ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Wareham Town Hall, Lower Level Cafeteria
54 Marion Road
Wareham, Massachusetts 02571

Date of Meeting:  October 29, 2008

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M.

II.	ROLL CALL

Members Present:	Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman
			Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk
			David Sharkey
			Richard Secher
			Ticia Weare, Associate Member
			John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Members Absent:	Mike Martin
			Wilma Engerman, Associate Member 

Also Present:		Attorney Ilana Quirk, Town Counsel

MOTION:	A motion was made and seconded at 7:05 P.M. to enter into Executive Session for the purposes of discussing litigation relative to Point Independence Yacht Club & to come back into open session after said discussion.

ROLL CALL VOTE:	M. Scarsciotti – Yes
				D. Sharkey – Yes
				R. Secher – Yes
				K. Ferreira – Yes
				T. Weare - Yes
				
VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	D. Sharkey moved to go back into open session at 7:35 P.M.  R. Secher seconded.

ROLL CALL VOTE:	M. Scarsciotti – Yes
				D. Sharkey – Yes
				R. Secher – Yes
				T. Weare – Yes
				K. Ferreira – Yes

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

III.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS
		      (NONE)

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

V.	PUBLIC HEARINGS
		      (NONE)

VI.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#132-05 & #007-06 – Point Independence Yacht Club – 15-17 Independence Lane, Onset, MA (Remand Hearing).

K. Ferreira explained the Board went into Executive Session to discuss matters of litigation.  

M. Martin has voluntarily decided to recuse himself from this case.  He is the Wareham Water Superintendent & lives in Onset.  He is not legally a party of interest, but he feels it is appropriate to recuse himself from this hearing, thus, he is not present this evening.  Sitting in his place is T. Weare.  Town Counsel is also present.

K.Ferreira discussed the procedure to be followed for this hearing & timeframes.

The public hearing notice was read into the record re:  Point Independence Yacht Club (PIYC).

Attorney Quirk gave a summary.  There are two matters before the Board.  PYIC has filed two applications for relief.  Both applications are pending before the ZBA.  The applications relate to the yacht club’s request for a Chapter 91 license to allow for the expansion of slips.  PYIC approached the Building Inspector & asked him to sign off, for purposes of zoning, on the Chapter 91 license.  The Building Inspector, as the Zoning Enforcement Officer, determined it would not be appropriate to do so.  He refused to sign off until a site plan review was put forward & approved under zoning & until a Special Permit to extend or alter a non-conforming use was issued by the ZBA.  PYIC appealed the determination of the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer to the ZBA.  The ZBA upheld the Building Inspector’s determination.  There was then an appeal of this matter to the Superior Court.  Thereafter, PYIC came back to the ZBA & asked for Special Permit relief to extend or alter their non-conforming use.  A public hearing was held.  The ZBA considered the request & ultimately denied this relief.  There was an appeal that went to Superior Court.  When both pieces were consolidated & heard by Judge Lock, the judge determined that there was a concern re:  the zoning issued that was raised by PYIC relative to whether the harbor/water area involved was in fact zoned by the Town.  A motion for reconsideration was before the judge.  The judge discussed the matter w/ the parties & urged the parties to come back & have a new discussion to try & settle this matter by a renewed public hearing (Order of Remand).  The parties agreed to come forward.  An Order of Remand was issued.  There have been attempts since last spring to bring this matter forward for a public hearing, however, there were a number of delays, including Sept. 17th due to an allegation that one member of the Board had a conflict of interest.  As a result, at the last meeting, there was a postponement until tonight to allow this member to consult w/ Town Counsel re:  the alleged conflict of interest.  This consultation took place & Town Counsel gave an opinion re:  the alleged conflict of interest.  It was determined there is not a conflict of interest w/ this member.  Under State law, this opinion was sent to the Ethics Commission.  The Ethics Commission reviewed it & signed off on it.  They concurred w/ the determination made by Town Counsel.

Attorney Quirk spoke re:  the two matters before the Board.  One is the appeal of the Building Inspector’s determination that the area being discussed is zoned MR30.  The other matter is the PIYC’s application for a Special Permit to extend or alter a non-conforming use to add slips.

Present before the Board:	Gene Guimond
				Richard Penny
				John Spinnelly
				Bob Vendetti

Mr. Guimond stated that PYIC is still under the impression that a Special Permit & site plan review are not required.  The reason they are back before the Board is in the spirit of cooperation of the ZBA.  

Mr. Guimond explained the decision that was rendered by the judge was a judgement that overturned both decisions of the ZBA.  The judge’s decision determined that the application of the MR30 zoning district to a boating facility in Onset Bay was not reasonable.  It was also determined that the Board’s decision denying the Special Permit was arbitrarily & capricious.   The judge ordered the Zoning Enforcement Officer to sign the zoning compliance certificate.  The Town filed a motion to reconsider.  At the hearing for this motion to reconsider, the judge took his decision (that favors PIYC) under advisement before rendering a decision on the motion to reconsider because the parties believed at the time that there could be conditions placed on the project in order to issue a Special Permit.  Under that assumption, PIYC met w/ a sub-committee for a zoning hearing on 4/15/08 to discuss issues that were presented to PIYC by Town Counsel.  The discussion was limited to these issues.  Once the PIYC felt it had an agreement w/ the Board re:  terms of what was discussed, the Order of Remand was issued.  Thus, PIYC won the case in court.  The reason PYIC is present for the remand is in the spirit of cooperation that possibly there are some conditions that could be placed on the project that will appease everyone.  Thus, they are present to discuss the conditions.  The request received by Town Counsel when they went in to the sub-committee meeting stated that the Board would like to see a plan of the new slips.  He displayed a picture of the plan slips which was submitted to members of the sub-committee.

Mr. Guimond stated there was also a request that he give a written opinion to the Board dealing w/ Chapter 91 licensing & the legal rights PIYC would have to expand the facility in commonwealth __________.  He rendered this letter in 9/08.  There was also discussion re:  the permit in 1991 issued by the Army Corp. that allowed 57 moorings.  The discussion was PIYC was willing, as part of the hearing, to reduce the number of moorings in the mooring field from 57 to 47.  This would be net of 10 moorings.  There were discussions re:  if the number of moorings could be further reduced.  PIYC had stated they don’t believe this could be done.  There were issues w/ the hurricane plan that were requested & was provided.  Since there is a significant amount of the reduction of moorings, PIYC wouldn’t have the ability to comply w/ the hurricane plan.  There was a question of whether or not the Board had a copy of the hurricane plan.  This plan was provided.  The Board just wanted it added to their records.  There was discussion re:  porta-potties or restroom facilities on the newly expanded dock.  There was concern re:  this.  PIYC agreed that it may be possible for them to put a restroom facility out on the dock provided they could obtain the permits & wasn’t cost prohibitive.  The reason the plan was provided is for understanding on how the slips were being configured from north to south vs. east to west direction.  There was discussion re:  maintaining access between Wickets Island.  The sub-committee was told that the depths at Wickets Island are too shallow for boats to travel generally in this area.  There was a request re:  signage at the yacht club which was agreed to.  There was a request that the size of the boats on the new slips be maintained at the current level as used at the facilities currently.  The yacht club has agreed to this.  On 4/22/08 correspondence was submitted to Town Counsel to follow up in writing what PIYC agreed to do.  Figuration plans have been provided.  Discussions were held re:  size of the Army Corp. mooring field & how it was reduced in 1991.  It was agreed that PIYC would provide information re:  commonwealth _________.  PIYC will be willing to investigate the current ________ gas tax.  Waters on the southwest corner of Wickets field was discussed.    PIYC agreed to have no vessels larger than 65 ft. in length would be assigned a slip on F dock & no permitted slips would be authorized on the F dock.  They also agreed to post & maintain signage on F dock prohibiting loud noise after midnight.  Most of the items agreed to are under the Bylaws of the Harbormaster & the general Bylaws.  He spoke re:  further correspondence forwarded to the Town.  They agreed to allow the Harbormaster Dept. to keep seasonal dockage for a vessel & allow access for the Harbormaster to utilize the boat ramp year round.  Onset Fire Dept. will be allowed five days dockage & facilities.

Mr. Guimond asked the Board to limit the discussion to the remand hearing.  PIYC won the case in court.  He questioned why PIYC would come in for a remand to have “another bite at the apple”.  This wouldn’t make sense.  The only issue PIYC differs from the Board is the reduction of the number of moorings.  He would like the discussion w/ the Board to be about conditions.  

K.Ferreira stated the Board is aware of the judge’s decision & PIYC won the initial case.  He stated the sub-committee was held in the hopes of coming to an agreement on some of the conditions.  It was only for a point of discussion.  The attendance was limited to two members attending so there wouldn’t be quorum & the full Board retained the right to deliberate.  He expressed confusion.  He understands PIYC won, but since there was a motion for reconsideration, what does this mean.  Attorney Quirk stated this means Town Counsel went back to the judge & argued he should reconsider his decision.  This was a lengthy hearing.  What the judge determined was there was an issue & he had a concern re:  if he had gone too far w/ the issue of zoning.  Town Counsel argued that the zoning Bylaw determination he made validated the Bylaw re:  water based uses.  In order for him to do that, Town Counsel argued the Town needed to be a party, be served, the Attorney General was to be notified, etc.  None of this had happened.  The argument was this was never before the court.  The judge then determined that no matter what happened w/ re:  to his decision, there would be an appeal.  It would go to the appeals court & take a lot of money & time for both sides.  Thus, he urged both parties to try & settle the matter & come back & have a new public hearing to deal w/ the matter.  There was an offer of settlement from PIYC dated 4/22/08.  There was an Executive Session meeting on 4/23/08 & the next day she notified PIYC’s attorney that their offer for settlement had been rejected.  She offered a counter offer settlement which involved both parties coming back, holding a public hearing, & Mr. Martin would voluntarily recuse himself.  The remand was negotiated & now both parties are present.

Attorney Quirk stated, for example, in order for the Board to change its decision from a no to a yes there needs to be a public hearing & that is why this hearing is being held.  This requires giving the public a chance to speak, hearing evidence, etc.

K. Ferreira noted the conditions agreed upon.

Mr. Guimond asked for a point of order.  He is rejecting any discussions that go outside the realm of the intent of the remand hearing topics.  K. Ferreira stated his objection is noted.

K.Ferreira asked for those to speak in favor of the project to step forward.

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman stated __________________________??? (Inaudible).  He feels the project is very well laid out.  ________________________________________(Inaudible

The gentleman stated that the space between the expansion & Wickets Island is not an issue.  He stated presently, the water over by Wickets Island is too shallow.  He discussed access matters.

The gentleman stated _________________________________(Inaudible).

Present before the Board:	Keith Allison, Abutter

Mr. Allison has seen the plan before.  He feels the project is modest.  He feels they have gone out of their way to not over-expand.

K. Ferreira asked for those to speak in opposition to the project to step forward.

Present before the Board:	Andrew Harrington, Save Onset Bay
				Attorney Watsky, Counsel for Save Onset Bay

Mr. Harrington noted the testimony that will be given & who will be presenting said information.

Mr. Guimond feels there should be ground rules on who will be speaking.  K. Ferreira stated this is not a court hearing.  Save Onset Bay has retained counsel to offer professional advice which is what their attorney will provide.  Their attorney will be offering legal advice/arguments re:  the issue.  Mr. Harrington, as an individual, may want to make his own personal observations.  He noted that all e-mails received have been copied.  Mr. Guimond feels all comments should be condensed.  K. Ferreira stated there is a timeframe for speaking.

Attorney Watsky discussed the remand hearing & what it means.  He noted the standards that apply for issuing a Special Permit for a pre-existing legal non-conforming use.  He addressed this in a letter dated 9/16/08.  He wants to make sure this letter is part of the Board’s record.  

Attorney Watsky discussed the land the yacht club owns & where the land-based activities take place.  This area is zoned residential.  Thus, all activities that go on to have the marina operate (a commercial activity), are operating in a residential zone (a non-conforming use).  Under the Board’s rules, non-conforming uses are discouraged.  He read what section 1330, subparagraph 2 into the record.  

Attorney Watsky stated the proposed expansion of 10 slips will cause a significant intensification of use on the land side.  The reasoning for slips is they can hold larger vessels, they can be connected to utilities, the vessels can be 65 ft. long & three stories high, & serve as a summer home.  The owners of these vessels then bring guests & friends to their boat which creates more traffic & parking issues at the site.  The 10 additional slips will provide for 10 additional boats which will increase the intensity of the use on the land side.  He noted case law, Giovanni vs. Town of Lincoln.  He cited this case law into the record.

Mr. Harrington spoke re:  the application submitted by the yacht club.  PIYC has made two assertions.  One is there is parking for the boats & no land based impact.  They are just swapping ten 60 ft. boats that are out on moorings to go on slips.  He submitted photographs to the Board.  He discussed the docks A-E.  He asked which docks don’t create a more adverse or detrimental environment.  The second assertion is they are not increasing the degree of non-conformity, land area or use, & no adverse affect on abutting properties.  He disagrees w/ this.  Another assertion is that the project won’t negatively affect Town coastal water bodies.  The project also has conditions placed by the Wareham Conservation Commission.  There is a letter from the BOS against the expansion.  All these statements from PIYC are inaccurate.

Mr. Harrington proceeded to discuss & explain, in detail, the photographs he submitted.  He discussed what the marina is permitted for, such as slips, moorings, etc.  

K.Ferreira added that the Board is looking for conditions that would make this permit acceptable.

Mr. Harrington discussed the docks (A-E).  There has been an incremental increase of slips at PIYC over the years.  He asked when it will end.  He stated a 65 ft. boat is very large & bigger than most of the cottages in the area.  K. Ferreira clarified that the Board would consider any new conditions or modified conditions.  Mr. Harrington stated there is opposition re:  the bathroom on the dock.  W/ the new slips, it will be like a city.  This project doesn’t add any value to the neighborhood.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the bathroom on the dock.  

Mr. Harrington continued to discuss the photographs he submitted in detail & issues w/ the proposal, such as noise & interruption of recreational activities (kayaking).

Present before the Board:	Fran Park

Mr. Park grew up on the Point Independence side of where the yacht club is.  He was a member of the club when he was young.    When he was younger, the club was quiet & enjoyable.  Now, there is lack of communication re:  bringing the community to the property.  They are very exclusive now.  There is more traffic back & forth.  A club is supposed to be welcoming & inviting & making something better.  Bigger is not always better.  He noted changes he sees in the water & larger boats blocking the view to the canal.  He is on board w/ saving Onset Bay & keeping it the way it is currently.

Present before the Board:	Doug Churkhall, Direct abutter

Mr. Churkhall stated the PIYC is representing itself as a small time operation.  In reality, this is a commercial operation.  When the club is asking to do something different & expand, it is not just a small time operation any more, it is a commercial operation.  Any extra activity increases the commercial operation.  There will potentially be ten 65 ft. boats w/ this project.  This is not a small expansion.  He doesn’t want to come back, if the club obtains permission for the project, to be in the position of complaining about the club & what they do there.  There is a co-existence that works out fine.  If he has to co-exist at the level being proposed, he feels the boundary of what he would like to see there has been pushed.  There will be more activity.  It is easier to have a boat on a slip & use it & bring people to it & more time spent at the boat.  These things will become a hardship for the neighborhood.

Present before the Board:	Molly Harris, North Blvd.

Ms. Harris stated that less than ½ mile away, there is a free public boat ramp on East Blvd.  It can be used by tourists & is a nice benefit to the community.  PIYC has stated they need to expand because they have a financial hardship.  She suggested raising the rates.  Those w/ 65 ft. boats can afford to pay a raise in rates.  She expressed surprise at the audacity of the yacht club in thinking they can come in & own the bay or this section of the bay.  She feels it belongs to the residents of Town, not just members of a private club who can afford the slips.  The whole Burgess Point side is all giant docks w/ giant yachts.  There has been so much development on the Point Independence side.  It gets to the point where “enough is enough”.  Once an area gets too congested, you lose what drew people in the first place.  

Present before the Board:	Joely Nolson, Prospect St.

Ms. Nolson stated living in the shadow of a marina (Onset Bay Marina) she understands the difficult problems that arise.  There is more activity w/ intensity of use that causes said problems.  She explained how noise pollution is huge due to sound carrying off the water.  She expressed concern re:  safety for small boats, swimmers, & chemical spills in water.   There are always environmental concerns.  She expressed concern re:  people having to take their own boats out on ramps prior to a major weather event.  She would like the Board to be able to maximize the ability of everyone who lives & visits Town to enjoy the Town’s waterways.

Present before the Board:	Carl Clement, 9 Wildwood Rd.

Mr. Clement agrees that bigger is not always better.  He asked the Board to try & preserve what Onset Bay is.  There is a lot of recreational activity that goes on in the bay.  He feels the yacht club is beautiful.  He feels they have a nice spot.  He wouldn’t like to see it get too big for itself.

Mr. Clement spoke re:  Wickets Island & water depth.  He would like to keep the deep water channel between Wickets Island & the yacht club open, not be interrupted by huge boats going to & from the slips.

Present before the Board:	Jackson Gilman, Onset Ave.

Mr. Gilman stated as a resident it should be his right to row his rowboat out on the water.  There is a lot of boat traffic in the recreational areas presently.  Anything that exacerbates this area will further decrease the enjoyment of his water front.

Present before the Board:	Bill Gilletti, 8 Hammond St.

Mr. Gilletti spoke re:  the previous hearing for the expansion of Onset Bay Marina.  One issue that arose at this hearing was the closing of shellfishing in the area.  If there is expansion at PIYC, where will it leave shellfishing.  He asked if this has been taken into consideration.

Present before the Board:	John Dugay, 6 Eagle Way

Mr. Dugay discussed the ZBA protecting the rights of abutters at a previous hearing re:  a shed.  He feels this issue is greater than a shed.  He spoke re:  land owners paying property taxes vs. what the yacht club pays.  He hopes the ZBA will protect the interests of the abutters like the shed issue.

Present before the Board:	Louis Gay

Mr. Gay concurred w/ Mr. Dugay.  He spoke re:  property taxes paid by landowners.  __________________________(Inaudible).

Present before the Board:	Mr. O’Brien

Mr. O’Brien feels the common concern is there is an umbilical cord in what is allowed on land & what happens out on the water.  The two cannot be separated.  The purpose of zoning is to extinguish non-conformity, not increase it.  He discussed the large amount of residents who would be impacted.  PIYC has already had numerous past expansions; both of permanent structures & also w/ moorings.  This is aggravating to many because PIYC does not own the area in which they wish to expand.  This is property owned by the public; public waterways.  There is concern re:  interference w/ long established uses of the waters.  The expansion would take over 13,000 sq. ft. of space.  The floats would account for 4,564 sq. ft.  The proposal is for ten large boats to be placed on the new slips.  65 ft. boats are larger than the cottages on the land.  These boats would be considered summer homes.  He feels PIYC violates & conflicts w/ the Wareham Harbor Management Plan.  The MRC has consistently advised the BOS that the PIYC application is not in the best interest of the Town.  The BOS voted unanimously that this application was not beneficial to the future of the Town.  He spoke re:  violation of goal #1 of the Harbor Management Plan which is to maintain all uses.  The MRC is trying to maintain mutli-use.  Once it becomes a “one prudential” harbor, desirability of the Town will go down (for example, tourists & property sales).   Massachusetts law states any dock w/ ten or more slips is legally considered a marina.  Once PIYC expands, it would need to expand out into a no shellfish area.  This would prohibit shellfishing in this area by those who shellfish.  This would take away established rights of the public.  This is public space.  It is not property PIYC purchased.  Parents are concerned re:  for their children kayaking & utilizing small boats if this expansion is granted due to the large size of boats that will be utilizing the area.  The BOS opposes this expansion.  Several years back, State agencies on another expansion proposal (not PIYC), came up w/ the following statement:  “Onset Bay supports the variety of recreational & commercial uses, including boating, swimming, shellfishing, etc.  We find that any expansion could exacerbate the existing problems of conflicting use, public safety, or quality which characterizes Onset Bay”.  If PIYC is denied, they will not suffer.  He noted correspondence from the former ZBA Chairman, Don McKinlay to the ZBA members.  In short, he advises the Board to turn down this proposal.  Mr. O’Brien feels denial of this application is a positive, constructive step for the whole community.

Present before the Board:	John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Selectman Cronan stated the BOS are against the application.

K.Ferreira stated that many old issues are being re-hashed.  There are those that are urging the Board to do certain things & do the same thing that would be done for land based uses.  The ZBA has upheld the Building Inspector’s decision & did deny the project.  It has gone to court, money has been spent, & the judge has overruled the ZBA & granted it to PIYC.  This has come back for a remand for reconsideration of the decision & for negotiation.  This isn’t just a hearing from scratch.  It is a hearing for to expand in either direction; granting or denial.  

Present before the Board:	Brenda Eckstrom, BOS

Ms. Eckstrom stated she is speaking as a resident.  She asked if it was remanded back to the ZBA to reconsider the conditions or can the Board still deny the application.  K. Ferriera explained that the application was denied by the ZBA, it went to court, the judge overturned the ZBA’s decision, granted the permit to PIYC, the ZBA appealed the judge’s decision, the judge felt possibly his decision should be reconsidered & he would reconsider it based on any new evidence the ZBA present him.  This is an opportunity to either grant w/ new conditions or deny w/ an argument as to why it is being denied.  The judge will then rule on the motion to reconsider.

Present before the Board:	Chuck ______________, PIYC

Mr. ______________ spoke re:  the number 65.  K.Ferreira stated there was concern re:  the largest size boat that will utilize the dock.  During discussions, the number 65 was stated as being the maximum number.  

Mr. ____________ stated they don’t have any 65 ft. boats or anything close to that.  Out of all boats that are docked, the average length is close to 28-29 ft.  There are two boats that are 50 ft.   

Present before the Board:	Marjorie O’Brien

Ms. O’Brien stated her main concern is for the safety of small boats utilizing Onset Bay, such as kayaking if this project is approved.  She is also concern re:  any expansion in a compact residential neighborhood.  Most yacht clubs keep their boats on moorings.  She feels the expansion will be more detrimental to the community.

Attorney _________ stated the testimony given shows there is a measurable impact on the land side & increase on activities on the water.  The Board needs to determine that the proposed expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood based on the facts presented.  He discussed the remand.

Present before the Board:	Gerard Furlong (direct abutter)

Mr. Furlong expressed concern re:  the placement of additional slips will impact his view of the bay.  He feels the expansion would not allow him to see across the bay.  

M. Scarsciotti stated that the information presented this evening was adequate & she would like time to review before making a decision.

D. Sharkey didn’t hear anything significantly different vs. last time.  He would like time to review.

T. Weare asked for clarification re:  memo from the Marine Resources Commission relative to moorings as they are currently.  In the application relative to the moorings that are currently present, these moorings will be used for their storm plan.  Mr. ___________ stated the Army Corp. issued a mooring field permit in 1990 & amended it in 1991.  In the mooring field, there was a 1990 authorization on the plan stating an area to the north would be dedicated to private moorings for PIYC & to the south storm moorings.  When the permit was amended there were private moorings, but they would also be used for storm moorings.  T. Weare, thus, there are no specific moorings or specific numbers of moorings that are to be dedicated to storm moorings.  Mr. __________ stated the mooring field has a mixed use on any given day & circumstance.  As far as storms are concerned, PIYC has a hurricane plan which he explained briefly.  He stated PIYC is not a commercially based operation.  They are a private yacht club for the purpose of boating & recreational uses.  It has been this way for 100 years.  PIYC has done everything it can to minimize the impact of this project re:  vistas, footprint, etc.   Again, the private moorings are also used for storm moorings.

T.Weare stated that it seems the initial intent of having the moorings was a safety feature in case of a storm.  She expressed confusion re:  exchanging ten moorings does anything except further inhibit safety.  Lengthy discussion ensued.  Mr. _________clarified that this project is not adding members, boats, or activity.  They are providing ten docking areas for ten boats that are currently utilizing moorings.  

K.Ferreira asked for an accurate count of (membership) boats presently vs. how many there will be w/ the proposed expansion.  Mr. _________ discussed the diversity of membership.  Some members don’t have boats & there are transient boaters.  K. Ferreira asked for an inventory count.  He asked if the slips were put in, would there be more members than he has now.  Mr. __________ stated there are currently 65 slips.  In addition they have a dock for 16 dingys.  They have 57 moorings.  The facility can accommodate members up to these numbers.  All 57 moorings are not just utilized for members.  Some are used for transient boaters, some are reserved for storms, etc.  K. Ferreira asked how many members utilize the moorings.  Mr. __________ stated it varies from year to year.  Brief discussion ensued.  Mr. ___________ stated there are 65 slip assignments for members.  They have a category called flumes.  These are members that have a boat & wish to have it on a slip, but there aren’t enough slips, thus, they have the option of having their boat on a mooring.  There are currently 65 boats on slips & 16 floaters who want slips.  This is why they want the extra 10 slips (to help the floaters).

K. Ferreira stated at the beginning of the hearing, there was concern there would be a major expansion.  There already is an intensification.  Having a boat on a slip is less work than having it on a mooring.  He expressed concern re:  guaranteeing there isn’t an increase in boats in the future.  K. Weare asked re:  other 34 members that don’t have boats.  Mr. __________ stated there are various reasons why they are members & don’t have boats.  K. Ferreira stated this is why he doesn’t want to go by membership, but boats.  Discussion ensued re:  limiting the number of boats. 

K.Ferreira spoke re:  the length of boats at the club & where the length of 65 ft. boats came from.  Mr. __________ stated no-one at the club has a 65 ft. boat.  Discussion ensued re:  what the average size boat is that would come in to the club.  He asked if there is a number (for the length of boats) that can be agreed to.  Mr. ____________stated the largest boat at the club is 61 ft.  A majority of the other boats are much smaller.  He never suggested there would be boats of 65 ft. or larger at the club.  Discussion ensued re:  placing a limit on the length of boats.  

Present before the Board:	Mr. O’Brien

Mr. O’Brien spoke re:  the proposed expansion & his extreme concern over the large expanse of the project.  Mr. ____________ explained that the new dock will hold no more than two 65 ft. boats & no more than five 50 ft. boats.  These are maximum numbers (boat lengths).  Discussion ensued.

Discussion ensued re:  permanent assignments, transient assignments, & transient dock space (slips).

Present before the Board:	A woman

The woman asked if the club (a private organization) __________________(inaudible).  She noted that the club can’t seem to come to any agreement w/ the neighborhood, so they are just proceeding on their way.  She feels this project is unfair to the neighborhood & the Town.

T. Weare expressed discomfort as to the actual numbers being presented.  She isn’t comfortable that the Board has a handle on what the possibility of what the numbers will be.  She feels this should be conditioned.

K.Ferreira explained that the Board will close the hearing & have assistance from Town Counsel to prepare a draft decision that can be reviewed by the Board.  This draft can be edited w/ conditions the Board wants.  Mr. ___________discussed the figures again (2 boats@ 65 ft. max, 2 boats @ 50 ft. max., etc.).

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman feels the project will be a detriment to the neighborhood.

Present before the Board:	A woman

The woman stated the neighborhood has seen the club expand over the past year.  There isn’t a need to expand anymore.  She feels there needs to be a person to oversee the conditions that will be placed.  K. Ferreira stated the Board most likely would have the Building Inspector be the enforcer of the conditions.

Present before the Board:	A woman

The woman expressed concern w/ large boats at the club when there is a storm, such as a hurricane & damage a lose boat can do.

K. Ferreira explained the procedure from this point that the Board will follow.

D.Sharkey asked that other than an emergency or storm condition, would the club agree that the transient outside dock would not be for overnight use.  Mr. __________ stated this will need to be discussed.

K.Ferreira stated policing of all Board conditions for commercial/industrial uses only occurs when a complaint is filed.  The Board would then ask that the Zoning Enforcement Officer to go check it out.  Mr. __________ expressed concern re:  relentless policing.  K. Ferreira stated if complaint after complaint comes in, the Zoning Enforcement Officer will need to make a determination on whether to go out.

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

Inaudible on tape.

Mr. ____________(of PIYC) noted a comment raised re:  obstruction of water front views.  He noted the zoning Bylaws & MR30 districts have no purpose or protections for water front views vs. the Village district.  The MR30 district in this area is very densely populated.  The judge in this matter has already overturned this matter as arbitrary.  There is no reconfiguration zone.  Relative to navigational mis-use where there are those saying the expansion will go further out into the bay is not true.  The space to be utilized still has to be maintained.

Mr. ____________ stated PIYC came back in good faith to negotiate conditions.  He has heard no compromise from the other side.  He doesn’t believe there is a “want” for compromise.  He noted a reduction in moorings would increase the water quality issues.  He proceeded to address a variety of comments that were made by the public.

T. Weare suggested having slips on both sides, reduce the length, 5 & 5, which will eliminate the transient issue.  Mr. ___________ stated if this were done, it would push out the project farther south than they wanted to go.  If this suggestion were followed, it would mean re-designing the whole project & re-file.  Brief discussion ensued.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to close the public hearing for petition #132-05 & #007-06 – Point Independence Yacht Club – 15-17 Independence Lane, Onset, MA (Remand Hearing).  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

VII.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

MOTION:	T. Weare moved to cancel the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board on December 24, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Discussion ensued re:  the Board’s rules & regulations for a comprehensive Special Permit 9.02 which states the Board will sign off on all occupancy permits in addition to the Building Inspector.  

VIII.	ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	D. Sharkey moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 P.M..  R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk
	ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

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