suggested Mr. Dmytryk prepare for a Variance.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to continue the public hearing for petition #47-06 - Maria Smiley -24 Regent Avenue to January 10, 2006.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous ( 5-0-0)

C.	#48-06 – Jeanine T. Reid – c/o Michael H. Godbout – 4 Greene Street

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the ZBA:	Michael H. Godbout, Greene Street

Mr. Godbout explained that he would like to put a 10x16 deck off the side of his house.  The application is before the ZBA because it is set back 3.9 ft. from the street line & 6.9 ft. on the southern line.  He noted the location of this property, it is on the same street as Onset Bay Marina & is an MR-30 district.

M.Martin explained that he will need to recuse himself from this hearing.  R. Secher will sit in M. Martin’s place.

J. Cronan asked if there is a stairway on the side of house before the slider was put in.  Mr. Godbout stated there wasn’t.  There is a sliding glass door on the side.  J. Cronan sees the slider & it looks new as well as some of the windows.  Mr. Godbout stated it is new.  It was an open porch prior & closed in.  The board that was nailed on side of house was put there for the new deck.  He had applied for the deck along w/ the slider, but was told he would need a Variance for the deck.  There is a set of stairs coming down the side of the house presently off the slider.  J. Cronan asked how far the neighboring house is from the proposed deck.  Mr. Godbout stated from house to house it is 25 ft. towards the back of the lot.  Toward the front of the house, there is 22 ft. separating the houses.  If the deck was allowed to be placed, there would still be 16 - 18 ft. from the end of the deck to the neighboring house.  It will be an open deck w/ railings.

K.Ferreira stated the ZBA is acting under sections 1334 & 1335.  In this case, the front setback has increased, but a new non-conformity is being created on the side setback.  D. McKinlay feels the side setback will roughly be the same.  Mr. Godbout discussed the location of the driveway.

D.McKinlay feels this case could be heard as a Special Permit.  K. Ferriera agreed.  D. Secher asked if the existing deck will go away.  Mr. Godbout stated the existing deck on the opposite side will stay.  He needs two egresses; this is the second means of egress.  This deck is approx. 6x6 wide.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Mark Parece, Direct abutter

Mr. Parece is speaking on behalf of his wife & her brother who are the owners of record of 6 Greene St.  He submmitted photos of his house.  He will be on the side that will be most effected by this new proposed deck.

K. Ferreira asked if Mr. Godbout had a deck & had it taken down.  Mr. Godbout stated this is the temporary set of stairs.  Mr. Parece would like to be a good neighbor.  For Mr. Godbout’s application, a survey was done.  When it was done, everyone was surprised where the lot lines ended up.  For fifty years, everyone was under the assumption that side yard, including the applicant, was a 50/50 deal & was treated as such for all these years.  The survey showed that Mr. Godbout has a much larger portion of that side yard than what had been thought.    Mr. Parece’s home is five ft. from the lot line in back.  He feels he is being squeezed.  He had a survey done & the house on his southern side has been built over onto his property by approx. 6 ft.  He has no where to go on the south side & on the north, Mr. Godbout wants a Variance to come out & bring a deck even closer to his property.  He feels this is a hardship on him & more of a detriment to his property & property value.  He feels if there is to be a deck, it should be built w/in the lot line.  He is opposed to anything further than that.  He discussed the survey he had conducted & it was found that Mr. Godbout’s survey work had errors.   The property to the south is also having a survey done as well.  His contractor for the survey was Hood Survey.  He submitted this preliminary survey.

Present before the ZBA:	George Ponti

Mr. Ponti doesn’t have a problem w/ the 6 ft. deck.  K. Ferreira explained that if the deck is 10 ft., it will come w/in 6 ft. of the lot.  He noted how close the proposed deck is.  (Side one of tape ended – side 2 started w/ the motion) (I didn’t hear a motion to close the hearing)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to deny the application for petition #48-06 – Jeanine T. Reid – c/o Michael H. Godbout – 4 Greene Street.  J. Cronan seconded for discussion.

K.Ferreira discussed that the deck could be altered to be in more conformed w/ the setback requirements.  Brief discussion ensued re:  fencing.  He discussed the options the ZBA has for this application.  D. McKinlay feels if the issue of the side setback wasn’t there, then the front setback wouldn’t be an issue.  K. Ferreira stated the ZBA could agree that the 3.9 setback doesn’t increase the non-conformity & grant a Special Permit, but the side setback should be met.  M. Zollo feels there is no reason why it can’t be pushed back.  J. Cronan feels this is still a Variance & an explanation hasn’t been heard re:  a Variance.

NOTE:	M. Martin & J. Cronan w/drew their motions.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved & M. Zollo seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #48-06 - Jeanine T. Reid - 4 Greene Street w/ the following conditions:

•	Constructed per plan submitted except as modified by below conditions.
•	Deck is approved, but reduced from 10 ft. wide so as to meet 10 foot setback.
•	Deck not to be enclosed.

VOTE: Unanimous (5-0-0)

D.	#49-06 – Carol St. Pierre – c/o G.A.F. Engineering, Inc. – 15 Third Avenue.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the ZBA:	Carol St. Pierre, 15 Third Avenue

Ms. St. Pierre stated she would like to build a 22x22 two-car garage & she doesn’t meet the required setback by 18 inches.  

D.McKinlay stated this is an MR-30 district.  He questioned why she is present.  The setbacks are 10 side yard & 20 front yard, but it already exists at 15.9.  He felt the Building Inspector could do this.  Discussion ensued.

Discussion ensued re:  a similar case the ZBA heard previously.  Definitions of front yard setback was read into the record.  K. Ferreira stated the front yard setback is 15.9 ft., it will become 18 ft.  The side yard setback is 10 ft.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

Brief discussion ensued re:  if this application is a Special Permit & if this application will be substantially detrimental.

D.McKinlay read letter from the Building Inspector into the record.  The ZBA concurred to grant a Special Permit for this application & to confirm the definition of a side lot line is the ones that are opposite the front lot line.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #49-06 – Carol St. Pierre – 15 Third Avenue.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved & M. Zollo seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #49-06 - Carol St. Pierre – 15 Third Avenue w/ the following conditions:

•	Constructed per plan dated 11/6/06 except as modified by below conditions.
•	Side & rear setbacks per Zoning Bylaws will be 10 ft. or greater (reinforces distance per plan).

VOTE:  Unanimous	(5-0-0)

Brief discussion ensued re:  Conservation Commission approval.

IV.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#43-06 – Ryan Correia – 2263 Cranberry Highway

Present before the ZBA:	Ryan Correia

Mr. Correia submitted a plan that GAF Engineering has drafted which the ZBA proceeded to review.  He stated there are the appropriate number of parking spaces.  He has filed w/ the BOH for a perc test.  There units will be two bedroom townhouses.  J. Cronan asked how close unit 1 comes to the lot line w/ the deck.  Mr. Correia stated that it comes to 9 ft. & 10 ft. is needed.  K. Ferreira stated this is a Strip Commercial district.  M. Scarsciotti asked if Conservation has reviewed this.  Mr. Correia stated yes.  D. McKinlay discussed the minimum rear setback for this district which is 10 ft. for 1 & 2 family & residential.  Discussion ensued re:  proposed decks on units & setback dimensions.  Discussion ensued re:  if this project requires site plan review or landscaping.  K. Ferreira stated that the Building Inspector didn’t quote site plan review in the denial.  Mr. Correia stated he did go before Conservation.  Selectman Eckstrom believes Mr. Correia’s case was closed by Conservation.  Brief discussion ensued re:  plan showing a no activity zone coming off the water at the closest point.  Mr. Correia stated the parking lot will be paved & the access to Cranberry Highway will be closed.  Brief discussion ensued.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved to close the public hearing for petition #43-06 – Ryan Correia – 2263 Cranberry Highway.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved & M. Zollo seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #43-06 – Ryan Correia – 2263 Cranberry Highway w/ the following conditions:

•	Constructed per plan dated 12/13/06 except as modified by below conditions.
•	Rear setbacks per Zoning Bylaws will be 20 ft. or greater to any structure (deck or building).
•	Access driveway onto Cranberry Highway will be closed.
•	Driveway & parking areas to be paved & striped.
•	Lot not to be clear-cut; areas not needing work to be maintained in natural vegetation, specifically, south of driveway & east of parking area except location of septic field.
•	Landscape buffer per Zoning Bylaw of area between abutting Lot 1044 per Zoning Bylaw sec. 10.
•	Conditions of all other boards & commissions will be adhered to, notice will be provided to the ZBA if other boards & commissions determinations require modification of ZBA conditions.
•	Any site lighting must not leave the site or impact traffic on adjacent roadways; in case of any questions relative to this condition, the ZBA will make a determination.

MOTION:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	#44-06 – Alexander Sperdigliozzi – 6 Wildwood Avenue

Present before the ZBA:	Alexander Sperdigliozzi

K.Ferreira stated this case was continued for a survey plan done by Brian Murphy which Mr. Sperdigliozzi provided the ZBA.  The survey shows the proposed addition w/ setbacks & how it is connected to the existing dwelling.  K. Ferreira noted the minutes from when this hearing was opened.  It was stated that this hearing was not closed prior as the minutes indicate. 

K.Ferreira indicated according to the plan, the house is 1.1 ft. over the lot line.  He asked if the ZBA had asked the applicant to put it 3 ft. off the line.  He asked why the applicant isn’t maintaining 3.3 ft.  Mr. Sperdigliozzi stated he is willing to keep it the same as the house, for example, 3.3’.

J.Cronan asked if this addition will have its own plumbing.  Mr. Sperdigliozzi explained that the line will be coming in from the main house plumbing.  M. Martin asked what will be in the addition.  Mr. Sperdigliozzi stated a bedroom & bath, no kitchen.  K. Ferreira stated the plan shows a washer, dryer, bathroom, & master bedroom.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #44-06 – Alexander Sperdigliozzi – 6 Wildwood Avenue.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved & M. Zollo seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #44-06 -  Alexander Sperdigliozzi -6 Wildwood Avenue w/ the following conditions:

•	Construction to be per plan dated 12/7/06 except as modified by below conditions.
 The ZBA notes the previously existing structure is over lot line – no action required for this permit.
•	The addition will meet ( or be greater than) the side setback of the existing structure indicated on the plan as 3.3 ft.
•	Addition will include bathroom & laundry facility, but not a kitchen facility.
•	Addition will not be for rental.
•	Addition will be one story only.
•	Cesspool will be abandoned per Board of Health regulations.

VOTE:  Unanimous ( 5-0-0 )

C.	#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 Serkey, Attorney
				Mr. Dugan	

K.Ferreira indicated that this hearing had been continued so the ZBA members could make a site visit, to review the application, & obtain a plan showing property lines, structures, existing docks, & the proposed dock locations.

Mr. Serkey noted the dock 1-24 that comes perpendicular from the shore is dock A.  This licensed area & these spaces all exist.  He discussed dock B which is parallel to the shore  He noted all spaces that exist for dock B are in areas to be licensed. (25-28).  29-34 are proposed spaces to be licensed.  35-43 are existing to be licensed.  44-45 are existing in a licensed area.  46-48 are in a licensed area, but are being proposed.  49 is new & 50 is existing.  The licensed areas are in light blue & encompasses all of dock A, & dock B goes southward to spot 44.  K. Ferreira noted that there had been confusion in the past re:  what was licensed & what was not licensed.  Some of the operation had docks installed that were unlicensed & then there were proposals to add on more docks.

Mr. Dugan displayed a map showing the way the marina existed prior to 1999.  The dock came off & angled out off the property line.  The main purpose of the licensing in 1999 was to get it back on the property line so the marina could be sold.    He discussed changes made in 2001 relative to dock A which was licensed by DEP as it exists, but never received full Conservation approval.   Prior to Mr. Dugan purchasing the marina, there were 24 boats on the dock & 10 boats ________.  He purchased the marina w/ a slight change.  Part of the contract was to replace the old docks w/ new docks.  When they were replaced, an extension that was licensed on dock A was put over at the gas dock.  K. Ferreira asked how a proper license was obtained w/out Conservation approval.  Mr. Dugan stated he didn’t have to go back to DEP because it was less than a 10% change.  After he purchased the marina, he went to Conservation & that is when a lot of the other issues came up.  He displayed a map of what the marina looks like today.  K. Ferreira asked who altered the dock to get from 10 to 16.  Mr. Dugan stated the first four from 10 was given (from prior owner) due to the little piece on the end.  The other part was an agreement w/ Conservation to build a 24 ft. fixed dock to make sure the first docks wouldn’t go into the mud at low tide.  That dock was moved also.  This was part of the approval from Conservation.

D.Sharkey discussed what the Conservation does relative to approvals. 

Discussion ensued re:  moorings.  On plan it looks like there are nine moorings.  Mr. Serkey stated the mooring next to space 33 & 34 will be removed.  The mooring _________to 34 will be removed.  Mr. Dugan stated four moorings will remain, & the rest will be removed.  K. Ferreira stated thus, there will be 50 spaces & four moorings.  He asked prior, if the total had been 50 total (spaces & moorings).  J. Cronan stated the proposal had been 24 slips & 30 moorings.  Mr. Serkey stated the setbacks from the property lines now don’t even need to __________abutter approval at this point.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the property lines.  Mr. Dugan stated there is still boat storage outside the building.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the ZBA:	Lucy Furlong

Ms. Furlong submitted a letter to the ZBA.  D. McKinlay read said letter into the record.  Ms. Furlong spoke re:  the letter submitted in November outlining details that are negative for this whole project.  Photographs had been supplied to the ZBA that showed the amount of dockage that is way over what the license requires.  Mr. Dugan should be required to stay w/in his license.  The boatyard is w/in a residentially zoned area & not a mixed use area.  At the 12/05 ZBA meeting, Mr. Dugan’s request for expansion was denied based on the powers test.  The present plan still does not pass this test.

Present before the ZBA:	A gentleman

The gentleman stated the river is a non-navigatable river; it is not on the charts.   He discussed parking concerns/issues, large boats being brought in compounding the area. The large boats are being brought in to repair & store.  He discussed the pollution & running outboard motors which cause noise.  Paint spray goes into the neighborhood.  There are many things wrong w/ this marina.  K. Ferreira stated DEP has strict regulations on site assignments for auto-body shops, etc. & boat yards are no different.  Paint spraying, pollution, etc. are covered under many different laws, but they are primarily governed by the BOH & Conservation.  The ZBA is looking at the zoning issue, what exists, & what can be expanded in terms of location.  He noted that if there are environmental factors involved, the gentleman should look into this.

The gentleman feels that hauling boats into this area for storage & repair doesn’t go w/ this area & boatyard.  He noted the parking issues & feels this marina is overdone.

Present before the ZBA:	Peter Matoza

The proposal in area 29 of the map would come directly into his path of view & property line.  29-34 on map does block what is not marked as a channel, but is the channel.  He discussed where his property is.  K. Ferreira feels that is may be in his path of view, but not the property line due to DEP regulations.  Discussion ensued re:  property locations.

K.Ferreira discussed w/ Mr. Serkey  riparian rights, how these relate to the marina, & property lines.  K. Ferreira feels that riparian rights run perpendicular to the shoreline, but the plan shown shows criss-crossing riparian rights.  He sees a properly shown dock, but the opponents feel if the riparian rights are extended out…..Mr. Serkey stated they will never get to the center of the river.  Discussion ensued.  Ms. Furlong feels the marina is angled.

R.Secher asked if it was one car per mooring & 1.5 car space for a slip.  Mr. Dugan discussed what is available.  Ms. Furlong feels that moorings can’t be swapped for slips.  

K.Ferreira expressed concern re:  riparian rights.  Mr. Dugan discussed the dotted black line on map is DEP’s reconfiguration & this will not be official w/out EPA approval.  

Present before the ZBA:	A gentleman

The gentleman feels there are laws for parking lots, for example, markings for handicapped parking.  K. Ferreira stated handicapped spots could be marked on a crushed stone parking lot, but marking won’t last.  The gentleman says you have no idea where to park in this lot.

K.Ferreira asked what happens in the summer time in terms of outside boat storage.  Mr. Dugan stated the boats are taken out of the lot in the summer.  There are some boats for sale & some for repair.  There is room for parking & the trailers are stored in the back lot.  Mr. Serkey stated there are 35 parking spots including the back side where the shed is shown.  K. Ferreira would like, during the summer months when there is boating, an area designated for parking must be open w/ signage stating parking, no storage of boat trailers, etc.  He wants to make sure there are enough parking spots for the amount of slips there will be & any storage of boats w/in these areas during summer months would be a violation. 

K.Ferreira presented an idea if the ZBA were to grant the additional docks/slips which are more toward the center of the property & eliminated 29-34 for a minimum of 2-3 years to see if the operation could be neighborhood friendly again.  Mr. Dugan expressed concern w/ this idea because he would have to buy slips to make this configuration work.  29-34 have been sitting in the parking lot for two years.  He can’t utilize these in the other area.  He would be amendable to hold up 46-49.  He discussed changes made to original proposal namely relocating sections.  Discussion ensued re:  other options for location of dock sections which may alleviate the issue of view for neighbors.  M. Scarsciotti feels this doesn’t address the intensity of use in a residential neighborhood, it just maintains it – it is moved around, but still the same, the number is still the same.  Discussion ensued.

Present before the ZBA:	A gentleman

The gentleman the way it is going out into the channel____________.  The slips had been on-shore for two years & Conservation made them take them out & fined them.  He feels the applicant knows he is wrong.

Present before the ZBA:	A woman

The woman had submitted pictures at the last meeting depicting the months of June –August.  The pictures show there is no parking, parking is done in front of her property, working in the street etc.  There is no room for expansion.    He doesn’t feel Mr. Dugan follows the rules & is not fair to everyone in Rose Point.  K. Ferreira stated the marina is already established & all of it is not legal because it is not licensed.  The use has been there in a different fashion for a while.  This matter is in litigation.  The reason it is before the ZBA again is the judge said to go back, negotiate, & come up w/ a solution.  The ZBA needs to come up w/ a solution & conditions they feel will protect the neighborhood.  If the ZBA doesn’t do this, a judge will balance the rights of the existing property owner & the neighborhood.

A gentleman feels the expansion has run its limit.  K. Ferreira stated there will not be more than 54 boats.  Ms. Furlong stated this is 20+ than what Mr. Dugan is licensed for.  K.Ferreira stated the marina had been operating w/ more than 20+ boats for a long time & no-one came forward to complain.  Ms. Furlong feels the changes were done by Mr. Dugan.  K. Ferreira stated until Mr. Dugan applied for the expansion of the outside observation deck, covered storage, & reconfiguration he doesn’t recall any complaints re:  the business.  Ms. Furlong stated there weren’t complaints because they didn’t understand how this whole thing was working.  They watched this marina grow & didn’t know what to do about it.

K.Ferreira discussed the process re:  continuing w/ litigation vs. making a decision now.  Mr. Serkey noted one of the first exhibits he submitted was a statement from the Harbormaster indicating there were 54 boat locations that were allowed & the issue is the conversion is of moorings to slips, not the addition of boating piers.  Mr. Dugan discussed comparison of usage of slips vs. moorings.  He stated there are restrooms available at the marina.  K. Ferreira feels the intensity of use of slips is greater than moorings.  Discussion ensued.

A gentleman stated he sits on his deck at night.  He has seen people from boats go to the restrooms & dump their buckets.

Another gentleman asked how much Mr. Dugan is willing to compromise.  

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved to close the public hearing for petition #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.  D. McKinlay seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

K. Ferreira stated regular ZBA members are sitting in on this case w/ the exception of M. Martin & M. Zollo.  Sitting in their places are D. Sharkey & M. Scarsciotti.

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved to grant a Special Permit for  petition #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 per plan dated 12/12/06.  D. McKinlay seconded for discussion.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

J. Cronan discussed his site visit & dimensions he obtained.  He is concerned re:  the street operation & something needs to be done about this.  He briefly noted a brief history of the marina & what is being presented.  He feels the plan submitted presently is the best one, although he doesn’t know if it is best for the neighborhood.  The plan is better than previous submittals.  D. Sharkey feels the overall plan, even w/ the reductions that have been made, is far too intensive for the size of this lot (marina lot).  All the activity being conducted cannot be done on this property the way it has expanded.  M. Scarsciotti agrees w/ D. Sharkey & feels the activity is too intense.  She doesn’t feel moorings vs. slips are equal.  She feels the intensity of use is created by a lack of respect to licensing.  She feels to give approval after all that has taken place is inappropriate.  She feels the statement that as soon as the sewer system goes on-line in this area & Mr. Dugan would like to get a pump-out station will encourage more usage.  It is just too much for this neighborhood.  Discussion ensued re:  licensed & unlicensed area (docks).  K.Ferreira doesn’t feel the boats are the crux of the issue in terms of neighbor opposition.  There have been 50+ boats every summer.  He feels it is the intensity of the business that is causing the problem for neighbors.

Mr. Serkey has asked Mr. Dugan re:  moving spaces 29-34 northward & he is willing to see if this is practical if the hearing was continued for this purpose.  This would require re-opening the public hearing & may allow the ZBA to come to a compromise.  K. Ferreira feels the parking/street issue/boat storage needs to be addressed.  

SIDE 2 OF TAPE STARTED & THEN ENDED.

The applicant’s attorney asked if the ZBA would consider re-opening the petition so that he may negotiate a settlement w/ his client.

The Board voted unanimously to re-open the hearing & continue it to January 10, 2007 for the purpose of reducing the slips & suggested language to make the situation more acceptable to the neighbors.

V.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	December 27, 2006 (next meeting) – Cornerstone Properties – 815 Main Street – (continued public hearing) correspondence received dated November 30, 2006.
B.	Correspondence received from Commonwealth of MA dated December 6, 2006 – from Office of Inspector General re:  Chapter 40B housing developments.

VI.	CORRESPONDENCE

VII.	ADJOURNMENT

Attest:  _________________________
	Kenneth Ferreira,  Chairman

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