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:  June 27, 2007

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

Member Absent:

Also Present:
Ted Misiasek, Building Inspector

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

D.McKinlay called the meeting to order.

D.McKinlay discussed the meeting procedures.

II.	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.	#22-07 – 10 Savary Road – Donna Chaston – Need signature sheets endorsed.

The Board members proceeded to endorse the signature sheets.

C.	ZBA Associate Member

Brief discussion ensued re:  the status of the Associate Member recommended by the Board.  

Present before the Board:	John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Mr. Cronan stated that the Board’s recommendation was favorable & the Selectmen are waiting to see the application to review.

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

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

D.McKinlay read a letter into the record dated 6/25/07 from John W. Smith re:  a request for a continuance to 7/18/07 due to a DEP challenge.

M.Scarsciotti stated 7/18/07 is not a ZBA meeting night.  The ZBA meets July 11 & July 25.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the date to continue this hearing to.  It was noted that this hearing has not been opened & this is the second request to continue.  D.McKinlay suggested notifying the applicant that he will need to re-advertise since it has been continued several times.  Brief discussion ensued.  M. Martin would be inclined to open the public hearing & then continue it to July 25.  Brief discussion ensued re:  timeframe regulations.  Brief discussion ensued re:  if new abutters’ notices should go out & the hearing re-advertised.  The Board members concurred.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to formally open the public hearing for petition #23-07 – 6 Anchorage Drive – John Smith & to continue said hearing to July 25, 2007 & further, that the applicant shall provide a waiver of the time period required due to the repeated requests for continuation & the applicant must re-advertise the hearing & furthermore, if the applicant fails to provide said waiver & re-advertise, the ZBA will deny the petition w/out prejudice on July 25, 2007.   R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

III.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

A.	#14-07 – 86 Wareham Lakeshore Drive

D.McKinlay noted that this hearing is listed under item III. & V.

Present before the Board:	Judy Yetman

Ms. Yetman asked what she has to do.  She can’t afford a lawyer & an engineer.  Brief discussion ensued re:  this case.  

Ms. Yetman stated she requested a plan waiver.  D.McKinlay stated the Board didn’t grant or deny the request.  The ZBA took no action as to a final decision.  Ms. Yetman read the minutes of the meeting that states:  “M. Martin moved for the Board to grant a plan waiver w/ standard conditions for petition #14-07”.  M. Martin explained that this means if during the process the Board determines a plan is required then they would ask that one be provided.

Ms. Yetman expressed confusion re:  how to proceed.  M. Martin explained there is a petition for a Variance for encroachment into the side setback.  For the Board to grant a Variance, it requires a presentation by the applicant of a four part legal brief outlining an argument for each of the four conditions as to why this Board should grant a Variance.  That is why the Board suggested the applicant seek a lawyer to prepare this.  The burden of presenting a case is very cumbersome.  One condition of a side setback Variance is a survey plan for the Board to make an objective opinion based on what the significance of the encroachment is.  It is up to the applicant to make the legal argument.

Ms. Yetman stated she submitted a new plot plan by J.C. Engineering.  M. Martin stated the Board accepted this as a plan waiver – a starting point.  Ms. Yetman stated the project is already done.  M. Martin stated Ms. Yetman should have obtained a building permit.  Without obtaining a building permit from a building official, then the applicant is not conforming to the zoning regulations.  

M.Martin discussed the Board’s role in this matter, what a Variance is, & what options the applicant may have.  D.McKinlay stated another requirement is that the Board needs to come up w/ a number that tells them what the setback is presently.  The plan submitted only shows a septic design, not what the setback is.  Brief discussion ensued.

M.Martin again suggested the applicant hire a lawyer.  If not, the Board will be in a position to deny the request because no evidence is being shown.  He noted that the applicant’s defense is that she is present, she has no money, & she needs a Variance.  This won’t work.  Ms. Yetman stated she is doing what the Planning Board told her to do.  M.Martin stated this is not the Planning Board.  Ms. Yetman stated the only people that will speak w/ her is the Planning Board.  M.Martin clarified that Ms. Yetman is speaking about the Planning Dept.

D.McKinlay stated that the problem can’t be solved w/out the information required.

Ms. Yetman asked for a continuance for two or three months.  D. McKinlay stated the Board will require her to sign a time waiver w/ the ZBA secretary.  Brief discussion ensued re:  date to continue to.

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 September 12, 2007 w/ the condition that the applicant sign a time waiver w/in seven days of this hearing to grant an extension.  D. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

NOTE:	Discussion ensued re:  the continuation of petition #30-07 - Red Barn bed/breakfast hearing.  The Board gave the applicant’s attorney the incorrect date of continuance.  Brief discussion ensued.  M. Scarsciotti suggested offering two hearing dates to the applicant (either July 11 or July 25).  D. McKinlay will ask the ZBA secretary to draft a letter to the applicant asking which hearing date will be acceptable.

Present before the Board:	John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Mr. Cronan asked if this hearing was for a Variance.  D. McKinlay stated the Board is considering it as a Variance.  Mr. Cronan stated that more applications for one-day liquor licenses from this establishment have been submitted.

IV.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#23-07 – 6 Anchorage Drive – John Smith (DONE)

B.	#26-07 – 205 Onset Avenue – LB Realty Trust

The public hearing notice into the record.

Present before the Board:	_________________, Applicant
				_________________, Builder
				Daniel Lewis, Representative

Mr. Lewis stated he was present approx. six weeks ago requesting a plan waiver.  The conclusion of the Board was that whereas there was no site plan required, the Bylaw requires some sort of indication showing the proposed new structure.  He submitted plans showing the second floor unit w/ the proposed addition.    He proceeded to discuss said plans.

Mr. Lewis stated the Variance/Special Permit for this project was originally issued six years ago & when the plan was submitted, the deck in question was omitted inadvertently.  He discussed the location of the deck & dimensions.  He noted the pre-existing deck that was present before the complete renovation.

Mr. Lewis stated the building is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure w/ an approx. 4x9 ft. setback at the rear property line.  The deck would extend nearly to the property line (w/in one foot) & ten feet above surface grade.  Access would be by slider on the second floor unit.  He submitted pictures to the Board.  Discussion ensued.

M.Martin discussed criteria to be met for a Variance & if the applicant has met said criteria.  He would have liked to have had a comparison of the old building footprint vs. the new building.  Mr. Lewis feels the project is an extension as to what was there before.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the deck dimensions.

Present before the Board:	Ted Misiasek, Building Inspector

Mr. Misiasek stated there had been an existing porch at one time.

M.Scarsciotti asked if the fence between the two buildings originally is still there.  Mr. Lewis stated the fence was for construction purposes.  M. Scarsciotti asked what type of traffic goes in the rear of the building.  It was stated these parking spaces are for tenants of the building.  There will be no stairs going to this deck & there is no requirement to.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Mr. Cronan asked when the slider went in for this deck area.  Mr. ____________ stated _______________???  

Mr. Lewis discussed the improvement the new building has on the area.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to close the public hearing for petition #26-07 – 205 Onset Avenue – LB Realty Trust.  R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Discussion ensued re:  suggested conditions.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved & M. Zollo seconded to approve a Special Permit for a deck for petition #26-07 – 205 Onset Avenue – LB Realty Trust w/ the following conditions:

•	4 ft. maximum extension from side wall to outer edge of deck.
•	No stairway.
•	No enclosure.
•	Constructed per plan submitted.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

C.	#27-07 – 33 Wareham Lakeshore Drive – Wareham Lakeshore Drive -  Improvement Association (Gary Sikowski, President)

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Gary Sikowski

Mr. Sikowski stated there are approx. 130 households w/in the Association.  There used to be a shed on the property, but five years ago, due to termites, it was taken down.  In order to store trash barrels & beach equipment, the Association is requesting a shed be put up.  The ConCom agent has reviewed the area.  The proposed shed will be 10x12.  

M. Martin feels this request is for an accessory structure on a lot that is not a primary residence.  This would require a Variance.  Mr. Sikowski stated there had been a shed there previously.  M. Martin stated the shed is not an allowed use in this situation.  A use Variance needs to meet a higher standard.  Mr. Sikowski asked what the problem would be having a shed there.  M. Martin stated it would be illegal.  Mr. Sikowski again stated there was a shed there previously, but he may only have old pictures as evidence of this.  M. Martin asked if the Assessor’s records would show this.  He suggested Mr. Sikowski ask for a continuance & conduct some research to show that there had been a structure there.  At this time, this case would be a Variance.  Mr. Sikowski concurred to obtain further information.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to continue the public hearing for petition #27-07 – 33 Wareham Lakeshore Drive – Wareham Lakeshore Drive Improvement Association to July 25, 2007.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

D.	#28-07 – 26 Larch Street – Gerald Cardillo

The public hearing notice was read into the record.  The Board of Health indicates they would require plans be submitted to determine the location of the subsurface sewage disposal system to ensure compliance w/ State & local setback regulations.

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

Mr. Churchill gave a brief history of the property.  The current existing structure is 3.8 ft. from the side property line & 12.7 ft. from the front property line.  In determining the location of the new structure they will retain a 10 ft. property line setback (10.3) on the side & 20 for front setback of the road.  According to the requirements of the Building Dept., the landing does help w/ the setback, thus, the request is for a 3.5x4 ft. landing.  The landing would encroach w/in the front setback & would be 16.8 ft. from front setback.  He feels the non-conforming nature of the structure would be decreasing by its proposed location.  He discussed how this proposal meets the criteria for a Special Permit.  He stated they are requesting a Special Permit due to the zoning requirements not fully being met which is the front landing of the structure.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

Mr. Churchill stated there is parking adequate for the use & there will be a new septic system.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to close the public hearing for petition #28-07 – 26 Larch Street – Gerard Cardillo.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved & M. Zollo seconded to grant a Special Permit w/ the finding that the reconstruction brings the property into greater compliance w/ the Zoning Ordinance & the reconstruction will not be more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity w/ the following conditions for petition #28-07 – 26 Larch Street – Gerard Cardillo:

•	Constructed per plan.
•	Off-street parking adequate to the use.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

E.	#31-07 – 2874 Cranberry Highway – Patricia Brescia

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Len Bello
				Patricia Brescia

Attorney Bello discussed the case & circumstances surrounding this case.  Ms. Brescia purchased the property on 2874 Cranberry Highway in 10/05.  At the time of purchase, there was a pre-existing apartment over the garage which is detached from the main house.  He noted the purchase & sales agreement which included a clause re:  the existing tenant.  To confirm that the existing apartment was recognized by the Town, Ms. Brescia checked Assessor’s records which indicated this property had two dwellings, one was an apartment over the garage.  Ms. Brescia also checked w/ the Building Inspector to make sure she would be allowed to obtain a permit to upgrade the existing garage apartment.  Ms. Brescia intended to reside in the garage apartment & either rent the main house or condo-ize the two dwellings so she could sell the main house.  It was through the rental or sale of the main house that Ms. Brescia was going to provide housing & income for herself.  She was assured by the Building Inspector there were no problems & building permits were issued to renovate the apartment.  Ms. Brescia spent substantial funds renovating both the garage apartment & the main home, which she has since rented.  She then, w/ the help of another attorney, condo-ized the dwelling, allowing her to sell the main house.  While in the process of having the utilities separately metered, Ms. Brescia was informed by the Town that they had made a mistake in that the Town’s historical records did not show a permit being issued authorizing an office over the garage being turned into an apartment.  After being threatened not to reconnect the utility services in the garage apartment, the Town’s inspector authorized the reconnection providing that Ms. Brescia proceed to pursue a Variance by the ZBA.  The denial letter provided by the Building Inspector acknowledges the existence of the apartment before Ms. Brescia purchased the property.  It is the Town’s belief that the apartment legally existed & the Building Inspector’s Office issued permits for the apartment’s expansion & alteration.  The property is located in a strip commercial district which allows for multiple dwellings by way of Special Permit (Zoning Bylaw 613).  He noted section 623 & what it states for setback requirements.  The apartment infringes upon the 10 ft. rear & side setback requirement, however, the existing garage has been at the present location since 1960 & is considered grandfathered.  He discussed the location of the property.  The existing uses have been on-going for some time w/out adverse impact on neighbor’s property or the Town.  There is,on record, a granting of a Variance to permit an office be constructed above the garage.  Whenever this was, it would apply to this Variance being requested.  To deny Ms. Brescia the relief being sought would create financial hardship.  Ms. Brescia took all the proper steps in researching the property before purchasing to confirm that she was purchasing a property w/ a legally existing apartment.  Granting a Variance will not be detrimental to the public good nor does it nullify or deregate from the intent/purpose of the Zoning Bylaw.  In order to cover all bases, the application allows the ZBA to overturn the decision of the Building Inspector.  He discussed a legal theory called a “sober” which he discussed.

In summary, the applicant is asking that a Special Permit be granted for a multiple residential dwellings & a Variance for the frontage & area requirements provided in dimensional tables of the Zoning Bylaws.

M.Martin clarified that the Assessors records were utilized by Ms. Brescia before purchasing the property.  Said records showed there were two dwelling units on a single property.  Attorney Bello stated this, in part, is the basis for the case & also information that came from the Inspector’s office.  Discussion ensued.

Attorney Bello discussed the older Variance that was found given to a prior owner.

M.Martin questioned a statute of limitations w/in the Zoning regulations.  Discussion ensued:  re:  regulation 40A – Statute of Limitations.  Mr. Misiasek stated the statute states it is for 10 years.  Discussion ensued re:  40A & condo-izing of the units.

M. Scarsciotti stated that the Assessors are not enforcement agents.  They determine the tax based on what the facts are.  It is not a legal status as far as the existence, legally or otherwise, of a two-family or in-law, etc.  Attorney Bello stated there were Assessors records & the Building Inspector confirmed the records & issued a building permit.  M. Scarsciotti stated it is the Building Dept. that makes a legal determination as to what is there.  Attorney Bello feels there is an impact as to what is assessed & what taxes are being paid on.  Discussion ensued.

Discussion ensued re:  the utilities.  Attorney Bello stated they had previously been all on one meter.

Attorney Bello stated the garage is not used as a garage.  Brief discussion ensued.  Attorney Bello stated that the intent of Ms. Brescia was once the apartment was renovated for her to live in, she was to sell the home.  It has already been condo-ized.  Discussion again ensued re:  utilities.

M.Martin spoke re:  the statute of limitations.  He feels it is too late to take enforcement action against a non-conformity that was created ten years ago.  Discussion ensued.  Attorney Bello discussed the Variance on file for an office.  He doesn’t know when the apartment came to be or when the Variance was granted for the office.  M. Martin stated the statute of limitations only covers the structure, not the use.

**TAPE ONE ENDED, TAPE TWO BEGAN – I DIDN’T HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING OR OTHER MOTIONS THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED.  

The Board concurred to grant a Variance for area, frontage.  Discussion ensued re:  if setbacks should be added as well.  Attorney Bello stated that two lots have been condo-ized & this is documented.  M. Martin feels there needs to be a Special Permit for the primary dwelling on one lot.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to grant a Variance for area, frontage, & setbacks for petition # 31-07 – 2874 Cranberry Highway – Patricia Brescia.  D. Sharkey seconded.

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

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved & D. Sharkey seconded to grant a Special Permit for multiple dwellings (2) on one lot for petition #31-07 – 2874 Cranberry Highway – Patricia Brescia w/ the following conditions:

Brief discussion ensued re:  conditions.

•	No expansion.
•	Footprint shall remain as is on plan submitted.
•	Parking adequate to the use.
•	Per plan already built (ZBA notes work already done w/ proper permits from Building Dept.)

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

F.	#32-07 – 16 Old Glen Charlie Road – Dianne & Sean Brophy

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	John Churchill, J.C. Engineering, Inc.
				Sean Brophy

Mr. Churchill stated the request is for a Variance for an in-law addition/second dwelling unit.  There is an existing dwelling on the property.  The request is for an addition of a 26x48 ranch style extension off the first floor of the existing dwelling.  The family room will be shared & the extension will house facilities for the in-laws.  He discussed how this request meets the criteria for a Variance.  He noted that at one time there were two lots, but it is now one lot.  There had been two homes on the two lots.  He discussed how the existing dwelling on one of the lots was torn down & never re-built.  The Brophy’s purchased one lot & then purchased the second w/ no house on it w/ the intention of building a new dwelling on the lot for the in-laws.  The lots were then combined into one large lot.  He discussed the health situation of the in-laws.

M. Martin stated he relies on what constitutes an in-law apartment through MA Housing & Community Development Regulation 45.2, which he cited.  He spoke re:  the Town of Dartmouth’s in-law apartment requirements.  When he sees units greater than 700 sq. ft., he doesn’t consider these meeting the definition of an in-law apartment.  The hardship must be inherited in land, not the circumstances of the owner.  He feels this addition has greater square footage than the existing house.  The footprint of the property is being enlarged more than 100%.  He understands the circumstances.  Discussion ensued re:  the plan layout.  

M. Martin feels this is an addition to a residential house.  Discussion again ensued re:  plans submitted.  M. Martin feels these plans, w/ an office, family room, etc. are going beyond what is a  reasonable & customary definition of an in-law apartment is.  He stated one option would be an open floor plan in which there is no physical barrier between what is being proposed where it becomes an addition vs. an in-law apartment.  He noted there is nothing to prohibit second kitchen facilities in a single dwelling unit.  Discussion ensued re:  the kitchen issue.  Mr. Misiasek explained why a permit wouldn’t be issued if there were two kitchen facilities w/out a Variance.

Mr. Churchill stated new plans will be submitted.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Mr. Cronan asked re:  the size of the existing dwelling.  Mr. Brophy approx. 28.5x36.  Mr. Cronan asked is there a need to have another plan drawn up.  If Mr. Brophy agrees to reduce the size, keep it open in between, & adhere to whatever the Building Inspector directs them to do, why are new plans needed.  D. McKinlay feels that w/out the plans & being able to condition it that way, a Variance will not be granted for the “in-law apartment” section.  Brief discussion ensued.  The Board members concurred.  Mr. Cronan feels consistency is needed.  Mr. Churchill explained what the new plans will show.  Discussion ensued.  
Discussion ensued re:  applying for two building permits – one for the addition to the house & the second for a ______________.  

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to continue the public hearing for petition #32-07 – 16 Old Glen Charlie Road – Dianne & Sean Brophy to July 25, 2007.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

G.	#33-07 – 17 Agawam Lakeshore Drive – Charles & Kelly Landry

The public hearing notice was read into the record.  The Board of Health will require that plans be submitted for an upgrade of the sewage disposal system.

Present before the Board:	Charles & Kelly Landry

Mr. Landry would like to put an addition on their house & not to exceed any further on the side property or further back.  There is an existing deck & the house is already deeded as a ____________ house.   He discussed their plans.  They are in the process of obtaining plot plans.  He submitted a copy of their septic plans.

Mr. Landry stated they were told to come before the ZBA because the property line on the right side of the house is closer (9.5 ft. vs. 10 ft. requirement).  The current distance currently is between 9-9.5 ft.  There is already an existing non-conformity.  The deck will be turned into house space.  D. McKinlay feels this is a Special Permit.  He doesn’t know what the setback on the area to be altered is yet.  It will be known once the plot plan is done by Carmen Shea.  Brief discussion ensued.

The Board members concurred to wait to act on this petition until the plot plan is submitted.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to continue the public hearing for petition #33-07 – 17 Agawam Lakeshore Drive – Charles & Kelly Landry to July 11, 2007.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

V.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

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

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

Mr. Churchill submitted new plans.

Mr. Churchill stated the property has an existing mixed use structure & an additional five structures (cottage type units).  He discussed what transpired when the hearing was originally opened & what the Board asked for.

Mr. Churchill discussed the new plans.  The new plans leave the existing structure alone & created motel units which are an allowed use.  The landscape buffer & zoning setbacks have been increased which he discussed.  Drainage & leaching structures will be provided w/in the parking area to reduce the amount of water going onto abutting streets.  There will be a 6 ft. high fence for privacy to the abutters.  He discussed a dirt access roadway which will be blocked off.  13 parking spaces will be provided as well as other parking spaces.  He spoke re:  the required 10 parking spaces.  He discussed other enhancements to the property.

Mr. Churchill stated the proposal is for a Special Permit due to it being a non-conforming lot & proposing to construct an allowed use.   It is a Special Permit for use request.  There are no requests for a Variance.  He noted the Zoning Bylaws relative to this case.  Brief discussion ensued.

Mr. Misiasek stated it is an allowable use, but the land area is questionable.  M. Martin clarified that the intent is to have short-term rentals, not long-term.  D. McKinlay asked if this matter should go before the Planning Board for comments.  He feels the plans should be filed w/ the Planning Board for comments.  Discussion ensued.

Brief discussion ensued re:  signage.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	Leah Malcolm??, 7 Apache Lane

Ms. Malcolm discussed the location of her property vs. the property in question.  She has a six year old son & has lived in this neighborhood since she was young.  She knows what it was like when people could stay in these structures & walk through her neighborhood to the beach She would see drunken people stumbling down the street.  This property hasn’t been utilized as a motel for approx. 30 years.  She respectfully asked that the ZBA consider maintaining the neighborhoods standard of living they have become accustomed to.  

Ms. Malcolm stated the new owner has not shown respect to the neighborhood, for example, making sure his trash is picked up.  

Ms. Malcolm feels the footprint of the main building has changed.  Someone appears to be living upstairs in this building.  She questioned what permits were given to do this.  She asked why there is a residence on commercial property w/out this being brought forward to the ZBA.  She doesn’t know why the changes made thus far are being tolerated.  She doesn’t understand how this proposal will benefit her community.  She feels this project will be like moving the White Pines Motel into her neighborhood.  There are reasons she doesn’t go near White Pines Motel.  Currently, her child can play in her yard safely.  If this project is built, he will not be allowed to play in her yard unsupervised.  She knows what kind of traffic this type of project will attract.

M.Martin stated this is an allowed use.  It is a by-right use.    The current plan submitted is in conformance w/ the Zoning Ordinance – it is allowed.  The ZBA cannot stop the project if it is in compliance w/ the requirements.  He understands Ms. Malcolm’s concerns, but he stated the ZBA only deals w/ land use.  Ms. Malcolm again asked re:  someone living upstairs in one of the structures.  She stated it was used for storage & now someone is living there.  M. Martin stated she should call the Building Inspector.  Discussion ensued.

Present before the Board:	Donald Velozo

Mr. Velozo expressed concern re:  M. Martin trying to convince the applicant into creating apartments.  He is concerned that a representative for the community does not recognize that apartments on Rte. 6 on Cranberry Highway (waterfront property for business) is not right.  If there are ten apartments there times 2.5 children that will be placed in school, it will affect taxes.

M.Martin stated they are not apartments.  He is not encouraging apartments.  He was quizzing the applicant to ensure that they were not apartments.  Apartments would not be allowed at this site.  D. McKinlay stated even if apartments were an allowed use, he would vote against it because it is not the place for apartments.

Mr. Velozo discussed letter he sent to the Building Inspector questioning the issues surrounding this property while the applicant was asking for a permit.  The permit was granted while the applicant was asking for a Special Permit.  He doesn’t understand how a permit can be issued when a Special Permit is being sought as well.  The whole property needs to be looked at as contiguous.  Mr. Misiasek disagreed.  He explained that the permit that was sought was different than the Special Permit.  It was a totally different use.  Mr. Velozo asked if an occupancy permit was issued while there was a site plan review before the ZBA.  Mr. Misiasek stated there was a building permit issued, not an occupancy permit.

Mr. Velozo asked why Mr. Misiasek hasn’t got back to him re:  the letter he wrote & the visit he made w/ him.  He has heard nothing.  As a resident of the Town, he would like the Zoning Enforcement Officer to respond to him relative to specific questions he has.  

Mr. Misiasek explained that at the site, there is a separate building there & there is only one dwelling unit.  Brief discussion ensued.  Mr. Velozo doesn’t feel Mr. Misiasek is representing he, as a resident of the Town, well.
Mr. Velozo would like to review the new plans submitted this evening.   He feels the Board will be voting in favor for this petition.  He asked if the ZBA has the ability to shape the plans relative to public safety.  He has issues w/ some details of the plans.  M. Martin stated he can discuss these matters w/ the Planning Board & the ZBA.  Mr. Velozo expressed concern re:  parking on Cohassett Rd., fencing, & assurances that this property stays a motel.  M. Martin stated the applicant is applying for a hotel/motel.  It can’t be turned into something else w/out another permit.  A use can’t be changed arbitrarily.  Brief discussion ensued re:  rooming houses vs. motels & use definitions.

Ms. Malcolm again addressed the issue of one of the buildings already being occupied.  Mr. Misiasek discussed the permit issued.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to continue the public hearing for petition #16-07 – 3166 Cranberry Highway – Calvin Carnes to July 25, 2007.  M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

C.	#18-07 – 40 West Central Street – Christine Sweeney – Reconsideration (refer to correspondence from the Building Commissioner re:  structure)

Discussion ensued re:  how to handle this matter.  Mr. Misiasek stated around 2003, there was a similar case.  A fence higher than six ft. was granted on Sandwich Rd./Rte. 6 across from Upper Cape Realty.  It was a residential property w/ Cranberry Highway abutting it.  The current issue w/ this petition deals w/ two residential properties.  He stated under the Bylaws, fences are considered as structures.  The abutter w/ the large home has offered to pay for the fence.  

No conclusion was reached.

D.	#22-07 – 10 Savary Road – Donna Chaston (DONE)

VI.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	Discussion:  Response to the Selectmen on Special Municipal Employee Status.

Brief discussion ensued.

B.	3120 Cranberry Highway – Campers Headquarters.

No discussion was held.

C.	Discussion:  40B outstanding compliance issues.

M.Scarsciotti stated that Marilyn Whalley is working w/ Habitat For Humanity on five units.  She has asked that the sign be taken down on the Habitat For Humanity home on Marion Rd.

M.Scarsciotti stated that DHCD sent a letter that states that they will not accept the units at Oakdale Heights.  She read said letter into the record.  She stated that Attorney Witten has suggested writing another letter.  She would like to gather all documentation re:  Oakdale Heights, give it to Attorney Witten, & have him write a letter.

M.Scarsciotti stated that Matt Dacey was asked to provide documentation that DHCD requires in order to get units counted.  A bill was received for $350 from Mr. Dacey.  She would like the ZBA secretary to write a letter denying payment of this bill.  The members concurred that the ZBA will not be paying a developer to provide DHCD w/ required documents for affordable units.

M.Scarsciotti briefly discussed the 815 Main Street project.  Lengthy discussion ensued re:  the proposal, changes, & sewer issues.  Mr. Cronan discussed the 815 Main St. appeal.  Discussion ensued re:  the appeal & who will handle mediation.

VII.	ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing litigation.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

POLLED VOTE:	M. Martin – Yes
			R. Secher – Yes
			M. Zollo – Yes
			M. Scarsciotti – Yes
			D. Sharkey – Yes
			D. McKinlay – Yes

VOTE:  Unanimous (6-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Don McKinlay, Vice Chairman

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