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:  September 12, 2007

Members Present:
Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman
Mary Scarsciotti
Michael Martin
Michelle Zollo
David Sharkey
Ticia Weare, Associate Member
Wilma Engerman, Associate Member
John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Member Absent:
Richard Secher, Associate Member

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

K.Ferreira called the meeting to order.

K. Ferrereira explained the procedure for this meeting.

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

A.	#12-08 – 2992 Cranberry Highway – Saxton Sign Corp., c/o Donna Ziegler.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Hazel Hopkins, Representative

Ms. Hopkins explained this petition is for the CVS on 2992 Cranberry Highway.  CVS has come before the Board on two different occasions (8/31/99 – Case #37-99 asking for relief from wall sign & again on 4/16/04 – Case #37-99 asking for an amendment to change the signage).  Both applications were granted.

Ms. Hopkins stated CVS is now asking to add a small 9 sq. ft. sign to the wall sign on both elevations.  The sign would be operating 24 hours a day.  It would be added after the word “pharmacy” on the elevation facing Cranberry Highway & facing the side street.

Ms. Hopkins asked to correct the handout she submitted.  The pictures & signs are correct, but the superimposed dimensions were placed on the pictures in error.  She discussed the correct dimensions (36” square).  K. Ferreira will note the changes & mark it as Exhibit A.

K.Ferreira asked if pharmaceutical services will be offered 24 hours per day.  Ms. Hopkins stated it will & there will be a pharmacist on duty 24 hours per day.  

Ms. Hopkins stated thus, she is asking the Board to amend petition #37-99 which will allow the CVS lettering to add the 24 hour denotation.  K. Ferreira clarified that the request is for two (2) 3 ft. sq. 24-hour signs on the two sides of the building.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

K. Ferriera noted that all appropriate abutters notifications have been submitted.

M. Scarsciotti asked if 24-hour p/day operation require approval of the BOS.  Ms. Hopkins stated not to her knowledge.	  Brief discussion ensued re:  if this is necessary.  K.Ferreira feels this most likely went through site plan review by the Planning Board & they made conditions such as operating hours.

Ms. Hopkins clarified for D. Sharkey the 3 ft. signage.  As she understands, this CVS has been open for business 24 hours per day.  They now want an official sign to that effect.  

M. Scarsciotti moved to close the public hearing for petition #12-08 – 2992 Cranberry Highway – Saxton Sign Corp.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved & D. Sharkey seconded to grant a Variance for petition #12-08 – 2992 Cranberry Highway – Saxton Sign Corp.  to amend an existing Variance for petition #37-99 w/ the following conditions:

•	Each sign to be no more than the 36 inches square.
•	A pharmacist must be on duty at all times, 24 hours per day.
•	Prior to amendment taking place, CVS Pharmacy shall provide written documentation to the Board indicating that all proper permits from the Board of Selectmen, Police Dept. or other Town requirements are in place permitting 24 hour per day operation.
•	The original conditions imposed prior remain in place.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

K.Ferreira asked the representative to sign the information form indicating their understanding of the hearing & outcome this evening.

B.  #13-08 – 20 Teakwood Avenue – James Luppino, Sr.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

All appropriate green abutters cards have been received.  

Present before the Board:	James Luppino

Mr. Luppino described the project.  He has an existing set of stairs in the front of the house.  He is doing a complete renovation of the house.  The proposed farmer’s porch on the front.  There is a set up stairs coming up from the driveway which goes straight into a walkway across the front & up to the front stairs.  The proposed farmer’s porch encompasses the walkway.  He again explained there is an existing set of steps that come out the same distance as the proposed farmer’s porch.  The driveway is where the walkway starts.  

Mr. Luppino stated he this is not 20 ft. from the street & needs a Special Permit.  M. Martin doesn’t know if this would qualify for a Special Permit & explained why.

Mr. Luppino discussed there had been a proposal for an enclosed deck in the back which also has an existing walkway, but he would rather focus on the farmer’s porch.  M. Martin stated he is not squaring something off, but rather physically coming out.  Mr. Luppino stated this is correct.  He is extending the structure the full length of the steps (6 ft.).  The steps are only 6 ft. wide in the middle of the house.

K.Ferreira feels it is a Variance matter as well.  Mr. Luppino stated it is a setback issue.  M. Martin also feels this is a Variance.  K.Ferreira discussed the requirements for a Variance vs. a Special Permit & how the Variance would apply to Mr. Luppino’s case.  He feels Mr. Luppino needs to prove is that the squaring off is not more detrimental than what exists.  

K.Ferreira noted the proposal for the deck out back.  Mr. Luppino would like to focus only on the front porch at this time.  He noted that the Building Inspector granted the addition, but he needed to come before the Board for the farmer’s porch.

Brief discussion ensued re:  setback requirements.  The front setback is 20 ft.  K. Ferreira stated the applicant’s engineer indicated that the setback of .1.5 to the curb.  Mr. Luppino stated this is to the quarter end of the addition.  K. Ferreira asked what the proposed setback is for the farmer’s porch.  Mr. Luppino stated it is 14.4 ft.  He also stated that 4 sono tubes are proposed to go into the ground.  The farmer’s porch will not be enclosed.  It will be left open.  It has a roof & three columns.

K.Ferreira read a letter into the record from an abutter named Katherine & William Bowdin dated 9/11/07.  The letter, in short, expresses concerns re:  potential property damage that construction may cause to their property.  They recently found out that Mr. Luppino gave permission to a disposal company to drive across their property to deliver a dumpster.  Mr. Luppino has no authority to have given this permission.  The septic system is in close proximity to their rear lot line which abuts Mr. Luppino’s property.   Mr. Luppino has stated he will cover the cost of an damage to their property, they don’t feel their property should sustain any damage.  They are requesting certain conditions be imposed on the permit, if issued.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Mr. Cronan stated in front of the house there is a 6 ft. set of stairs that come out 6 ft.  He asked if the farmer’s porch goes beyond the 6 ft.  Mr. Luppino stated he is not going further than what is there (the stairs).  K. Ferreira noted there will be an additional set of stairs in front of the farmer’s porch.  Mr. Luppino stated the stairs will be where there is an existing set facing the driveway where they are presently.

M. Martin & M. Zollo expressed confusion re:  some of the proposals/plan.

Discussion ensued re:  the dismantling & use.

K.Ferreira suggested the applicant submit a full set of plans, photographs of what exists, & clarification of the stairs.  M. Martin feels the applicant should be asking for a Variance w/ the intent of moving towards conformity.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to continue the public hearing for petition #13-08 – 20 Teakwood Avenue – James Luppino, Sr. to October 10, 2007.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

NOTE:	The meeting continued w/ item V.  Continued Public Hearings – B.  #01-08 – 6 Spectacle Pond Terrace – Doris Lynn Westgate, c/o Robert Brady.

The applicant was not present.  It was noted that this hearing had been continued to September 26, 2007.

NOTE:	The meeting continued w/ item III.  Request for Plan Waivers or Other Administrative Issues.

A.	#36-06 – 815 Main Street – Cornerstone Properties.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Peter Freeman

K. Ferreira explained this case was closed, a decision was issued by the  Board, & after the decision was issued, Cornerstone Properties appealed the decision to HAC.  It was suggested that mediation occur prior to a meeting before HAC.  A mediation session did occur.  Two members of the Board attended (M. Zollo & M. Scarsciotti).  The session was successful & thus, a revised decision has been worked out between Attorney Freeman & Attorney Witten.  Attorney Witten & K. Ferreira have spoken & directed the Board on how to proceed.  As he understands, the Board will be acting to determine whether or not the proposed changes to the Board’s decision, subsequent to the mediation agreement, are substantial enough to warrant the opening of a public hearing or whether or not it can be handled as un-substantial changes.

K.Ferreira stated that voting this evening will be the regular Board members.  T. Weare will not be voting on this case.

Attorney Freeman discussed the mediation session & the agreement reached which the Board needs to approve.

Attorney Freeman explained the proposed changes, for example, accepting the 49 units discussed through mediation & some waivers.  (ATTORNEY FREEMAN WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR & UNDERSTAND ON TAPE).  He noted which changes he feels are substanitive.

K.Ferreira stated the Board took a position, as a local Board, that they could approve at Attorney Freeman’s request, Community Preservation funds, subject to Town Meeting.  It had been noted that if the applicant were to appeal the decision, these funds were automatically rescinded.  He asked if the applicant needs $500,000 from CP funds to make the project work.  Attorney Freeman stated it would be helpful, but is not key to the project.

K.Ferreira explained the purpose to tonight’s hearing is to determine whether or not a public hearing is necessary.  He feels the changes are substantial, based on the project plans submitted in detail have changed (88 units to 49 units) & a new plan has been submitted.  Attorney Freeman stated he needs an actual vote of the Board accepting the revisions so they can go to Dept. of Housing & move forward.  Brief discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira stated the Board’s engineer will need to review the new plan for 49 units under conditions placed on the original decision.  Attorney Freeman stated this is correct.

K.Ferreira explained to those in the audience that this is not a public hearing.  It is an open meeting where the protocol is different.

Audience members were asked for comments or questions.

Present before the Board:	A gentleman, Main Street

The gentleman stated ___________________________________________???  K. Ferreira explained that if the Board votes that a public hearing is not necessary to adopt the decision which includes minor changes from the previous decision, there won’t be a public hearing.  However, under condition #45, the Board at an open meeting will be reviewing final plans & final submissions that the public can attend.  The public may or may not have the right to speak at an open meeting.  This would be determined by the Chair.  Relative to an open hearing, an appeal can’t be filed based on a decision.  With a public hearing, you can.

K.Ferreira explained that this meeting is for a 30-page decision that the Board issued to their Attorney when the process was closed.  There are some minor changes that were made during the mediation session.  If the Board feels there are substantial modifications/changes, the Board will vote to have a public hearing.  If this happens, the applicant has indicated their funding would be in jeopardy.  If the Board determines that the changes are not substantial & votes this evening, the applicant will proceed w/ their funding application process.  If the Board votes that there needs to be a public hearing after this evening, this will take 30 days before a public hearing can be set.  This would put the project in jeopardy for funding.  The applicant is asking the Board to accept the modifications to the decision made during mediation.  Attorney Freeman noted some of the language changes.  K.Ferreira noted that many of the changes are language/corrections.  One example of a correction, was for the location of the management company.  Brief discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira asked why the word “specific” was changed to “commitment”.  Attorney Freeman explained.  Discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira discussed the mediator for this case.

Present before the Board:	Elizabeth Pezzoli

Ms. Pezzoli asked re:  parking.  K.Ferreira noted that 104 paved parking spaces will be provided w/ additional spaces provided that will be non-paved for emergency/overflow parking.  Numbered spaces are two per unit.

K.Ferreira allowed the audience members to come inspect the new plans/documentation.  (A 5-minute break was taken).

Discussion ensued re:  the funding procedure, requirements, timeframes, & the management company.  T. Weare discussed changes to regulations for management companies.

Discussion ensued re:  condition #39 relative to 24 hour on-going security, but changes state “need not include a presence of 24 hour personnel on site”.   Attorney Freeman discussed what is being proposed.  There will always be someone local that is on-call.  The logistics will be worked out later.  M. Zollo suggested possibly having a resident manager.  Attorney Freeman stated this is possible & ideal.  Discussion ensued.

T.Weare discussed the limited liability corporation & some part of this may be sold to investors, but the primary holder would still be involved w/ the partnership.  She asked if there is a provision that states percentage of ownership that would need to be retained.  Attorney Freeman stated there is no provision, but discussed what legally would need to be stated & what the percentage could be.
T. Weare asked re:  the open space area & what it will be covered with.  Attorney Freeman stated it will be the leaching area w/ vent pipes & covered w/ grass.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the square footage of the open space.

T. Weare understands the applicant doesn’t want a long-term agreement w/ any one management company.  She asked if the applicant would eventually have one management company for a period of time.  Attorney Freeman discussed condition #21 relative to the property to be managed by a professional management company.

Discussion ensued re:  the building sizes.  Attorney Freeman stated the buildings will be no more than three stories.  K. Ferreira discussed storage requirements.

W. Engerman asked re:  the height of the chain-linked fence.  She asked if the 4 ft. fence will run the length of the railroad tracks.  Discussion ensued re:  location & length of the fence.

K.Ferreira stated the Board needs to make a motion relative to the changes to the original decision.  The vote indicates the Board accepts the modifications & the documents will be drafted & reviewed by Attorney Witten.  He noted the Board members that will be voting.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved the Board finds the modifications to the decision by the Zoning Board as approved by the mediation session, are un-substantial & do not require the holding of a public hearing as required by the CMR regulations & further, to approve the revisions to the Board’s decision, Case #36-06, contained in the draft review (revised decision) & to enter into stipulation agreement for the entry of judgment w/ the Housing Appeals Committee pursuant to which the revised decision will become the Comprehensive Permit in this matter.  D. Sharkey seconded.

ROLL CALL VOTE:	M. Martin – Yes
				M. Scarsciotti – Yes
				D. Sharkey – Yes
				M. Zollo – Yes
				K. Ferreira – Yes

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

II.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes to be approved:  10/11/06, 10/25/06, 11/8/06, 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 2/14/07, 5/23/07, 5/23/07 (Executive Session), 6/12/07, 6/27/07 (Executive Session & Regular Session), 8/8/07 (Executive Session & Regular Session), & 8/22/07.

Brief discussion ensued re:  approving the 8/22/07 minutes.  The Board is not prepared to approve the 8/22/07.  The Board concurred to allow a stamped draft copy of the 8/22/07 minutes if requested (for example, Attorney Devin re:  Agawam Green).  

Lengthy discussion ensued re:  the Agawam Green project.

B.	Reorganization of the Board. (To be handled later in the meeting)

III.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WIAVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

A.	#36-06 – 815 Main Street – Cornerstone Properties. (DONE)

B.	Complaint – Violation of Decision #39-06.

A complaint has been filed re:  trailers being stored next to the abutter’s property on Sandwich Road.  K. Ferreira feels this is an issue for the Building Inspector, not the ZBA.  The complaint states that a 20 ft. buffer for landscaping has not been provided & tractor trailers were to be removed w/in 90 days, but they have not.  Board members noted what a mess the site is.

Mr. Cronan stated that the owner of this site is breaking all of the Board’s conditions.  T. Weare asked if there is something in writing that states once a complaint has been filed, the ZBA or the Building Inspector has a certain amount of days to notify the person the complaint is about.  M. Scarsciotti spoke re:  the issue on 12th Street & how the Administrator has become involved.  T. Weare stated if there isn’t a timeframe for timeliness, there will be problems.  Discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira stated unless the Building Inspector sends the complaint to the Board, the ZBA has no power to bring it forward.  He noted the letter to the ZBA from the Building Inspector on this matter.  The Building Inspector is the only zoning enforcement power under MGL.  If the Building Inspector doesn’t respond to the complaint w/in 30 days, the person complaining can file w/ the ZBA.  Then the Board has enforcement power.

IV.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#12-08 – 2992 Cranberry Highway – Saxton Sign Corp., c/o Donna Ziegler. (DONE)
B.	#13-08 – 20 Teakwood Avenue – James Luppino, Sr.  (DONE)

V.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#07-08 – Lots 60 & 61 – 6 Donald Street – James Franklin (Continued to September 26, 2007 per minutes)  
B.	#01-08 – 6 Spectacle Pond Terrace – Doris Lynn Westgate, c/o Robert Brady (Continued to September 26, 2007 per minutes)
C.	#20-07 – Fee Increases (Public Hearing on 5/9/07) (NOT HANDLED)
D.	#14-07 – 86 Wareham Lake Shore Drive – Ms. Judy Yetman, c/o Judy Herron (Continued to September 26, 2007 per minutes)

VI.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	3120 Cranberry Highway – Campers Headquarters status (NOT HANDLED)
B.	Citizen Planner Training Collaborative – Fall 2007 Workshops (NOT HANDLED)

VII.	CORRESPONDENCE

A.	MCAH – Correspondence dated 8/30/07 (NOT HANDLED)
B.	Wareham Boat Yard & Marina – Waterways Application #W04-1037 (NOT HANDLED)

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item II.  Preliminary Business – B.  Reorganization of the Board.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to nominate M. Martin to be Vice Chairman.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to nominate M. Scarsciotti as Clerk.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to nominate K. Ferreira as Chairman.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

NOTE:	M. Zollo announced that she will not be present November, December, January, May & June.

VIII.	ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	A motion was made & seconded to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing litigation.

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

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk

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