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 26, 2007

Members Present:
Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman (Arrived at 8:30 P.M.)
Mary Scarsciotti
Michael Martin
Michelle Zollo
Richard Secher, Associate Member
Ticia Weare, Associate Member
Wilma Engerman, Associate Member
Ted Misiasek, Building Inspector
John Cronan, BOS Liaison (Arrived at 8:15 P.M.)

Member Absent
David Sharkey

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

M. Martin called the meeting to order.

II.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes to be approved.

The members concurred to table the approval of meeting minutes to the conclusion of the meeting.

III.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

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

Present before the Board:	Judy Yetman

Ms. Yetman is requesting a plan waiver to attempt to finish the square footage to her boy’s room.  Her financial condition has not changed.  She needs to do something because the addition has been exposed since last year.  She needs a Special Permit or a 

Variance.  The only plan she has is for the septic system which is two to three years old. 
 She was told to measure what she made up in the back of the house & submit it to the Board.  The Board reviewed the documentation she submitted.

M. Martin stated even a plan waiver at this time, should Ms. Yetman be granted one, she would be required to obtain a Variance due to setbacks not being met.  She would have the statutory challenge of meeting the four requirements for a Variance.  In the event the Board finds in Ms. Yetman’s favor, then one of the conditions of the Variance would be to have a survey plan done so it can be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.  To grant a plan waiver this evening, may only delay what is inevitably going to required.  

Ms. Yetman asked what she needs to do to finish her project.  M. Martin stated she needs a Variance.  Ms. Yetman asked what a Variance is.  M. Martin explained that Ms. Yetman built w/out a building permit, she encroached upon the setbacks & the Board suggested Ms. Yetman seek the advice of a qualified attorney in addition to obtaining an engineering plan.  Due to Ms. Yetman’s request, it will require approval of a four part statutory test (a Variance) because it is the law.  T. Weare stated the regulations re:  Ms. Yetman’s property, require her to have particular setbacks.  Ms. Yetman stated she didn’t know that she had needed a building permit for what she did.  T. Weare stated the Variance is needed in order for the Board to allow her to do what she has done or wants to finish.  There is specific criteria to meet for a Variance.  M. Martin explained the four parts that need to be met for a Variance.  He also explained that unless Ms. Yetman presents a case supported by evidence, the Board can’t find in her favor.  Qualified attorneys do this for a living.  He suggested Ms. Yetman have a conversation w/ an attorney.

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item V.  Continued Public Hearings – D.  #14-07 – 86 Wareham Lakeshore Drive – Ms. Judy Yetman, c/o Judy Herron.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to close the public hearing for petition #14-07 – 86 Wareham Lakeshore Drive – Ms. Judy Yetman, c/o Judy Herron.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

M. Scarsciotti feels in order to give Ms. Yetman the opportunity to make a better presentation & deal w/ this matter appropriately, the Board should deny the application w/out prejudice to allow Ms. Yetman to come back at a later date of her choosing to complete the cycle.  T. Weare suggested giving Ms. Yetman the four part criteria.  M. Martin discussed where Ms. Yetman can find this information.  Discussion ensued.  M. Martin discussed what denying w/out prejudice means & how Ms. Yetman can move forward w/ applying for a constructive grant.

MOTION:	A motion was made and seconded to deny the application of petition #14-07 – 86 Wareham Lakeshore Drive – Ms. Judy Yetman, c/o Judy Herron w/out prejudice.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

NOTE:	The meeting went back to item III.  Request for Plan Waivers or Other Administrative Issues.

Present before the Board:	Ellen Nelson

Ms. Nelson has recently joined the Wareham Housing Partnership.  She is an attorney representing herself.  She lives in Swifts Beach.  Her lot is 40x80.  She doesn’t have a plot plan.  She will be applying for a Variance to add a second story addition to her cottage.  It is already non-conforming.  Her house is 20x40 & the lot is 40x80.  She would like to utilize architectural drawings vs. a survey.  She submitted & described this documentation to the Board.  She doesn’t have a mortgage survey.  T. Weare stated this can be found at the paperwork at the Registry.	

M. Martin asked to submit more detailed documentation from the architect that the Board can rely on as an exhibit for recording.  He doesn’t feel the drawings Ms. Allison submitted would be acceptable to record at the Registry as part of a Variance.  M. Scarsciotti suggested taking the original subdivision document Ms. Allison has, have the architect blow it up to scale, & then superimpose the house on top of it.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the gutter line & scaling the drawing out.  Mr. Misiasek discussed the gutter line & the foundation face.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to grant the plan waiver for Ellen Allison. M. Zollo seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

IV.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#01-05A – 2701 Cranberry Highway – Cranberry Court, LLC – Amend previous approval of Comprehensive Permit, c/o Attorney Robert Devin.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Robert Devin

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Attorney Devin explained that he represents Cranberry Court, LLC which received a comprehensive permit for a project known as Agawam Green.  On 8/20, 2007, he sent by FedEx for the Town’s records & for the ZBA, a request to modify the previous comprehensive permit to eliminate the requirement for a ___________________.  This request for modification was received by the Town Clerk & the ZBA on 8/21/07.  On 8/23/07 he received a phone call from Brenda Sampson, ZBA Secretary stating that at the meeting held on 8/22/07, the Board had determined that the requested change was a substantial change & as a result of a public hearing would be needed.  The Board has scheduled a public hearing for this evening.

Attorney Devin stated he has given each member of the Board a copy of the relevant provisions of 760 code of MA regulations, s. 31.03 which speaks to timeframes in which a modification must be considered.  The provision states that when an applicant submits an application the ZBA has 20 days in which to decide whether something is substantial or non-substantial.  If the ZBA decides it is not substantial, the ZBA can review & decide to grant or deny the modification without a public hearing.  If the ZBA fails to notify the applicant that the ZBA has taken action on the request, it is also deemed insubstantial.  If the ZBA decides it is substantial, the ZBA has 30 days from the date on which the ZBA determined it to be substantial, to conduct a public hearing.  In this case, according to the draft minutes received & phone conversations w/ the ZBA secretary, the ZBA decided on 8/22/07 that this was a substantial modification.  As a result, in order to comply w/ the regulations, the ZBA had to have conducted a hearing on the modification request, on or before 9/21/07 which the ZBA failed to do.  As an end result, he believes, that the modification request has been constructively approved.  He submitted a memorandum dated September 6, 2007 prepared by his Associate that supports this which he discussed.

M. Martin asked if this case is still in litigation.  Attorney Devin stated it is.  M. Martin feels that litigation stops the application part.  Attorney Devin stated “no”.  M. Martin stated this will be forwarded to the ZBA’s legal counsel.  He stated in the case that this matter does receive a constructive grant, it must be built exactly to the specifications of plans on file.  Any deviation to any structure will mean the structure comes out & gets re-done.

T. Weare asked if the timeframes for cases in which the memorandum speaks, is it dealing w/ days or longer periods of time.  Attorney Devin stated longer periods of time, even though it doesn’t matter.  Attorney Devin discussed one of the cases cited in the memorandum.

T. Weare asked for clarification on what Attorney Devin wants eliminated as part of the request to modify.  Attorney Devin stated it is the solar energy system. T. Weare asked why Attorney Devin wants to eliminate this when there is funding in place.  Attorney Devin stated ____________________________________ and this would add approx. $500,000 to the project.

Discussion ensued re:  how to proceed.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

NOTE:	M. Martin stated he will not be voting on this matter.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to close the public hearing for petition #01-05A – 2701 Cranberry Highway – Cranberry Court, LLC.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to deny the application of petition #01-05A – 2701 Cranberry Highway – Cranberry Court, LLC to amend a previously approved Comprehensive Permit based on the fact that there is no presentation of evidence in which to support the modification and the application has petitioned the Board for a constructive grant as outlined in the memorandum dated 9/6/07 from Stacey M. Shunk.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

V.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

Present before the Board:	James Franklin
				Attorney Mark Wall

NOTE:	W. Engerman, Associate Member, recused herself from the discussion because she is the president of the Rose Point Association.  M. Martin stated that if he will be asked to give testimony in this case as Water Superintendent, he to will have to recuse himself from the discussion.  He can’t do both roles.  
It was stated there are no water issues.

Attorney Wall spoke re:  6 Donald St. (Lots 60 & 61) which is a non-conforming lot.  The lots in question were created in 1940, shown on a plan which he cited.  Each lot has 5,000 sq. ft. of area & 50 ft. of frontage.  At the time these lots were created, there was no zoning.  These lots came into common ownership w/ eight other lots in 1970.  In 1971, the zoning changed, such that the lot area had to be 60x100 sq. ft. & 65 ft. of frontage.  In 1986, the eight lots were sold off, & thus Lots 60 & 61 came under separate ownership, however they did not conform to zoning.  Not withstanding, the Assessor’s office continued to assess the lots as if they were buildable.  In the winter of 2006, Mr. Franklin became interested in purchasing the lots from the owner.  Mr. Franklin investigated the property by checking w/ various Town departments, including the Assessor’s Dept.  He reviewed the field card for the lots & they were assessed as if they were buildable lots.  As a result, Mr. Franklin decided to purchase the lots from the owner & signed a purchase & sales agreement in 2/06.  Mr. Franklin also paid back taxes on the property.  The property had been in tax title at the time.  He then sought a building permit.  The Building Inspector referred Mr. Franklin to a letter.  The letter is from Mr. Misiasek, Building Inspector to John Foster, Town Collector dated 2/7/06.  He feels it is coincidental that after Mr. Franklin signed a purchase & sales agreement, the tax collector sent a letter to the Building Inspector asking him for a determination if the lots were buildable.  The Building Inspector answered back that the lots were under common ownership at a time of a zoning change & as a result, they don’t qualify for a small lot exemption.  Also during this time, unbeknownst to Mr. Franklin, the Assessor’s changed the way they were carrying these lots on the books.  They changed the lots to non-buildable.  Mr. Franklin is asking for a Variance due to all the factors involved.  He noted the payment, by Mr. Franklin for the back taxes, in the amount of $17,000.

M. Martin clarified that only four members were at the original hearing, thus only four members will hear the case.  Attorney Wall stated this is fine.

Attorney Wall stated it is Mr. Franklin’s assertion that his payment for the back taxes __________________________________ & that this is a hardship.  Mr. Franklin is also claiming that there will be more ________________ in the Bylaw ____________________.  Many of the lots in this neighborhood are actually 5,000 sq. ft. non-conforming structures.  (The rest of what Mr. Wall says is inaudible on tape).________________________________________.

Attorney Wall submitted a copy of the purchase & sales agreement & modification to the statement on the P/S of $5,000 owed for back taxes.  Discussion ensued re:  this modification statement.

M. Scarsciotti stated the last time Mr. Franklin was present, the Board asked him to go to the Assessor’s & obtain the record copy showing the history of the property.  T. Weare asked if there a foreclosure sale scheduled at the time Mr. Franklin entered into the agreement.  Mr. Franklin stated the prior owner had indicated that the property was going to be taken for tax title.  T. Weare questioned the timeframe in which Mr. Franklin would pay back taxes on a property he didn’t own & not paying back taxes at the closing.  Attorney Wall discussed the lien on the property for back taxes.

M. Martin doesn’t feel a case is being made for a small lot exemption, but a case for a Variance.   Thus, the information being presented doesn’t apply to a Variance.  Discussion ensued re:  what Mr. Franklin is applying for.  Attorney Wall asked to amend the application for a small lot exemption.  M. Martin discussed the three part test for a small lot exemption.  Two of the parts may be met, but the common & contiguous ownership at the time of zoning is a question.  He feels the applicant is going for a Variance for area, not a small lot exemption.  Attorney Wall discussed the ownership history of the lots.

Mr. Misiasek noted when he gave the letter to Mr. Foster.  This is one of the lots that was slated for the auction.  When the list was received, it took him a while to get the list completed.

Audience members were asked for questions of comments.

Present before the Board:	Robert Moore, Abutter

Mr. Moore feels the area is being built up & __________________ he is opposed to the Variance.

Present before the Board:	Steven Curry

Mr. Curry is a Rose Point resident & on the Board of Assessors.  He conducted research on the properties.  The lots were split off in 1986 & houses built on the lot which are greater than 10,000 ft. remain.  At that time the Assessors record indicates potentially developable (Code 131) & was changed in 2006 w/ a letter from the Building Dept. dated 2/06 which the assessment was changed to (Code 132) an un-buildable lot.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the codes.  Payment of the back taxes was made on 4/27/07.

Mr. Curry asked if you have to be the owner of the property to apply for a Variance or a small lot exemption.  M. Martin stated not according to MA State law.

Attorney Wall discussed the verbal agreement made w/ Mr. Franklin & the former owner relative to the back taxes.   He discussed pictures of the neighborhood that show the character of the properties.  He explained what a “stop hold” is. (Mr. Wall is inaudible on tape).  M. Martin asked if the Assessors records showing a buildable lot w/ taxes due & if this would fall into this definition.  Attorney Wall stated it may fall into the type of situation, but it would not be a legal claim. 

 M. Martin again stated that the Board needs to focus on information re:  Variance of area.  He asked Attorney Wall to present the four points for a Variance.  Attorney Wall stated based on hardship, Mr. Franklin did do a thorough search of Town documents & _________________________ (Mr. Wall was inaudible Tape ended). _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Present before the Board:	Steven Curry

Mr. Curry stated the Assessors office assesses a piece of property in what they believe it is assessed.  It is not a legal department.  He asked if Mr. Franklin go to the legal authority in Town to see what the status was.  Attorney Wall stated Mr. Franklin did not go to the legal entity & they are not blaming the Assessor’s Dept., but based on the documentation available to Mr. Franklin, he developed a good faith belief that it was buildable.  He again stated they are applying for a Variance, not a small lot exemption.  T. Weare feels the timeline is important because it ties into Mr. Franklin’s hardship.  Attorney Wall again discussed the timeline of events leading up to this point relative to this case.

Discussion ensued re:  the hardship being presented by the applicant & why the back taxes were paid a year later.  Attorney Wall stated his client’s claim is that at the time of the payment, Mr. Franklin was still under the assumption that it was being assessed as a potentially buildable lot.  

MOTION:	T. Weare moved to close the public hearing for petition #07-08 – (Lots 60 & 61) – 6 Donald Street – James Franklin.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to deny the application for petition #07-08 – (Lots 60 & 61) – 6 Donald Street – James Franklin based on the fact that the request does not meet the requirements for a Variance or a Variance for square footage.  M. Zollo seconded.

NOTE:	Attorney Wall asked instead of the Board denying the application, could they allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice.  M. Martin stated there is already a motion & a second to deny & there are only four members voting.  All four votes are needed to be in favor.  

		The motion & the second were withdrawn.

MOTION:	A motion was made and seconded to accept the applicant’s request to withdraw the application for petition #07-08– (Lots 60 & 61) – 6 Donald Street – James Franklin without prejudice.  

NOTE:	M. Scarsciotti asked what withdrawing w/out prejudice do for the applicant.  Attorney Wall stated it will allow the applicant to come back.

POLLED VOTE:	__________________
			__________________
			__________________
			__________________
VOTE:  (3-1-0)

NOTE:	K. Ferreira arrived at this time.

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

Present before the Board:	Robert Brady

Mr. Brady stated he is before the Board because this site doesn’t meet the minimum five acres for a kennel.  The request is for a Special Permit.  M. Martin recalls the applicant was to come to some mediation w/ the neighbors & bring back a more detailed plan.  Mr. Brady had submitted a engineered plan for the improvements that have been done to the site & more details.  He is concerned that there are only four voting members to vote on his case & the hearing was continued twice because of this.  He understands that one of the four members is intending to resign & thus, will take his chances this evening.  Brief discussion ensued re:  who will be sitting on this case.  (M. Martin, M. Scarsciotti, M. Zollo, & R. Secher).

Mr. Brady discussed the 6 ft. stockade fence that has been erected & the placement of fence.  He displayed photos of said fence.  He explained the garage will house the animals & its footprint.  He feels it is a safe assumption that the animals will not escape the property.  The kennel structure is complete & he has gone to the Board of Health.

M. Martin feels Mr. Brady has addressed the physical concerns the Board asked him to look into, such as screening, noise, & visibility. The Board had also asked him to enter into discussion w/ the neighbors relative to mitigating their concerns.  Mr. Brady had a conversation w/ one of the neighbors & he has heard the concerns of others.  He submitted letters of support to the Board for the record.  M. Martin read who the letters of support are from into the record.

Mr. Brady stated there are currently nine kennel licenses in Town w/ only one that meets the minimum five acre requirement.  The Board recently granted another kennel license for a two acre lot.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	Charles Wood, 14 Spectacle Pond Terrace

Mr. Wood had submitted a letter of support & has known Mr. Brady for a long time.  They are good neighbors.  He knows Mr. Brady to be conscientious dog lover.  He feels the Canadian Geese make more noise than the dogs do.  The dogs are under control & Mr. Brady has gone out of his way as well as time & effort into this venture.  He feels the building that was built has added to everyone’s property values.  He supports the application.

Present before the Board:	A woman, Spectacle Pond Terrace (lives across the street)

The woman submitted a petition signed by residents of the neighborhood in opposition to this application.  Many neighbors were unaware of this application.  Mr. Brady had not spoken to a majority of the neighborhood.  The dogs are still waking her up (as early as last night & this morning).  There are small children in the area & have had Mr. Brady’s dogs have charged out w/out a leash which is a concern.  She is concerned re:  the applicant having three dogs.

Present before the Board:	Scott Schluter, 5 Spectacle Pond Terrace

Mr. Schluter stated that Mr. Wood is over 500 ft. away from the property in question.  Mr. Schluter stated he is directly across the street.  He questioned why the dogs are out early in the morning barking.  He submitted times & dates since this hearing has commenced relative to the dogs waking him up.  M. Martin asked Mr. Schluter to explain why this concern is for not supporting the license for the kennel.  Mr. Schluter stated the current dogs cannot be kept quiet & he doesn’t feel additional dogs will be kept quiet either.  

Mr. Brady feels Mr. Schluter’s comments are false.  He explained that since the hearing commenced, he has installed two doors that operate on a pulley.  Every night since the hearing commenced on July 11, 2007, the dogs have never been outside.  By 10:00 P.M., the dogs are in the garage w/ the doors closed.  If Mr. Schluter is hearing the dogs barking in the garage, he would be surprised.  His bedroom door is adjacent to the garage & he hears the dogs when they bark.  He slept in the garage last night due to puppies being born.  There is no way neighbors could have heard one puppy last night or this morning.  

M. Martin stated all dogs bark.  He asked if any of these barking complaints been made officially to the police.  The response was “no”.  He doesn’t feel one bark at 4:00 A.M. constitutes a barking dog.  Brief discussion ensued.

Brief discussion ensued re:  letters submitted, in objection & support.  K. Ferreira stated in the letter submitted by the Pam & Craig Sholter notes complaints about the barking dogs & the garage & also, they indicate issues w/ the existing dogs.  They believe a fine was paid for a problem in which there was a dog attack.  Mr. Brady explained the incident which happened approx. three to four years ago.  

Mr. Brady discussed the different types of kennel licenses.  His already has three dogs & his intention is to be allowed to have at least four, but no more than ten, thus he is seeking a Hobby Kennel license.  He has no ambition to board any dogs as a business.  Brief discussion ensued re:  grooming.

M. Martin stated when the ZBA grants a Special Permit for an application of this nature is require a one year review.  After one year, the applicant would have to come back before the ZBA as well as notifying abutters so the ZBA can see how things have progressed.

A gentleman from the audience stated when the hearing was first opened, he understood that there would be boarding & grooming going on & this is when he started having objections.  If the intent is to have one dog for a short time, he wouldn’t object.  (This gentleman was inaudible from here). 

M. Martin stated the ZBA takes the abutters concerns seriously.  The guideline for the ZBA is that any Special Permit granted is not detrimental to the character of the neighborhood.  A Special Permit means the applicant has the right to “it” provided he meets certain conditions.  The abutters rights will be protected through a hearing one year from the issuance of a Special Permit.

A gentleman from the audience stated the dogs that live next door to him (smaller dogs) make more noise than Mr. Brady’s dogs.  He feels Mr. Brady has gone over & above to have a good facility.  He doesn’t feel their intent is to have it more than it is.

MOTION:	M. Zollo moved to close the public hearing for petition #01-08 – 6 Spectacle Pond Terrace – Doris Lynn Westgate, c/o Robert Brady.
R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved & R. Secher seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #01-08 – 6 Spectacle Pond Terrace – Doris Lynn Westgate, c/o Robert Brady w/ the following conditions:

•	Compliance w/ all Board of Health regulations & all other Town regulations, including the leash law that are in effect or may become in effect by the Town of Wareham.
•	The kennel shall be inspected at least once by the Board of Health Agent & the Dog Officer & during the one year review, the Board will require a written report from the Board of Health & the Animal Control Officer.
•	Any exterior lighting to stay on property.
•	Dogs to be kept inside during the nighttime.
•	Conditions outlined in the Bylaw need to be adhered to & further, this Special Permit is for a Hobby Kennell issued for one year, as defined by the Bylaw and subsequent to the one year, may it then be made permanently renewable.
•	Condition of approval is that the applicant shall petition the Board one year from the approval date to notify abutters of a public hearing to ensure that the applicant is complying w/ the requirements of the Bylaws other than the Zoning Bylaw.
•	The Board may, on its own initiative, require a public hearing sooner than one year if the Board finds that complaints filed warrant a review.
•	The name & 24-hour telephone number of the person or persons in responsible charge, shall be on file w/ the Animal Control Officer, Police Dept., and the Zoning Board of Appeals.

K.Ferreira discussed these types of one year review & how the burden is on the applicant to comply w/ the conditions.  M. Zollo expressed concern re:  complaints of the dogs being loose.  Mr. Brady stated the dogs are never loose off the property.  M. Zollo stated the dogs should always be on leashes.  Mr. Brady stated the dogs are always contained.

ROLL CALL VOTE:		M. Zollo – Yes
				R. Secher – Yes
				M. Scarsciotti – Yes
				M. Martin – Yes

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

C.	#20-07 – Fee Increase (Public hearing opened on 5/9/07). (NOT HANDLED)

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

VI.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	3120 Cranberry Highway – Campers Headquarters – Receipt of engineering review fee.

The Board discussed that this application should be sent out for engineering review & a hearing date be determined based on the date of completion of the review.

B.	Citizen Planner Training Collaborative – Fall 2007 – Workshops.
C.	New petition filed – See correspondence – 59 Oak Street.

The petitioner came before the Board & asked for a plan waiver on what she wants to do which she explained.  The Board’s secretary told her to come to the meeting this evening.  K. Ferreira asked if the woman is trying not to have an engineer draw up a fancy plan.  The woman stated she has an engineer’s plan.  The contractor has paid the application fee.  K. Ferreira stated this petition needs to be advertised in the newspaper.  M. Martin stated the abutters need to be notified by certified mail.  The woman stated the abutters signed a sheet.

The woman explained again that she has an existing porch area & she wants to enclose it to put onto her kitchen.  Her contractor filled out the application.  Mr. Cronan explained the application process.  The woman stated the foundation is already there.  Discussion ensued & Board members reviewed the files.  K. Ferreira stated the Building Inspector submitted a denial letter.  Some Board members reviewed the pictures submitted by the woman.

K.Ferreira stated this matter needs to be advertised & the paperwork looks in order.  There is no expedited process.

TAPE ENDED

D.	Bog Wind Power Project – See file from Beaufort Windpower.

TAPE ENDED – DIDN’T HEAR MOTION TO ADJOURN.

Attest:  _________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk

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