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

Date of Meeting:  January 9, 2008

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

K. Ferreira called the meeting to order.

II.	ROLL CALL

Members Present:	Ken Ferreira, Chairman
			Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk
			Mike Martin
			Ticia Weare
			David Sharkey
			Richard Secher

Members Absent:	Wilma Engerman, Associate Member
			John Cronan, BOS Liaison

K. Ferreira explained the procedure for this meeting.

III.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes to be approved:  December 12, 2007.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to approve the meeting minutes of 12/12/07.  T. Weare seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

M. Scarsciotti proceeded to sign the minutes as approved.

IV.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

A.	Plan Waiver - #15-08 – Antoinette A. Ulm. (To be handled under item VI.  Continued Hearings).

B.	Plan Waiver - #23-08 – Tyra Anne Lopes.  (To be handled under item V.  Public Hearings).

C.	Request for extension of time - #52-06 – 71 Parkwood Drive – Lexiasela, LLC.

K. Ferreira explained that the architect, Bill Lockwood, is requesting an extension of a Special Permit that was granted on 1/24/07 so arrangements for construction can be finalized.  He noted that if it was a Special Permit, it is good for two years.  He questioned why an extension is being asked for.  Brief discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira read the decision for this Special Permit into the record.

MOVED:	M. Martin moved the Board clarify that the period of time for a Special Permit is two years & therefore, this Special Permit in question is still valid for another 12 months to 1/24/09 without requiring a formal extension being signed.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

D.	Request for Plan Waiver – 27 Leisure Lane (Lots 197 & 198) – Dan Doherty, c/o Attorney Leonard Bello.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Bello

Attorney Bello explained that a single-family home is being proposed to be placed on Lots 197 & 198.  All setback requirements will be met.  A Variance was granted directly across the street.  He is asking for a waiver from the engineering plan.  The Variance is to combine the two lots (which are undersized), into one lot.  They are not grandfathered because of the merger of the back piece of property.  He will submit Assessor’s maps showing where everything is.  There is no sewer.  The engineering plan has already been completed relative to a septic, but not in terms of topography & other items.   The property has been assessed at $102,000.  There is a water stump available.  He will not be asking for a Variance from the setbacks, but a Variance from the frontage & area requirements.  Brief discussion ensued

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to grant a Plan Waiver for 27 Leisure Lane, map 119, lots 197 & 198 – Dan Doherty w/ the provision that should the Board deem a plan necessary during the course of a hearing, the hearing will be continued, & a until such a time a plan is provided.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

E.	Request for Plan Waiver – 4 Sea Street – Patsy Cheney, c/o Attorney Ed Kiernan.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Kiernan

Attorney Kiernan explained that a building permit was issued for this property.  As the work commenced there was additional work due to fire damage.  The Building Inspector directed them to keep going & he would catch up to them when they apply for a building permit.  The roof was raised 4 ft.  When the building permit was applied for, it was turned down w/ the reason that it didn’t comply w/ the 20 ft. front setback on the lot.  There are no areas in this neighborhood that comply w/ this front setback.  Everything else is in conformity.  There are no greater non-conformities being created re:  setbacks.  

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to grant a Plan Waiver for 4 Sea Street – Patsy Cheney with the provision that should the Board deem a plan necessary during the course of a hearing, the hearing will be continued until such a time a plan is provided.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

NOTE:	An audience member asked re:  the testimony.  K. Ferreira explained that this applicant will be filing an application w/ all pertinent information required.  The request this evening is to not have to provide a detailed engineered drawing.

Present before the Board:	Ronald Robinson

Mr. Robinson felt that the request this evening was for a Variance to build.  M. Martin clarified that the matter Mr. Robinson is speaking to is for one of the public hearings to be held later this evening.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

V.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#23-08 – 146 Onset Avenue – Tyra Anne Lopes.

Present before the Board:	Tyra Anne Lopes

The public hearing notice was read into the record.  The Board of Health has no comment re:  this application as municipal sewer is provided to this area.

Ms. Lopes purchased the building formerly known as Tae Tae’s Market.  She discussed that after she purchased the building, she looked for a commercial renter.  At the end of the summer, she realized that there were several issues.  One issue was commercial renters were concerned re:  lack of street parking in the summer.  Another issue was commercial renters were concerned re:  the neighborhood being seasonal which makes it difficult to maintain a business in the winter.  The third issue that arose is the location of the building is across the street from buildings that experienced crime, social issues, etc. during this past summer.

After the summer, Ms. Lopes stated she approached the Building Inspector & asked if she could convert the commercial space into a residential space.  The Building Inspector stated this would require approval by the ZBA.  Before moving ahead w/ this, she approached the BOS & Chief Joyce & offered this space as a community sub-station w/ free rent for six months for the Police Dept.  The BOS & the Police Dept. acknowledged the generous offer, but they declined.  Thus, she is moving forward w/ this application.  In her application she has stated clearly that she is requesting a Special Permit for change of use from a retail shopping store to a three-family.  She spoke re:  the Building Inspector’s letter & the letter she wrote specifically stating she is asking for a conversion from retail space to residential space.  Brief discussion ensued re:  discrepancies between what is being requested vs. what was advertised.  K. Ferreira clarified that the request is to eliminate the retail store & make it a third dwelling.  There are already two other dwellings on this property.  He asked if these existing two dwellings are rented.  Ms. Lopes stated she lives in one & the second is rented.  K. Ferreira doesn’t feel anyone reading the advertisement would feel she was going to retain the retail store & add a third dwelling.  Someone in the audience disagreed.  The audience member expressed concern re:  keeping the store & adding a third dwelling.  Brief discussion ensued.  Ms. Lopes noted that the previous owners had come before the Board requesting the second dwelling.

Ms. Lopes stated she has three off-street parking spaces & obtained additional parking from the Mr. Barrett, Chairman of the Planning Board via a curb cut.  She asked if she would be required to have additional parking spaces.  K. Ferreira stated if the Board requires more spaces & due to the fact that parking spaces in Onset are at a premium, the Board takes this into consideration.

K.Ferreira noted the new curb cut obtained.  He asked w/ this new curb cut, how many spaces will be opened up.  Ms. Lopes stated it will add two more, bringing the total to five parking spaces.  K. Ferreira asked in the existing units, how many bedrooms there are.  Ms. Lopes stated there is a two bedroom unit & the other two will be single bedroom units.

Audience members were asked for comments or questions.

Present before the Board:	Mr. Parkin, 4 Sycamore St.

Mr. Parkin stated at first he thought the application was for the retail space plus an additional apartment which he would have been opposed to.  He understands now that she will be doing away w/ the retail & adding an apartment.  He would not be opposed to this, but there is still a parking issue.  K. Ferreira stated if there are five spaces, the requirement under Zoning would have been met.  Mr. Parkin questioned if there are five spaces.  He knows there are two on the side.  Ms. Lopes stated she obtained a curb-cut from Mr. Barrett, Chairman of the Planning Board which will add additional spaces.  Mr. Parkin stated presently, to get to one of the apartments, people have to utilize his driveway.  Brief discussion ensued re:  this.  A woman from the audience stated that there presently are not three parking spaces there.  It was determined that there would only be four spaces available.  K. Ferreira clarified that a two-bedroom unit requires two parking spaces & a single bedroom unit requires one parking space.  Thus, four spaces would be the minimum zoning.  

M. Martin would support this application in its move towards conformity since it would be moving away from the mixed-use.  He noted that w/ public sewer available, Ms. Lopes will need to convert the retail space into an EDU relative to water usage.  The sewer rates are charged based on dwelling units.  He asked re:  clarification on parking space requirements.  The Board members reviewed the Zoning requirements for spaces.  It was noted that one-bedroom units require 1.5 spaces, thus, the applicant will be required to have five spaces.

Ms. Lopes submitted & discussed abutting properties.  She asked what private commercial status is.  Board members reviewed the information submitted relative to abutting properties in the neighborhood & what private commercial status.  Ms. Lopes stated both of her neighbors have private commercial plus dwellings.  M. Martin stated according to the ordinance, private commercial classifies as a home occupation, for example, use by an Avon lady.  Home occupation is not the same as private commercial.  M. Scarsciotti stated that on the field card, what is being discussed deals w/ tax assessment code identification which have little or no reference to Zoning regulations.  Discussion ensued re:  types of businesses that could be considered in the private commercial.  K. Ferreira clarified that home occupation is an allowed use in the OV district as long as certain criteria is met per the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

D. Sharkey asked for clarification on how many parking spaces are required.  K. Ferreira stated five will be required for this application.  The two audience members that spoke prior stated presently, there are only two.  Ms. Lopes stated w/ the curb cut, she will have five.  K. Ferreira stated the Building Inspector will need to make the call relative to the number of spaces.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to close the public hearing for petition #23-08 – 146 Onset Avenue – Tyra Anne Lopes.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved & R. Secher seconded that the Board grant a Special Permit for petition #23-08 – 146 Onset Avenue – Tyra Anne Lopes to allow three dwelling units in a single structure with the following conditions:

•	Said conversion shall conform w/ all other Zoning requirements.
•	The non-conforming use of the retail space shall be eliminated.
•	Five parking spaces shall be provided based on Zoning requirements.
•	In order to re-establish the retail use or other commercial use, it will require coming back before the ZBA.  

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Ms. Lopes proceeded to sign the Board’s acknowledgement/procedure form.

B.	#24-08 – 6 Seed Street – Porcaro, LLC

Present before the Board:	Bill Madden, G.A.F. Engineering, Inc.
				Bill Bachant, Bachant Builders

The public hearing notice was read into the record.  The Board of Health will require plans be submitted for design & construction of an on-site sewage treatment & disposal system.

Mr. Madden explained that the applicant is seeking a front yard setback Variance for construction of a dwelling on this property.  The applicant is required to meet some statutory conditions for a finding grant from the ZBA.  The first condition is the uniqueness issue.  He discussed how the lot is unique & the hardship issue.  He explained in this case, the abutter successfully pursued an adverse possession claim which resulted in an irregular shaped lot which would not allow a dwelling be placed on this parcel that is consistent w/ dwellings in the neighborhood or a reasonable use of the property.

Mr. Madden explained that lots 6 & 7 on Seed St. were created through a subdivision plan & recorded at the Registry of Deeds in 1915.  These lots are approx. 8,700 sq. ft.  Previously, there had been a building permit issued for this property.  Mr. Bachant purchased the property in 12/04.  Actions took place that precipitated the action by land court & the adverse possession case & the building could then not be built as contained in the original site plan.  Through this land court issue, the shape of the lot has changed & approx. 2,500 sq. ft. has been removed from it after Mr. Bachant purchased the property.  The original building permit issued was based on all requirements being met.  He submitted a copy of the building permit.

M.Martin asked if the judgment address issues re:  the build ability of the lot.  Mr. Madden stated it did not.  K. Ferreira stated this was strictly an adverse possession case.

Mr. Madden stated now, the shape of the lot is not shared throughout the zone (zoning district), thus it is a unique set of circumstances that resulted in the unique shape of this parcel.  The hardship is not being able to reasonably use the property for the purposes in a manner allowed by the Zoning requirements through the circumstances affecting the property resulting in an irregularly shaped lot.  A financial hardship will result because the property was purchased for the sole purpose of constructing a single-family dwelling.  A financial hardship would result if the owner could not reasonably use the property as intended.  The granting of a dimensional Variance will not change the character of the Zoning district or endanger any of the adjacent properties w/ an inconsistent land use.  The lot is zoned MR-30 & use is residential w/ all adjacent uses are residential.  The Variance will not harm the public good & substantially derogate from the purpose intended by the Bylaw.  The Variance can be granted w/out substantial detriment to the public good & w/out mollifying or substantially derogating from the intent & purpose of the Zoning Bylaw.  No detriment is anticipated w/ the granting of this Variance.  The overall effect of the proposed residential use will not have any adverse effect on the neighborhood w/in the Zoning district.  The use is allowed & may increase property values in the area.  There is adequate parking on site, although the structure would generate some vehicle trips, but not enough that would increase a safety issue on the roadways.

Mr. Madden explained how they tried to configure the structure to approach the 20 ft. setback.  With the configuration, it is 11.5 ft. from the stoop of the house.  Stairs are exempt from the setback distance.  

K.Ferreira feels the explanation meets the pre-requisites of a Variance.  He asked if Mr. Madden tried to configure a house on the southeasterly side of the lot that would fit the setbacks.  Mr. Madden stated it was done this way originally, but the plan they have presently fits better in this location.  The original building permit that had been approved, has the house flip-flopped.  The septic system is on the opposite side & it has been reviewed.  It fits better in the configuration that is being presented.  Brief discussion ensued.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	Rob Robinson
				George Mendes, 28 Tyler Ave.

Mr. Robinson expressed confusion.  He feels there is a lot more history to this property.  It is more than adverse possession of this property.  Mr. Mendes strongly opposes any plans to build on Sea St., lots 6 & 7.  In 2005, Mr. Bachant came before the Board seeking to build on lots 18 & 19 directly across from Sea St.  For approx. a year & a half, various testimony was presented.  The Board, in conjunction w/ the Planning Board, determined any building to be done on Sea St. needed extensive street upgrading (Chapter 486).  A determination of finding should have been issued & should be on file relative to the lots across the street.  K. Ferreira doesn’t feel this is relative to this application.  He recalls w/ lots 18 & 19, there had been a question whether or not they were grandfathered.  It was determined it was a grandfathered lot, however, the street didn’t exist & the Planning Board was to make a determination as to what upgrades would be necessary to provide accessibility to the lot.  The Planning Board determines what is sufficient width & grade for a street.  He recalls the Board requesting Mr. Bachant go before the Planning Board to find out what type of street will be required to gain accessibility.  In this application before the Board, they are still not determining whether Sea St. is a proper street.  This is up to the Building Inspector & the Planning Board.  The Board is listening to the hardship issue of this uniquely shaped lot to see if a front yard setback should be granted.  The street still has to exist & be accessible for safety vehicles.  If this is granted, the issue will still exist whether it is a proper street or not & the Planning Board will need to determine this.

Mr. Robinson feels the Board made a determination prior what needed to be done, such as a drainage system.  K. Ferreira feels this had to have been done by the Planning Board.  Mr. Robinson stated curbings, berms, & catch basins were also discussed.  He feels any plans to obtain a building permit on any property on Sea St. will need to have the street situation cleared up first.  If a Variance is granted based on the setback, will it supercede any issue dealing w/ the street.  M. Martin stated it won’t.  He explained that the issue before the Board is the front setback.  The Board is not ruling on anything outside the property lines.  Brief discussion ensued re:  what the process will be from this point & if this Variance is granted.  M. Martin noted that Seed St. is a legal way of record that was determined by the Town to be a legal street.  He discussed concept accessibility.

Mr. Robinson asked what will be happening if the Board grants the setbacks.  Mr. Madden stated the Building Inspector has already made a determination of civil access.  K. Ferreira stated this was done in 2004.  M. Martin stated that a building permit would need to be re-issued at this point.  He may or may not issue one.  

K.Ferreira stated if the Board grants a Variance, they will make a comment that the Building Inspector should look at the issue of accessibility.  Brief discussion ensued.  M. Martin stated that the Planning Board & the Building Inspector will need to determine the street standards, not the ZBA.

K. Ferreira explained the process after & if the Board votes for a setback Variance.  He discussed two MA General Laws; Zoning & Subdivision Control laws.  Brief discussion ensued.

Present before the Board:	Ruth Barnett, Tyler Avenue

Ms. Barnett expressed concern re:  water leakage in her basement.  She wants to know if she will have problems when this project digs where the septic tank & leaching bed will be.  K. Ferreira stated this is not an issue for this Board.  It is an issue that needs to be approved by the Board of Health to ensure that the installation of a septic system doesn’t adversely affect another.  Mr. Madden discussed perk tests conducted on the property & the results.  He doesn’t see anything w/ the plan & tests that indicates any adverse affects on abutters.  M. Scarsciotti asked since change have been made to the plan, has it been determined where abutting septics are placed.  M. Madden stated he can look into this at the BOH.  K. Ferreira stated there isn’t anything wrong w/ placing two septic systems on abutting lots on the same side.  Ms. Barnett again stated she is concerned re:  water & drainage.  K. Ferreira stated this would deal more w/ grading.  It is the engineer’s responsibility to design it in such a way that it doesn’t shed any water onto an abutting lot.  That would be illegal.

M. Martin stated the Board cannot preclude someone from the legal use of their property.  He discussed the four part verification for the granting of a Variance.  K. Ferreira noted that the vast majority of septic system designs don’t impact abutters.  Mr. Madden stated the existing ground slopes in a south southwesterly direction toward Lot 4.

T. Weare feels this application has met the uniqueness & hardship criteria, but she feels it could be closer to meeting the setback by changing the design.  Mr. Madden stated they tried having the structure laid out on the other side, but this type of home seems to fit the best.  Mr. Bachant discussed the type of dwelling that will be built.  Mr. Madden stated the proposed dwelling is consistent w/ the type of homes constructed in the area & blends well w/ the neighborhood as it exists.

T. Weare asked why the garage isn’t being placed on the other side which would provide an opportunity for a side yard w/ a limited back yard.  Mr. Bachant stated it came close to the rear setback doing it this way.  Brief discussion ensued.

M. Scarsciotti read a letter into the record dated 1/8/08 from Valerie Leighton-Botello, Executor of Leighton Trust which in short expressed concern re:  why Mr. Bachant shouldn’t be allowed to build further in this area. (For entire letter, see file).

K. Ferreira noted that there is a tax issue in which Mr. Bachant has an agreement w/ the Town relative to settling the tax issue.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to close the public hearing for petition #24-08 – 6 Seed Street – Porcaro, LLC.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved & R. Secher seconded that the Board grant a Variance for petition #24-08 – 6 Seed Street – Porcaro, LLC w/ the following conditions:  

NOTE:	M. Martin feels what makes this request unique & able to meet the standard for a Variance is the adverse possession judgment.  The adverse possession makes the lot unique due to its shape.  It meets the uniqueness test.  The second test deals w/ substantial hardship.  The question is was the hardship self-imposed.  Again, it is the adverse possession ruling which requires the need for a Variance & the hardship is not self-imposed.  Another question is if Zoning were enforced, would there be a substantial hardship, financial or other wise to the property owner.  He believes since all other dimensional requirements are being met, (w/ the exception of the frontage), it does not deter from the spirit of the ordinance.

R. Secher feels the applicant/representative did a very good job in planning this project.  K. Ferreira concurred that due to the land court judgment, it created a unique lot.  He concurred w/ T. Weare that a house could be constructed on the lot that would meet the setbacks.  He feels the Board’s findings should indicate that they are making no determination as to the accessibility issue of Seed St.

•	Allow for front yard setbacks per plan dated 12/10/07.
•	The Board makes no determination as to the accessibility of Seed St. & whether or not it needs to be upgraded as per standards set by the Planning Board.
•	A new Title V permit application will need to be submitted to the Board of Health.
•	All other applications must be filed w/ all boards & commissions which may have jurisdiction.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

VI.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#15-08 – 17 Sunset Boulevard – Antoinette A. Ulm (cont’d. from 10/24/07 & 11/14/07).

Present before the Board:	Antoinette Ulm

Brief discussion ensued re:  who sat on this case prior.

M. Martin read a letter from the Building Inspector relative to this application.  In short, it states, based on the new information provided by Ms. Ulm, it is his opinion, it does meet the requirement for 40A s.6.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to dismiss the case of petition #15-08 – 17 Sunset Boulevard – Antoinette A. Ulm.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	#21-08 – 8 Tyler Avenue – Carmen Stroscio, Stroscio Realty Trust, c/o Charles L. Rowley & Associates, (cont’d. from 12/12/07).

Present before the Board:	Charles L. Rowley, Charles L. Rowley & Associates
				Attorney Jan Wolverton, Attorney for Mr. Stroscio

Mr. Rowley stated the Board had asked relative to information at the last meeting.  One question was if the applicant was to contact Hancock Associates.  He has had contact w/ Hancock Associates & discussed issues w/in their letter.  He has not responded fully to the letter as of yet w/ the exception of conducting the calculation requested for drainage strictly for the developed site.  These results have been delivered to Hancock Associates.  The Board had also asked re:  traffic & asked Mr. Rowley to look at the ITE plans.  He did investigate this & found that the ITE numbers vary greatly from 1.86 vehicle trips p/day to over 11 vehicle trips p/day w/ an average of 5.86 trips per day per unit (15 units).  Thus, there would be approx. 90-100 trips p/day.  He also looked at various options for visitor parking, but no modification of the plan has been done relative to this because of the Variance proposed.

K. Ferreira discussed the issue of sewer.  The Planning Board had asked that it go down Tyler Ave. to Onset Ave. vs. across the bypass.  Mr. Rowley has not discussed this yet w/ the Sewer Commissioners.  A representative did speak w/ Mr. Simmons of the WPCF.

K. Ferreira stated Mr. Cronan, BOS liaison indicated he understands the sewer issue & he has discussed it w/ several other BOS members.  Comments he received from two of the BOS members indicates that they had issues w/ tying into the sewer because of capacity issues & this wasn’t an area slated for tying in until all other areas were complete.  There may be issues w/ sewer that need to be addressed ASAP regardless of the methodology.  Discussion ensued.
Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	Shannon Maloney, 2 Tyler Avenue

Ms. Maloney understands each property owner has the right to develop their property.  However, she has concerns relative to this project.  She asked re:  if these will be rental units that will be sold.  The Board asked if these will be apartments.  Mr. Rowley clarified that these will be owner occupied condominiums.  Ms. Maloney stated she assumes that there will be a condo association that will take care of maintenance.  K. Ferreira stated it would & documentation would go to Town Counsel to make sure everything of this nature is addressed.

T. Weare asked re:  the Planning Board’s comments re:  flow of sewer to the project & no interest in a homeowner’s association.  Mr. Rowley stated nothing is known at this point relative to changes in grade along Tyler Ave.  To suggest a gravity system is only speculation at this time.  He has no information to provide re:  the comment.  K. Ferreira stated if the Planning Board was thinking these were rental units & the homeowner’s association was responsible for the sewer, this would be problematic because homeowner’s associations traditionally break down, dues aren’t paid, no enforcement, etc.  A condo association is more like a corporation & have more power of the law.  Brief discussion ensued.  M. Martin doesn’t know if given this type of utility (sewer) & all the expense of maintenance, operation, & placement should be on the public sector, but the private sector.

Ms. Maloney expressed concern re:  the number of units w/in such a small area.  This amount of units in this space equates to three homes/home lots.  She doesn’t feel this project fits the character of the neighborhood.

Ms. Maloney stated she & others want the issue of parking addressed.  There is concern re:  where visitors will park because they don’t want them ending up parking on Tyler Ave.  

Ms. Maloney expressed concern re:  the location of the driveway being so close to the intersection of Cranberry Highway & Tyler Ave.  It is difficult to pull out of this intersection (Tyler Ave. onto Cranberry Highway).  She sees a problem w/ congestion if the driveway location is placed at this intersection.  Tyler Ave. is already in poor condition & additional traffic will add to this.  The width of the road is a concern as well.  School buses come up the road & a car cannot pass when there is a bus on the road.  The car ends up having to pull over to let the bus pass.  At the last meeting, it was said that Tyler Ave. was not used as a cut through.  She disagreed w/ this.  People do utilize it as a cut through.  K. Ferreira stated the Board could have Hancock Associates look at the site lines.  According to the plans, the driveway is far back from Cranberry Highway.  He doesn’t feel there would be a lot of cars leaving at any one time where there would be a cueing problem getting out.  The driveway is 120 ft. back from Cranberry Highway.

Ms. Maloney asked if a traffic study would be done.  She discussed a section of Tyler Ave., between the east & westbound side of Rte. 6 & 28 (in front of Abbey Glass).  This roadway is a two-way, not a one way.  Tyler Ave. is sometimes used as a parking area for people to access Abbey Glass.  She discussed how residents utilize Tyler Ave. She expressed concern re:  the driveway being a one-way & people don’t always follow one-way signage.  K. Ferreira stated this is a residential property.  Once someone purchases a unit, they most likely will follow the direction placed there because it will “self-policed” by the residents there.

K.Ferreira stated this application is for a Variance.  Some of the issues being brought forward are Town problems, not a developer’s problem.  Tyler Ave. is a public street & zoned commercially & sometimes the Town needs to make some of their own corrections.  Tyler Ave. is a Town way.

Brief discussion ensued re:  the Variance being requested for increase in the number.  M. Martin stated a condition of granting a Special Permit is that the proposed development shall be compatible in the case of land use, thus, some of these issues will be addressed.  Mr. Rowley spoke re:  the overall lots in the area, the bypass, & the layout line.  He discussed calculations done relative to post construction & calculations show no impact to the wetlands in the area.  The next Conservation Commission meeting on the issue will be held next week.

Present before the Board:	Douglas Westgate, Tyler Ave.

Mr. Westgate expressed concern re:  the runoff factor.  He explained what happens when there is rainfall in this area.  K. Ferreira noted that the Conservation Commission & Hancock Associates will be reviewing runoff issues.  What Mr. Rowley has stated that this issue will not be exasperated, but he is not saying the current issues will be resolved.  He feels that the Board should look at trying to make the situation better if a Variance is to be granted, such as re-directing the water to alleviate some of the problems that exist.  Mr. Rowley explained that he examined possible problems re:   the runoff issues & they need to be identified before attempts are made to alleviate them.  He is willing to meet w/ Mr. Westgate to identify some of the problem areas & what may be causing them.

Mr. Westgate asked re:  aesthetics of the project.  M. Martin stated there are design standards for this type of development in the ordinance.  It speaks re:  a 20 ft. buffer in between adjoining properties, there must be evergreens 6 ft. high x 5 ft. wide, or supplemented by a fence on the property line.  Mr. Westgate wants to know the aesthetics of the buildings.  K. Ferreira stated there are some comments in the Bylaw re:  construction aesthetics.  This still needs to be reviewed by the Board.  He is more concerned at this point relative to parking issues.  

Discussion ensued re:  roadway issues, such as cars not being able to pass when a school bus is on the road.

M. Martin clarified that a Variance is not being sought from the recreation portion of the project.  He questioned whether 7500 sq. ft. is the correct number calculated for recreation.  He discussed what he feels the ordinance states.  Mr. Rowley will clarify this number.  He stated if there was an increase in pavement width on Tyler Ave., a 20 ft. pavement could be put in w/in the existing layout.  It would require taking the sidewalk between the units & the bypass & move it up to private property.  He expressed concern re:  doing this because he would have to find a way of getting rid of the additional water.  The more pavement is increased, the more runoff there will be.

Discussion ensued re:  drainage & discharge.  A gentleman asked how a maintenance schedule for drainage at a condo complex handled.  K. Ferreira stated this would be built into the condo association’s documentation stating they would have to maintain it.  These condo documents would be reviewed by Town Counsel to make sure they are accurate & contain the Board’s conditions.  Mr. Rowley discussed an operation maintenance plan that will be established.  K. Ferreira expressed concern re:  who in the Town will monitor & ensure that the condo association is following what was placed in the documentation.  T. Weare feels that w/ smaller condo associations, it is harder to get things done because there are less people contributing.  Discussion ensued.

Mr. Westgate expressed concern re:  entering Tyler Ave. from Cranberry Highway due to speeds on Cranberry Highway & the narrowness of Tyler Ave.  K. Ferreira suggested widening this end of Tyler Ave.

Attorney Wolverton noted testing for existing soil conditions at the site & quantities of fill found on site that were put there by a previous owner.  He explained that this will add cost to the project because it will be necessary to extend the foundation several feet below the level of fill in order to provide additional stability.  He discussed FEMA regulations relative to fill.  Mr. Westgate explained that back in 1974, the owner of the property obtained permission from the ConCom at that time to start filling the area.  He noted the areas of the property he was allowed to fill.

Discussion ensued re:  what additional information the Board is looking for at this point.  Brief discussion ensued re:  when to continue this hearing to.  

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to continue the public hearing for petition #21-08 – 8 Tyler Avenue – Carmen Stroscio, Stroscio Realty Trust to Febuary 13, 2008.  R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

VII.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	Camper’s Headquarters

K. Ferreira stated that Camper’s Headquarters has withdrawn everything, thus, it is no longer an issue.

B.	Point Independence Yacht Club

K. Ferreira noted that Point Independence Yacht Club has filed an appeal.

C.	Request for informal discussion – 83 Sandwich Road – Terry Smith

The Board questioned why this is on the agenda.  No discussion held.

D.	Agawam Green – Robert Devin

K. Ferreira stated this issue is dead.  They have fallen through w/ their agreement for a purchase & sales, so they no longer have site control.  Now, the property owner’s attorney, Matt Thomas, wants to consider picking up the permit for the owners & then find a developer who could do it.  He would make it contingent that the property becomes a rental property, not a condo or for sale.  This would mean that all 44 units would count towards affordability.   The proposal would be to add one year to the permit.  Brief discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira has asked Attorney Witten to explain what the benefit is to the Town to transfer the permit.  Brief discussion ensued re:  if new rules have gone into effect.

Discussion ensued re:  DHCD’s ruling relative to Oakdale Heights & negotiations to reconsider the ruling.

VIII.	ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to adjourn the meeting.  R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk

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