ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Wareham Town Hall, Lower Level Cafeteria
54 Marion Road
Wareham, Massachusetts 02571
*SPECIAL MEETING TO COMMENCE AT 6:30 P.M. & REGULAR MEETING TO COMMENCE AT 8:30 P.M.

Date of Meeting:  January 10, 2007   (have made K’s corrections)

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M.

A.	Roll Call

Members Present:
Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman
Donald McKinlay, Vice Chairman 
John Cronan
Michelle Zollo
Michael Martin 
Mary Scarsciotti, Associate Member
Richard Secher, Associate Member (Arrived at 8:00 P.M.)

Member Absent:
David Sharkey, Associate Member 

II.  	SPECIAL MEETING:  APPLICATION FOR CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES OF WAREHAM, INC., 815 MAIN STREET

K.Ferreira stated that Selectman Renee Fernandes-Abbott will be in attendance at some point re:  this application & the sewer issue.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Freeman
				Attorney Jon Witten

Attorney Freeman reviewed the progress made w/ various Town entities.  They have been before the Planning Board, met w/ the Wareham Water Dept. & a report has been generated stating that the water capacity is available, met w/ the Fire Dept. & awaiting their comments, met w/ the Police Dept. & comments have been configured in the design, Board of Health have not submitted their comments as of yet,  & have started the Notice of Intent process under the State Wetlands Protection Act, it was filed w/ the Conservation Commission & comments will be discussed later in this meeting.

Attorney Freeman spoke re:  the revised project eligibility letter from DHCD has been submitted dated 11/20/06. SC Management information has been submitted.  There was a lengthy project description narrative of various aspects of the project submitted.
Attorney Freeman sent out a formal request for documents under the MA public document request statute to the Sewer Commissioners & other departments asking for copies of any documents (relative to sewer).  They did respond & received said documents & there is no administrative consent decree.  The guideline that was asked for doesn’t exist & was not able to be found previously through research.  He discussed the capacity issue & stated they can provide a storage tank w/ the technical levels required.

Attorney Freeman discussed questions raised by the Conservation Commission relative to the daycare center.  It was answered by stating that it is not part of the 40B application.  Conservation issues discussed were the riverfront area & two buildings proposed to be in that area.  Conservation requested that these two buildings be moved out of this riverfront area.  He believes building #2 can be moved out of the riverfront area entirely & be relocated.  He discussed that the daycare center is on the plan, but it technically is not part of the proposal.  He explained that no structure will be in the riverfront, although it doesn’t show this on the plans the Board has presently.  He discussed the issue of setbacks & waivers.  He discussed the retention basin.

K.Ferreira doesn’t have the project eligibility letter.  Attorney Freeman submitted said document.  M. Martin clarified what Attorney Freeman discussed re:  sewer & retention basin.  He clarified that the number of units will be maintained, specifically when relocating building #2 to where the daycare is shown presently & the daycare center will be eliminated as a non-40B entity.  Discussion ensued.

Attorney Freeman submitted documentation from SC Management.  K.Ferreira noted a letter from Mr. Pichette & one from an abutter.  He submitted these copies to Attorney Freeman.  Attorney Freeman submitted letters related to traffic & the overall engineering site plan.  K.Ferreira read letter from Mr. Pichette dated 1/8/07 into the record & reviewed the points made in said letter.  Brief discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira had suggested to the Conservation Commission, that since the ZBA were doing an extensive review & utilizing Hancock Associates, he suggested if they have questions re:  the project that they direct them to Hancock Associates vs. hiring a second reviewer.  He read the letter from the abutter into the record.  He read the Planning Board comments into the record w/ the following recommendations:

•	Roadway width is considered too narrow to accommodate traffic circulation w/in the site, particularly in the vicinity of the parking areas.  Molded extruded bituminous curbing is not acceptable.  The Board believes that vertical granite &/or pre-cast concrete is more appropriate.  They suggest an alternate such as in the attached profile.
•	The plan lacks active recreation areas, such as playgrounds, tot lots, basketball courts, swimming pools, &/or baseball fields.  Use of the daycare playground is not acceptable since the neighborhood children may not be enrolled in this particular daycare program.  Fencing & screening should be provided along the railroad tracks including sound management mitigation measures.
•	Nitrogen loading analysis should be submitted for runoff & landscape fertilizer impacts & mitigation alternatives.
•	Irrigation & maintenance plan for landscaping should be submitted w/ appropriate bonding & timelines to guarantee that the plantings become established & the maintenance is an ongoing concern w/ the management firm.

K.Ferriera read the letter/comments from the Wareham Fire Dept. into the record.  They made the following comments:

•	Fire lanes on public & private ways.  527 CMR 2507 mandates that the building built for residential occupancy shall include a suitable paved access for fire apparatus on at least one side of the structure.  A clear unobstructed way shall be provided from such fire apparatus access points to all exits of the building.
•	5.7 CMR 10.03 gives authority to the Fire Chief to designate public or private fire lanes as deemed necessary for the efficient & effective use of fire apparatus.  
•	Fire lanes shall have a minimum width of 18 ft.
•	There is concern re:  the parking design will compromise suitable access for fire apparatus to maneuver in the complex.  In there opinion, they can not adequately deploy a water truck to all access points.  They can site specific concerns in the turning radius adjacent to #6,8, & 14.  They have provided a copy of their scale to Mr. McCarthy to show the concern pertaining that all turning radiuses are negotiable & the parking plan is satisfactory.
•	Hydrants.  Mr. McCarthy has been advised that the initial hydrant design is not acceptable.  The density & occupant load of the complex necessitates additional hydrant placement.  They are requesting a total of 7 hydrants at this time, but this may change w/ future revisions.
•	Water distribution.  The plan shows a community center & a daycare center.  Depending on the use group & occupancy load, a sprinkler system may have to be installed.  They recommended the utility print reflect this option.
•	Radio communication specifications.  They have provided a copy of their in-building radio communication specs to Mr. McCarthy.  The Fire Dept. has determined that the scope of this project warrants a radio propagation study to determine if a UHF radio frequencies will transfer & receive in this complex.

Present before the Board:	Gary McNoughton, Board’s Peer Reviewer for 
				McMann Associates

K.Ferriera stated the discussion will now turn to traffic matters.

Mr. McNoughton stated a peer review of the 11/06 traffic study was prepared by Stantec for this project.  He spoke re:  memo his firm sent out to Stantec & he has received a response letter back this afternoon, thus he has not had sufficient time to review responses.  

Mr. McNoughton spoke re:  the review letter from the original traffic study which focused on three key areas which were outstanding & needed to be assessed further as follows:

•	Site distance requirements for project.
•	Trip distribution pattern for project.
•	Tactile matters re:  the analysis & results.

Mr. McNoughton stated the study area for project includes Main St. & Fearing Hill Rd. & Main St. at the offset intersection of Tobey Rd. & Station St.  Traffic counts were a concern because Stantec had done this during two times of the year, October & April.  In order to account for seasonal variations, they applied a 10% adjustment to all the traffic logs.  This is conservative & will give an above average result for October & will bring the April numbers to the average.  His firm suggested that summer volumes are significantly higher than the average being shown (30%-35% higher).  His firm has asked that Stantec review this & consider what these volumes would look like or what the operations would look like during that peak summer period.

Mr. McNoughton stated that the trip generation that was done by Stantec was based on the instituted transportation engineer’s annual & the national standards which resulted appropriately.  Trip distribution & the use of Tobey Rd. was questioned as to whether or not w/ the proposed mall development & access to Rte.195, there was 35% of site traffic utilizing Tobey Rd.  He expected a higher volume & have asked them to support a review of this.

Mr. McNoughton discussed the issue of background growth.  Stantec had included the specific developments (mall & small residential developments).  These tend to increase annually & they utilized a rate of 1.5% which was in line w/ what was done w/ the mall, but when his firm contacted SRPEDD to see what was appropriate, they suggested 2.5%

Mr. McNoughton discussed the issue of heavy vehicles.  In performing intersection capacity analysis, there are various factors, one of which is heavy vehicles.  The greater number of heavy vehicles, the operations will degrade as these vehicles have a slower acceleration time, take up more space, etc.  Stantec has been asked to review this matter.  Stantec had utilized a default value & they were asked to apply the actual values based on the Town’s value.

Mr. McNoughton spoke re:  the peak hour factor which indicates how evenly spaced this peak hour is over the course of the one hour period.  There had been questions if it is an even delay spread out evenly over the hour or is it condensed into a particular 15 minute windows.  These factors will be derived from the actual traffic counts conducted at the study area intersections.  Stantec was asked to go back & apply the actual peak hour factors for the analysis which they have done.

Mr. McNoughton discussed the crash analysis (accident history) review.  Stantec provided this, but it only included the number of accidents.  They were asked to do more analysis & assess what these numbers mean & how these numbers relate to the volume of accidents that go through this intersection. MA Highway has standards on how this is determined.

Mr. McNoughton stated that site distance is more of the bigger issues.  In the original report stated that the site distance was adequate based on posted speed limits.  Stantec has gone back & conducted speed observations to obtain the actual average operating speeds of vehicles as well as review site distance.  There are safety concerns w/ site distance.  In front of the school a 20 mph limit is posted to the bridge.  He discussed the road condition under the bridge which is a safety concern.  The signage for this road (under the bridge) is inadequate.  In mitigation, Stantec had spoken re:  improving site distance at their site access to include vegetation trimming & various things that would need to be done to provide site distance based on the operating speeds of the roadway.  He would like Stantec to go back & update the analysis.

Mr. McNoughton spoke re:  the internal roadway layout & parking utilization on site.  He noted the Fire Dept. comments re:  roadway width & the proposed plan shows slightly more narrow roadways.  There may be more appropriate ways to slow traffic/volume down vs. utilizing narrow roadways which could become safety issues.  On site, some of the internal intersections will need to be designated clear zones where there is vegetation & potential parking restrictions so that site distance on internal roadways is adequate.

Mr. McNoughton spoke re:  parking utilization on site.  Plans he had didn’t include total number of bedrooms.  National data was reviewed re:  parking utilization which is based on an average of 1.7 bedrooms p/unit.  Based on this number of units & the daycare facility proposed, the site does have sufficient parking w/ an excess of 8% over the peak demand.  The typical desired access is 5%-15%.  They had asked that Stantec look at layout & location of parking for example, visitor parking.

K.Ferreira asked what the average number of units p/bedroom.  Attorney Freeman stated 1.5.   K.Ferreira doesn’t understand the relationship of bedrooms to parking.  Discussion ensued.  Mr. McNoughton suggested possibly reviewing census data, for example, car ownership.  K. Ferreira expressed concern re:  parking, narrow roadways, Fire Dept. accessibility.   He spoke re:  heavy truck use of roadway which includes existing businesses.  Thus, there would be more heavy trucks than average.  Once the mall comes in, there will be truck deliveries off of Tobey Rd.  He addressed the speed limit postings in this area.

K.Ferreira asked if there be a list of recommendations for the ZBA to incorporate, for example, the mitigation measures or is it the applicant’s responsibility to opt for mitigation.   Mr. McNoughton feels there will be a back & forth discussion.  K.Ferreira discussed pedestrian traffic.  He asked to have mitigation be made to review a pedestrian way to get through the bridge.  Mr. McNoughton stated a suggestion had been made re:  looking into an alternative route (other than under the bridge) for pedestrian traffic.

M.Martin spoke re:  pre-existing issues at the site relative to traffic, for example, the mall, railroad bridge, & heavy trucking.  He feels the developer needs to look at the following issues for the site development:

•	Lack of parking.

M.Martin feels it will be in the 140 range not the 128 range being proposed per bedroom unit.  Discussion ensued.  M. Martin feels the number of vehicles need to be related to the number of residents.  He surmised if the daycare is taken out there would be 30 parking spaces saved & moving building #2 may provide more parking.  

•	Adequate roadway width for fire & school buses.

Mr. McNoughton discussed the proposed roadway layout related to fire apparatus which will still need to be reviewed.  Brief discussion ensued re:  18 ft. roadway width & factoring in if school buses start coming into the complex which would add to the volume.

•	Trips per day.

M.Martin stated information supplied stated that the project would add between 3%-6% increase in overall daily trip count.  Discussion ensued.  He questioned if the 970 trips per day sounds reasonable.  Mr. McNoughton stated parking & small deviation parking would have more of an effect where trips over the course of the day doesn’t.  Discussion ensued re:  trip generation.  Attorney Freeman stated the actual number, exclusive of the daycare center is 144, not 128 relative to parking.  There are 128 paved spaces + overflow parking.  Lengthy discussion ensued re:  parking.

M.Scarsciotti expressed concern re:  pedestrian issues & how would the increasing of roadways impact internal pedestrian issues, for example, bus stop issues.  Mr. McNoughton discussed that there are a number of ways to improve pedestrian safety.  Narrowing of roadways is a method, but not always the most appropriate.  Raised intersections/raised crosswalks may be better applied.

K.Ferreira noted that the applicant’s traffic engineer & the Town’s traffic engineer will meet to go over this information.  Attorney Freeman stated that responses will be made to the questions asked.

Present before the Board:	_____________, a gentleman (the Civil Engineer for project)

The civil engineer stated the roadways are laid out as 20 ft. wide roadways & all intersections have 20 ft. wide turn radius.  It has been brought down to 18 ft. wide at crosswalks & the islands come out.   He discussed the proposed location for parking stalls which are setback to a 22 ft. width.  18 ft. is the minimum width to get through where the islands come out.  All intersections are a minimum of 20 ft. wide w/ 25 ft. wide turning rings which will accommodate emergency vehicles & school buses.  The 18 ft. width was an attempt to traffic calming at the crosswalks where the islands come out between parking spaces.  M. Martin asked for a document showing the layouts of the roadways & measurements.  The civil engineer submitted said document & discussed.  Discussion ensued.

Present before the Board:	Mary Jane Driscoll, Director of Transportation

Ms. Driscoll stated she has been a bus driver for many years & the buses will not go down an 18 ft. wide street.  She asked if there are any street lights proposed for the project.  Attorney Freeman asked that Ms. Driscoll state where she lives & have received no comments from the transportation dept.  K. Ferreira asked if Ms. Driscoll is speaking in an official capacity.  Ms. Driscoll stated she is, for the School Dept.  K. Ferreira suggested that arrangements be made to have the applicant team meet w/ Ms. Driscoll to review details & then if there are outstanding questions that need addressed, she should come back before the Board w/ written comments to be addressed.

Present before the Board:	Renee Fernandes-Abbott, Board of Selectmen Chair

Selectman Fernandes-Abbott stated she is present as a sewer commissioner & will provide information.  She noted that the Board of Sewer Commissioners have not at this time taken up the matter of the 815 Main St. project.  She distributed packets of information.

Selectman Fernandes-Abbott stated the Board of Sewer Commissioners have met w/ Cornerstone Properties & their representatives in 6/06 as part of the site eligibility requirement under DHCD.  The Board sent back a letter to DHCD which endorsed the project based on the recommendations of the Housing Partnership & that it meet the housing needs.  The letter also stated that the Board was encouraged by Cornerstone’s willingness to explore alternative sewer systems & the Board had explained the Town’s situation w/ the upgrade of the WPCF plant as well of the 12 needs areas that were in the process of sewering.    The Board of Sewer Commissioners/Board of Selectmen have not taken up any of the revisions that Cornerstone has proposed since the initial meeting in 6/06.  In 11/06 the Board did receive a letter from Cornerstone w/ revisions informing them that the Board would be requested by DHCD to provide an amended site eligibility letter & the Board would be hearing from DHCD shortly.  They have yet to hear back from DHCD, thus the Board hasn’t reviewed any revisions to the plan.  K. Ferreira noted that DHCD has issued a revised letter.  Selectmen Fernandes-Abbott stated DHCD has not solicited comments on revisions from the Board of Selectmen.

Selectman Fernandes-Abbott understands one of the concerns, as part of the revisions, is that the development is requesting to tie into the public sewer system.  The Board has been working on getting information on what is happening w/ the plant/facility & how much it can handle.  She discussed letter in packet dated 1/8/07 is from the Town’s sewer consultant, Camp, Dresser & McKee.  The Board had asked CDM to summarize the allocation of wastewater flows that were included in the design of the recent upgrade of the WPCF.  The current permit allows an average daily flow of 1.56 million gallons p/day.  The report also summarized the amount of future flows.  CDM went back to 2000 & determined at that point, the flow was 1,010,000 gallons p/day.  They added on the 12 needs areas that under the recommended alternatives that were agreed to w/ DEP when the comprehensive wastewater management plan.  This was added & it was approx. 482,000 additional gallons p/day.  An allowance has been made for 68,811 gallons p/day bringing it to a total of the design flow of 1.56 million gallons per/day, once all the needs areas are sewered.  The 68,811 gallon p/day allowance is basically reserved for commercial, industrial, & institutional growth.  Some of this may be reserved for the BDOD that A.D. Makepeace owns.  An agreement had been signed w/ them in 4/06 allowing the 300 acres would be sewered.  It is unclear at this point re:  the exact nature of the future development there.  CDM is speculating that the wastewater flows for this development will be significant.  She spoke re:  the 4/02 letter from DEP which endorses the Town’s comprehensive wastewater management plan whereas they agreed to the recommended alternative for the Town to meet its discharge permit which equated to the upgrade of the WPCF & expansion of the sewer collection system to include the 12 needs areas.  Some of these areas are complete, some are under construction, & the balance are in the design phase now.

Selectman Fernandes-Abbott stated that in 5/06, the Town Administrator & herself met w/ representatives of Cornerstone Properties & discussed the development & an alternative wastewater system for this area.  She & the Administrator made it clear that they didn’t believe the WPCF could handle this type of capacity.  Based on this meeting, Cornerstone agreed to have a report done to look at alternative disposal systems.  Also discussed at this meeting was the matter of developer building an on-site WPCF that the Town would maintain & operate for them.  She spoke re:  letter from the Administrator dated 6/1/06 to Mr. Hupp w/ the last paragraph stating…”we invision the installation of an alternative system which would be turned over to the Town of Wareham to own & operate.  We are willing to participate actively in soliciting the cooperation of agencies such as DEP & DHCD in developing a wastewater treatment alternative for the project.  As you go through the permitting process, please feel free to call upon our office for assistance.”

Selectman Fernandes-Abbott stated it has been the position of the Board of Sewer Commissioners up until recently that this project would have an on-site wastewater collection system.  There was an extensive report done by Stantec for this project.  She cited page 2 & 3 relative to connection to the Town’s wastewater treatment facility.  She read what the engineers came up (which she read into the record).  The main part of the engineers comments state “according to the original wastewater flow projections for the needs areas, the WPCF will be at design capacity once all areas are connected.  The proposed Cornerstone properties development is not in an area not identified as a needs area in the comprehensive wastewater management plan & is not in an area where existing on-site systems have failed.  However, it is our understanding that five commercial facilities have recently been given permission to connect to the existing Spring Borne wastewater pump station & in addition, the average daily flow reported at the WPCF in 6/06 was 1.1 million gallons per day.  The pump station may require an evaluation to determine if upgrades are necessary prior to the additional flow.  The cost for the infrastructure to connect to the Town’s existing pump station will be approx. $435,000.”  She questioned what commercial facilities have tied into the WPCF & if they are commercial entities located in the Industrial Park which are part of the existing build-out of the sewer system.  One of the objectives of the BOS & Board of Sewer Commissioners is to encourage commercial growth in the Wareham area & when & if there is excess capacity they would like it to go towards commercial development vs. residential development.

K.Ferreira expressed concern re:  answers to questions were answered on 8/16/06 by Stantec, yet the Board was never told any of the information that Selectman Fernandes-Abbott has stated.  Attorney Freeman concurred w/ Selectman Fernandes-Abbott’s summary, but as stated, they thought at the filing stage & financial analysis stage that if they could work w/ the Town they would.  Stantec’s study was a good faith attempt to do a thorough analysis of the situation.  Through this study, it was realized that to do an on-site treatment plant, it would be over $1 million more expensive.  He discussed the meeting w/ Selectman Fernandes-Abbott & the Administrator re:  that they may not be able to continue w/ the on-site wastewater treatment plant issue.  

K.Ferreira stated most of the study work had been done, changes/corrections/revisions have been made, etc.  He asked if the pump station can handle the sewer at this site.  Attorney Freeman stated it is.  

M.Martin spoke re:  letter dated 1/8/07 from CDM which notes “although there is no administrative consent or position, it is clear the Town has not proceeded & there may have been a violation of at least part of it”.  By this letter, he asked if there is admission on the Town’s part that there is no consent order.  Selectman Fernandes-Abbott stated that there is no administrative consent order, however, when DEP accepted the comprehensive wastewater management plan, which was basically the upgrade & the sewering of the 12 needs areas, if the Town didn’t do this, it would have been in violation of the discharge permit.  M. Martin asked what the order was.  Selectman Fernandes-Abbott stated it was the comprehensive wastewater management plan.   M. Martin asked if this has the force of enforcement behind the directive or is it just a plan that was proposed.  Selectman Fernandes-Abbott stated it was a plan that was proposed, presented, & accepted.  M. Martin asked if the DEP has ordered the Town to implement said plan & what permit Selectman Fernandes-Abbott is making inference to re: to flows.  Selectman Fernandes-Abbott spoke re:  the plan DEP consented to which includes the sewering of the 12 identified areas as well as the upgrade to the WPCF.  She stated the Board of Selectman are in the process of looking at another plant because CDM believes the current plant is at 85% capacity w/out the other areas on the needs list that remain to be sewered.  Another issue is the Town of Bourne owns 18% of the plant & they are nearing their capacity as well.  M. Martin clarified that no consent order exists.  He asked how the Town justifies reserving capacity for properties that may or may not take place in the future, for example, the BDOD & what the policy is re:  allowance remaining & its allocation.  Selectman Fernandes-Abbott stated this remaining allocation was to go towards commercial/industrial institutions (5%), but CDM informed the Board of Sewer Commissioners that there is no reserve allowance available.  M. Martin stated if the current plant is at 85%, how can the Town move forward w/ adding the 12 needs areas.  Selectman Fernandes-Abbott stated some of these areas are complete.  J. Cronan asked re:  future flows.  Brief discussion ensued re:  study of future flows which will be done after all the 12 needs areas are complete.  M. Martin feels there are two terms that need to be considered, for example, 1) consistent & local needs & 2) economic.  He expressed concern re:  defending the Town’s position on this sewer issue.

Attorney Witten stated the applicant will need to have an application submitted to the Sewer Commissioners for connection, a decision of the ZBA either to waive or grant affirmatively connection to the system.  The lack of a consent order doesn’t mean CDM’s plan is valid.  A consent order isn’t necessary to make a plan work & it doesn’t mean the Town would not have been violating the clean water act if it hadn’t put the plan together.  He is surprised as well as the Selectmen that there wasn’t an agreed upon consent order.  Attorney Freeman doesn’t feel they have to go to the local board of Sewer Commissioners.  Attorney Witten discussed applications that need to be filed.  Attorney Freeman stated the ZBA has the right, power, & obligation under 40B to decide whether to give the applicant sewer & approve it.  From there, the Town needs to send this local permission to DEP asking DEP to approve the connection/extension.  Attorney Witten doesn’t agree that the applicant can bypass the Board of Water/Sewer Commissioners because there is everything in place other than the administrative consent order.  This matter is under the purview of the Water/Sewer Commissioners.  The ZBA can grant what ever necessary approvals needed at the same time as permission from the Water/Sewer Commissioners.  If the applicant wants to take this matter to the Housing Appeals Committee they can to seek clarification.  Attorney Freeman discussed his stand on this matter.  He stated that the applicant will not be asking the Sewer Commissioners permission to connect, but will instead be seeking it from the ZBA as he feels is the procedure.  He stated if the ZBA is going to deny this request for connection, then he asked that the ZBA deny quickly.  K. Ferreira stated if the ZBA were to deny quickly & the applicant went to the Housing Appeals Committee, either the ZBA would prevail that the applicant has to go to the Sewer Commissioners or the ZBA would lose & the applicant would prevail & not go to the Sewer Commissioners.  He asked what this would do to the rest of the project in terms of review, changes, modifications, etc.  He feels the project would stop.  Attorney Witten stated there is an option where the ZBA can approve this project w/ the appropriate conditions they feel are important & not grant the connection.  The applicant will then have to go to the Water/Sewer Commissioners because the Housing Appeals Committee has no independent jurisdiction over the Water/Sewer Commissioners.  K. Ferreira feels another option would be the engineers for the applicant come up w/ a plan that they meet w/ the Sewer Commissioners, the Sewer Commissioners can make a finding on what is appropriate, etc. & then send a letter to the ZBA re:  information & make a recommendation.  He feels a plan should be drawn up that won’t burden the sewer plant & connect in a way that their 18,000 gallons can be treated, disposed of, & works.  M. Martin discussed the issue of daily max & peak hour.

Discussion ensued re:  this process.  Attorney Witten stated the Town has an approved plan & capacity issues.  If the ZBA ignores the recommendations & the plan, it is not necessarily true that DEP will come back & act on behalf of the Sewer Commissioners.  He spoke re:  a similar matter the Town of Marion is facing.  He suggested if the permit is issued & the Clean Water Act permit & NPDES permit is violated as well as violating the plan, this is not doing service to the Town.  This would do greater harm.  Discussion ensued.  Attorney Witten stated it is the applicant’s burden to show that the project is uneconomical w/out the sewer connection.  The ZBA shouldn’t entertain a conversation that throws this plan that the Sewer Commissioners have negotiated w/ DEP in the past six years out the window.  M. Martin asked if the ZBA remained moot re:  tying into the sewer, would this give the applicant an avenue to the Housing Appeals Court.  Attorney Witten stated anything the ZBA does gives the applicant an avenue to the HAC & likely there will be a requirement from the HAC that the Town allow a sewer connection.  Discussion ensued.  Attorney Freeman will informally make a presentation to the Sewer Commissioners & see if something can be worked out.  J. Cronan stated at the last three 40B hearings, votes have been taken on this issue relative to where the Town has this plan, it has been reverted to the Sewer Commissioners.  He feels the review process should proceed & at the same time, the applicant should be meeting w/ the Sewer Commissioners.

Brief discussion ensued re:  next meeting date to continue discussion on said application.  

K.Ferreira summarized what was discussed this evening.  He expressed concern re:  the applicant’s reviewer response not addressing the issue of soil tests & groundwater evaluations.  It is required by Title V standards & stated they could defer to final plans under 40B preliminary plan requirements, but this matter will be required for the Conservation Commission relative to compliance w/ the stormwater management guidelines.

M. Martin asked to see documentation re:  the appraisal, CPA monies being applied for, & issue re:  open space as related to ___________________.

Present before the Board:	_______________ (A woman)

The woman read a letter into the record from WPCF to Buzzards Bay area Habitat for Humanity.  In short, it discusses the request for connection to the sewer system was denied in 5/05.  The woman asked how this liability effects the Town.  Selectman Fernandes-Abbott stated if this project being discussed wasn’t a 40B project, the same letter would have been issued.

K.Ferreira stated that if anyone has questions, they can be addressed to the ZBA & sent to Attorney Freeman to be addressed.

MOTION:	A motion was made & seconded to adjourn the 815 Main Street hearing to January 24, 2007 at 7:30 P.M.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item VI.  Continued Public Hearings.

K. Ferreira noted that the applicant for petition #47-06 – Maria Smiley – c/o Keith Dmytryck – 24 Regent Avenue has asked that this application be withdrawn.

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

MOTION:	J. Cronan moved to withdraw the application for petition #47-06 – Maria Smiley – c/o Keith Dmytryck – 24 Regent Avenue without prejudice.  D. McKinlay seconded.
VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.#149-05 – Dugan Marine Realty, LLC d/b/a Wareham Boatyard & Marina, Inc. – 69-73 Leonard Street (Rose Point) – c/o Richard M. Serkey, Esquire.

M. Zollo & M. Martin recused themselves from the hearing.  

Present before the Board:	Richard M. Serkey, Esquire
				Mr. Dugan

Attorney Serkey submitted letter dated 1/10/07 to the Board which he read into the record summarizing what has transpired since coming before the Board on 12/13/06.  The letter addressed impact of slips 29-34 may have on the water view of property owners to the southeast of the boat yard marina property.  In a good faith effort to address this concern, Mr. Dugan revised the plan on 12/21/06.  By relocating the floats in a northeasterly direction to create a 53 ft. minimum distance to the wildlands trust property line vs. the 29 ft. minimum distance shown previously.  There had been concern re:  behavioral issues relative to the marina operations.  In a good faith effort to address these concerns, Mr. Dugan has authorized Attorney Serkey to present a suggested list of conditions which he is willing to have incorporated into any favorable decision this board may choose to issue.  The suggested conditions are as follows:

•	No parking shall occur w/in the layout of Leonard St. except along  the marina’s frontage on the southwesterly side of Leonard St. 
•	Members of the marina are encouraged to carpool as much as possible in order to minimize both off site traffic & on-site parking.
•	On weekends of Memorial Day, July 4th, & Labor Day, no boat drop-offs or trailer parking shall be allowed w/in the crushed stone parking area located on the southeasterly side of the existing boat maintenance & office building.
•	Boat & trailer storage shall only be allowed in the northwesterly area of the premises on said plan, beginning at a point no closer than 20 ft. southeasterly from the northwesterly side of the marina building.
•	Only members & their guests shall be allowed on the docks.
•	All personal belongings shall be stored off site & shall be removed from the premises when the boat is removed from the water at the seasons end.
•	No discharge of sanitary waste or fuel into the Weweantic River shall be allowed under any circumstances.
•	No live music shall be allowed unless prior notification is given to & prior approval is received from the Rose Point Association.
•	The special permit shall not go into effect for any proposed slip until & unless the proposed slip is included w/in both of the following:  A. An amended Chapter 91 license from DEP & B.  An amended Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission.

Attorney Serkey stated that subsequent to the 12/13/06 meeting, he forwarded the revised plan to Lucy Furlong, an abutter who has attended all the public hearings on this matter.  He had several phone conversations w/ her as well to help formulate a mutually acceptable list of conditions.  He can’t state she has approved either the revised plan or the proposed conditions.  This was a god faith effort of Mr. Dugan in reaching an accommodation between the reasonable expectations of neighbors & reasonable needs of the pre-existing, non-conforming use.  The accommodations will do the following:

•	Create benchmarks by which to measure the boatyard marina business operations going forward where now there are none.
•	It would save the Town & Mr. Dugan the cost uncertainty of the delay continuing pending litigation in land court.

Attorney Serkey added that discussions have been held w/ other abutters.

The Board members proceeded to review the revised plan.  Discussion ensued re:  moorings.  The proposal is to put in 46 moorings for this season & the other moorings will go back to the Chapter 91 approval process.

Brief discussion ensued re:  definition of “members” of the marina.  K. Ferreira asked if the conditions be incorporated into the contract the members sign.  Attorney Serkey stated “yes.”  K. Ferreira wants the members to know these conditions exist & that violations of said conditions could terminate their contract.

K. Ferreira discussed a condition the ZBA incorporates is a one-year review.  He asked if the finger slips come out of the water.  Attorney Serkey stated they do.  K. Ferreira stated if a special permit is issued for the configuration based on the conditions, the ZBA would want to have a one year review from the time the Chapter 91 license is approved.  Attorney Serkey explained that he will try to utilize the Chapter 91 license he has now, put in 46 slips under the existing, & then re-apply for the other four to be put in next season.  Discussion ensued re:  the one year review.

Audience members were asked for comments of questions.

Present before the Board:	Richard Carlton, Leonard St.

Mr. Carlton spoke re:  the reconfiguration is blocking the channel worse than it ever did.  He stated many can’t attend this meeting for various reasons.  He presented a letter from a neighbor who lives 25 ft. from the boatyard.   K. Ferreira stated the ZBA is dealing w/ the use & the expansion of the boatyard, slips, conversion of moorings to slips, etc.  The Conservation Commission will look at the channel issue when the applicant goes for an Amended Order of Conditions as will DEP.  The ZBA won’t get into the issue of what is in the channel, etc.; this is a Conservation Commission issue.   D. McKinlay read said letter dated 1/1/07 into the record.

Another letter was submitted from Jessica Shultz, Director of Stewardship & Operations, dated 1/10/07 addressed to the ZBA.  D. McKinlay read said letter into the record.  Attorney Serkey stated he obtained this letter because Ms. Furlong was planning not to give it to him this evening.  It is at odds w/ the previous letter that she referred to from the Wildlands Trust in which was incorporated into the record in 12/05.  She had written at that time, after reviewing the information provided & discussed, the Wildlands Trust is comfortable supporting the proposed plan.  She had understood at that time that the project proposed would come w/in 4 ft. of her property line.  He expressed concern re:  this letter being written & not being informed of it.

K. Ferreira read another letter into the record dated 1/7/07 addressed to the ZBA from John Heavey in favor of the application.

A gentleman submitted a copy of an e-mail dated 12/31/06 addressed to the ZBA from William & Andrea Fezda in favor of the application which K. Ferreira read into the record.

D. McKinlay read a submitted copy of an e-mail addressed to the ZBA from Michael Schnieder in favor of the application.

Present before the Board:	Jim Rourke

Mr. Rourke discussed his business dealings w/ this boatyard under several ownerships.  The current ownership is the best he has ever seen.  There is no recognized channel at this site & he doesn’t believe the Coast Guard maintains it.  He discussed the sewage disposal issue & feels this isn’t a problem.

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman stated that the people who wrote letters of support live on the back side & not in the immediate area.

Present before the Board:	Pat Johnson

Ms. Johnson spoke re:  people parking their cars in front of her yard & it is not right.  K. Ferreira noted the list of proposed conditions just discussed that deals w/ no parking to be allowed on Leonard Ave.  Ms. Johnson feels this would last one day.  She asked who she would call if there was an issue of parking.  K. Ferreira stated she should call the ZBA.  He stated if the ZBA comes to a decision that protects the neighborhood it will end the litigation & costs to the Town.  If a decision is not arrived at, it will go back to the judge who will make a decision.  The judge’s decision will be made based on law, precedent, & other cases.  He would like to see the ZBA retain jurisdiction on this matter.  There will be a public hearing held in one year for a review.  If there is a violation(s), the Special Permit can be revoked, reconsidered, etc.  J. Cronan suggested that if patrons of the marina are parking where they shouldn’t be, Mr. Dugan should have them towed.  Discussion ensued re:  parking matters.

M.Scarsciotti asked how waste is handled from boats.  Mr. Dugan discussed how waste is handled based on DEP regulations.  M. Scarsciotti asked what the limit of slips, boats, moorings is re:  having a pump station required.  Mr. Dugan stated 50.  He indicated that he would be going through the process in applying for a pumping permit once the Harbormaster says its appropriate & has indicated that this process can commence once there is expansion approval.  Brief discussion ensued.

M.Scarsciotti doesn’t feel the proposed conditions address the biggest problems which are the noise & hours of operation of the marina.  Mr. Dugan discussed the location of Mr. Johnson’s house & stated the marina was there when Mr. Johnson bought the house.  He stated the marina closes at 4:00 P.M.  Tuesday - Saturday from 8:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M. is the only time there is a mechanic working.  Occasionally in the summer months, there may be an emergency operation to salvage an engine, but this is not a normal operation.  Certain boats can only be launched at certain times of the day due to the tides.  No mechanical work is done on Sundays.  He addressed the noise issue.

Mr. Dugan submitted a list of residents of Town who have boats at the marina (approx. 35 people).  The marina services the Town & Rose Point area.    He submitted a sales summary of what business was in 1988 & 1989.  The volume was approx. $500,000.  They were selling 50-60 engines p/year.  He submitted his tax return for last year & it shows that his operations are half that size.  He only sold eight engines last year.  He does have service & revenue, but it is not a huge complex.  He submitted a document showing he has always had a license for 30 slips & he is taxed on the 30 slips.  He addressed the issue of a channel.  He has installed nine channel markers at his own expense & w/out these markers, he feels this river area would be hazardous.  He provides tide charts to patrons, neighbors, & the Harbormaster.

Present before the Board:	Ms. Furlong

Ms. Furlong spoke re:  Mr. Dugan stating people are allowed to utilize the ramp at a fee. She asked if the Chapter 91 license is a Town or State license.  K. Ferreira stated it is a State license under DEP.  She asked if this license is to be changed what is the process.  K. Ferreira explained that Mr. Dugan needs approval of the ZBA & approval of the ConCom.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the process.

Ms. Furlong feels Mr. Dugan has permission from the Harbormaster for 30 moorings, but he has only used six & the boat count will go up exponentially.  K. Ferreira clarified that Mr. Dugan is “legalizing” ten slips & adding ten more.  The request is for 50 slips & four moorings.  Discussion ensued.  

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman stated it has already been admitted that people are dumping the porto-potties in Mr. Dugan’s facility & flushing it.  The use of the system he has wasn’t designed for this.  Brief discussion ensued.

The gentleman spoke re:  the conversion of moorings to slips.  He asked how this will set precedence for other boat yards to do the same type of conversion & if he wanted to convert his mooring to a slip.  K. Ferreira discussed the ZBA’s position that the conversion of moorings to slips requires a Special Permit.  

The gentleman asked if there can be a condition that Mr. Dugan fill up the 24 slips first so the last slips to fill up will be facing the abutters property & another condition that no mechanical work be done on the slips.  K. Ferreira doesn’t want to micro-manage the business.  The gentleman feels that the mechanical work should be moved on the other side of the gas tanks, away from the residences.  K. Ferreira asked if mechanical work allowed on the water/slips.  Mr. Dugan stated very minor work is done.  If tools are required, it is taken out of the water.

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman stated the river is not amicable.  If one of the markers moves, Mr. Dugan is responsible.  Mr. Dugan stated they are “information only” markers.  The gentleman feels that the running of motors w/ pure exhaust is not allowed at marinas.  Mr. Dugan does this in front of an open building doing this.  Discussion ensued.

MOTION:	A motion was made & seconded to close the public hearing for petition #149-05 – Dugan Marine Realty, LLC d/b/a Wareham Boatyard & Marina, Inc. – 69-73 Leonard Street (Rose Point) – c/o Richard M. Serkey, Esquire.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

NOTE:	The applicant, through his attorney, extended the time for making any decision to allow the Board to prepare a decision to be reviewed by Town Counsel & then vote on it at the next meeting.

NOTE:	J. Cronan departed at this time.

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item V.  Public Hearings.

A.	#50-06 – 59 Twelfth Street – Fred Browne

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

The Board of Health decided they have no comment because municipal sewer is available.

Present before the Board:	Fred Browne

Mr. Browne would like to build a 12x16 ft. shed – a pre-fab type.  K. Ferreira stated the denial from the Inspection Officer states the shed would be the only structure & use on said lot, thus it would need a Variance from the ZBA to allow the shed as a primary use before a building permit can be issued.  Mr. Browne stated he doesn’t own the land around this lot, but adjacent – across the street.  Brief discussion ensued re:  location of the lot.  Mr. Browne stated the purpose of the shed would be for storage of personal things.  He lives in Town.

Discussion ensued re:  the zoning table that applies to this application.

Audience members had no questions or comments & no other comments were mailed into the record & all proper notifications were completed.

M.Martin asked if the shed will house any vehicles, trailers, etc.  Brief  discussion ensued re:  primary structures. Mr. Browne stated the only motorized item he may store in the shed would be a motorcycle, but mainly it will be used for storage.  He purchased the lot from the Town in 1999 & it had been in litigation since 1972.  M. Scarsciotti feels it is an unbuildable lot.  Brief discussion ensued.  M. Zollo expressed concern re:  the structure turning into something else over time.

Mr. Browne stated there will be no bathroom, but in the future there may be electricity.  Discussion ensued re:  what the deed says which restricts no structure, septic system or drinking water well shall be permitted on the lot unless the adjacent property is owned by the purchaser & has an existing dwelling.  The property purchased at auction shall be used as a site for an alternative leaching area, etc.  K. Ferreira stated that the shed could not have a well, not have water, no septic system, etc.  M. Scarsciotti asked re:  the deed stating no structure.  M. Martin asked if across the street is considered adjacent.  The answer was no.  K. Ferreira stated the ZBA is not enforcing the deed restriction, but looking at a Variance.  K. Ferreira asked how Mr. Browne can get around the deed restriction of no structure on lot unless the adjacent property is owned by the purchaser.  Mr. Browne feels adjacent is across the street.  The ZBA members feel adjacent is touching the property.  Mr. Browne feels this may be why it was denied by the Inspection Officer.  K. Ferreira stated the ZBA can’t overrule the treasurer deed.  Discussion ensued.

Discussion ensued re:  how the ZBA should proceed & if it should be considered a Variance or Special Permit.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #50-06 – 59 Twelfth Street – Fred Browne.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to grant a Variance for petition #50-06 – 59 Twelfth Street – Fred Browne w/ conditions.  M. Martin seconded for discussion.

K.Ferreira feels if this is granted it needs to be conditioned such that the ZBA acknowledges the fact there is a deed restriction, but the ZBA is not overruling it.  The ZBA would put a condition in that it can never be used for habitation, there can be no septic, no bathroom facilities, no plumbing.  The only utility that can be there is electricity.

M.Martin read that any structure or use which is customarily associated w/ an allowed use to a permitted principle use shall be allowed.  It doesn’t say that the principle use has to be constructed.  Discussion ensued.  M. Zollo again expressed concern re:  the deed restriction stating no structure.  Discussion ensued re:  having the deed amended, if possible, & re-visiting this matter at a later date.

VOTE:  (4-1-0)
M. Zollo opposed

The following conditions were placed on this application:

•	Constructed per plan submitted.
•	The ZBA notes deed restriction and therefore, the Variance is granted not withstanding deed restriction as stated as enforced or as may be amended.
•	There will be no utilities connected to shed other than electricity.
•	Shed shall not exceed the dimensions/footprint of 12x16 & is not intended to accommodate vehicles other than motorcycles.

B.	#51-06 – 6 Clearwater Drive – Rachel Realty Trust (Robert Vendetti)

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

The Board of Health has no comment as records indicate sewer is available.

Present before the Board:	Scott Geagon

Mr. Geagon stated he is a seasonal resident w/ his family in Onset at 4 Clearwater Dr.  Mr. Vendetti lives behind him & he is building a structure right next to him at 6 Clearwater Dr.  On 11/19/06, he observed a foundation in the ground which was the first time he became aware of said project.  It is a little over 5 ft. from his property.  He noted the lot lines of both properties on a map.  The foundation is 8.5 ft. from his structure.  It is 5.5 ft. from his property line.  

Mr. Geagon  feels the new structure is in violation of the Town’s zoning Bylaws & the project does not meet the definition requirements for an accessory building.  He noted page 1 of his memo dated 12/4/06 to the ZBA.  He feels the side setback is in violation of the Town’s current zoning Bylaws in Village Districts.  He understands that the side setbacks for accessory buildings was changed at the 4/05 Town Meeting.  The building permit for this project was applied & approved on 3/31/06.  He spoke to Mr. Vendetti on 11/19/06 & he also spoke to Mr. Collins in the Building Inspector’s office on 11/20/06.  They were in agreement that this lot was grandfathered in & he was building to right, thus Mr. Geagon didn’t need to be notified.  He spoke w/ Mr. Misiasek, Building Inspector & Mr. Collins, Building Inspector.  Mr. Misiasek recommended he __________________.  Mr. Collins had explained that the lot is pre-existing non-conformance.  Through his investigation & w/ help from his attorney, this is not supported by MA General Laws, Chapter 40A zoning.  He spoke re:  page 2 of his memo which stated “allowing a new structure to be built on this lot is in fact creating non-conformance as a structure did not exist on the lot previously, this is a new structure”.  He noted MA General Laws, Chapter 40A, s. 6, paragraph 1 & 4.

K.Ferreira asked if this lot in question is connected to another lot the owner owns.  He noted that lots can merge.  Mr. Geagon stated the lot w/ the new accessory structure is not on the same lot as an existing dwelling or a contiguous lot of an existing dwelling shared by the same ownership.  He noted what Mr. Misiasek told him re:  accessory buildings & contiguous lots.  On record at the Registry of Deeds, there are different owners of the two lots.  6 Clearwater Dr. owner is Paul McCarthy, Trustee of Rachel Realty Trust, lot 7B, 8 Clearwater Dr. (adjacent to 6 Clearwater Dr.) is owned by Mr. Vendetti, Trustee to Mechanic Realty Trust.  He understands Mr. Vendetti has power of attorney to the Trust, but he is not the official owner of said property, it is not on the deed, there are two different owners.  Discussion ensued re:  map of lots Mr. Geagon submitted.

K.Ferreira stated this is an appeal to the Building Inspector’s decision, thus, a condition cannot be placed on this application.  The ZBA needs to decide whether the Building Inspector acted right or wrong.  If the ownership is two different owners, the Building Inspector acted wrong & the permit should be revoked.  The issue is if Mr. Vendetti decides to put it in the same ownership, the issue would be moot, thus, that would only leave the setback issue.  He explained the most current zoning Bylaw which states a non-conforming structure which creates a new violation will need a Special Permit from the ZBA.

D.McKinlay stated the issue is what the requirement is for the setback.  He contends that the legislative body has chosen to increase the setbacks & when the ZBA allows alterations & extension of an existing setback, not worsening it, it is fine, but if there is new construction, they meet the current setbacks.  He feels Mr. Misiasek is taking a different point of view on this.  K. Ferreira read Chapter 40A, s. 6 into the record.  He stated the setback requirement which is existing is 10 ft., otherwise, a Special Permit would be required & if the lots aren’t owned by the same person, it is not allowed w/out  a Variance.

Present before the Board:	Robert Vendetti, Applicant

Mr. Vendetti stated the foundation is already in & he has spoken w/ Mr. Collins & Mr. Misiasek who told him that the setbacks are 5-5-5 -20.  He has obtained the permit, put in the foundation, & spent money on this project.  He owns 7A, 7B, & the back side of _______.  Discussion ensued re:  ownership & the trust.  Mr. Vendetti feels he is the owner.  The ZBA members disagreed & feel Mr. Vendetti is the beneficiary.    Mr. Vendetti submitted a letter to the ZBA from an attorney which was sent to Mr. Misiasek on 1/3/07.  K. Ferreira read said letter into the record.

K.Ferreira stated this is the first time he has ever heard of someone making an argument that two different trusts were common ownership.  The ZBA needs to take a position as to whether or not the Building Inspector was right or wrong in issuing the permit & they need to decide if these two trusts are common ownership as well as if the setbacks are five or ten ft.  He believes it is ten ft., but the project has already commenced.

Mr. Geagon stated that the building is 8.5 ft. from his house & it is creating an alleyway between his home & this building & will cast a shadow on five windows onto his home as well as the porch.  He is most concerned re:  the closeness to his property & the quality of life & property value of his property.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

K.Ferreira clarified that the properties have to be in the same ownership in order for it to be allowed as a garage w/out a Variance & a Special Permit is needed that states the violation of ten ft. for the accessory structure will not be more detrimental in the neighborhood.  Discussion ensued re:  if this is a two-story or one-story structure & setbacks.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for #51-06 – 6 Clearwater Drive – Rachel Realty Trust (Robert Vendetti).  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

K.Ferreira explained that if the ZBA upholds Mr. Vendetti’s request, the owner of the property has the right to go to court & appeal or accept the revocation of the building permit & apply for a Special Permit.  At that time the issue of the foundation that has already been installed will be dealt w/.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to overturn the Building Inspector’s decision for petition #51-06 – 6 Clearwater Drive – Rachel Realty Trust (Robert Vendetti).  M. Zollo seconded for discussion.

Discussion ensued re:  motion made.

M.Martin discussed the two present issues; 1) merger of the two lots is questionable & 2) the side setback according to the zoning regulations at the time the building permit was applied for was ten ft., thus the Building Inspector erred.  Discussion ensued.

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

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

K.Ferreira explained that w/in 21 days, the Building Inspector will be directed to revoke the building permit unless Mr. Vendetti appeals this decision & recorded w/in 20 days.  If it is not appealed w/in 20 days, on the 21st day, the decision of the ZBA will stand & the Building Inspector will need to revoke the building permit & Mr. Vendetti will need to apply for a Special Permit.

Mr. Vendetti asked if he can continue construction of the project at this stage.  K. Ferreira stated if it is appealed, building cannot be done during this period.  Within the next 20 days, any construction would be looked at unfavorably in the future.  The Building Inspector does not have to accept the decision for 20 days.

C.	#52-06 – 71 Parkwood Drive – Lexiasela, LLC – c/o William Lockwood

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

The Board of Health will require a plan to be submitted for the design, construction, & installation of the subsurface sewage disposal system conforming to State sanitary code 310 CMR Title V: 15.00 & local rules & regulations.

Present before the Board:	William Lockwood

Mr. Lockwood stated there is an existing house on the property.  It is a 3,000 sq. ft. lot.  The proposal is to raze the existing structure down to the foundation & construct a new structure.  There is an existing septic system which is located partially on property & partially on a commonly owned property which the association owns.  He discussed the lower level concrete patio.  The existing wood deck would be demolished which also extends onto the commonly owned property.  There is an existing foundation .  (Mr. Lockwood was very hard to hear).

Mr. Lockwood stated this application has been before Conservation.

K.Ferreira clarified that there is a house that is not entirely on the deeded lot; it is partially over Parkwood Beach Assoc. land.  It is two bedrooms.  The home will be torn down, re-built, & the re-build will keep it all on the property so the deck will not extend over.  Mr. Lockwood stated this is correct, except that the concrete patio, lower level will stay.  He noted a letter from Parkwood Beach Assoc. in the packet submitted.  The leaching field will stay where it is.  It is a newly configured Title V system & is only a few years old.  It was clearly shown at the time it was off the property when approved by the BOH.

Discussion ensued re:  staying w/in the same footprint minus a small triangular piece.  Mr. Lockwood briefly noted the flood zone for this site.

**TAPE ENDED AT THIS TIME – NO MOTION WAS HEARD ON TAPE FOR THIS APPLICATION.

D.	#53-06 – 8 Monroe Parkway – John & Lorna Baker

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	John Baker

K.Ferreira stated this petition has been denied because the Building Inspector has stated the setbacks for the proposed addition have not been met & will require a Special Permit. 

Mr. Baker stated the house itself is 18.5 ft. from the road.  He would like to extend the same line of the house.  K. Ferreira feels Mr. Baker’s plan complies w/ the setbacks allowed, but Mr. Baker would like to line it up in the front of the house.   K. Ferreira asked Mr. Baker why he wants to do something different than is on the plan.  Mr. Baker wants to keep it consistent w/ the front of the house.  Discussion ensued re:  the proposal.

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved to close the public hearing for petition #53-06 – 8 Monroe Parkway – John & Lorna Baker.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. McKinlay moved & M. Martin seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #53-06 – 8 Monroe Parkway – John & Lorna Baker w/ the following conditions:

•	Standard conditions per plan except that proposed addition will be at a setback of no less than 18 ft. off the street.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

III.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes:  October 11, 2006, October 25, 2006, November 8, 2006, November 29, 2006, & December 13, 2006. (NOT HANDLED)

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

V.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.#50-06 – 59 Twelfth Street – Fred Browne (DONE)
B.#51-06 – 6 Clearwater Drive – Rachel Realty Trust (Robert Vendetti) (DONE)
C.#52-06 – 71 Parkwood Drive – Lexiasela, LLC – c/o William Lockwood (DONE)
D.#53-06 – 8 Monroe Parkway – John & Lorna Baker (DONE)

VI.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#47-06 – Maria Smiley – c/o Keith Dmytryck – 24 Regent Avenue (WITHDRAWN)
B.	#149-05 – Dugan Marine Realty, LLC d/b/a Wareham Boatyard & Marina, Inc. – 69-73 Leonard Street (Rose Point) – c/o Richard M. Serkey, Esquire (DONE)

VII.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION
(NONE)

VIII.	CORRESPONDENCE
(NONE)

IX.	ADJOURNMENT

THERE WAS NO MOTION TO ADJOURN – TAPE WAS SHUT OFF AFTER LAST PUBLIC HEARING.

Attest:  _________________________
	Don McKinlay, Vice Chairman

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