TOWN OF WAREHAM
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEMORIAL TOWN HALL
54 MARION ROAD
Wareham, MA 02571
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, February 8, 2006
Members present:
Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman
Donald McKinlay, Vice Chairman
Michael Martin
John Cronan
David Sharkey, Associate Member
Mary Scarsciotti, Associate Member
Richard Secher, Associate Member

K. Ferreira called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and explained the meeting procedure.  

PRELIMINARY BUSINESS:
Approval of Minutes - January 25, 2006
The minutes of the January 25 meeting will be addressed at the February 22 meeting.

Petition #116-04 - BRT Wicket’s - Request for Extension of Variance/Special Permit
A letter dated January 31, 2006 from Attorney Lawrence Winokur, was read into the record. The applicant is requesting a six month extension of the variance dated June 7, 2005.  
MOTION: Moved by J. Cronan and seconded by M. Sharkey to approve the request for a six month extension.  VOTE: (4-1-0)
  
Discussion - 281 Onset Avenue
Mr. Coughlin addressed the Board.  He was told by Mr. Misiazsek that a site plan review was required for his property at 281 Onset Avenue; Mr. Coughlin does not agree with that opinion.  He described the history of the property and said it will be used for auto detailing and sales; no changes to the site or the existing building are proposed.  The property is located in the Onset Village II District.  M. Scarsciotti asked if the property is currently in use and was told it’s been in and out of use.  She asked if it’s been out of use for more than two years; Mr. Coughlin did not provide an answer.  K. Ferreira reviewed the zoning bylaw and told Mr. Coughlin the use (automotive) is nonconforming and a variance will be required in addition to site plan review unless proof is given that it’s been operating within the last two years.  Board members and Mr. Coughlin discussed whether the site is actually located in the Onset Village I or II District.  K. Ferreira told Mr. Coughlin it’s crucial to determine which district the site is in.  He explained the intent and requirements of site plan review.  He explained the four requirements of a variance and recommended that Mr. Coughlin hire an attorney should a variance be necessary. 

Tedeschi Food Shops - 3 Barker Road - One year review 
David Coonen, Jr., was present for this meeting.  K. Ferreira explained the purpose of a one year review.  The conditions of the project were read into the record and discussed.  Mr. Coonen said the conditions have been adhered to.  
Audience member Rosario Lovell addressed the Board and described the following problems:
1.  Dumpster noise at 5:30 a.m.
2.  Light leaving the site and shining into her house.  Mr. Cooney said an additional shield was placed on the light.  K. Ferreira asked if it could be further shielded and was told no.  Mr. Cooney was advised to lower the light.  
3.  Loiterers.  Mrs. Rosario said teenagers are leaving the site, hanging around in front of her house, and vandalizing her property.  
4.  Noise from the drive up speakers.  Mr. Cooney said the store manager has lowered the volume of the speakers to the lowest level.

Mr. Cooney said the store changed to a different dumpster company in November and was told the pick up days are Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 9:30 a.m.  M. Martin asked if the dumpsters could be relocated and was told no.  
Review of the plan revealed that Mrs. Rosario’s property is across the street from the store.  M. Martin asked Mrs. Rosario if she attended the original hearings and was told she was out of the country at the time.  
It was agreed to continue this discussion, allowing Board members to visit the site.  J. Cronan asked Mr. Cooney to have the dumpster company fax a memo to the Planning office stating that the dumpsters will be emptied after 9:00 a.m.   He also requested that the Dunkin’ Donuts manager provide a memo to the Planning office stating that the drive up speakers are at the lowest audible setting.  
D. Sharkey asked about the vandalism done to Mrs. Rosario’s property (broken windshield, broken car windows).             
Audience member Larry Silva recommended the light fixture be changed to a “down light” and also that the speaker be shielded.        
Mrs. Rosario told the Board the applicant did not notify her of tonight’s discussion.
MOTION: Moved by _______________ and seconded by ________________ to continue the one year review to the March 8, 2006 meeting.  VOTE: Unanimous (5-0-0)

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Petition #141-05 - Lots 18 & 19 Seed Street - Bill Bachant Builders
A letter dated February 8, 2006, was read into the record; the applicant has requested to withdraw this petition without prejudice.  
MOTION: Moved by J. Cronan and seconded by M. Martin to allow the applicant to withdraw the request without prejudice.  VOTE: Unanimous (5-0-0)

PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Petition #005-06 -2890 Cranberry Highway - Walter Ghetti, c/o Bay Planning Co., Inc.
The public hearing notice was read into the record.  Green cards were submitted as proof of abutter notification.  The Board of Health had no comment on the request as municipal sewer is available at the site.  The applicant was represented by Dave Sorman. He submitted a letter from the applicant’s traffic consultant, who noted the reduction in vehicular traffic due to the elimination of a restaurant and the incorporation of two retailers. 
K. Ferreira explained that the request is a repetitive petition which was allowed by the Zoning Board and Planning Board to come forward less than two years after it was denied. 
Mr. Sorman described the history of the project and the revisions made to the plan.  
K. Ferreira asked what uses are proposed in the two front spaces in place of a diner; he was told a cell phone operator is proposed for one suite and negotiations are underway for the other suite.  Food service and convenience stores are not proposed.  
A letter dated January 30, 2006, from Kurt and Anne Lessinger, owners of Red Wing Estates, was read into the record.  Mr. & Mrs. Lessinger requested that an 8' fence be placed between the properties, asked what type of evergreen is proposed, and requested that the applicant maintain the fence and vegetation.  Larry Silva, P.E., addressed the Board and described the existing conditions at the site.
TAPE SHUT OFF
Board members were polled and asked if they were comfortable with the revisions.
M. Martin said he wanted to be sure that the applicable conditions of the previous application will be adhered to in this request.  He said the revised plan is an improvement of the original plan.
R. Secher said the revised plan is an improvement.
M. Scarsciotti asked if two peaked areas shown are for architectural interest.  She was told no use is proposed in those areas, they are for architectural interest.  She asked if they could be lowered; review of the plan revealed that the peaks will be 26.5' high.
D. McKinlay said the revised plan addressed his concerns for high intensity of the original proposal.  He agreed with M. Scarsciotti’s opinion that the peaks looked weird; Mr. Sorman explained that the applicant is trying to maintain the identity of the tenant.
A memo dated February 8, 2006, from traffic consultant Howard, Stein, Hudson, was read into the record.  The memo indicated that the restaurant originally proposed would have generated 490 daily weekday trips and 609 Saturday trips.  The retail uses proposed in the revised plan will generate 150 daily weekday trips and 142 Saturday trips.  
M. Zollo asked if two commercial buildings on one lot is an allowed use and was told yes, it was allowed at Town Meeting.  The applicant is before the Board for site plan review.  
J. Cronan said he voted against the original request and the revised plan is an improvement.
Mr. Sorman said due to the existing structure on the site it would not look right as one building. 
Audience members had no questions or comments.  
A copy of the conditions imposed for the original decision was not available for the Board’s review.  J. Cronan asked if the applicant objected to any of the conditions imposed during the initial application.  He was told the applicant is totally amenable. 
K. Ferreira said the change made to the plan is significant and will be an improvement to the site by cutting down on the traffic trips that will be generated.   
MOTION: Moved by M. Martin and seconded by J. Cronan to continue the public hearing to the February 22 meeting.  VOTE: Unanimous (5-0-0)

Petition #006-06 -14 Summer Street - Joseph & Katherine Tavares
The public hearing notice was read into the record.  Green cards were submitted as proof of abutter notification.  Comments from the Board of Health were read into the record.  The request is for a variance allowing the construction of an in-law apartment addition that will contain a second kitchen and living space.  The space will not be a separate apartment.   The addition will consist of a kitchen, two bedrooms, a living room, and bathroom.  M. Martin asked what type of door is proposed; he was told it will be left open and a door is not proposed.   
K. Ferreira noted that the plan stated “make door”; he asked if it will be an opening or passageway.  
Audience members had no questions or comments.  
The capacity of the septic system was discussed.
It was agreed to continue the public hearing.  A memo will be sent to the Building Inspector suggesting that he reexamine the request.  If he determines that a variance is required it will be addressed at the next meeting.  If he determines that a variance is not required the applicant can withdraw the application.  K. Ferreira said the Board should not be granting variances if the use is allowed.  
The number of doors was discussed.
Board members discussed whether the regulations prohibit two kitchens in a dwelling.
K. Ferreira explained to the applicants that if the house is assessed and a door with a lock is dividing the house into two dwellings it will be a violation of zoning with a daily fine of $300 until the issue is corrected.  He advised them to request a door at this time if they want one.  Mr. Tavares said he has no intention of putting dead bolt on a door.  
The conditions of an in-law apartment (use limited to family members, removal of the  kitchen and the doors dividing the house upon sale of the property) were explained to the applicant and he decided to request a variance.  
K. Ferreira asked the size of the addition and was told 800+ square feet.  The original house is 1028 square feet.          
After a lengthy discussion it was agreed to continue this to the February 22 meeting.    
MOTION: Moved by J. Cronan and seconded by D. Sharkey to continue the public hearing to the February 22 meeting.  VOTE: Unanimous (5-0-0)

Petition #004-06 -259 Onset Avenue - Friends of Wareham Free Library, c/o G.A.F. Engineering, Inc.
The public hearing notice was read into the record.  Green cards were submitted as proof of abutter notification.  The applicant was represented by Anthi Frangiadis and William Madden, P.E.
NOTE: Ms. Frangiadis is Chairman of the Planning Board and her Special Employee status allows her to represent the applicant.
The project involves renovations and addition to an existing building.  The building is proposed to be used as a library; it was used as a library from the 1880's until 1963.  A new foundation is proposed.  Mr. Madden said a letter was received from the Building Inspector stating that a variance is required for the front setback.  The letter also stated that a landscape buffer is required; Mr. Madden described the proposed fence.  The plan shows four parking spaces.  A Special Permit is required for a modification to a nonconforming structure.  
The driveway and parking spaces were discussed.  
The plan was reviewed by the Planning Board; comments were read into the record.  The comments voiced support for the project; recommendations were made relative to lighting.  
Mr. Madden described the proposed drainage plan.
_________________________, audience member, addressed the Board.  He asked if the height of the proposed fence could be increased.
---------------------------------, 6 Union Avenue, voiced support for the project on behalf of the Onset Fire District.     
Audience members had no further questions or comments.
The setback requirements were reviewed and discussed.  
The Building Inspector has requested that the Board determine the parking requirements.      
A variance is required for a landscape buffer.  
A Special Permit is required for the extension/alteration of a nonconforming structure.
Site Plan Review is required for the plan.

M. Scarsciotti said she would like to see as little parking on the site as possible.
J. Cronan voiced approval for the plan.  
MOTION: Moved by J. Cronan and seconded by M. Zollo to close the public hearing.  VOTE: Unanimous (5-0-0)
MOTION: Moved by M. Martin and seconded by J. Cronan to: 1. Make a finding that the front setback requirements per Tables 621, Onset Village District, have been met.  Therefore, no variances are required.   2.  Make a finding that four parking spaces are permitted.  The applicant can reduce that number as long as one must be a handicapped space.  3.  To grant a variance conditional upon the applicant meeting all requirements of the Onset Village District’s Screen Requirement that is found at the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 712.5, Design Standards. 4.  Except as modified by the parking, the site plan and other landscaping shall be per the plan submitted dated through January 13, 2006.  5.  All design standards of the Onset Village District shall be met. VOTE:  (4-0-1)

Discussion of 40B Rules and Regulations
Proposed regulations were reviewed and discussed.  
1.  It was agreed that the Wareham and Onset Fire Districts will not be considered local Boards.  
2.  It was agreed that the Town Engineering Department will be considered a local Board.
3.  Section C - Item A - Section 301A was changed to Section 301B.
4.  Section 3.02, paragraph C - language eliminated entirely.  
5.  Section 3.02 - An item was added requiring that applicants provide verification of adequate fire flow is available for the density.
6.  Administrative filing fees - Language allowing the Board the authority to waive additional fees was deleted.  
7.  Technical review fees - Item 4 was deleted.
8.  3.41 - Language referencing professional assistance was deleted in one area and added in another.
9.  3.43 - Language was deleted.  
10.  3.44 - Language stating that excess funds will be returned to the applicant within 30 days following the issuance of the final occupancy permit.
11.  3.5 - Language referencing the acceptance of an application was added.
12.  7.04 - If the applicant appears before any other Board of Commission and changes to the plan are made, they must reappear before the Board.  Copies of any decisions must be filed with the Board of Appeals within seven days of issuance.    
13.  9.02 - Language was added stating that the Board of Appeals will sign off on all building permits and occupancy permits.
14.  Building permits will not be issued until proof of recording at the Registry of Deeds.  
15.  9.01 - “Any other responsible officials shall be notified” was added.  “Previously submitted specifications” was added.
16.  9.03 - Language relative to the Wareham Zoning bylaw was deleted.
17. 3.02 - Addition of item E - language relative to specs added.
It was agreed that K. Ferreira will make revisions and email them to Board members and the Planning office tomorrow.
MOTION: Moved by J. Cronan and seconded by M. Zollo to adopt the regulations as written and modified tonight.  VOTE: Unanimous (5-0-0)

Meeting adjourned.   

							______________________________
							Donald McKinlay, Vice Chairman 

Date minutes approved:
Date minutes sent to Library: