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:  September 13, 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 at 7:30 P.M.  He explained the meeting procedure to the audience members.

II.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes:  August 23, 2006.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to approve the minutes of 8/23/06.  D. McKinlay seconded.

VOTE:  ( 8-0-0)

III.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

A.	Comprehensive Permit Application:  815 Main Street – Attorney Peter Freeman & Attorney Witten & Cornerstone Properties – Determination if application submitted is complete.  

NOTE:	This matter will be discussed later in the meeting.

IV.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	Proposed zoning amendments for Town Meeting – Discussion w/ Planning Board members in attendance.

Present before the ZBA:	Chuck Gricus, Town Planner
				Anthi Frangiadis, Planning Board Chair
				Tony Scarsciotti, Planning Board Associate Member

A.Frangiadis stated the Planning Board has put forward seven proposed zoning amendments for inclusion in the 2006 Fall Town Meeting Warrant.  All of them have come before Town Meeting previously & they have been re-worked.  She asked the ZBA to review & support the articles.

Proposed Amendment #1 – East Wareham Village

A.Frangiadis stated this article creates a new zoning district in East Wareham at intersection of Minot Ave., Depot St. & Great Neck Rd.  Currently this intersection is zoned CS & the intent of this zoning amendment is to rezone to East Wareham Village.  She discussed boundaries of this district which are staying the same.  She stated when this article was originally brought forward at the Spring Town Meeting, residents had expressed concern re:  large area to be encompassed.  The residents are now satisfied w/ this proposal.   A new use table column will be created, the density/dimensional regulations would be the same as Onset Village II, & EWV will be added to article 6 w/in the table.

Proposed Amendment #2 – Inclusionary Zoning

A.Frangiadis stated this article adds new language to the zoning By-law which is Inclusionary Zoning.  This will be a tool to help maintain the 10% affordable housing stock.  Every new subdivision w/in the Town over ten lots will need to set aside an affordable unit which can be done in one of the three following ways:
•	Onsite
•	Offsite
•	In lieu of

Proposed Amendment #3 – Density/Dimensional Table for General Commercial District

A.Frangiadis stated at the Spring Town Meeting, a use table was adopted for CG & this article deals w/ the density/dimensional table for CG.  One new item in this table that is not included in other tables is the maximum size building footprint.  The intention of this is to limit the size of footprint to 30,000 sq. ft.

Proposed Amendment #4 – Rezone CS to CG (from south on Rte. 28 from 195 – down to Police station to traffic light)

A.Frangiadis stated the only change of boundary is at Tihonet Rd., the park to the left; the boundary was extended.  The map, density/dimensional table, & design guidelines will change for this area.

Proposed Amendment #4 – Dimensional Standard for Industrial District

A.Frangiadis stated this had been advertised by the Planning Board previously in the Spring, but was not included in the Warrant by the BOS.

Proposed Amendment #5 – Design Standards
Proposed Amendment #6 - Guidelines

A.Frangiadis stated these were proposed at the Spring Town Meeting.  It has been expanded to include all commercial districts.  There are two standards sections & two sections that are By-laws.  Landscaping & parking/loading design are being proposed as standards & have included two new pieces; design guidelines & sustained design guidelines.

Proposed Amendment #6 – Rezone CS to CG (other side of Mill Pond)

A.Frangiadis stated the map, density/dimensional table, & design guidelines will change for this area.

Discussion ensued re:  Proposed Amendment #4.  A.Frangiadis stated the proposal at the Spring Town Meeting was to rezone it to Commercial Planned, but were unable to come to a consensus on this, thus it is proposed CG.  M. Martin spoke re:  protecting the corridor of Rte. 28 from a Dartmouth style development.  He asked if any of these proposals address this.  A.Frangiadis stated these proposed amendments do not address this issue, but Article 12 of the past Spring Town Meeting does which eliminated retail uses from the industrial zone.  Discussion ensued re:  the zoning of areas surrounding the proposed plaza.

Discussion ensued re:  the new zoning By-law book, its status, & concerns relative to printing costs.  Brief discussion ensued re:  what to charge for the zoning books.

B.	#28-06 – Advanced Auto Parts – 3105 Cranberry Highway.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the ZBA:   Tyler Corbitts
			      Courtney Norack

The green abutters cards were submitted.  

Mr. Corbitts stated he is present on behalf of Advanced Auto Parts to request a sign Variance from Article 2, s.1114 of the Zoning Ordinance.  The request is for additional square footage for signs to be located at 3105 Cranberry Highway.  There will be three signs.  The pilon sign will be located at front entrance as well as two wall signs; one replacing the front elevation & the other to be placed on left.  There are two 36x12 signs & the other sign 8x24.  The reason for the Variance is due to the hardships incurred.  One hardship is the name Advanced Auto Parts; all three names need to be included & the 120 ft. aggregate for the signs is restrictive when it comes to this particular signage.  Another hardship comes from eastbound traffic w/ the red roof landing of the shopping plaza; it blocks view from this site eastbound.  The building can’t be seen w/ the 100 ft. setback from traffic eastbound.  Westbound traffic travels over a large curb in which the entire site is blocked by trees & houses.  Brief discussion ensued re:  what a cloud sign is.  Mr. Corbitts again addressed the hardships.  The signs will also help establish the business in the community.

K. Ferriera summarized that the request is for 406 sq. ft. vs. 120 sq. ft. of signage.  Brief discussion ensued re:  sq. ft. calculations & shapes of signage.  Mr. Corbitts stated this site has 7,000 sq. ft. of surface area & the 120 sq. ft. amounts to less than 2% of the entire signage allowed on this site which is a small amount.  Ms. Norack stated there are concerns re:  the curve of the road.  They want to make sure 1) the site is properly identified & 2) to make sure safe driving conditions occur at this destination thus, asking for a sign that can be visible on the roadway.

K.Ferriera explained that the ZBA/Planning Board have tried to address signage issues.  One ideas is to allow sign to be a percentage of the face of the building facing the street; but w/ re:  to ZBA granting Variances, the ZBA has reduced pilon signs to platform size as opposed to having a large sign up in the air.  Brief discussion ensued.

Ms. Norack asked if the ordinance specifies height for signage on property in a commercial district.  M. Martin stated it is a maximum of 35 ft. & 20 ft. back from the property line.  Brief discussion ensued re:  if proposed signage on property is 20 ft. back from property line & if the applicant/representatives would be flexible in reducing the height to a platform size sign keeping same size as proposed.  Ms. Norack stated the sign may have to be made smaller due to sign structure & the base of sign because a monument sign will support an 8x24 ft. sign.

K.Ferriera noted another condition may be window signage.  If a Variance is going to be given on square footage to allow bigger signs, there shouldn’t be a lot of signs in windows so you can’t see inside the building.  Some window signs are allowed, but not every square foot of glass should be covered.  This would be an enforcement issues.  Brief discussion ensued.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

D.McKinlay asked why the pilon sign put on corner of lot rather than centered in it.  Mr. Clemens explained it is more for a property way finding tool.  D. McKinlay doesn’t agree w/ this explanation.  Ms. Norack stated the curve in the road is an issue; once patrons see the store they have a short time to make an entrance & make a proper turn onto the site.  Mr. Clemens briefly discussed the curve in the road pertaining to signage.  Brief discussion ensued re:  if a curb cut has been granted.  K. Ferriera doesn’t feel a left turn should be made into this site & MA Highway may not permit this.  Brief discussion ensued.  D. McKinlay feels the sign should be centered on the lot because there would be better visibility in both directions.  Ms. Norack stated the issue w/ this is the property line & the 20 ft. setback which would run into the parking area if centered.

M.Scarsciotti stated prior to this business there was a greenhouse there & it was a retail establishment & there seemed to be no problems getting in & out.  She doesn’t feel a large sign is all that important in order to have patrons access this property.  She questioned how bright the lights would be.  Ms. Norack discussed usage of florescent bulbs & lighting in the sign will be contained to that sign face & is not translucent.  K. Ferriera stated suggestions have been made in the past to incorporate a dimmer in the sign so if there is a problem, it can be addressed.

Ms. Norack stated there will be no problem reducing the height of signage & possibly the square footage.  One concern is the free standing sign which is needed due to the setback of 100 ft. from the road & the plaza next door is on a higher slope which blocks the buildings visibility plus the curve.  Wants to make sure this site has some recognition.  She suggested 12 ft. high sign & a 6x18 sign = 198 sq. ft. which is a reduction.  Below the ground & bottom of fine cabinet will be a base that is approx. 4 ft. wide, which is more a monument sign.

Mr. Corbitts again discussed the hardships w/ signage being faced. Ms. Norack also indicated that the shopping next door is on a higher slope; it blocks the visibility of the building, thus depending on the free standing sign to identify the site & further, Cranberry Highway traffic eastbound will rely on the signage.  K. Ferriera noted MA criteria for granting a Variance & the need for a unique hardship for this site & the hardship being asked for is similar to other businesses.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the competition’s signage.

Discussion continued re:  signage.  Ms. Norack proposed dropping the signage down from 12 ft. to 10 ft. height.  K. Ferriera stated this should be part of the conditions for a 6x18 sign, maintaining the 107 sq. ft. on cloud signs, all three signs have ability to be dimmed if it is determined to be too bright for highway traffic, & limit square footage of any window advertising.

Clarifications were made relative to the signage, square footage, height, setbacks, lettering, etc.  Brief discussion ensued re:  if MA Highway changes configurations to entrance & the impact to signage.

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved to close the public hearing for petition #28-06 Advanced Auto Parts.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous ( 8-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved & D. McKinlay seconded to grant a Variance for petition #28-06 Advanced Auto Parts w/ the following conditions:

•	The building signs will be according to plans presented in dimensions & locations except as modified by conditions in this decision.
•	The sign identified as “B” or pilon sign in said plan will be at a height no greater than ten feet above grade & shall have dimensions of 6 ft. vertical & 18 ft. horizontal.
•	 All signs can be internally illuminated provided that there is a dimming device to allow for change in illumination.
•	The monument sign will have a base similar to a façade of the building w/ a space between the base & the bottom of sign to allow for vehicles to look toward the sign.
•	The number of window signs be limited to a percentage of no greater than 15%.

NOTE:	J. Cronan suggested having a six month review on the illumination of signage.  K. Ferriera feels the ZBA should make a determination on illumination & will inform the applicant of the need to reappear regarding the dimming/illumination of signage.  Brief discussion ensued re:  a six month review.

•	A review will be conducted in six months & may address the issue of illumination at any time it becomes in issue.
•	No part of signage shall be w/in 20 ft. of Cranberry Highway & setback requirements shall be met.
•	Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant will supply a plan similar to site plan provided indicating the pilon sign.

VOTE:  Unanimous ( 5-0-0)

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item V.  Continued Public Hearings – A.  #15-06 – Camper’s Headquarters – 3120 Cranberry Highway, c/o Choubah Engineering.

Present before the ZBA:	Mr. Choubah, Choubah Engineering

K. Ferriera stated that M. Martin has determined that since he has worked a bit w/ the Onset Fire District which has control of wells in this area, he will recuse himself from this hearing, thus R. Secher will be taking his place at this hearing.

D.McKinlay read correspondence from the Onset Fire District Board of Water Commissioners addressed to the ZBA into the record.  In short the letter expressed concern re:  adequate measures to protect the groundwater be incorporated into any approval, specifically, they would like to see the vehicle storage & service areas on an impervious surface w/ the inclusion of oil & gas separators as part of the drainage system.  The onsite drainage system should be piped into the public stormdrain system.  If access to the public system is lacking, they encouraged the ZBA to require onsite lined & vegetative retention basins.

Mr. Choubah spoke revised site plan & discussed the following changes:

•	Changed curbing in front from bituminous burm to concrete curbing.
•	Added landscaping which includes ten trees in front & plantings.
•	Changed side buffer between the multiple residence & the strip commercial & added eastern pine that lays approx. 6 ft. by center, 48 trees to create buffer.
•	Removed three signs from site & replacing w/ one sign.
•	Cape Cod burm along existing edge of pavement & catch basin at northwest corner of parking lot equipped w/ oil/water separator that will collect runoff from existing parking to an infiltration system.

Mr. Choubah understood the recommendation for an open retention pond, but w/ all the concerns re:  mosquitoes, it can be looked into at a later date.

•	In back of building, have provided a contained area outside which is 15x40; a concrete pad w/ a six inch concrete lip all around it w/ a catch basin that is equipped w/ an oil/water separator that will be going to an MBC trap which will be connected to existing sewer service ( for cleaning of campers).
•	On first floor of building, will remove shingles & replace w/ vinyl siding for uniformity.
•	Will remove sign, replace broken glass, repaint building, replace all shutters & replace all rails on second floor.
•	New sign will have a concrete block base of 24 inches in height & a planter/flower bed under the sign.  The sign is a wood panel w/ two brick pillars.  The location of sign will be according to the zoning By-laws.

K.Ferriera expressed concern re:  where the trailers will be for sale will still be a gravel parking lot.  Mr. Choubah had conflicting information at the last meeting.  He suggested a visit to the existing site & look at what the applicant has now, it will be identical to what will be at the new site.  He indicated that 95% of this business is non-motorized campers & will be parked in the gravel area.  A provision has been made to improve the runoff & prevent the contamination of groundwater by installing the system under the paved section of lot.  He feels this is an improvement over the existing conditions.

K.Ferriera doesn’t feel the oil/water separator catch basin in the corner of the parking lot is sufficient to protect the groundwater as requested by the Onset Fire Dept.  He feels at the minimum, the basin would have to be some other type of unit that would remove a large percentage of total dispensed solids.  He concurs w/ the other oil/gas separator connected to the sewer line for washing.

K.Ferriera discussed the condition of the building & need to fix it up.  R. Secher feels this building may be a zoning issue w/ the Building Inspector.  He feels the applicant couldn’t move in w/ the present condition of the building.  K.Ferriera feels there is a lot of square footage on two floors for an office/sales unit.  He is concerned that some other business or issues may go on in there w/out coming back before the ZBA for a change.  If this is granted, it will be for the office, management, management administration & sales of this business occupying this building, nothing else (no other businesses).  There are already trailers parked at this site w/out permits & one is a motorized unit.  He noted the proposed changes Mr. Choubah has made.

J. Cronan asked if the parking spaces will be painted in & he doesn’t feel the applicant is trying to comply w/ his own plan presently (w/ the parking of campers at the site).  M. Zollo agreed w/ J. Cronan & feels that some campers there presently; people could be living in them.  Brief discussion ensued re:  campers being stored there presently.  D. Sharkey feels the surface area needs to be clearly defined as to what goes where & what goes on each type of surface around the site.  M. Zollo asked for clarification if there would just be sales or sales & service.  Mr. Choubah stated just sales, no service.  M. Zollo stated the Onset Fire Dept. has indicated motor vehicle sales, service, & storage.  K.Ferriera stated there is to be no servicing of the vehicles; there is no garage space to bring these vehicle in for service.  M. Scarsciotti indicated that someone is living in a trailer from what she observed.  She expressed concern re:  the overgrown shrubs that is between this property & Barnacle Bill’s.  She doesn’t know whose property they are on.  She expressed concern re:  the back end of the property & its use.  The applicant has stated the entire site will be leased & this portion of the property cannot just be left w/ dust, etc.  K. Ferriera feels nothing will be done w/ this portion; it will be the existing gravel & campers will be parked on this surface.  He is not in favor of having campers haphazardly placed.  Discussion continued re:  concerns.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to close the public hearing for petition #15-06 - Camper’s Headquarters.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to deny the application for petition #15-06 – Camper’s Headquarters based on the groundwater protection offered by the site design is not adequate for the Zone 2 wellhead protection/recharge area as outlined in the Onset Board of Water Commissioners letter.  J. Cronan seconded.

NOTE:	Discussion ensued re:  decisions to be made this evening; site plan review issue, groundwater protection special permit & motor vehicle sales special permit in a CS district.
VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to deny the application for petition #15-06 – Camper’s Headquarters based on improper protection not afforded for paving & adequate delineation of locations for vehicles to be placed for motor vehicle sales.  D. McKinlay seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)
MOTION:	R. Secher moved to deny the application for petition #15-06 – Camper’s Headquarters based on lack of delineation for location of vehicles doesn’t meet site plan review criteria as outlined in the zoning By-law.  J. Cronan seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

K.Ferriera suggested Mr. Choubah request his client take the campers off the property immediately & this issue will be going to the Building Inspector if not moved off.

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

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

NOTE:	A member of the audience asked when the ZBA will be addressing item III. A.  815 Main St.  K. Ferriera stated that this is not a public hearing re:  the project, but to decide if the application was filed properly or not.

Present before the ZBA:	Edward B. Breault, 61 Kinco Rd., Norton

All proper green abutters receipts were submitted.

Mr. Breault asked the ZBA to continue the hearing due to legal counsel not being available this evening.	  Brief discussion ensued re:  continuation date.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to grant the requested continuance of petition #30-06 – Frank Alexander to 9/27/06.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item III.  Request for Plan Waivers or Other Administrative Issues – A.  Comprehensive Permit Application – 815 Main St./Cornerstone Properties.

Present before the ZBA:	Attorney Jon Witten

K.Ferriera explained that the purpose of this meeting is to determine if the application submitted is complete in re:  to rules adopted on 2/8/06.

K.Ferriera discussed letter from Attorney Peter Freeman (attorney for Cornerstone Properties) which states “if the Board determines pursuant to MA Housing Partnership guideline, need technical review, then my client will discuss an appropriate amount to be paid to the Town in escrow.  My client will not pay the Town or the Board for attorney fees as Housing Appeals Committee has determined this to be inappropriate.”  An extension has been granted to 10/11/06.  K.Ferriera stated the advertising deadline for the 10/11/06 meeting can be met if the ZBA chooses.  

Attorney Witten stated the drawback in rejecting the application (if ZBA concludes application is not properly filed) is the appeal process in a 40B case is available to the applicant.  The potential is the applicant can say the Town has not opened the hearing w/in the 30 days required by statute.  Once the 31st day arrives, an appeal will be made to the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) claiming that the Town violated the statute.  The downside of this is then that the jurisdiction is before the HAC.  He would move on behalf of the ZBA to remand it back to the ZBA because regulations are clear that there must be a local action before an appeal can be taken to the HAC.  Once something is at the HAC, cities/towns do not fair well.  The other approach is the Town has the right to adopt local rules & the right to enforce them.  The ZBA could reject the application & the applicant would be on notice & would have to comply w/ the local rules/regulations.  A compromised position the ZBA could consider would be to reject the application, but still move forward w/ the public hearing, thus will not be vulnerable to the issue of not holding a public hearing w/in 30 days.  If on the 10/11/06 hearing date the applicant hasn’t applied w/ the ZBA’s requirements, the ZBA can continue the hearing until another date.  He suggested the ZBA follow this route.  Thus, the ZBA should articulate those areas that it feels the permit application is incomplete, notify applicant, advertise for the 10/11/06 hearing, & notify applicant through counsel, that if the application isn’t complete by 10/11/06, the public hearing will be continued to a date certain.  Brief discussion ensued.

Attorney Witten addressed Attorney Freeman’s letter re:  attorneys’ fees.  He stated this is up to the ZBA re:  raising this issue.  It is true the HAC has stated that boards cannot require attorney’s fees & require the applicant to pay for the board’s attorney’s fees.  He believes board’s can rightfully acquire attorneys’ fees.  When this matter gets to the HAC, it will be thrown out, but presently, it is not before them.

J.Cronan asked when the applicant submitted application, was he given the rules/regulations adopted in 2/06.  K.Ferriera stated that Attorney Freeman has stated he received the package, but doesn’t agree w/ it.  J. Cronan feels from briefly reviewing the application, Attorney Freeman is disagreeing w/ the requirements.  Attorney Witten feels now is not the forum to disagree w/ said requirements.  Attorney Freeman cannot appeal the local rules alone.  Brief discussion ensued re:  opening the hearing.

Attorney Witten stated that MHP rules are guidelines/suggestions & are not binding on this board; the only thing binding is the ZBA’s own rules.  Discussion ensued.  M. Scarsciotti reminded the ZBA that there is an opportunity for technical assistance, hire a consultant to work w/ the ZBA through the entire process.  A grant will be applied for through MA Housing.  J. Cronan stated if the grant is not given, it says in the rules that the applicant pays for this.  M. Scarsciotti stated there is a limit of $10,000; but may not receive this full amount.  J. Cronan asked if the State or HAC has anything that states a developer can only do so many 40B’s in a period of time in one town.  He was told there isn’t.  Discussion ensued.

The ZBA members concurred to authorize the advertising of the hearing, give notice to abutters, plan to hold the hearing on 10/11/06, & authorize Attorney Witten to send a letter to the applicant’s counsel that the ZBA is not pleased relative to the legal fee issue & technical review issue.  

J. Cronan asked Attorney Witten if he is working for the ZBA or the Administrator/BOS.  Attorney Witten doesn’t know; he hasn’t done work for the ZBA or BOS for awhile.  He represents the Board he is representing at the time.  J. Cronan discussed problems he has seen in the past.  Discussion ensued.

D. McKinlay discussed over the past week & a half there have been a number of e-mails that have gone back & forth between ZBA members, Attorney Witten, etc.  He has copies of these e-mails & can provide them.  He doesn’t want to get into a situation where the ZBA is put into a spot where they are questionably having communications that may lead to someone assuming that this information is not made public.  He feels they are under a requirement (ethically) to have these conversations in a public meeting.  He has copies of said e-mails available.  Brief discussion ensued.

A member of the audience stated she reviewed the previous application & as she understands that in order for it to be an application, there has to be a purchase or a purchase & sales agreement.  She asked the ZBA to look at the name on the purchase & sales agreement to make sure it is the correct company.  The correct company name is Cornerstone Properties, Inc., not Cornerstone Properties of Wareham.  Discussion ensued.  Attorney Witten discussed the different organization that is needed due to 40B.  The audience asked as far as the applicant’s limited profit, do they have to file an IOI.  K. Ferriera stated this is a level of detail that the person that will be hired to conduct the technical review will review this & is part of the hearing process.  K. Ferriera explained that the Town has to “tread” lightly w/ these 40B’s because if it goes to appeal before the State, the Town will lose complete control.

Brief discussion ensued re:  letter received from Mr. Devin relative to change to Cranberry Court plans.  Mr. Witten spoke to him on Thursday of last week & will review said letter(s).  Discussion ensued re:  this project & how to handle the modification just submitted.  K. Ferriera indicated that the ZBA needs to make a motion as to if this modification submitted is substantial or insubstantial.

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved that the modification submitted for Cranberry Court re: considering deleting offsite improvements on Meadowlark Rd. is substantial & a public hearing be held on said modification.  D. McKinlay seconded.

Attorney Witten will contact Mr. Devin re:  the ZBA’s vote & if this could be part of already scheduled hearing or if abutters need to be notified again.  Brief discussion ensued re:  concerns over this project &  public hearing date.

VOTE:  Unanimous (8-0-0)

NOTE:	The meeting continued w/ item IV. Public Hearings

D.	#31-06 Diane M. DiStolfo – 84 Choctaw Drive. 

Present before the ZBA:	Diane DiStolfo

K.Ferriera recused himself from this hearing due to evidence/exhibits that include a 1986 mortgage inspection plan that he signed.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Ms. DiStolfo stated she has a small cottage which she put an addition on.  She requested keeping the small cottage to create an in-law apartment.  Jay Collins told her if she didn’t go before the ZBA, she would have to take out the stove, refrigerator, & sink.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

D.McKinlay stated this is a Variance which is normally allowed w/ the condition that it not be used for rental.  The ZBA has granted in-law apartments under this condition.  M. Martin feels the applicant may need an area & frontage Variance as well.  Ms. DiStolfo explained the picture ZBA is reviewing.  She stated the X is a garage that is no longer there; the area w/ circle around it is the original cottage, the unit in which she would like to create an in-law apartment.  The cottage is 22x28.  She is still living in it because the other building is under construction.  The new larger building is in the process now.  The building application was for an addition & the two buildings are attached w/ garage in the middle.  It was never her plan to take the cottage down; it was going to be a guest area; & would now like it as an in-law apartment.  She has no problem not making it a rental unit.  The part that will be the in-law apartment will not change at all.  Brief discussion ensued re:  deed restriction relative to this in-law apartment & the plans.

D.McKinlay asked if the Building Inspector required an as-built plan.  Ms. DiStolfo stated not that she is aware of & the project is done.  M. Scarsciotti asked if the new addition is a single story.  Ms. DiStolfo stated the addition has a second floor, but is unfinished & will remain that way for some time.

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved to close the public hearing for petition #31-06.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved & D. Sharkey seconded  to grant a Variance for petition #31-06 re:   the in-law apartment w/ the following conditions:

•	Deed rider be placed on in-law apartment & the homeowner understand it is for a family member, not a rental property & cannot be rented, & upon said family member not utilizing apartment or upon sale of property, the in-law apartment needs to be removed.

D.McKinlay suggested another condition re:  the Building Inspector shall not issue a Certificate of Occupancy until proof of registration of the deed restriction is delivered.  M. Martin is not comfortable w/ this matter.  He doesn’t feel there is a commitment that her father will be moving in.  Ms. DiStolfo stated he is at some point.  All she was trying to do was to avoid taking out the kitchen & having to put it back.  Brief discussion ensued.

VOTE:  (2-3-0)
M. Zollo, M. Scarsciotti, & M. Martin opposed

D.McKinlay clarified that the Variance has been denied.

E.	#32-06 Tobey Hospital, c/o Tom Pacheco – 43 High Street. 

K.Ferriera stated he will recuse himself from this hearing because he has recently done work w/ Richard Poyant of Poyant Signs for a common client.

Present before the ZBA:	Tom Pacheco

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Mr. Pacheco submitted plans.  He discussed the hospital continuing to improve the property & discussed recent completed renovations.  The hospital would like to put its name on the front of the building.  To minimize the request, wording would only say Tobey.  The proposal is to put a 36 inch high “TOBEY” lettering in white.  The total sq. footage of the letters is 41.5 sq. ft.  Requesting a Variance due to zoning.  Thus, the permit request is for the building sign.  Brief discussion ensued re:  various entrances, emergency exits, & other signage.  Mr. Pacheco was asked why the whole name Tobey Hospital won’t be on the sign.  Mr. Pacheco state this was done due to the restriction in size.  Suggestions were made to make the letters smaller to include the whole name.  Mr. Pacheco feels if the letters were made smaller, it wouldn’t be readable due to the setback.  Discussion ensued re:  including the whole name on the sign.

There were no audience members present to make comments.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to close the public hearing for petition #32-06.  J. Cronan seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved & M. Scarsciotti seconded to grant petition #32-06 w/ the following conditions:

•	The whole name Tobey Hospital shall be included on the sign.
•	Lighting shall be reviewed.

VOTE:  (4-1-0)
D. Sharkey opposed

V.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

VI.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION
(NONE)

VII.	CORRESPONDENCE

A.	Correspondence dated 8/7/06 from Hancock Associates re:  Camper’s Headquarters. (DONE)
B.	Correspondence dated 8/7/06 & 8/17/06 from Kopelman & Paige re:  Dugan Marine Realty, LLC.
C.	Correspondence via fax dated 9/7/06 from Winokur, Winokur, Serkey & Rosenberg, P.C. – re:  Dugan Marine Realty, LLC – REMAND ORDER.

K.Ferriera stated the attorney has told him that he had to reapply to the building inspector, but this may not have to be done; he wants to go to the ZBA.  The ZBA will decide if it is a matter of right; the judge has remanded it back to the ZBA.  He discussed the process from this point.  The public hearing will be held on 10/11/06.

Discussion ensued re:  Roby St. issue.  The ZBA determined this lot was buildable five years ago.  Now, there was an attempt to pull a building permit, the attorney for the abutter has said it is not a buildable lot, not a grandfathered lot, etc.  K.Ferreira had recused himself from that issue.

(TAPE ENDED AT THIS POINT)

D.	Correspondence dated 8/14/06 from Devin, Barry & Austin, P.C. re:  Cranberry Court, LLC, Comprehensive Permit – Public hearing scheduled for 9/27/06.
E.	Correspondence dated 9/7/06 from Kopelman & Paige re:  John Gonsalves

VIII.	ADJOURNMENT

Attest:  _________________________
	Don McKinlay, Vice Chairman

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