TOWN OF WAREHAM
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEMORIAL TOWN HALL
54 Marion Road
Wareham, MA 02571

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

Date of Meeting:  August 23, 2006

Members Present:
Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman
Donald McKinlay, Vice Chairman
John Cronan (Arrived at 7:50 P.M.)
Michael Martin
Michelle Zollo
Mary Scarsciotti, Associate Member
Richard Secher, Associate Member
David Sharkey, Associate Member
Brenda Eckstrom, Board of Selectman

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

K. Ferriera called the meeting to order.

K. Ferriera discussed the procedure for this meeting.

II.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes:  7/26/06 & 8/9/06.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to table the minutes of 7/26/06 until J. Cronan arrives.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (7-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to accept the minutes of 8/9/06 as written.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (7-0-0)

B.	Discussion:  Spinney Library – c/o Anthi Frangiadis

Present before the ZBA:	Anthi Frangiadis

Ms. Frangiadis is  representing Cubellis Associates.  She noted the modification to a site plan that the ZBA previously reviewed in 2/06.  She indicated that she serves on the Town’s Planning Board as Chairman & has Special Municipal Employee Status which allows her to present before the ZBA.  

NOTE:	J. Cronan arrived at this time.

Ms. Frangiadis explained that the project entails the renovation & addition to an existing building at 259 Onset Ave.  She spoke re:  the ZBA’s decision filed, condition #4.  The site is modified by parking by the Site Plan & other landscaping, which shall be per plans submitted dated 1/13/06.  While going through the design process, discussion was held re:  the potential of reducing the amount of parking spaces & parking surface to the rear of the building.  The original proposal showed four parking spaces to the rear, eliminating the backyard or potential for outdoor use.  The decision of the ZBA was that parking could be modified as long as everything else was left in tact, for example, landscaping.  With the reduction of the parking, it is proposed that there be three spaces, one being handicapped & the utilization of more vegetation, including two more Maple trees in back.  The landscaping to the rear of the building has been changed.  

M. Martin asked if there is a reduction to impervious coverage.  Ms. Frangiadis explained it is being reduced & was acceptable to the ZBA based on the decision that was rendered.  The change is to the landscaping, but there is a lot of proposed new landscaping in the rear.   She briefly discussed condition #4.

Discussion ensued re:  if this is a modification.  K. Ferriera stated the ZBA allowed the modification to occur & recalls the condition read “as per the plan except as modified by the conditions of the ZBA.”  One was to modify the impervious surface, which is a modification.  

MOTION:	M. Martin moved the ZBA accept the plan set 1-7 submitted by Cubellis Associates dated 7/7/06 as a revised site plan for the Spinney Library which meets condition #4 of the original Special Permit.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)
  
NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item II.  Preliminary Business – A.  Minutes.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to accept the minutes of 7/26/06.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  (6-0-2)
D.McKinlay & M. Zollo abstained

C.	Discussion:  Cranberry Court, LLC – Devin, Barry & Austin, P.C.

Present before the Commission:	Attorney Robert Devin

K. Ferriera stated a letter was received from Attorney Devin representing Cranberry Court, LLC relative to request for modifications.  The ZBA needs to deem whether the modifications are substantial or minor; if substantial, a public hearing is needed.  ZBA members proceeded to review said letter re:  modifications.  K. Ferriera has spoken to Attorney Witten & he advised that a hearing needs to be held w/in 30 days if the modifications are deemed substantial.  

K. Ferriera stated that Attorney Devin indicated that the ZBA must schedule a full hearing on each requested modification (separately).  He questioned what this means.  Attorney Devin stated he was suggesting that some of the requested modifications may be deemed substantial, some not substantial.  The ZBA would have to make a determination on each requested modification as opposed to a global determination.

J. Cronan asked what Agawam Green is.  Attorney Devin stated Agawam Green is the name of the project & Cranberry Court, LLC is the applicant.

The ZBA members proceeded to discuss the following modifications:

1.	(Original Condition ) -Seven (7) of the fourteen affordable dwelling units shall be sold at a price no greater than $135,000.  Seven of the affordable dwelling units shall be sold at a price no greater than $150,000.  The proposed modification is to set the price of the affordable units by pricing the fourteen affordable units at time of sale so that they shall be affordable to an individual or family earning no more than 80% nor less than 70% of the median income as designated for the appropriate region that includes the Town of Wareham.  The price shall be variable based on the current statistics.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved modification #1 as substantial.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

2.	The proposed modification is drainage improvements to Meadowlark Road will be completed in a timely manner, but in any event prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit for the 28th unit. 

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved modification #2 as substantial.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

4.  The proposed modification is the applicant shall include w/in the Master Deed a provision prohibiting the conversion of any interior space into additional living space and/or bedroom use.  Said Master Deed will be recorded in the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds.  (Goes w/ #5)

5.	 The proposed modification is that no construction or site distrurbance occur prior to the expiration of 30 days from the date the Board or their counsel have been provided w/ complete draft legal documentation including that relating to the Regulatory Agreement, Deed Rider, Monitoring Agreement, condominium documents & other documents necessary or required by law, regulation, housing program or this decision.

Brief discussion re:  what the modification is.  It was clarified that the modification is the word “draft.”  K. Ferriera feels the draft documents may be sufficient as long as the final documents were in the ZBA’s hands to show they are the same as the draft documents at some point before the first unit is sold. 
 
MOTION:	K. Ferriera moved modification #4 & #5 as substantial.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

10.	 The proposed modification is that the applicant shall be under no obligation to construct or install the proposed solar energy/photo voltaic systems unless grant funding is available to the applicant. 

It was stated that this has nothing to do w/ the homeowner.  

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved modification #10 as substantial.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

3.	The modification is the applicant shall submit a construction permitting schedule prior to the start of construction & periodically thereafter to the ZBA to assist in project status, update & review.  

Brief discussion ensued re:  establishing a timeframe.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved modification # 3 as substantial.  D. McKinlay seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

7. The proposed modification is to extend work one hour on Saturdays.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved modification #7 as minor.  J. Cronan seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

5. The proposed modification is to strike banks (Funding Home Loan Program) because the Town of Middleboro vs. Housing Appeals Committee voted it down & it is the decision.  

K. Ferriera stated Attorney Witten explained that this decision is being appealed & feels this should be left in until Counsel can generate better wording.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved modification #5 is substantial.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

LANDSCAPING CONDITION

1.  The proposed modification is to guarantee landscape material for one year (not two).  

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved modification #1 as substantial.  D.  Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

6.	The proposed modification deals w/ the  perpetual affordability restriction sections.  

Discussion ensued re:  repeating restriction for every conveyance in order to extend the perpetuity of the 30 years.  Attorney Devin stated these are exceptions to the 30 year statute.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved modification #6 substantial.  D. McKinlay seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

8.	 The proposed modification is to strike “prior to applying for a building permit for the project” & references to the MA Housing loan in second sentence which states prior to applying for a building permit the applicant shall submit fully executed regulatory agreement.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved modification #8 as substantial.  J. Cronan seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

9.	The proposed modification is to strike the words “prior” in the monitoring services agreement.  

Discussion ensued re:  timeframe indicated if the word “prior” is stricken.  D. McKinlay suggested changing it to “prior to any occupancy permit.”  M. Scarsciotti noted a previous project where there was no services agreement.  Discussion ensued.

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved modification #9 as substantial.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to allow Attorney Witten to discuss these modifications w/ Attorney Devin prior to the public hearing.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

H.	 The proposed modification (under covenants) is to strike the last sentence “prior to issuance of fourth occupancy permit for project.”

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved modification H as substantial.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

10.	The proposed modification is to strike paragraph #2 re:  legal documents.  

Attorney Devin stated this is a duplication of #4 & #5.  K. Ferriera clarified that it is a duplicate, w/ the exception of the final plans.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved modification M as substantial.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

11.	The proposed modification is to change from 14 days to 7 days prior to start of construction the applicant shall provide written notice to ZBA w/ anticipated construction start date & anticipated construction schedule.

Discussion ensued re:  purpose for notice.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved that modification P is minor.  D. McKinlay seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

K. Ferriera stated the date of the permit is 5/27/05 & briefly explained what the ZBA’s decision stated.  Discussion ensued re:  the purchase & sale of this property & control.  M. Martin asked if the rules adopted in February apply.  K. Ferriera feels they don’t, but the purpose of the public hearing will be to look at these modifications.

K. Ferriera stated the CMR regulations require a public hearing on the modifications that have been requested that the ZBA deemed substantial w/in 30 days which includes the notification requirements of 40A, notice to abutters, advertisements, etc.  Brief discussion ensued re:  when to hold this public hearing & the need to have an extension of time (due to ZBA meeting schedules) or hold a special public hearing.  J. Cronan is in favor of a special public hearing.  The applicant stated he is willing to extend.  The ZBA concurred to hold a public hearing on 9/27/06.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to hold a public hearing for Cranberry Court, LLC, requested modifications at 7:30 P.M. on 9/27/06 in the Town Hall cafeteria subject to receiving an extension of time as required by Attorney Devin.  D. Sharkey seconded.

NOTE:	The ZBA members concurred to hold no other public hearings/continued hearings on 9/27/06.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

D. Sharkey understands that their special Attorney is now Town Counsel.  Selectman Eckstrom stated he has applied for the position of Town Counsel.  D. Sharkey suggested  if he becomes Town Counsel, the ZBA should request another Counsel for ZBA matters.  Selectman Eckstrom stated he is not Town Counsel & he is still the ZBA’s special Counsel.  Discussion ensued.  D. Sharkey expressed concern re:  what Attorney Witten’s future position will be.  K. Ferriera expressed concern re:  Attorney Witten being so familiar w/ this project & the ZBA possibly starting w/ someone new.  He feels this should be discussed later in the meeting.  The ZBA members concurred.  

11.	 REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
(NONE)

12.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#15-06 – Camper’s Headquarters – 3120 Cranberry Highway, c/o Choubah Engineering.

Present before the ZBA:	Hal Choubah, Choubah Engineering
				Tim Ryan, Applicant

D.McKinlay read the public hearing notice into the record.

Mr. Choubah stated this is the second public hearing.  At the first public hearing, it was stated that the project would have to be re-advertised under Article 4 s.446 for groundwater protection over the district.  Since the last public hearing, comments & concerns were received & have been addressed w/ the Town engineer.  A meeting was also held w/ the Planning Board on 7/24/06.

Mr. Choubah described the proposed project & revisions made to the site plan to address concerns.  The project is for a relocation of an existing business from 3094 Cranberry Highway to the existing site at 3120 Cranberry Highway, Map 8, Lot 1004 & 1005.  The site measures approx. 2.65 acres & is located in SC & MR30 district.  The subject property is already developed & was used as a restaurant business w/ a 4,500 sq. ft. building & 12,000 sq. ft. parking area.  The remaining portion of site is covered w/ gravel surfaces.  Total existing site coverage is approx. 15%.  Access to site has an existing driveway opening approx. 142 ft. wide from Cranberry Highway.  The proposal is to relocate the applicant’s business from 3094 Cranberry Highway to this site.  The existing building will be used for sales transactions & the existing paved area will be used for parking.  Existing gravel areas will remain intact & would be used for display of campers.  With the proposed change of use & site modification, there will be no increase in paved surfaces or change of grade, but instead a decrease due to a proposal to replace approx. 1,700 sq. ft. of paved area by green space.  The proposed retail & service use are allowed in CS district, however, a Special Permit from the ZBA is required for sale of recreational vehicles, & further, the site is located in the groundwater protection district & subject to Special Permit approval.

Mr. Choubah proceeded to review his responses to the Town Engineer (correspondence dated 7/12/06 from Mark Louro).  Brief discussion ensued re:  correspondences.  K. Ferriera explained that there are two public hearings; one has been re-advertised to include the groundwater protection district & the second is a site plan review.  He feels if the groundwater protection issue is satisfied, the site plan review most likely would be as well.  He would like Mr. Choubah to discuss how the groundwater will be protected & how the re-charge issue will be addressed.  Mr. Choubah explained that the runoff will be decreasing from the site by 1,700 sq. ft. by replacing impervious surfaces w/ landscaping.  The total coverage of the site is 15.3%.  There will be no cars parked in the gravel area except the campers (non-motorized).  There had been concern re:  campers being parked in need of repair, leaks, etc.  It is a non-issue & it is only for non-motorized campers.  There was concern re:  dust control.  The applicant is willing to overlay the gravel w/ reclaimed asphalt or some sort of pervious material that will control the dust.  There isn’t a need to be concerned re:  runoff from the site.  K. Ferriera doesn’t feel it is 100% pervious.  He asked what number would be assigned to permeability.  He understands the dust control will be assisted by utilizing reclaimed asphalt.  Regular asphalt could be used & increase the impervious cover.  Mr. Choubah stated they are decreasing the runoff from the site by reducing the impervious surfaces.  K. Ferriera stated this is correct, but even w/ reclaimed asphalt there will still be some runoff.  Mr. Choubah stated they could look into other impervious surfaces.  K. Ferriera expressed concern re:  this being an aquifer district & the importance of addressing the protection of the aquifer.

M. Martin asked if any comments have been received from the Onset Water District.  Mr. Choubah stated no & this is the reason the second hearing was advertised so that feedback could be obtained.  He assumes since no comments have been submitted, there are no concerns.  The ZBA has no correspondence from the Onset Fire District either.  M. Martin spoke to the Onset Water District Superintendent relative to this application.  He feels the Superintendent’s concerns are w/ having the appropriate drainage & catch basins.  M. Martin was under the impression that the campers were a mixture of motorized & pull behinds. 

K. Ferriera stated the Planning Board sent no comments to the ZBA re:  this application.  He agreed w/ M. Martin that the Zoning Re-write Committee, Planning Board, West Wareham Strategic Planning Committee have all been concerned re:  the re-use of existing properties in order to make them a better project.  He doesn’t see a lot of improvement to the property structure in the plans.  Campers are already being parked in the back of the lot, thus, the lot is being used, & he feels this may be a violation.  The plan doesn’t do much to upgrade the facility.  He asked what the plans are for the building & lot, for example, the plans show no pavement being placed, but gravel.  He feels the plans submitted are a quick fix.  

M. Martin asked if the ZBA is charged w/ conducting the site plan review for this application.  K. Ferriera stated “yes.”  M. Martin doesn’t feel much is being done for site improvement/aesthetics.  D. Sharkey feels this hearing is jumping back & forth from site planning to requirements for the site & he doesn’t feel this should be done.

M. Zollo stated at the last hearing there were questions re:  the back end of the site that extends down to Redbrook Rd. & concerns relative to this being vacant & how dust would be handled in this area.  K. Ferriera expressed concerns re:  the building aesthetics & upgrades.  He noted the plantings on the plan for the front look good, but five Rhododendron’s are not a lot of landscaping for Cranberry Highway.  He noted other plantings on the property, but he feels they are small.  Mr. Choubah stated the intent of the planting in the front is to not obstruct the site, but the landscaping can be worked out.  J. Cronan agreed that more landscaping is needed & there is no drainage.  Mr. Choubah stated the applicant will make a commitment as to what extent he will take this project, he cannot speak to that.  He explained his job as an engineer is to try to make this site work.  K. Ferriera expressed concern re:  what the rest of the building will be used for because not a lot of room would be needed for sales.  There are a lot of unanswered questions.  It was stated the applicant would be renting the property.  He again expressed concern re:  what will happen w/ the rest of the building, not having the whole lot paved, & upgrades to the façade of the building.

M. Zollo asked who would be responsible for the drainage issue.  K. Ferriera stated this will have to be worked out between the applicant & the property owner.  M. Zollo feels at some point the owner will have to do something re:  drainage if he plans to rent this property.  Discussion ensued re:  plans, concerns, & confusion over correspondence from Hancock Associates.  K. Ferriera clarified to the applicant & Mr. Choubah what the concerns of the ZBA are & what they would like to see further on the plan, such as more landscaping.  Brief discussion ensued re:  continuing the hearing.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to continue the public hearing for petition #15-06 to 9/13/06.  M. Zollo seconded.

NOTE:	M. Martin asked for a façade plan for the next meeting, information on how much of the building will be utilized, & signage.  Mr. Ryan stated he will be renting the whole building.  

No audience members had questions or comments.

J. Cronan stated the applicant is already paying rent & utilizing the property.   He feels this is a problem.  K. Ferriera feels this is an enforcement issue.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

B.	#26-06 – A.D. Makepeace, Co. – 17 Pond Edge Trail, c/o G.A.F. Engineering, Inc.

Present before the ZBA:	Tony Amaral, G.A.F. Engineering
				Tom Burke, A.D. Makepeace

D.McKinlay read the public hearing notice into the record.

Mr. Amaral explained a sub-division was approved in 2/03.  The infrastructure is being reduced & a lot of open space is being created.  There were 35 lots in this sub-division, private roads, & lots were restricted in this area to be developed at 15,000 sq. ft. (Crane Landing).  They are present this evening is to discuss one of the lots that was created (#19).  The zoning requires frontage of 180 ft.   With this lot over 200 ft. was created on two streets.  They do not meet the strict definition of coverage by having 180 ft. on one street.  The restriction for 15,000 sq. ft. lots are in certain areas.  On Lot 19, the alteration of the home site would be in the rear of the lot.  By granting a Variance for this lot, he doesn’t believe it would be detrimental to the neighborhood due to the large amount of open space. One of the conditions that had been placed as part of the approval process was to have united systems, thus minimizing impact to the environment.  Thus, they are seeking a Variance from strict compliance w/ the frontage requirement.

K. Ferriera asked if this was just a mistake.  Mr. Amaral stated “yes.”   He stated on one street there is 121 ft. & the other street has 78 ft.  No-one picked up on this mistake during the definitive process through the Planning Board.  There is enough frontage between several lots to re-adjust the line, but they can’t be changed now because there is a home on one & the other lots are sold.  They haven’t approached the homeowner to buy back some land.  Brief discussion ensued re:  if the abutters were notified.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

Discussion ensued re:  where additional feet can be picked up to minimize the amount of the Variance.  D. McKinlay suggested eliminating one lot, straighten the lines, & then there would be a perfect development; there are 30+ lots here.  Mr. Amaral discussed how this issue came about.  He stated there is footage available either way, but they don’t want to do it now because the adjacent lots have been conveyed.  K. Ferriera discussed the purpose of frontage.

M. Martin feels in terms of a Variance, the hardship seems self-imposed.  He questioned thus, what has become the legal grounds for a Variance.  Mr. Amaral feels if it were self-imposed, it would have to be intentional.  The hardship here would be financial due to losing the value of the lot.  This is not detrimental to the neighborhood.  Brief discussion ensued re:  frontage measurements.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to close the public hearing for petition #26-06.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to grant the Variance for petition #26-06 in finding that strict interpretation of the ordinance has no substantial benefit to public interests & provide an undo hardship on the applicant financially or otherwise.  J. Cronan seconded for discussion.

NOTE:	M. Martin understands the ZBA’s reluctance to grant Variances.  This is a brand new sub-division; there doesn’t seem to be any real detriment to the surrounding properties.  Although it doesn’t meet the zoning standards, no public benefit will be gained by it.  K. Ferriera agreed.   D. McKinlay doesn’t feel it can be justified as a financial hardship.  If Lot 19 is split between Lot 20 & Lot 18, the lot lines would look better & there would be nicer lots.  M. Martin suggested an option of obtaining a road name change & have from Crane Landing Rd. go down to the cul-de-sac & take Pond Edge Trail & have it end at the unit; then there wouldn’t be a problem.  Brief discussion ensued.  K. Ferriera acknowledged there are ways to correct this issue which may involve taking back deeds, re-do mortgages, etc.; there is a lot of paperwork.

VOTE:  (2-3-0)
D.McKinlay, M. Zollo, & J. Cronan opposed

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item D.  #29-06 – Anthony Andrade – 39 Old Onset Road, c/o G.A.F. Engineering, Inc.

Present before the ZBA:	Brian Grady, G.A.F. Engineering, Inc.
				Anthony Andrade

D.McKinlay read the public hearing notice into the record.

Mr. Grady discussed the contents of the packet submitted to the ZBA.  The reason a Special Permit is being sought is because the property at one time had a dwelling.  The Building Inspector considered this a new construction vs. a vacant lot which would be considered for a small lot exemption.  Discussion ensued re:  if the dwelling was a shed.

K. Ferriera asked how the Building Inspector picked up that there was a re-build; a house had already been there.  Mr. Grady doesn’t know. If it were a shed, it wouldn’t be a reconstruction of a single family home.  He asked if there was an error on the plan w/ (2) #37’s.  Mr. Grady explained how he corrected this error.

M. Martin stated the Building Inspector cites s.1322 of Restoration from Damage for Destroyed Structures. D. McKinlay feels the Building Inspector found evidence somewhere.  He feels a Special Permit should be issued because it would have been grandfathered except for that & it is not an unreasonable request.  Mr. Andrade suggesting dismissing this matter.  

K. Ferriera asked if audience members had any questions or comments.

Present before the ZBA:	Bill Clancy, 35 Old Onset Rd.

Mr. Clancy stated he doesn’t know why he was called because he doesn’t abut this property.  Brief discussion ensued.  Mr. Clancy looked at the plan to determine his lot number.  He has no problem w/ this application.  

A woman addressed the ZBA & stated she wasn’t notified.  Discussion ensued re:  why abutters at lot #1014 weren’t notified.  K. Ferriera clarified that Mr. Clancy had a discussion w/ his neighbor, Mr. Andrade at #37 re:  the hearing tonight relative to building a house on Old Onset Rd. & it was known.  Discussion ensued re:  confusion over lot numbers.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to close the public hearing for petition #29-06.  J. Cronan seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to grant petition #29-06 per plan submitted by G.A.F. Engineering, Inc. dated 8/8/06 except as may be modified by conditions of this decision & findings are as documented in request for Special Permit specifically proposed structure will be in full conformance w/ the required setbacks, structure will certify municipal water & sewer, the property is not located in wetland or conservation area, property is not located in zone to a wellhead ________________, & property is not located in a flood plain__________________, & further, parking adequate to the use will be provided off street.  J. Cronan seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

C.	#29-06 – Anthony Andrade – 39 Old Onset Road, c/o G.A.F. Engineering, Inc. (DONE)

NOTE:	Item IV. – D. & Item V. – A. will be handled together.

D.	#27-06 – Wareham Health Group, LLC (Tremont Rehabilitation & Skill Care Center) – “One Year Review” – 605 Main St. – c/o Charles L. Rowley & Associates.

13.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#24-06 – 577 Main Street – Wareham Health Group, LLC, c/o Charles Rowley & Associates (cont’d. from 8/9/06).

Present before the ZBA:	Charles L. Rowley, Rowley & Associates
				Patrick Sheehan, Principal of Wareham Health Group

K. Ferriera stated that D. McKinlay & M. Zollo were not present for the initial discussion of this petition.  Sitting in place currently are the alternates, R. Secher, M. Scarsciotti, & D. Sharkey.   M. Martin recused himself from the hearing since his employer is a direct abutter.  M. Zollo let the table at this time.

D.McKinlay read the public hearing notice into the record for petition #27-06.

Mr. Rowley submitted revised plans for petition #24-06.  He stated at the last meeting, discussion was held re:  modification to parking to get closer to the 50% impervious cover that was needed to convert the 60%, & revised parking to get the encroachment off the neighboring lot, but in so doing, it came to 60%.  Revised plans show revision to 54%.  It was in compliance before zoning was changed to Village II district & it was a SC district previously.  He discussed modifications to the plan, for example, landscaping.  There is a proposed increase in the landscaping area at the front right of driveway & one parking space has been taken out & a handicapped space put in, thus reducing area around the back to allow for two dumpsters.  All the impervious cover will decrease from 60% to 54%.

Brief discussion ensued re:  correspondence from Hancock Associates.

NOTE:	It was noted that a letter received stated that the SAV plan meets all concerns.

K. Ferriera feels this site plan addresses the needs & reuse of the building & the general layout of parking & landscaping works.  Brief discussion ensued re:  if a letter is needed from Hancock Associates for this project.  Mr. Rowley discussed previous comments from Hancock Associates that have been addressed.

 J. Cronan discussed the issue of adding parking onto this property beyond the property line.  He questioned what happens if the owner sells this house.  He questioned what this does re:  the parking in the back lot onto the house lot.  It will be like one piece of land instead of two separate lots.  Mr. Rowley stated if this happened, an easement would have to be placed.  Also, there is a sewer line that crosses the property & there would be a second easement.  J. Cronan would like a condition placed that the ZBA recognizes that upon sale of the property an easement would have to be created.  Discussion ensued.  D. McKinlay stated a condition could be made to take out the parking & be returned to the conditions that were present when the permit was granted.  

M. Scarsciotti asked re:  the three large storage containers.  J. Cronan understands permits are needed for these after 90 days.  D. McKinlay feels they are not allowed.  Mr. Sheehan stated there are three & he doesn’t know if they have a permit.  They are being used for storage for snow blowers, outside furniture, etc.  The ZBA concurred that they are being used for storage.

Mr. Rowley spoke re:  the parking in the back.  He stated one option would be to bring the lot line back to behind the retaining wall & if this property would be conveyed to Tremont Rehab, all the parking is contained on the Tremont Rehab parcel.  This couldn’t be done w/out making Lot 1046 slightly under the 15,000 sq. ft. required in the zone.  Discussion ensued.  M. Scarsciotti stated the use of that parking space could be conveyed to the nursing home.  Mr. Rowley agreed & discussed how this could be done by an easement.

The ZBA proceeded to conduct the “One Year Review” for petition #27-06 (nursing home).  Mr. Rowley submitted copies of the original plan.  Discussion ensued re:  the following conditions of the Variance:

a.	The through driveway from Main St. to Rte. 28 is to be closed at  applicant’s parking lot.

Discussion ensued re:  the applicant’s property line, this being a fire lane, & why this was placed as a condition.   Discussion ensued re:  placing this condition on both petitions.

b.	Applicant shall request Municipal Maintenance to install, at applicant’s expense, No Parking signs on Main St.

Mr. Rowley stated this has been done.  M. Scarsciotti stated that the applicant was to also send letters to vendors & suppliers requesting they not utilize this door.  Mr. Rowley believes this has been done as well.  M. Scarsciotti stated parking & the use of this door is still being used all the time.  D. McKinlay concurred.  Brief discussion ensued re:  safety issues.  M. Scarsciotti doesn’t feel normal transportation issues have been addressed.  Discussion ensued re:  addressing this condition.  Mr. Sheehan can address this issue & will contact the ambulance, transportation companies, staff.  He will provide correspondence to the ZBA re:  informing these companies that this will be policy.  D. Sharkey stated people/construction workers are parking on the lawn area.  Mr. Rowley stated this is only temporary.  

c.	The applicant will request & allow vertical concrete curb to be installed from the visitor parking lot along the easterly sidewalk.

J. Cronan understood that Mark Gifford, Municipal Maintenance Director stated he doesn’t want this concrete curb because of issues w/ plowing, etc.  Discussion ensued.   K. Ferriera feels if this curb was put in, the ambulance service wouldn’t be able to pull up onto the sidewalk.  D. Sharkey concurred.  

d.	(K. Ferriera stated #4 was just addressed).
e.	Landscape areas adjacent to the Thorn property will be enhanced by utilizing triangles in front of the parking spaces, ________installation of a six foot high stockade fence.

Mr. Rowley stated on the original plan, there were triangular planting areas because there was diagonal parking.  It was changed to right angle parking because it moved the parking spaces further away form the line that is facing Cranberry Highway & offers more maneuverability, thus, eliminating triangular areas.

f.	Guardrail on Cranberry Highway adjacent to block wall shall be constructed of wood timberface.

Mr. Rowley stated this is complete.

g.	Buffering is to be maintained in perpetuity by the applicant or successor at all times.
h.	Applicant shall return for a One Year Review.

K. Ferriera expressed concern re:  lighting behind the building.  It has changed; it is not how it was.  D. McKinlay stated the change has addressed the light directly shining down Rte. 28 & feels the solution was adequate.  K. Ferriera feels it took a long time to address this issue & discussed.

D.McKinlay feels the ZBA made a mistake in allowing the applicant to maintain the driveway onto Main St. from the visitor’s parking lot.  He doesn’t feel this should have been allowed & they should have been made to exit out the other side.   He feels there is a significant safety issue that exists there now.  

J. Cronan feels the only items that need addressing are the parking issue up front for deliveries & the storage containers in the back.  Discussion again ensued re:  if a permit is needed for these storage containers.

K. Ferriera stated that petition 27-06 can have additional conditions/comments imposed.  He questioned how this parking issue in front of the business can be addressed.  The applicant will be forwarding copies of correspondences re:  deliveries.  ZBA members discussed enforcement by Building Inspector & Police.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to close the One Year Review for petition #27-06.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

MOTION:  J. Cronan moved & M. Scarsciotti seconded that the ZBA find the One Year Review to be satisfactory for petition #27-06 w/ the following additional conditions:  

A.	Lighting at rear of building facing Cranberry Highway has been altered satisfactorily & shall be maintained in that manner.  Any other adjustment to light shining out onto Cranberry Highway would be a violation of this Special Permit.
B.	The management of the Tremont facility will send letters to all the transport vehicles & ambulances which service the facility advising them that pick-ups & drop-offs shall be accessed by Cranberry Highway, not Main St.  A memorandum shall be sent to staff members who will not allow the transport companies to continue to utilize the Main St. entrance & direct them to go around & utilize the Cranberry Highway entrance.
C.	The parking areas located on Cranberry Highway which encroach onto the former candy store property, now owned by Wareham Health Group, LLC,  (Lot 1046), in the event of a sale of Lot 1046, an easement shall be retained by the nursing home to maintain the parking spaces as well as closing the lane shown as a fire lane at the property line w/ Lot 1046 & if sold, maintain landscaping between the two properties.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved to close the public hearing on petition #24-06 (Wareham Hospice).   D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  (5-0-0)

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved & D. Sharkey seconded to approve the Site Plan Review for petition #24-06 with following conditions:

A.	The property will be reconstructed & built in accordance w/ site plan prepared for Hospice Services of MA, LLC by Charles L. Rowley dated & revised through 8/10/06 except as may be modified by conditions of this decision.
B.	The parking area which encroaches onto Lot 1046, an easement shall be granted to the nursing home for said parking should Lot 1046 be sold from the Wareham Health Group, LLC & the fire lane be closed at the property line between Lot 1046 & the nursing home should the property be sold.
C.	Any & all sight lighting will be installed & maintained in a manner that it does not leave the property or shine on to the roadway.
D.	The residents, staff, & service personnel utilize the off-street parking to the exclusion of on-street.
E.	If storage containers require a permit, then the proper permits should be obtained.
F.	If the property is sold, a firegate shall be installed near the northwest corner of the property along a line of block retaining wall which delineates the parking spaces that encroach onto Lot 1046.
G.	A one year review to be held, not in the manner of a public hearing w/ notification to abutters, but that the applicant return to the ZBA to address any concerns the ZBA members may have observed in violation of these conditions; one year from the date of Certificate of Occupancy.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

14.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	Applications & stamping at Town Clerk’s Office – policy & procedures – to be amended/determined by Board of Appeals (Fees not paid, applications going directly to Town Clerk’s Office).

D.McKinlay discussed the issue re:  the process of getting things turned in & incomplete packets.  He suggested making it a practice to have a requirement that the Planning office certify that the package is complete before the Town Clerk can stamp it in.  Discussion ensued.

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved to allow D. McKinlay discuss this matter further w/ Brenda Sampson, Administrative Assistant to come up w/ a proposed plan to be forwarded to the ZBA.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

NOTE:	D. McKinlay asked why advertising is being done sometimes in the Standard Times & sometimes in the Courier.  People are confused by this.  K. Ferriera feels this is because there was a deadline issue.  Brief discussion ensued re:  costs to advertise in these two newspapers.  D. McKinlay feels the policy should state “only in the case of the requirement to meet a time deadline will the Standard Times be used, otherwise the Wareham Courier should be used at all times.”  The ZBA members concurred.

The meeting proceeded w/ item VIII.   Adjournment.

15.	CORRESPONDENCE

A.	Correspondence dated 8/7/06 from Charles L. Rowley & Associates re:  Tremont Rehab & Hospice Services – continue both to 8/23/06.
B.	Correspondence dated 8/7/06 from Hancock Associates re:  Campers Headquarters.
C.	Correspondence dated 8/14/06 from Devin, Barry & Austin, P.C. re:  Cranberry Court, LLC – Comprehensive Permit.
D.	Correspondence dated 8/21/06 from Hancock Associates re:  SAV Associates, LLC (also correspondence via fax dated 8/23/06 re:  final review).
E.	Correspondence dated 8/21/06 from Hancock Associates re:  New England Refrigeration & Heating (also correspondence via fax re:  final review).

16.	ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M..  J. Cronan seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Don McKinlay, Vice Chairman

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