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

Date of Meeting:  April 25, 2007

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at ________ P.M.

A.	Roll Call

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

II.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes to be approved:  10/11/06, 10/25/06, 11/8/06, 11/29/06 & 12/13/06

III.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

***NOTE:	THE TAPE WAS RUN ON SLOW SPEED & RETURNED TO NORMAL AT THIS POINT.

K. Ferreira explained the meeting procedure.

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item V.  Continued Hearings – C.  #09-07 – 3251 Cranberry Highway – Mr. Mark Blanchette & Mr. Robert Meisterman.

K. Ferreira noted the petitioners have asked to withdraw their application.  D. McKinlay read a letter from Wolverton & Himmelfarb, Attorneys at Law dated 4/23/07 into the record.

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman asked that this petition be denied w/ prejudice by the ZBA.

K. Ferreira discussed the Board’s options.  One is to allow the withdrawal w/ prejudice, allow the withdrawal w/out prejudice, or deny.  D. McKinlay doesn’t feel there is any precedent for the Board to deny where the applicant has requested withdrawal.  The Board has never done that.  M. Martin understands the gentleman’s logic, but the applicant has a certain amount of rights they are entitled to.  This case has received basically no testimony & to imply there is a prejudice for the Board, there is no basis to make that ruling.  D. Sharkey concurred.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved that the ZBA allow petition #09-07 – 3251 Cranberry Highway – Mr. Mark Blanchette & Mr. Robert Meisterman to withdraw w/out prejudice.  D. McKinlay seconded.

NOTE:	M. Scarsciotti stated that the petitioners did make a presentation, but were told they needed to do more work on the plan & they have chosen not to.  D. McKinlay stated they chose not to even appear for the continued hearing.  K. Ferreira stated that withdrawing w/out prejudice allows the petitioner to re-appear before the ZBA directly at any time in the future.  If the ZBA allows the withdrawal w/ prejudice, they would have to go before the Planning Board w/ a new set of plans.  Brief discussion ensued.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

NOTE:	K. Ferreira explained that there was a petition for a public hearing this evening for Donna Chaston, 10 Savary Road that was advertised incorrectly.  He asked if anyone is present in the audience for this application.  This application will be re-advertised & the new hearing date is 5/9/07.  

K. Ferreira asked if the audience had any questions for the Board before proceeding.  There were none.

IV.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#12-07 – 53 Leonard Street – Dorothy & Carl Peterson, c/o Attorney Leonard Bello, Esq. 

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

The Board of Health has commented that they would require plans be submitted for an upgrade of the sewage disposal system to conform to the State environmental code 310CMR, Title V: 15.000, local rules & regulations as applicable.

Present before the Board:	Leonard Bello, Attorney
				John Churchill, J.C. Engineering, Inc.

Attorney Bello discussed the packets submitted to the Board.  He noted that this parcel of land has been in the petitioner’s family since pre-zoning.  It was initially purchased in 1942.  The lot qualifies for a small lot exemption & is recognized as being grandfathered by the Town’s Building Inspector.  Due to the proximity of the Weweantic River the petitioner’s family has been told by the Town that they needed to wait until Town sewerage was available before building on the lot.  In 11/05, the Town took all the petitioner’s interests via eminent domain & the abandoned road next to the lot for the purpose of constructing & maintaining a sewer pumping house to permit the installation of public sewerage.  The petitioner now believing a pathway had been cleared, decided to move forward w/ the construction of a retirement home.  Through the engineering process, it was discovered that two of the current delineations to wetlands, which encroaches onto the petitioner’s lot from the rear, forced her to move the proposed construction towards the front portion of the lot.  The current plan provides for a 14 ft. front setback 10 ft. from the stairway vs. the 20 ft. setback required by the Zoning Bylaws.  The petitioner, thus, is requesting a Variance from the 20 ft. front setback requirement.  

Attorney Bello stated under the circumstances the statutory requirement for the granting of a Variance are satisfied which he discussed in length.

K. Ferreira clarified that the Building Inspector has acknowledged this to be a grandfathered lot, but yet he is requiring the petitioner to be present before the ZBA because of the setbacks.  Attorney Bello stated this is correct because the proposed house will not meet the 20 ft. front setback.  K. Ferreira asked why this setback would need to be met.  Attorney Bello stated because the Building Inspector will not issue a permit.  K. Ferreira asked if Attorney Bello believes that the setbacks that were in existence when the lot was created would be the setbacks that apply & building code setbacks.  He doesn’t believe the MA Building Code delves into setbacks from streets.  Attorney Bello doesn’t believe that he necessarily needs to be here, except for the fact that the Building Inspector denied the application.  He feels the safer route would to obtain the Variance requested.  K. Ferreira noted that the grounds for granting a Variance are difficult to prove.  He doesn’t feel there is anything distinct or unusual about this lot.  Attorney Bello feels there is because of the delineation of the wetlands effects the lot which is different from the surrounding lots.  He stated that the wetlands delineation in 1952 wouldn’t be the same as then as it is now.  The regulations have changed.  The parties who owned the property were told they could build on the lot except they should wait for Town sewerage & gave some of their property away for the purpose of helping the Town place the pumping station.  He feels this situation satisfies the three requirements.

K. Ferreira received a call from the Conservation Agent who expressed major concerns re:  this lot.  Attorney Bello has no knowledge of this per J.C. Engineering, Inc.  He has been advised that before ConCom will give any formal responses, a Variance needs to be obtained.

K. Ferreira again explained that the Conservation Agent has grave issues w/ this lot.  He asked for a plan.  A small plan was submitted.  

Mr. Churchill discussed the location of the pumping station.  M. Martin stated the Town saw if appropriate to put a sewage pump station in the vicinity of a wetland which is essentially the same area as the house will go.  He doesn’t feel the pump station meets the setback requirements from the road.  K. Ferreira stated this would be exempt because it is a public utility.  He questions whether the applicant needs to be here due to a grandfathered law prior to any setback requirements.  Discussion ensued re:  what section 6 states.  He understands the ConCom’s concerns in that this particular lot, the proposed house will be 10 ft. from the wetland line.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	David _____________

Mr. __________ lives across the street from this lot.  He came before the ZBA several years ago attempting to add an extra foot to a building plan for his home.  He was told he couldn’t.  Thus, he had to re-design the plan for his house which would take up less space so they could fit it w/in the 20 ft. setback.  In hindsight, he feels it makes sense.  Now there is this proposal & the 20 ft. setback would not apply which he feels doesn’t make sense.  He doesn’t know why this matter would go back from the Bylaws unless they were reinforced or a deal being made.

Present before the Board:	Dorothy Peterson

Ms. Peterson stated her grandfather & father owned the land.  She has waited a long time to put a house there.  She is sorry it may block her neighbor’s view, but that ___________________.

Brief discussion ensued re:  the ConCom issue.  M. Scarsciotti asked if the other homes on the street are older.  Attorney Bello stated they are.  Ms. Scarsciotti asked if these homes are set back to what had been in place years ago.  Attorney Bello stated it is difficult to tell where the street line begins & ends.  He described the street.  The homes don’t seem to have 20 ft. frontage, the average is approx. 15 ft. in his estimate.  The Board members reviewed pictures submitted.

D. McKinlay feels if the situation is that the lot was pre-1951, he doesn’t know why the petitioner is being sent to the ZBA & he doesn’t see justification for issuing a Variance.  M. Martin cited  40A section 6.  D. McKinlay feels the law clearly states that the petitioner doesn’t need a Variance & should get the building permit.  Discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira cited 40A section 6 further.

M. Martin noted a memo from Kopelman & Paige from 2000 re:  grandfathered lots for single & two-family residences & what it states.  Discussion ensued.

Attorney Bello will accept what M. Martin has suggested as an alternative to the Variance, but the petitioner is put in a position when the Building Inspector issues a denial letter directing the issue to the ZBA for a Variance before obtaining a Variance.  K. Ferreira stated if the ZBA makes a finding, the Building Inspector will not disagree.  Discussion ensued.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #12-07 – 53 Leonard Street – Dorothy & Carl Peterson.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved the ZBA issue a finding to the Building Inspector that as provided for in 40A, section 6 of MA General Law, the zoning ordinance relative to the front setback as defined in the current Wareham Zoning Laws, does not apply because this use was lawfully in existence prior to the adoption of zoning in 1951 & further, to deny a Building Permit would render this lot un-buildable, thus putting it in jeopardy of violating the grandfathered protections afforded in 40A, section 6, & further, this petition should had been advertised as a request to over-turn the decision of the Building Inspector.  D. McKinlay seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	#16-07 – 3166 Cranberry Highway – Calvin Carnes

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

The Board of Health indicates no comment as sewer is available at this site.

Present before the Board:	Calvin Carnes  

Mr. Carnes stated he is applying for a permit to rebuild the hotel on 3166 Cranberry Highway.  He wanted to put an addition above the existing floor to gain more space, but they weren’t rebuildable.  The foundation was checked by an engineer.  The foundation was approx. 16 inches in the ground & the slab was at 4 inches.  After looking at the foundation & the conditions of the buildings they decided to take them down.  He would like to rebuild it.  There are five buildings on site.  Four are duplexes & one is a single.  The one that is single, he is proposing to have this be a handicapped unit.  All these units have been abandoned for a long time.

K. Ferreira stated the Building Inspector has cited Article 13, s. 1332 & 1333 which is site plan review.  He expressed confusion as to why the petitioner is before the ZBA, not the Planning Board.  Mr. Carnes did go to the Planning Board before & after 3/22/07.  He explained that he went before the Planning Board & they didn’t have any objections & sent him back to the Building Dept.  K. Ferreira stated a motel/hotel is an allowed use in a strip commercial district.  If it is an allowed use, the petitioner needs to go before the Planning Board for site plan review.  Brief discussion ensued.

Brief discussion ensued re:  what sections 1332 & 1333 state.  D. McKinlay stated it is still an allowed use.  M. Martin feels that a petitioner comes before the ZBA only if it is not an allowed use.  Mr. Carnes stated he obtained a demolition permit.  M. Martin stated that all the current zoning, such as setbacks need to be followed.  Mr. Carnes stated the footprint won’t be changed w/ only slight changes.  M. Martin stated this can’t be done.  Mr. Carnes stated that is why he is present.

K. Ferreira noted the Zoning Bylaws re:  site plan review rules/regs.  He explained the petitioner will not have grandfathered protection for commercial lots.  If the setback is “x” & it will be demolished & rebuilt to the exact footprint, a Variance is still needed.  

K. Ferreira stated that a site plan is needed to be reviewed by the ZBA’s consultant.  He suggested the petitioner review the Zoning Bylaw to see if he can meet it, which he doesn’t think he can.  He is comfortable having this be a hotel & tearing down derelict buildings, but the process needs to be followed & the Variances identified.  He suggested the petitioner hire an engineer to draft plans & review requirements.  Brief discussion ensued re:  some items that need to be addressed.  Mr. Carnes submitted a larger plan for the Board’s review.

McKinlay asked re:  the other building on the lot.  Mr. Carnes stated it is a commercial building w/ an apartment.  D. McKinlay asked if he is going to leave it as it is.  Mr. Carnes stated this building is occupied & will stay the way it is.  It is a separate lot.  Brief discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira stated the lot w/ the commercial building is a contiguous ownership & thus, the whole area is one lot, not separate.  When the engineer draws up the plans, they would like this building as well.  He also suggested moving buildings around to get closer to compliance of the regulations.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	Mr. Roosevelt

Mr. Roosevelt stated he is a direct abutter to this property.  He spoke re:  the commercial building that has been converted into mixed commercial residential which is in violation of the reversion rules in the Bylaws.  He feels that these buildings will be apartments w/ kitchens, etc. which violates the definition of a hotel/motel.

***TAPE ONE SIDE ONE ENDED.  
***IT BEGAN ON SIDE TWO AS FOLLOWS:

A woman stated the lot was sold illegally.  Her mother never actually signed the sale proceedings.  K. Ferreira stated this is a civil matter.  The woman expressed concern re:  the cabins that haven’t been used for 20 years.  She doesn’t feel there is a need for any more motels on Cranberry Highway.  She expressed concern re:  traffic coming in & out of this site onto Cohasset Road.  K. Ferreira stated that these concerns will be addressed.

The woman expressed concern re:  existing situation w/ trash at the site.  She has called the Board of Health numerous times & there is no response.  She feels if this becomes a hotel & a business, the trash issue will remain.  K. Ferreira understands the concerns, but this is a Board of Health matter.

Present before the Board:	Patricia Chisolm, Indian Mound Beach

The woman stated the cottages there presently were closed down in the 1970’s.  She asked the Board if they received a statement letter she sent.  (The woman’s statements were inaudible).

K. Ferreira read letter from Ms. Chisolm into the record dated 4/5/07 which in short expresses her opposition to the demolition & reconstruction at 3166 Cranberry Highway.  She noted that this is a crime scene site.

K. Ferreira stated more information will be submitted at a future date.  Mr. Carnes briefly discussed how much time he will need to get the information requested.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to continue the public hearing for petition #16-07 – 3166 Cranberry Highway to May 23, 2007.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

K. Ferreira explained to the audience that this public hearing has been continued to May 23, 2007 & the abutters will not be notified again re:  this hearing.  Plans for this petition are on file at the Planning Dept.

C.	#17-07 – 22 Carver Road – Michael Crapo

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

The Board of Health indicates plans will need to be submitted to upgrade the sewage disposal system for Title V.  

Present before the Board:	Michael Crapo

Mr. Crapo would like to make an in-law apartment.  There is already a septic system in place & there is already a bathroom up there.  The septic has recently been upgraded.

K. Ferreira clarified that there is an existing garage which already has a bathroom in it.  The proposal is to renovate it into an in-law apartment.  Mr. Crapo stated the garage is approx. 125 ft. away from his house & is detached.  He submitted pictures of said garage.   The garage has its own septic & the house has its own septic; there are two septics.  His mother will be living in the apartment.

K. Ferreira stated that there will need to be conditions that this will strictly be an in-law apartment & not a rental unit & if this property is sold, the facilities that make it an apartment cannot be stated as a rental unit.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

M. Martin stated he has a long-standing opposition to these requests.  He feels that a Variance is needed first because the garage is not attached, thus, the request needs to meet four statutory requirements.  D. Secher concurred.

M. Scarsciotti asked the size of the garage.  Mr. Crapo stated it is 24x36 Gambrel.  M. Scarsciotti asked what rooms will be put in.  Mr. Crapo stated there will be no rooms.  It will be set up like a bachelor pad; he won’t be sectioning it off.  D. Sharkey asked what cooking facilities there will be.  Mr. Crapo stated he will have a stove & a sink which will be in the open.  The only enclosure will be the bathroom which is already there.  

K. Ferreira noted the four statutory requirements.  Granting an in-law apartment is a Variance because it is close to allowing a second dwelling unit on a single family lot.  The petitioner needs to prove why he feels this is a unique situation & the hardship that goes along w/ it.  He has to meet the four part test.  Mr. Crapo stated his mother is widowed & he would like her to live closer to him.  She broke her arm last year.  K. Ferreira stated the hardship needs to run w/ the land.  He asked if there is a way w/in the structure to create an apartment w/in his own house.  Mr. Crapo stated his house isn’t that big.    He already installed a septic system for this use (in-law apartment).  He has two septic systems.  If his house septic fails he can connect to the new one for the garage.  K. Ferreira questioned why this was allowed.  He would have felt that the Board of Health would have required him to tie in now.  Brief discussion ensued.

The Board members reviewed the plan.  K. Ferreira stated there is a section of the plan that is missing.  He expressed concern re:  this being a structure for an apartment that is as big as a house.  Mr. Crapo stated the garage was built in 1995 & the house in 1971.  The bathroom was built in the garage last year.  

K. Ferreira stated if this is approved, there would have to be a condition stating if the property was sold the Town would have to inspect the structure & all the kitchen facilities would have to be removed.  Mr. Crapo stated he is fine w/ this.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #17-07 – 22 Carver Road – Michael Crapo.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to grant a Special Permit for petition #17-07 – 22 Carver Road – Michael Crapo w/ conditions.  M. Zollo seconded for discussion.

NOTE:	M. Zollo feels a 24x36 in-law apartment is large which is over the garage.  K. Ferreira stated there are in-law apartments over garages, but they are usually attached to the main structure.  D. McKinlay stated typically, the Board has granted these requests w/ the condition that use by family members only, not to be rented, & to be removed if no longer needed or sold.  K. Ferreira doesn’t feel any in-law apartment that the Board has granted that has met all four parts of the Variance.  D. Sharkey feels this is the most extreme example he has seen.

M. Martin noted that detached buildings require a lateral connection permit.  Mr. Crapo feels everything he did was legal & had permits for.  Brief discussion ensued.
(Standard In-law apartment conditions)
•	In-law apartment only for family members only.
•	No rental property on site.
•	Inspection upon sale of property by the Building Inspector to remove the kitchen facilities.
•	Include a copy of recorded document for a deed restriction.

ROLL CALL VOTE:	M. Martin – No
D.McKinlay – Yes
		D. Sharkey – No
		M. Zollo – No
		K. Ferreira – Yes

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

K. Ferreira explained Mr. Crapo’s options to him.

D.	#18-07 – 40 West Central Avenue – Christine M. Sweeney

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Christine M. Sweeney

Ms. Sweeney purchased her house & it had a 6 ft. stockade fence just on the side of house.  

K. Sweeney stated he will recuse himself from this hearing because the plot plan for this property is one he did.  R. Secher will sit in his place.

Ms. Sweeney stated her neighbor bought the house next door, knocked it down, & built an enormous addition on it.  The problem is the way the addition is, she is now living in a “fishbowl” & here 6 ft. fence just isn’t working.  A 10 ft. fence would work.  She submitted pictures to the Board re:  view, fence, etc.  The other problem is when she is in her dining room, so are her neighbors.  The bump out for the neighbor’s addition is exactly 11 ft. to her lot line.  Discussion ensued.

M. Martin doesn’t feel the Board can issue a Variance or a Special Permit for something that is not in the zoning books.  D. McKinlay stated that the Building Inspector feels the Board can.  Brief discussion ensued re:  ordinance pertaining to spit fences.  D. McKinlay read the Building Inspector’s denial into the record.  M. Martin doesn’t feel there is anything in the zoning ordinance that relates to fences.  Discussion ensued.  D. McKinlay feels this is the first time he has heard of an appeal on this basis.

M. Martin asked to have some research conducted on this matter based on the fact the Board doesn’t feel there are grounds for an appeal.  Discussion ensued re:  possibly contacting Town Counsel.  The Board concurred to look into this matter.

Audience members had not questions or comments.

MOTION:	D. Secher moved to continue the public hearing for petition #18-07 – 40 West Central Avenue – Christine M. Sweeney to May 9, 2007.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

D. McKinlay asked the Board of Selectmen representative present for permission to contact Town Counsel on this matter.  He explained that the Board doesn’t know if they have any jurisdiction to grant relief under MA General Law 49, s.21 concerning a fence which could be considered as a spite fence.  The Board of Selectmen representative (John Cronan) gave his permission for the Board to contact Town Counsel on this matter.

V.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#36-06 – 815 Main Street (Comprehensive Permit) – Cornerstone Properties of Wareham – c/o Peter L. Freeman, Esquire (To be handled at the end of continued public hearings).

B.	#14-07 – 86 Wareham Lakeshore Drive – Ms. Judy Yetman, c/o Judy Herron

D.McKinlay stated this hearing was continued to May 9, 2007.

C.	#09-07 – 3251 Cranberry Highway – Mr. Mark Blanchette & Mr. Robert Meisterman – WITHDRAWN

D.	#10-07 – 2387 Cranberry Highway – Ms. Susan Knute, Monitor Realty Trust, c/o Ronald Busnengo

No-one was present to represent the application.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

The Board concurred to have the Planning Board secretary contact the petitioner re:  not being present.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to continue the public hearing for petition #10-07 – 2387 Cranberry Highway – Ms. Susan Knute, Monitor Realty Trust to May 9, 2007.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

VI.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	Increase of application fees – public hearing date scheduled for Wednesday, May 9, 2007.

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ V.  Continued Public Hearings:  A.  #36-06 – 815 Main Street (Comprehensive Permit) – Cornerstone Properties of Wareham, c/o Peter L. Freeman, Esquire.

K.Ferreira noted the 28 page decision prepared by Attorney Witten which the Board needs to review.

D.McKinlay compiled a summary of discussions held by e-mail relative to this application which he submitted to Board members.

K.Ferreira discussed the issue of utilizing Community Preservation funds.  This is not included in the decision.  D. McKinlay read his statement into the record.  K. Ferreira stated his intent of the use of CP funds was to have the CPC put it before Town Meeting & not to necessarily override Town Meeting.  Attorney Witten agreed.  M. Martin feels Attorney Witten’s opinion had been that the ZBA had authority & would be awarding CP monies.  Discussion ensued re:  the Groton case similar to this issue.

M. Martin asked the Board to insert language to begin w/ “not withstanding the Board’s discussion relative to previous Housing Appeals Court decisions & subject to conditions set forth” in the fourth paragraph where it states “subject to conditions set forth.”  He feels this will tell the Housing Appeals Court that the Board has discussed previous decisions of the Housing Appeals Court as it relates.

D.McKinlay suggested inserting language on page 1, Item I.  4.  after the words surrounding density adding “& rural character.”

K. Ferreira spoke re:  page 4, relative to dwelling unit size.  Discussion ensued re:  what number to put in.

Discussion ensued re:  inserting something re:  the CP funds.  D. McKinlay wouldn’t have a problem w/ the ZBA acting as the CPC & putting this before Town Meeting, but if the ZBA were to try & approve it, he would object & vote against the project.  K. Ferreira stated it will have to go before Town Meeting.  D. McKinlay stated as long as the language is structured to state that the ZBA is approving it for the CPC to put it before Town Meeting.  M. Zollo feels this would go away on appeal.  M. Martin is in favor of granting CP funds w/out going to Town Meeting.  M. Scarsciotti wants to know the figure the applicant is asking for in CP funds.  K. Ferreira stated they requested $500,000 for 88 units.  M. Scarsciotti doesn’t believe CP funds have been utilized for affordable housing since its inception.  Discussion ensued.
M. Martin believes this permit will never see the “light of day”.  He feels it will be deemed a denial by the Housing Appeals Committee & the whole entirety will be tossed.  He suggested the Board not spend a lot of time on details such as is being requested.  He feels the decisions should be straight forward & simple.  M. Zollo suggested having a condition inserted that this condition (use of CP funds) will be revoked if this is appealed.  Board members concurred.  Discussion ensued.

D.McKinlay stated that he noted the 45 day decision time which he feels is excessive.  Discussion ensued.

M. Zollo feels there should be conditions relative to the applicant’s management document & allowing the Board to review & revise if necessary.  Whatever contract there will be w/ the management company, the Board should be allowed to review & revise said documents.  Brief discussion ensued.  M. Zollo asked if there is a provision in the decision for a management company so that one of the developer’s putting on a management “hat”.  M. Martin doesn’t see anything in the decision relative to this.  M. Zollo would be concerned about this.  M. Scarsciotti understands that part of the low income tax credit item requires some sort of management company.  Brief discussion ensued.

D. McKinlay spoke re:  item #33 relative to project going bankrupt or sold.  He questioned how the Board guarantees in perpetuity that the Town continues to get what is ended up w/.  He suggested placing language in relative to a Town take over or being offered the ability to take over.  M. Martin stated that there is language in the document that states the developer has to post an assurity bond to ensure that the construction is complete, etc.  There are many places in said document that is specific in the Town not accepting any liability to harm, damage, etc.  All this would have to go, it can’t be contradicting.  K. Ferreira stated there is language re:   the affordability restriction(s).

D.McKinlay spoke re:  language relative to people that are eligible.  He asked how the loss of status is handled.  M. Martin stated it is a condition of the permit that they can rent to those that are eligible.  Discussion ensued re:  how this is determined as time goes on & if it should be mentioned in said document.  

D.Sharkey expressed concern re:  language stating “shall be indistinguishable in architectural style, exterior finished materials & exterior appearance for market units”.  He is concerned that all the affordable units would be equal inside.  K. Ferreira understands what D. Sharkey is stating.  It looks like the section this language is in is a for sale condominium.  M. Zollo feels interior & exterior should be added.  D. Sharkey stated the language should also include “including appliances & built-ins”. 

K.Ferreira addressed what the Board thought was a consent order for Carlton Estates & Cromessett Landing, the Board gave a street opening permit, but it was stated as far as getting the DEP permit signed, they would have to go before the Sewer Commissioners.  It was turned back to the Selectmen.  Now it is known it is not a consent order, but some sort of major agreement that was signed.  M. Martin disagreed & stated there was no agreement.  K. Ferreira stated there was a plan that was prepared.  He asked the Board how they want to handle this issue.  He asked if the Board wants to handle it the way they handled the last two sewer projects & turn it over to the Selectmen.  The way the Selectmen handled the last project area was they worked out an agreement w/ Cromessett Landing where money was obtained for I/I & similar agreement w/ Carlton Estates.  He feels this issue gets complicated because of this plan (815 Main St.).  He feels to maintain consistency, the Board should do what they have done in the past.  M. Martin stated the Board cannot waive the DEP requirements, thus, regardless of what the Board decides, it would still have to go before DEP for a sewer extension.  He believes that will be the arena in which Selectmen, acting as Selectmen, would make their case for the granting or non-granting of a sewer line extension.  D. McKinlay stated based on his understanding of the supposed “consent decree” he feels the Board has the authority & should act on it.  M. Martin he is more interested in checking the Board’s authority as the decision makers in the 40B process.  He suggested language such as “the Board, in accordance w/ DEP standards, hereby authorizes the applicant, if they so choose, connection to the sewer system”.  K. Ferreira stated the Board is voting for 49 units, thus, it would allow the applicant to install on-site septic as an option.  M. Martin stated the applicant has applied for 88 units & there is no plan for 49 units.  M. Martin explained that for any extension of the sewer main needs DEP approval.  He again feels at this point the Selectmen, acting as Selectmen could propose their plan.  In the past, the Board has allowed the Selectmen as Sewer Commissioners to approve or disapprove sewer.  He feels in this case, this shouldn’t be done & they should give permission to tie into sewer if the applicant decides contingent upon DEP’s approval.  K. Ferreira recalled w/ the Cromessett Landing project, it was stated that the street opening permit was given to connect to the existing sewer where the project starts, but they were told to extend the sewer they would have to go before the Sewer Commissioners & DEP.  M. Martin stated in this case, the Selectmen are saying they don’t want these applicants to connect to the sewer.

K. Ferreira stated the Board could grant the right to connect to the sewer, but not extend it w/out DEP approval.  M. Martin stated this is State law.  Discussion ensued.  M. Martin stated the Board could have Attorney Witten add language that states the Board as Sewer Commissioners, hereby grants permission to utilize the Town’s existing wastewater treatment facilities provided there is consent by DEP for a sewer extension.

Present before the Board:	John Cronan, BOS

Selectman Cronan stated to allow the sewer connection & then say that it needs to be approved by DEP…..M. Martin stated all sewer expansions, whether 40B or not, have to be approved by DEP.  There is no lineage figures.  M. Martin stated the Board cannot overrule any State rules.  Discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira explained how DEP has lessened constraints on Industrial.

M. Martin stated if the applicant’s decide to go w/ on-site septic, is this still under he purview of the Board of Health.  K. Ferreira feels it would be the Board of Health under State law.  He will get this clarified.

M. Martin clarified that the Board will grant approval to go into the sewer.  K. Ferreira stated it will grant approval to utilize the plant, but not extend the main w/out DEP approval.

Discussion again ensued re:  management.  K. Ferreira feels there should be a yearly renewal.  M. Zollo again stated that the management document should be submitted to the Board.  Discussion again ensued re:  how it is determined that a resident is still eligible.

D.McKinlay spoke re:  adding language “& maintain affordability”  in #35 relative to applicable laws designed to manage & “maintain affordability”.  M. Martin feels this is in the document already.  Brief discussion ensued.

Discussion ensued re:  financial analysis.

D.Sharkey expressed concern re:  #41 & #42.  Based on past experiences, it seems like there should be a detailed consumer description of the units, appliances, structural quality & contemporary design, or words to that effect of the product that is being marketed for the benefit of the consumer.  Discussion ensued.  D. Sharkey feels it should go under the marketing plan.  K. Ferreira agreed.

Brief discussion ensued re:  surety bond.

Discussion ensued re:  the monitoring agent & that the Board doesn’t want the applicant’s to be said agent.

Discussion ensued re:  landscaping improvements & notably protecting trees.

D.McKinlay suggested adding language to the street lighting language to state “site lighting shall not exit site & or spill onto adjacent properties or public roadways”.

Discussion ensued re:  fencing & locations, for example, along the railroad tracks.

Discussion ensued re:  granting of 49 units which equates to a waiver for density.

K. Ferreira spoke re:  enforcement of Conservation issues.  He feels the Town’s Conservation Agent should be responsible for checking & ensuring that all the proper erosion control is in place.  He would like this put into the document.

MOTION:	A motion was made and seconded to approve the decision on an application for a Comprehensive Permit for the Villages at 815 Main Street as drafted w/ conditions.  

POLLED VOTE:	M. Martin – Yes
			M. Scarsciotti – Yes
			D. McKinlay – Yes
			M. Zollo – Yes
			K. Ferreira – Yes

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Brief discussion ensued re:  approving minutes.

VII.	CORRESPONDENCE
(NONE)

VIII.	ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to adjourn the meeting.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk

Date minutes approved:  _____________________
Date copy sent to Town Clerk:  ____________________