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:  August 22, 2007

Members Present:
Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman 
Mary Scarsciotti, Associate Member (Clerk Pro Tem)
David Sharkey
Michael Martin 
Richard Secher, Associate Member
Ticia Weare, Associate Member
Wilma Engerman, Associate Member
Ted Misiasek, Building Inspector

Member Absent:
Michelle Zollo

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

K.Ferreira called the meeting to order.

K.Ferreira discussed the procedures for this meeting.

II.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes to be approved:  10/11/06, 10/25/06, 11/8/06, 11/29/06, 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 2/14/07, 5/23/07, 5/23/07 (Executive Session), & 6/13/07. (To be handled later in the meeting)

B.	Discussion re:  Mulligan Homes/Carlton Place re:  fence.

K.Ferreira received an e-mail from Wayne Delpico stating there was a death in his family & could not attend this evening.  He read said e-mail/letter into the record.  In short, the content stated that 7 Carlton St. LLC has reimbursed Mrs. Mann for the fence running along the northerly property line.  Mr. Delpico is aware they are still responsible for providing a similar fence along the easterly property line.  This will be installed in accordance w/ their project schedule w/ the final stage of plantings, remaining fencing, & other minor site improvements.  All these items should be completed by 10/15/07.  He will report to the ZBA when said fence is installed.

K.Ferreira asked that the office secretary call Mrs. Mann & give her a copy of said e-mail/letter & she should expect to have her fence by 10/15/07.  Also, send a copy to Mr. Misiasek (both Mr. Delpico’s letter & Mrs. Mann’s letter as well as any correspondence w/ Mrs. Mann).

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

A.	#07-08 – Lots 60 & 61 – 6 Donald Street – James Franklin

K. Ferreira stated Mr. Franklin submitted a letter requesting a continuance re:  an injury to his father.  K. Ferreira read said letter into the record.  He asked if anyone is present for this hearing.  A gentleman stood up & stated he is an abutter.  Brief discussion ensued re:  when to continue the hearing to.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to continue the public hearing for petition #07-08 – Lots 60 & 61 – 6 Donald Street – James Franklin to September 26, 2007.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	#01-08 – 6 Spectacle Pond Terrace – Doris Lynn Westgate, c/o Robert Brady

Present before the Board:	Robert Brady

Mr. Brady asked for a continuance to September 26, 2007.

He asked if anyone is present for this hearing.  Several people indicated they were.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to continue the public hearing for petition #01-08 – 6 Spectacle Pond Terrace – Doris Lynn Westgate, c/o Robert Brady to September 26, 2007.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

C.	 #16-07 – 3166 Cranberry Highway – Calvin Carnes, c/o J.C. Engineering, Inc.

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

Mr. Churchill stated his client is currently stuck in traffic.  He will notify the Board when his client arrives.

D.	Fee Increases – (NOT HANDLED)

E.	#27-07 - #33 Wareham Lakeshore Drive – time waiver endorsed & in property file

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman discussed what transpired since the hearing was opened.  Discussion ensued re:  what members have been involved w/ this case.  K. Ferreira noted that this case could be heard this evening & the four members involved will need to vote in the affirmative.  If the applicant wants to wait until the next meeting when Ms. Zollo comes back, there will be five members involved.  The applicant decided to move forward this evening.

K.Ferreira asked that Mr. Martin conduct this hearing since he hasn’t heard this case.  He also asked that Mr. Martin conduct the hearing for #06-08 – 7 Cranberry Lane – Ralph Thompson because he will be recusing himself from this hearing due to doing work for Mr. Thompson in the past.  He has not been involved w/ this application or had any discussions w/ Mr. Thompson relative to this proposal.  

Present before the Board:	Yvonne Kinsman, VP Wareham Lakeshores Improvement Assoc.

Ms. Kinsman submitted documentation to the Board.  M. Martin stated one document outlines the Association’s defense re:  the statutory requirements for a Variance.  Attached is a line card from the Assessors.  He asked the purpose of this line card.  Ms. Kinsman stated it is to prove there was a shed there previously.  It was there in 1986 & removed in 2001.  The newsletter submitted shows how active the Association is.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

Mr. Secher asked if the old shed was 10x12.  Ms. Kinsman believes it is the same size as proposed.  Mr. Secher asked re:  if there is any outside lighting.  Ms. Kinsman stated there are large flood lights off Wareham Lake Shore Drive, the main street for which the Association pays NSTAR.  

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to close the public hearing for petition #27-07 – 33 Wareham Lakeshore Drive.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved & D. Sharkey seconded to grant a Variance for petition #27-07 – 33 Wareham Lakeshore Drive based on the findings as presented in the documentation & w/ the following conditions:

•	Size not to exceed the size of the original shed (10x12).
•	No utilities.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

C.	Reorganization of the Board. (ISSUE NOT ADDRESSED)

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

IV.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#06-08 – 7 Cranberry Lane – Ralph Thompson

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Ralph Thompson

Mr. Thompson submitted photographs.

M. Martin explained this proposal is for a Variance in which four statutory requirements need to be met.

Mr. Thompson is proposing an in-law apartment for his mother.  The unit will be approx. 627 sq. ft.    He described the area in which this unit will go.  The house is being constructed now. If denied, this area will house the garage.  

T. Weare asked if this apartment was something considered when the design of the primary residence was being discussed.  Mr. Thompson stated it took a while to convince his mother to move in w/ him.

M.Martin asked re:  the plan for the proposal.  Mr. Thompson stated where the garage would have been will now have the new unit.  T. Weare asked if frontage setback issues would have been present for the garage.  Discussion ensued re:  different frontage setbacks for a garage vs. a second residence.

Mr. Thompson stated there are two bedrooms in the house including a guest room.

D.Sharkey asked re:  documentation provided that states “provide the Thompson’s & family members w/ a means of obtaining companionship, security, & medical services” & how this relates to the request.  Mr. Thompson explained the status of his mother.  There will be no medical equipment installed.

D.Sharkey asked re:  documentation provided that states “the accessory apartment will not be occupied by more than two people”.   He asked what is the significance of more than two people when it is to be for one person.  Mr. Thompson explained that when his mother passes away, he & his wife may adopt this residence.  M. Martin stated the usual condition is that upon the passing or relocation of the person to which you are applying for it is required that the kitchen be dismantled.  The in-law apartment is for a specific individual for a specific time, not beyond that.  He added that if it were to be utilized by others after his mother no longer utilizes it, Mr. Thompson would have to dismantle the kitchen & come back for a brand new Variance.  

R. Secher asked re:  the sub-division.  Mr. Thompson stated there are six lots & this is the first house being constructed.  M. Martin has a different square footage of the unit vs. Mr. Thompson’s.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the difference.

Audience members were asked for comments or questions.

Present before the Board:	Constance Carbone, Great Neck Road

Ms. Carbone asked re:  construction of the house.  M. Martin stated the applicant has stated that the outside framing for this apartment is complete.  If this application is denied, it will be a garage.  

Ms. Carbone stated a condition of this development being approved by the Planning Board was that access would be only through Cranberry Lane & not through the right of way that runs through her property.  Mr. Thompson had agreed to relinquish rights to the right of way.  She asked if access from the in-law apartment be through Cranberry Lane.  M. Martin stated it will have to be.  It will be an accessory apartment to the primary dwelling.  Any parking would take place on the property that already exists.

Present before the Board:	Ray Carbone, Great Neck Road

Mr. Carbone stated in 2002, the Planning Board discussed the right-of-way proposed would have shut down access through Cranberry Lane.  This hasn’t happened.  His concern is the house will be up, the in-law apartment will be there, & his right-of-way will be open to access to this house.  This will cause more traffic.  He asked when this right-of-way will be shut down.  M. Martin stated it should have been shut down already. Brief discussion ensued.  M. Martin stated if the easement is on the Carbone’s property, the Carbone’s could put a physical barricade there.  The easement issue is a Planning Board issue.

T.Weare asked re:  parking.  Mr. Thompson stated there will be parking available & parking is available on street.  T.Weare expressed concern re:  parking at the cul-de-sac & parking where there shouldn’t be so emergency vehicle can get by.  Mr. Thompson stated that all overnight parking related to the residence could be off-street.  He described where parking for his residence is located.  D.Sharkey stated the fact sheet indicates two off street parking spaces were provided for the accessory apartment.  He asked how many vehicles may be on the property.  Mr. Thompson stated he contemplates _________ vehicles.  M. Martin stated on street parking may not be permitted as a condition of this approval.

M. Martin discussed standard conditions for this petition which are as follows:
•	Unit not to exceed 727 sq. ft. inside dimensions.
•	All overnight parking relating to the occupancy shall be off street.
•	A deed restriction discontinuing the use as an accessory apartment will take place upon the passing or relocating of Ms. Doris Thompson.
•	There will be no appearance that this is a duplex or anything other than an in-law apartment.

M.Scarsciotti stated that the Board usually doesn’t limit the use to a specific individual.  It is usually limited to the family & then the family can continue to utilize it.  For example, if Mr. Thompson’s son gets married & the grandmother isn’t there, it would not be a problem if the son moved out of the main residence & into this accessory unit.  Also, the kitchen doesn’t have to be removed & then come back to ask for another kitchen.  It has always been kept w/in the family, but not to be rented.  When the property is sold, the kitchen would need to be removed so the new owner would be obliged to come & apply for the in-law.  M. Martin feels the applicant comes before the Board asking for a specific request for a specific issuance.  By not limiting it, it becomes a duplex.  M. Scarsciotti disagreed.  She stated it can’t be rented.  M. Martin stated the reason for the request is the medical condition of the mother.  T. Weare if they didn’t have that specific hardship, the Board wouldn’t grant it.  M. Scarsciotti stated a family can have a hardship & have it extend to family members.  It has never been restricted to an individual before.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to close the public hearing for petition #06-08 – 7 Cranberry Lane – Ralph Thompson.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

R. Secher concurs w/ M. Martin that w/out the individual condition, it would create a duplex.  It should be specific to the hardship to the elderly relative.  If the kids move in automatically, it becomes a two-family.  He doesn’t feel it is right.  D. Sharkey concurred.  He was under the impression was that the Variance expired when the reason for approval expired.  Discussion ensued.  M. Scarsciotti stated if past Variances of this type approved were reviewed, the Board has never restricted it specifically to an individual.  The only restriction the Board has had in deed is that upon the transfer of title, the kitchen gets removed.  Discussion ensued re:  the deed restriction condition.  M. Martin suggested that the deed restriction would discontinue the use as an accessory apartment.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved & D. Sharkey seconded to grant a Variance for petition #06-08 – 7 Cranberry Lane – Ralph Thompson w/ the following conditions:

•	Square footage (inside dimensions) will not exceed 627 sq. ft.
•	All overnight parking related to the occupancy shall be off street.
•	There will be no appearance to the exterior indicating that this is anything other than a single family dwelling.
•	The unit will not be sub-rented for income.
•	A deed restriction will be filed that will discontinue the use as an accessory apartment upon passing or relocating of the applicant’s mother.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item V.  Continued Public Hearings – C.  #16-07 – 3166 Cranberry Highway – Calvin Carnes, c/o J.C. Engineering, Inc.

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

Mr. Churchill stated they will be proceeding this evening.  K.Ferreira stated that this hearing will move forward w/ four members.

Mr. Churchill described the proposal for a site plan Special Permit.  At the last public hearing, the Board requested the applicant provide a new plan which he submitted.  He also supplied Planning Board comments.

Mr. Churchill noted site modifications made.  One modification is moving the sidewalks to the hotel units 4 ft. closer to the road.

Mr. Churchill noted the Zoning Bylaws, Article 13 & 15 1332.  He described the site, & previous uses of said site, & provisions to be made to the proposal.  He feels once completed, it will be a better facility than what is currently there.  He discussed the proposed drainage & calculations .

K.Ferreira noted that the Planning Board has decided to take this application under advisement.  He doesn’t see any recommendations of the Planning Board.  The time to submit any comments from them has passed.  He asked if this project has been reviewed by Hancock or SEA.  Mr. Churchill is not aware of this & it is not subject to Conservation.  The storm water management form has been signed.  K.Ferreira clarified that this project hasn’t gone out to review.  Mr. Churchill has submitted what DEP requires which includes a signed statement by the engineer that it complies w/ storm water management.

K.Ferreira expressed confusion re:  letters from Mr. Veloza who has filed complaints & requests of the Building Inspector.  The Building Inspector has responded w/ several letters re:  zoning enforcement.  

Present before the Board:	Mr. Veloza

Mr. Veloza spoke re:  existing conditions.  There is an apartment/cottage where the previous owner lived.  In another area, there is a new deck & a new apartment has been created.  A permit was received from the Building Inspector which didn’t meet zoning.  As he understands, there can only be one apartment on the site because it is a CS zone.  If nothing gets approved, there will be two units on the site.  The applicant attempted to obtain an occupancy permit.  K. Ferreira clarified that Mr. Veloza is stating there are two apartments now.  Mr. Veloza stated they created an additional apartment & a retail business that was not there.  He is asking that this permit for this additional apartment be rescinded.  He is asking for enforcement of what is now there if this project doesn’t get approved.  If it does get approved, this issue will be mute.  He also feels there are setback issues w/ the deck as well.  Mr. Carnes spoke re:  the existing apartment.  If the project is approved, all the buildings will come down.  Mr. Misiasek stated a building permit was given for the building that has an apartment over the business w/ the understanding that there was a business there & there was one dwelling unit on the property ( the one the owner of the business lived in at one time).  If this doesn’t go away, the applicant is still allowed the one dwelling unit & one business.  The dwelling unit doesn’t have to be where the old one was.  The use is still the same.  He spoke re:  setbacks & the deck meets setbacks.  

Discussion ensued re:  Mr. Veloza filing an administrative appeal & statute of limitations.

K.Ferreira spoke re:  Mr. Veloza’s second letter dealing w/ unregistered vehicles.  If there are unregistered vehicles there, this is a violation.  Either Mr. Misiasek has 30 days to respond to this letter or at the end of 30 days if Mr. Veloza is not in agreement w/ the decision, he may file for an administrative appeal on this as well.

Mr. Veloza doesn’t feel the plan being shown depicts a motel at all.  He has never seen a motel w/ basement exits, kitchens, refrigerators, sinks, etc.  There seems to be kitchens in each unit.  These seem to be apartments.  K. Ferreira stated the Board & the Planning Board have raised these concerns as well.  

Mr. Veloza stated as he understands the Zoning Bylaws, to have a hotel there is a need to have one acre.  There is not an acre of land at this site.  Brief discussion ensued re:  a Variance.

Mr. Veloza spoke re:  parking spaces.  He doesn’t feel the spaces are allowed because in the parking regulations, these spaces back out into the street which is prohibited.  There are two spaces that don’t meet the regulations for size.  They are too short.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the proposed parking spaces.  Mr. Churchill stated there are 8 units in the new building & one in the commercial building.  There are also five additional spaces available on the commercial side.  Mr. Veloza doesn’t feel there is enough parking.  Brief discussion ensued re:  measurements for parking spaces & the square footage for the commercial building including the residential unit above.  K.Ferreira stated the commercial space requires nine spaces.  Mr. Churchill discussed existing parking & proposed parking areas.    R. Secher asked re:  the five spaces abutting Cohassett Road.  He asked how these people will get out.  Mr. Churchill stated they will have to back out onto Cohassett Road.  He stated these five spaces are not needed for the motel.  

Mr. Churchill stated the reason they are before the Board is to obtain a Special Permit because the site doesn’t have one acre requirement.  K. Ferreira feels there may be a need for a Variance for the square footage.  Mr. Churchill disagreed because it is a non-conforming use.

Mr. Churchill spoke re:  the basements.  There are no access from the motel units to the basement.  They are for utility/storage purposes only.

M.Martin feels the Board should be reviewing the guidelines are for sections 1330 & 1331 & then conduct site plan review.  Brief discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira stated this is a small lot w/ a lot of activity.  He understands Mr. Churchill trying to separate out the existing that will remain.  What is being proposed looks nice.  M. Martin feels the project will be altering & reconstructing a __________ pre-existing non-conforming use.  One of the five cottages was occupied & this shows the use was continued.  T.Weare feels the one being occupied is continuous & it serves a different purpose.  She feels this is an argument for an apartment.  M. Martin stated it has been used as a dwelling unit for the owner.  The premises has been occupied.  Discussion ensued.

M. Martin again feels the Board needs to determine if this project is an expansion of a legally non-conforming use before moving forward w/ a site plan review.

The Board reviewed the guidelines.  They are as follows:

o	The Board encourages extensions that move towards conformity for the purposes of zoning.
o	The Board shall not encourage the expansion of a non-conforming structure or use as measured by either the amount of floor space or land area used or volume of activity, including, but limited to an increase in the intensity of use &/or a change in the nature or purpose of the use.

K.Ferreira stated this project is an allowed use.  There is a question of the volume of activity.  The applicant is stating there were 10 units, five of them were duplexes, & they are moving down to eight.  Thus, there would be less volume.  On the other hand, there was only one unit being utilized, but now there will be eight people a night at the hotel.

o	The Board shall prohibit the expansion of non-conforming structures & uses unless there will be no demonstrable adverse impacts on abutting properties & those properties that generally characterize a neighborhood or _________ w/in which the expansion is sought.

Mr. Churchill stated this deals w/ non-conforming structures/uses.  There is presently conforming use & they do not have non-conforming structures anymore.  M. Martin agrees that the project is moving towards conformity & coming into compliance.  Mr. Churchill stated two months ago, the Board had this same opinion & that is why they decided to move forward w/ just the four members this evening sitting on this case.  Brief discussion ensued.

Mr. Veloza stated the units were discontinued.  M. Martin stated discontinued does not mean abandonment.  He explained the definition of abandonment under the zoning rules.  Discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira explained that he will poll the Board to see if this is a Special Permit & if it is, the Board will vote on it later & move on to site plan review.  He asked the Board if a Special Permit is appropriate under section 1330, article 13.  

M. Martin stated w/ the exception of signage, he feels the use & layout meets the requirements of section 1331.

R. Secher concurs.  M. Scarsciotti concurs.  D. Sharkey concurs.

K.Ferreira clarified that the four members voting believe this is a Special Permit.  He suggested the Board commence w/ site plan review.

K.Ferreira asked if the applicant restricted the site improvements to just a portion of the lot to have the motel built on & determined there isn’t a need to do anything to the remainder of the lot that the commercial structure is on.  Mr. Churchill explained they feels the parking for the commercial structure will suffice.  If there is a need for two spaces, they can be placed in the rear.  K.Ferreira discussed what the plan depicts on the commercial side of the property.  Mr. Churchill stated he has treated it as a separate lot.  He discussed impervious cover on the lot.  D.Sharkey doesn’t feel this part of the property can be separated.  The occupied property is the lynch pin that decided the finding the Board made.  To disregard this part of the property is inconsistent.  T. Weare asked if handicapped access parking for a commercial building is required.  Discussion ensued re:  plans not showing any upgrades to the commercial side.  Mr. Churchill stated in the planning practice of the existing commercial building it is difficult to conform w/ changing what the property has been.

M.Martin explained that one of the purposes of zoning is to prevent & eliminate blight.  He feels what exists now vs. what is being proposed, meets the purpose of what zoning is about.  He doesn’t know if every concern can be accommodated due to existing conditions.  D. Sharkey feels an effort should be made to do the best they can to get this area of the property into conformity vs. isolating it out.  

Mr. Misiasek stated there was a commercial operation at the site in the commercial building.  It just changed to a different commercial operation.  M. Martin feels D. Sharkey is saying they are using the benefits of using the commercial building, but they aren’t going to put any effort into upgrading it.  D. Sharkey feels this commercial building makes this lot whole.  To totally ignore it is unreasonable.  Mr. Churchill responded.

K.Ferreira noted section 1520 & read into the record.

T.Weare stated Mr. Churchill spoke re:  parking & additional five spots relative to the hotel.  Now Mr. Churchill is stating these five spots is for the commercial building.  Mr. Churchill stated the proposed use requires 10 spaces.  17 spaces will be provided.  He clarified that the five spaces would be on the commercial side for the two bedroom apartment.  Brief discussion ensued re:  parking spaces to be provided.  T.Weare questioned if there is on-street parking on Cohassett Road.

M.Martin noted that some of the lot will be non-conforming & some of the lot will become conforming.  The uses that are pre-existing non-conforming don’t have to be changed if the applicant doesn’t want.  Mr. Churchill stated that is what they decided.  

M.Martin stated if this lot gets converted into long-term Section 8 housing, it is a change of use.  Mr. Carnes stated they don’t want to have another Silver Lake Motel.  

Mr. Veloza spoke re:  how this project will affect the abutters.  He doesn’t feel this project will be an improvement.  He feels it will be like the White Pines Motel across the street.  He feels this type of project is not needed in Town.  He feels the parking issues need to be addressed further.  M. Martin stated this is a matter of right.  Mr. Veloza is speaking as his right as an abutter.  He feels the Board is twisting & turning the information to make the project work & ignoring abutters.  M. Martin stated the Board can’t deny the application his rights.  He doesn’t feel Mr. Veloza has no evidence that this project will turn into Section 8.  Mr. Veloza stated the Board pointed out the Section 8 issue as well.  He feels the Board has the same suspicions as he does.  He feels Mr. Carnes’ feet should be held to the fire because he hasn’t done everything by the book.  Discussion continued.

K.Ferreira clarified Mr. Veloza is stating there are five parking spaces in the back & four in the front which equals nine.  Nine isn’t enough spaces for the white building.  There are enough spaces in front of the motel, but the commercial use doesn’t have the required number of spaces for a 2,800 sq. ft. building.  M. Martin stated it doesn’t need to increase it, it needs to maintain what is there.

Mr. Veloza feels it would be beneficial to have sidewalks.  He spoke re:  traffic flow.  He asked if an impact statement been compiled re:  traffic flow.   He also was looking for a landscape buffer vs. a fence that would fall over & cause more blight.  He would also like to see landscaping & performance bonds to make sure the applicant holds up his end of the bargain.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to close the public hearing for petition #16-07 – 3166 Cranberry Highway – Calvin Carnes.  R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved & R. Secher seconded to grant a Special Permit & Site Plan Review for petition #16-07 – 3166 Cranberry Highway – Calvin Carnes based on the plan as proposed & that the Board made a finding that this was a Special Permit because it conforms to section 1331 w/ the following conditions:

K.Ferreira noted that the Variance for the signage has been withdrawn.

•	Work shall conform per plan submitted dated & revised through July 25, 2007 except as modified by these conditions w/ the exception of a sign placement on the plans which has been withdrawn.
•	Plant Aborvites or Eastern White Pine & the initial planting shall be no less than 4 ft. in height & spaced no less than 4 ft. apart & shall provide a 90% screen w/in two years of planting.

Discussion ensued re:  parking spaces.

•	Parking at the rear of the commercial/residential structure will be limited to three spaces starting from the catch basin.  The area east from the basin to be replaced w/ a fence & landscape buffer similar to that to be constructed along the Cohasset Street property line at the rear of the motel units.  Use of these three spaces is limited to the occupant(s) and guest(s) of the residential apartment only.  Commercial use of these parking spaces is not allowed.
•	Full compliance w/ Section 1071 shall be implemented relative to maintenance of landscaping plans and includes the installation of a fence & landscape buffer of trees to be planted outside of the fence along the Cohasset Street rear property line.
•	No increase in the intensity of use or other uses to be allowed in the commercial building first floor on 3166 Cranberry Highway without an application or required approval.
•	One year from issuance of the occupancy permit, a review by the ZBA will be required.
•	No kitchens.
•	No long-term rentals.
•	The structure will comply completely with the definition of a motel as defined in the Zoning Ordinance & other applicable rules & regulations pertaining to use.
•	Basement for storage only, no living area.
•	No structural alterations to increase the size of any of the units.

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

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

NOTE:	The meeting went back to item IV.  Public Hearings.
				
B.	#10-08 – 2 Burfield Drive – Sandi Butler

Present before the Board:	Sandi Butler

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Ms. Butler would like to start a kennel.  She has approx. 2 acres of land.  She would like to work from home since she just lost her job & has a lot of equity in her home.  She understands there is opposition from some of her neighbors.  Originally, she was going to request a kennel for 10 dogs, but she is willing to cut it down to five & make the building smaller.  She doesn’t want to make the kennel look cold.  She would make the kennel have barn board on the outside to make it look more like a bungalow.  Her property is serviced by a septic & there is running water & electricity.  She has spoken to the Conservation Agent relative to wetlands boundaries.  She has spoken to the BOH relative to the septic.  She submitted pictures of the proposed structure.  It will be 12x24.  There is enough space in the backyard that she can have a pen for the dogs to exercise.  She will be at the property 24/7.  She feels there is a need for kennels in Town.  Marion Animal Hospital is the veterinarian she utilizes.  She will be seeking training for obedience training for dogs.

K.Ferreira clarified that the total amount of dogs to be boarded including her own personal dogs would be six.  The set up would be for five boarding dogs.  Ms. Butler will just be sticking w/ dogs to begin with & may moved to cats as well.  She requested a permit for five dogs plus two cats, but not eight dogs.  The cats would have their own kennel.  She changed the size of the structure to make it smaller.  

K.Ferreira stated Ms. Butler is in an R-6 zone.  This use is allowed by a Special Permit under Section 20.  Ms. Butler noted that she has plenty of parking.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	A woman

The woman described where she lives in relation to the petitioner.  She asked re:  noise & if the inside of the kennel will be soundproof.  Ms. Butler stated the building will be soundproof.  The woman expressed concern re:  dogs not getting along & making noise.  Ms. Butler stated she will be home all the time.  She will not be going to a job everyday.  If they are making noise at night, she will remedy the situation.  K.Ferreira stated in all the kennel permits that have been granted, the Board has required a one year review.  K.Ferreira explained that if the application is granted & if complaints are filed, & the abutter is not satisfied that it is quiet enough, clean enough, etc., the Board will deal w/ these issues up to & including having the kennel taken down.  Thus, this would be done at the one year review.  This is a probationary period.

Discussion ensued re:  use of the septic system for the kennel.

The woman asked re:  the effect a kennel would have on property value.  M. Scarsciotti feels there would be minimal impact.  The kennel is located 100 ft. from the intersection of Ms. Butler’s front property line.  It is set far back.  Brief discussion ensued re:  location of the kennel.

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman stated he lives directly behind Ms. Butler.  He stated Ms. Butler has at least a dozen chickens that he has to listen to.  His pool is on that side.  It is approx. 30 ft. from where the chicken coop is.  He stated deer come through this area & will spook the dogs.  He feels w/ five different dogs there will be noise that he has to listen to all day long as well as smelling chicken feces.  He asked who will be “policing” this permit.  K. Ferreira stated if there are odors associated w/ the keeping of poultry, this is a BOH issue.  The Animal Control Officer will ensure & make inspections to ensure the kennels & runs are properly kept clean, etc.  The Animal Control Officer will police it.  If complaints are filed w/ the Police Dept. due to noise, the applicant would be called in before a year is up to discuss the issue.  The Board tries to balance the rights of everyone.  He noted conditions that can be placed on this type of license.

The gentleman stated he has documented 20-30 complaints to the dog officer for another issue of dogs being loose, not being leashed, etc.  Nothing was ever done.  M. Martin discussed issues relative to lack of response, but this can’t be used against the applicant.  The gentleman doesn’t feel he has equal rights as the applicant.  M. Martin stated that the applicant has the right to have this use.  The Board’s job is to apply the zoning ordinance.  The gentleman doesn’t feel he will have rights for a year until there is a review.  He asked how he can protect his pets health from poor operations at the kennel.  M. Martin discussed BOH regulations re:  kennel licenses. Discussion ensued.  

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman doesn’t feel the combination of chickens, cats, & dogs is a good one.  There is also wildlife & loose dogs in the area.  He asked if a kennel business is such a good one, why did the Town close the one they had.  K.Ferreira stated the function of the operations the Town had.  The chicken issue is a BOH issue.  The gentleman asked why there can’t a 90 day review.  K.Ferreira stated a year allows for a cycle of events, seasons to pass, etc.  If there were a significant amount of complaints, the ZBA can hold a hearing to discuss the matters.

The previous gentleman expressed concern re:  three to four cats of the applicant that are outside all the time.  He feels the cats will agitate the dogs at the kennel & there are health concerns re:  the animals.  Ms. Butler stated her animals are taken care of & healthy.  She has three cats & they come in every night.

M. Martin spoke re:  the footprint of the kennel & asked if the applicant would consider some type of screening, such as a stockade fence or shrubbery to address some of the abutters concerns.  Ms. Butler agreed that she could do this around the run.  There is already a chain-linked fence there.  K. Ferreira suggested plantings instead so a stockade fence isn’t put right up against a chain-link fence.  Discussion ensued.
R. Secher stated if there are complaints weekly or frequently, the ZBA will call the applicant in to address the issues.  Ms. Butler asked how the ZBA determines whether a complaint is legitimate or just being nasty.  M. Martin stated the applicant would have the ability to testify & there would be other outside testimony as well, such as the dog officer.

K.Ferreira stated the following members will sit on this case:  M. Martin, M. Scarsciotti, K.Ferreira, D. Sharkey, & T. Weare.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to close the public hearing for petition #10-08 – 2 Burfield Drive – Sandi Butler.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved & M. Scarsciotti seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #10-08 – 2 Burfield Drive – Sandi Butler w/ the following conditions:

•	The use will be limited to no more than five boarding dogs & three cats at any one time.
•	The building shall be soundproof in a manner that is legal & customary for said purpose.
•	There shall be a one year review of this permit & the Board can initiate a review sooner than one year if there are complaints filed.  
•	At the conclusion of any review hearings, if the Board finds that appropriate conditions cannot be met, then the kennel must be removed.
•	The run will only be utilized during day light hours.
•	There will be no external lighting other than necessary in the boarding house.
•	Screening will be provided around the run to inhibit the abutters from seeing the dogs in the run.  The screen shall be a stockade fence no less than 6 ft in height or plantings that will have a 90% fill in rate w/in two years & have a minimum height of 4 ft.
•	Waste disposal will be tied to the septic system.
•	Applicant must maintain appropriate insurances.
•	Kennel to be placed according to plans presented.
•	During boarding operations, the premises must be occupied & supervised by the owner or designee.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

C.	#11-08 – 150 High Street – Thomas Gardner, Trustee

Present before the Board:	Ms. Sullivan, Representative
				Mr. Bertollo, Contractor

Mr. Bertollo stated there is an existing home that is non-conforming.  The proposal is to conduct a renovation to the home or add on.  To do this there will be more footage off the side line.  (GENTLEMAN IS INAUDIBLE).

K.Ferreira clarified that the existing building is 4.31 & 5.79 & now it will go back to 9.3.  He feels this is a Special Permit.  

M. Martin asked if they will be going up more than one story.  Mr. Bertollo stated no.  Discussion ensued re: grade & plans.

Audience members had no questions or comments.  No letters have been sent in from abutters re:  this project.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to close the public hearing for petition #11-08 - 150 High Street – Thomas Gardner, Trustee.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved & D. Sharkey seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #11-08 – 150 High Street – Thomas Garnder, Trustee w/ the finding that the proposal complies w/ requirements of section 1334 & 1335 in that it doesn’t create any additional non-conformities & will not be more detrimental to the character of the neighborhood w/ the following conditions:

•	Construct per plan dated 3/8/05.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

V.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	 #07-08 – Lots 60 & 61 – 6 Donald Street – James Franklin (DONE)

B.	#01-08 – 6 Spectacle Pond Terrace – Doris Lynn Westgate, c/o Robert Brady (DONE)

C.	#16-07 – 3166 Cranberry Highway – Calvin Carnes, c/o J.C. Engineering, Inc. (DONE)

D.	#20-07 – Fee Increases (Public hearing – 5/9/07) (NOT HANDLED)

E.	#27-07 – 33 Wareham Lakeshore Drive – Time waiver endorsed & in property file (DONE)

VI.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	3120 Cranberry Highway – Campers Headquarters status (NOT HANDLED)
B.	Fall Annual Town Meeting schedule (NOT HANDLED)

VII.	CORRESPONDENCE

K.Ferreira stated there is a request from Mr. Devin representing Cranberry Court, LLC dated 8/20/07 relative to requesting a minor modification.  Mr. Devin has indicated he is willing to drop the appeal because effective 10/31/07 the Federal Government has changed regulations re:  modular housing of this type.  This will affect costs.  They need to obtain their permit quickly.  If they get the permit quickly so they aren’t subject to the new regulations, they will drop their appeal w/ HAC, & they will do all off-site improvements they will abide by the requirement that seven of the affordable units will be no greater than $135,000.  They will abide by all the conditions & they do not want to install the photo voltaic cells.

Discussion ensued re:  the status of this property.  M.Martin feels Mr. Devin needs to come before the Board to discuss. Discussion ensued re:  if a full hearing is needed to hear this modification & when to hold this meeting/hearing.	

MOTION:	M. Martin moved that the Board has determined that the requested modification is substantial and a full hearing will be needed re:  Cranberry Court, LLC.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

VIII.	ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to adjourn the meeting.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Attest:  __________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk Pro Tem

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