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

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

Date of Meeting:  May 23, 2007

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

Member Absent:
Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

D.McKinlay called the meeting to order.

D. McKinlay discussed the procedure for this meeting.

II.  		PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#23-07 – 6 Anchorage Drive – John W. Smith

The applicant has asked for a continuance of the hearing to June 27, 2007.  D.McKinlay read a letter dated 5/22/07 from John W. Smith, 17 Maritime Drive into the record relative to the request.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to continue the public hearing for petition #23-07 – 6 Anchorage Drive – John W. Smith to June 27, 2007.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

B.	#24-07 – 74 Circuit Avenue – Gary Gustafson, c/o Capizzi Home Improvement

The applicant has asked for a continuance of the hearing to June 13 or June 27.  Brief discussion ensued re:  what the application pertains to (build an addition).

Present before the Board:	A woman & a gentleman

The woman & the gentleman stated she is the owner of house, 74 Circuit Avenue.  D.McKinlay asked if they are looking to sell this home to Mr. Gustafson.  The people stated no.  The gentleman stated that Capizzi Home Improvement is the contractor.  The people didn’t know there was a request to continue the hearing.  D. McKinlay asked if Mr. Gustafson was going to present something to the Board.  The people stated yes.  D. McKinlay stated that the Board can open the hearing if the people want.  Discussion ensued re:  how to proceed.

The couple present & the Board concurred to continue this hearing to June 13, 2007 tentatively. (THERE WAS NO MOTION, JUST A CONCURRANCE) 

C.	#22-07 – 10 Savary Road – Donna Chaston

D.McKinlay read a letter into the record from Attorney Bello dated 5/22/07 requesting a continuance of this hearing to June 13, 2007.  Brief discussion ensued.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to continue the public hearing for petition #22-07 – 10 Savary Road – Donna Chaston to June 13, 2007.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

NOTE:	D. McKinlay read a letter into the record dated 5/15/07 from Calvin Carnes, 3166 Cranberry Highway, petition #16-07 re:  a request for a continuance.

MOTION:	D. Sharkey moved to continue the public hearing for petition #16-07 – 3166 Cranberry Highway – Calvin Carnes to June 27, 2007.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

III.  		CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

D.McKinlay read a letter into the record from Judy Herron/Yetman re:  the treatment of the Board towards her the last time she was present.  She has requested a plan waiver on the grounds of serious financial hardship w/in her family.  She does not have the money to hire an engineer.  She requested an extension/continuance to address this issue on June 27, 2007.  Brief discussion ensued if the applicant understands the process, what the issues are, & how to proceed.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to continue the public hearing for petition #14-07 – 86 Wareham Lakeshore Drive – Ms. Judy Yetman, c/o Judy Herron to June 27, 2007.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

M.Martin suggested the Board write a letter to the applicant to include that the Board conditionally grants the plan waiver in which one may be required as a condition for approval & the Board recommends, given the circumstances surrounding this case, that the applicant retain the services of an attorney &/or engineer to assist in this matter.  The Board concurred.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved the Board grant a plan waiver w/ standard conditions for petition #14-07 – 86 Wareham Lakeshore Drive – Ms. Judy Yetman, c/o Judy Herron.  M. Zollo seconded.

NOTE:	D. Sharkey asked why a plan waiver is being granted.  He feels the hearing should move forward first before taking this action.  D. McKinlay stated the applicant has asked for a plan waiver in her letter.  M. Martin stated that the Board can grant the plan waiver & in the letter to the applicant, it should explain that a plan needs to be submitted.  M. McKinlay will draft said letter for the Board’s review.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

NOTE:	D.McKinlay read a letter from Ronald J. Busnengo, agent for Monitor Realty Trust into the record requesting an extension on his appeal for a landscape supply yard located at 2387 Cranberry Highway.

M. Scarsciotti feels this letter is a result of the last time the Board gave Mr. Busnengo an extension.  The Board was supposed to receive information.  D. McKinlay recalls granting Mr. Busnengo an extension w/ the condition that the Board receive a time waiver.  He doesn’t see a waiver.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the issue at hand.  Brief discussion ensued re:  how to proceed.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to deny the application without prejudice for Ronald J. Busnengo, 2387 Cranberry Highway.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

B.  #20-07 – Fees (To be handled later in the agenda).

IV.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
 
A.	#17-07 – 22 Carver Road – Request for reconsideration/clarification.

Present before the Board:	Mike Crapo, 22 Carver Road

D.McKinlay stated that the decision can’t be changed.  M. Martin recalls this application being denied w/out prejudice, so the applicant could file another application.  M. Scarsciotti disagreed.  D. McKinlay feels the applicant will have to go before the Planning Board to get approval to do so.

Mr. Crapo feels this application was denied due to the size.  He had spoken about the size of the building, not the apartment.  The size of the building is 24x36.  The upstairs (apartment) is 16x36.  He submitted pictures to the Board & asked for a re-consideration.

M. Martin indicated his issue relates to what an accessory structure is.  The zoning ordinance clearly defines an accessory apartment as being “in or attached” to the primary dwelling.  Discussion ensued.    Mr. Crapo discussed the structure.

M. Martin noted this site is in the MR-30 district.  Duplexes are allowed in an MR-30 district, but he doesn’t believe Mr. Crapo has the lot area for this.  M. Zollo stated a duplex is one building.  M. Scarsciotti asked under the definition, would more than one building residentially be allowed on one lot.  D. McKinlay stated not typically because once there are two buildings that are full residences, the owner than has the right to split the property.  This brings more ramifications.

Mr. Crapo stated he is willing to accept any restrictions the Board wants.   D. McKinlay stated if a Variance was granted, the Board would put restrictions they feel is required by the Variance.  

D.Sharkey doesn’t see any way how this can fit.  M. Martin cited the table of use under the MR-30 District & what each use would require (Special Permit/Variance) or not be allowed.  He feels this application would be a Variance for two dwelling units on a single lot.  Discussion ensued.

Mr. Crapo noted several similar instances in other towns relative to what he is trying to do.  M. Martin doesn’t feel it is Mr. Crapo’s personal circumstances which are in question; it is what is written down under the regulations that the Board has to go by.  Every town has their own regulations.  D. McKinlay feels the Board has interpreted the Bylaw the way it was meant to be interpreted consistently.  In general, the Board always looks at an in-law apartment as attached.  Brief discussion ensued re:  lack of kitchen facilities in the unit.  R. Secher feels the real issue is two dwellings on one lot.  D. McKinlay agreed.

Mr. Crapo indicated what he applied for at the Building Dept. & what he was told.  D. McKinlay asked how this is different from what is there now.  Mr. Crapo stated he wants to put in a kitchen sink & a stove.  M. Martin feels the Building Inspector denied the application because the unit was detached.

Mr. Crapo discussed the new septic he had to put in.   He discussed his plans to put in a kitchen sink.  D. McKinlay explained that this case is closed & the ZBA doesn’t have the authority to re-open it.  There is a process Mr. Crapo can follow to come back before the ZBA & re-present something – he would have to file a new application.  Brief discussion ensued.  

V.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes to be approved:  10/11/06, 10/25/06, 11/8/06, 11/29/06, & 12/13/06. (NOT HANDLED)

B.	Informal Discussion:	  Ticia Weare 

Present before the Board:	Ticia Weare

Ms. Weare stated she would like to get involved by serving on the ZBA.  D. McKinlay stated there is an Associate member position open.

M.Martin noted Ms. Weare’s involvement in the 815 Main St. discussions.  He expressed concern re:  if Ms. Weare is being driven by an agenda by wanting to serve on the ZBA.  Ms. Weare stated her wanting to serve is not agenda driven.  She explained that due to her involvement w/ the 815 Main St. discussions; it sparked interest in her.  She noted her job experience w/ affordable/rental housing.  Brief discussion ensued.

R.Secher feels the differences of opinion is a good thing.

M.Scarsciotti asked what Ms. Weare feels is the most important thing her experience can contribute.  Ms. Weare stated it may not be her experience that would contribute the most, but more her enjoyment of research.

D.Sharkey informed Ms. Weare that the ZBA gets minimal support from the Town; thus is a lone board.

D.McKinlay stated he would recommend Ms. Weare to an appointment to the ZBA.

D.McKinlay noted an e-mail sent by K. Ferreira who acknowledged that Ms. Weare & her group may be involved in possible up-coming litigation relative to 815 Main St.  Thus, this would have to be kept in mind if Ms. Weare is appointed to the ZBA & if she was assigned to sit on a case.  In short, K. Ferreira doesn’t have a problem w/ Ms. Weare being on the ZBA.

VI.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.  Sweeney Application.

Present before the Board:	John Cronan

Mr. Cronan asked what the result of contact w/ Town Counsel on this matter.  D. McKinlay stated he has called several times, but has had no contact.  Brief discussion ensued.

D. Cronan stated Ms. Sweeney’s neighbor has put on a huge addition.  He asked if the ZBA approved this.  M. Scarsciotti stated “yes”.  M. Martin stated this owner bought two separate lots (bought two houses), tore them down & combined the lots.  M. Scarsciotti stated he only tore down one house & expanded the other; thus it is one house.  D. Cronan feels this addition was wrong to grant.  This owner is now putting on a deck on the addition.  Ms. Sweeney is on the “0” lot line.  The deck will be very close to this line.  M. Scarsciotti recalls that this “deck” will be a farmer’s porch in which setbacks on the street were discussed & it was to be in relationship to the existing setbacks.  

M. Martin stated there is a rule for front setbacks, but no special rule for side setbacks.  M. Scarsciotti feels this neighbor meets them.  D. Cronan feels the ZBA was wrong to grant this application.  Discussion ensued.

Mr. Cronan discussed the proposed fence Ms. Sweeney wants to put in.  He noted that Ms. Sweeney rents all the rental units out; summer rentals.  The Board members stated they were unaware of this.  They thought it was a single family home.  Mr. Cronan stated he went down to look at 40 West Central Ave. & it is summer rental.

Brief discussion ensued re:  the status of Ms. Sweeney’s application.  D. McKinlay stated that Ms. Sweeney is asking for relief that the ZBA doesn’t believe they have jurisdiction over.  Mr. Cronan suggested the ZBA send Ms. Sweeney a letter.  D. McKinlay stated he would like to if he could get an answer from Town Counsel.

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item III.  Continued Public Hearings – B.  #20-07 – Fees.

M.Martin & M. Scarsiotti conducted research.  M. Martin stated he found that everyone does fees differently & they are all over the place.  He noted some positive fees charged that he found, for example, the Town of Plymouth charges $1,000 for 40A section 8 application (which is an appeal for an administrative decision).  M. Scarsciotti stated the Town of Plymouth also has a requirement in the applications that require an environmental impact statement that has to be attached to every application.  

M.Martin found that most towns have applications for each fee, for example, if someone comes in requesting four Variances, this would mean four applications & four fees.  They also have separate applications for each item.

M.Martin found that few towns charge for advertising.  Brief discussion ensued.  D. McKinlay expressed frustration w/ the Building Dept. sending people to the ZBA for the wrong reasons & the wrong things.  He stated this is why the ZBA decided to advertise an application as a Variance/Special Permit to cover everything.  M. Martin expressed concern re:  the legitimacy of the application.  The law is specific that an application needs to be for something.  Discussion ensued.  M. Scarsciotti expressed concern re:  re-interpreting things that have come from the Building Dept.  He feels the applicant should be sufficiently prepared to present their case.  M. Martin stated the ZBA’s job is to hear the evidence.  Discussion continued.

M.Martin feels that part of revamping fees is to revamp the applications.  Discussion ensued.  M. Martin offered to obtain different towns’ applications to submit to the ZBA for review.  M. Scarsciotti noted that the ZBA should review other towns’ sign Bylaws.

NOTE:	M. Scarsciotti proceeded to discuss the proposed addition to the rules for to 40B.  She proposed the following:

•	Include a new clause in the 40B rules, which would fall under Application Requirements, s. N.  It would read “any & all materials that are necessary to ensure that the below market rate dwelling units that are authorized by a Comprehensive Permit are included on the Dept. of Housing & Community Development Subsidized Housing Inventory list which is SHI, including an affirmative statement by the applicant that he/she will pursue all necessary filings &/or assist the Town of Wareham to pursue all necessary filings to ensure that the below market rate dwelling units authorized by the Comprehensive Permit are included on the HSI”.

M. Martin feels it should state at the end “prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits”.  M. Scarsciotti stated this would not be possible because occupancy permits are now part of the documentation required.  Discussion ensued.

Discussion ensued re:  who is keeping track of affordable units & who is responsible for doing this.  M.Scarsciotti stated that a letter has been written to Matt Dacey to see if he will provide the documentation that DHCD needs for the condo units at 425 Main St.  None of these units have been counted yet & neither have the ones at Fieldstone Estates.

Discussion ensued re:  the DiMiranda property court case.

M.Scarsciotti will contact Attorney Witten to clarify what leverage the ZBA has w/ the addition to the rules.  D. McKinlay feels that there needs to be consequences for a developer that doesn’t do what is being suggested.  Brief discussion ensued re:  a temporary occupancy permit.

VII.	 CORRESPONDENCE
(NONE)

VIII.	ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	A motion was made and seconded to enter into Executive Session do discuss possible litigation.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Michael Martin, Vice Chairman

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