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

Date of Meeting:  October 22, 2008

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

M. Martin called the meeting to order.

II.	ROLL CALL

Members Present:	Ken Ferreira, Chairman (Arrived at 8:30 P.M.)
			Mike Martin, Vice Chairman
			Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk
			Richard Secher
			David Sharkey
			Ticia Weare, Associate Member
			Wilma Engerman, Associate Member
			Attorney Jon Witten (Arrived at 8:00 P.M.)
			John Cronan, BOS Liaison (Arrived at 7:45 P.M.)

III.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Springborn Lab – Request for discussion.

No-one was present to represent this discussion on behalf of Springborn Lab.

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

B.  #50-08 – off Marion Road – Wareham Plaza Associates, Inc., c/o Attorney Lawrence Winokur

Present before the Board:	Attorney Larry Winokur

Attorney Winokur is present on behalf of Wareham Plaza.  On 9/24/08, the Board concurred to have him come before them this evening to report back to them.  He reported two outstanding issues.  One, the Board voted to seek a legal opinion from Attorney Witten.  Attorney Winokur has submitted background information on the issue.    The second issue pertained to a potential joint meeting w/ the Planning Board.  However, his client doesn’t want to pursue this avenue because there isn’t a full Planning Board & the issues before both boards are very different & should be received separately.  He requested meeting w/ the Board on 11/12/08.  The Board concurred to put Attorney Winokur on the agenda.

MOTION:	D. Sharkey moved to continue the public hearing for petition #50-08 – off Marion Road – Wareham Plaza Associates, Inc., c/o Attorney Lawrence Winokur to November 12, 2008.  R. Secher seconded for discussion.

M. Scarsciotti asked if all the abutters will be notified.  Attorney Winokur will be notifying those who expressed an interest.  He is scheduled in early November to meet w/ the Planning Board, but he is not sure whether they will have a full board by then.  He will check on this.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

IV.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

A.	Terry Smith – Request for informal discussion.

Present before the Board:	Terry Smith

Mr. Smith spoke re:  a request for change in his Variance.  He is hoping to have the fee waived & only contact the abutters & pay the advertisement fee.   He spoke re:  the issues of the trailers on the property.  He can’t obtain a building permit to put a large shed or building on the property to allow for the disposal of the trailers.  He can’t get rid of the trailers until he obtains a building permit to erect a building on site.

T. Weare asked if there is temporary storage options off-site.  Mr. Smith stated if it is not on-site it is like not having it at all.

Mr. Smith explained when he originally applied for the Variance, the building plans/site plans had an addition on the back of 20 ft.  He would like to have this addition put on so there would be a place to sort clothes & not take up the space in the proposed store.  He will be looking for a building permit for this.

M. Martin stated there is nothing that can be done re:  the fee.  There would be a completely new hearing & application.  Any fees paid previously on another application are not transferable.  The Board doesn’t have any authority to waive a fee.  He suggested Mr. Smith speak to the Selectmen about this.  Relative to temporary storage, the Board doesn’t have authority to deviate from the ordinance w/out a hearing.  He asked if Mr. Smith has asked the Building Inspector for something of this nature to accommodate him.  Mr. Smith stated he did ask & the Building Inspector stated he won’t do anything until the trailers are removed.  M. Martin suggested Mr. Smith contact the Interim Town Administrator & the Selectmen.  He spoke re:  the proposed addition.  Mr. Smith applied for a building permit for the addition, but was denied due to being in violation of the previous Variance.  Without having a hearing to overturn a decision of the Building Inspector, the Board cannot grant a permit.  A formal hearing will need to be held.

V.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#55-08 – 1 Elizabeth Street & 18 Deane Street – Elkallassi Family Trust

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Nazih Elkallassi
				Brian Grady, G.A.F. Engineering, Inc.

Mr. Grady stated that the applicant, in the absence of K. Ferreira, is asking for a continuance so a full Board is present.  He asked to continue the hearing to November 12, 2008.

MOTION:	D. Sharkey moved to continue the public hearing for petition #55-08 – 1 Elizabeth Street & 18 Deane Street – Elkallassi Family Trust to November 12, 2008.  R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

VI.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#47-08 – off Standish Road – Bartlett Pond Village, LLC

This hearing is scheduled for November 12, 2008.

B.	#50-08 – off Marion Road – Wareham Plaza Associates, Inc., c/o Attorney Lawrence Winokur (DONE)

C.	#52-08 – 4 Pleasant Street – Joseph & Donna DiPersio

The Board secretary sent a note to the Board stating the applicant will not be attending, but there is nothing in writing from the applicant for the Board to see.  The Board will grant a continuance.  M. Martin asked the Board secretary to notify the DiPersio’s of the continuance date & require something in writing from them requesting to reschedule. 

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to continue the public hearing for petition #52-08 – 4 Pleasant Street – Joseph & Donna DiPersio contingent upon a written request from the applicant’s to reschedule to December 10, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

D.	#20-08 & #15-99 – Access Partners Development, LLC – Avenue A

M. Scarsciotti noted that this discussion requires the presence of Attorney Jon Witten.  He will be present after 8:00 P.M.

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ VII.  New Business/Discussion.

A.	13 Priscilla Avenue – Chapter 91 – Waterways License Application

No-one was present at this time for this discussion.

B.	Correspondence dated October 6, 2008 from Andrew H. Harrington, President, Save Onset Bay.

Nothing was discussed.

NOTE:	A recess was taken at this time to await the Chairman &Town Counsel.  The meeting resumed at 8:30 P.M.

The meeting resumed w/ item VI.  Continued Public Hearings.

D. #20-08 & #15-99 – Access Partners Development, LLC – Avenue A

Present before the Board:	Attorney Jon Witten

Attorney Witten updated the Board on legal appeals for this matter.  Through a vote of the BOS & ZBA in 6/08, he was authorized to file a motion to intervene on the side of a plaintiff (South Shore Housing) to go after the successor (Shirley Abrahamson) to an affordable unit.  Ms. Abrahamson acquired the property by deed from a Toni L. McNeely.  Ms. McNeely was a qualified purchaser at one time.  A motion was filed to intervene & the court allowed it.  There have been a series of cross claims/counter claims.  Most recently a default has been issued against Ms. Abrahamson.  Ms. Abrahamson has a window of opportunity, through the default.  If she doesn’t, then w/ the BOS’s & ZBA’s permission, he will proceed against her.  What this means, from the Town’s perspective is the Town wants the unit back & want the Town to be reimbursed for the legal fees.

Attorney Witten explained what the default notice means & timeframe to act or not act upon it.

Attorney Witten spoke re:  getting these units counted.  There is a need a formal letter to DHCD signed by the Administrator demanding that DHCD count these units on the SHI.    There is no excuse for DHCD to ignore this.  He stated that the letter should come from the Town’s chief elected officials (BOS) on behalf of the ZBA that these units are entitled to be counted on the SHI list.

Present before the Board:	John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Selectman Cronan will speak to the Interim Administrator tomorrow about this & asked that Attorney Witten follow up w/ a phone call as well.

Selectman Cronan asked what the status of South Shore Housing’s support.  Attorney Witten explained that South Shore Housing had agreed to support the Town’s motion to intervene.  Brief discussion ensued.

Selectman Cronan asked re:  the default & status.  Attorney Witten explained that the default relates to litigation & doesn’t know what the status is (of Ms. McNealy).  Brief discussion ensued.

M. Scarsciotti asked what the status of the case is relative to court scheduling.  Attorney Witten noted the proposed scheduling.

M.Scarsciotti wants to make sure the units that are not counted are protected & have deed riders.  She hopes this protection will make sure another instance will not re-occur.  Attorney Witten doesn’t feel this will happen again.  To keep this from happening again, he suggested negotiating for a different monitoring agent.  K. Ferreira feels the attorneys who did the title examination missed the deed rider & allowed the bank to loan money to a potential buyer.  He asked how South Shore Housing gets put on notice that the house was sold.  Attorney Witten stated South Shore Housing have an obligation through the contract that was signed to be the monitoring agent.  No deed restricted unit is to be sold w/out the buyer going through South Shore Housing.  South Shore housing is supposed to be vetting the potential purchasers to make sure they qualify.  M. Martin stated the current owners are at fault as well.  Attorney Witten stated at the Registry of Deeds it is clear there is a deed rider & this is a restricted unit.  The monitoring agent is supposed to ensure a subsidy is for a qualified buyer.

Selectman Cronan asked if the Town can put a lien on the property w/ a something that states the lien is to make people aware of a deed rider.  Attorney Witten stated there is no mechanism to lien the property.  The notice is the deed rider & the recorded comprehensive permit is affixed to the deed.  There is nothing else to do, other than obtain another monitoring agent or remind all the current restricted property owners of their affirmative obligations.  There is no oversight other than the monitoring agent or the community.

M.Scarsciotti stated the unit in question had 26 pages of an attached deed rider that disappeared when it was sold in 2006.  It makes no sense that the deed rider was not seen nor found by anyone performing the property title search.

K.Ferreira asked how to close out this case & protect the other three units.  Attorney Witten feels the litigation is close to closure w/ Abrahamson & McNeely.  He again reiterated what should be done to protect the other three units.  M. Scarsciotti asked if something could be recorded to re-affirm the deed riders.  Attorney Witten stated the ZBA could always amend a prior comprehensive permit to re-affirm.

The audience was asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	Ron Robinson, 16 Oakdale Heights Lane
Mr. Robinson stated he is the owner of one of the affordable units that is being spoken about.  He is relieved the Board hasn’t moved to amend or appeal the original comprehensive permit.  This could affect the present homeowners there presently.  He feels South Shore Housing had & continues to have the monitoring contract w/ the property.  He feels the ball was dropped by several entities, such as the title search company, attorney for the mortgage company.  He feels in the future, it may be helpful to look at refinancing as well, not just the sale.  K. Ferreira noted there is no reason to appeal the comprehensive permit or change any terms the homeowners bought into.  The Board is trying to make sure what occurred doesn’t happen again.  Discussion ensued.

Present before the Board:	Joan Fontes, 47 Avenue A

Ms. Fontes expressed concern re:  the property in question being abandoned.  She lives next door.  She asked what the status of this property is.  Attorney Witten doesn’t know the status.  He will contact South Shore Housing’s attorney tomorrow re:  the disrepair of the home.  He suggested the BOS contact the Building Dept./Board of Health to alert them of the disrepair of the home & to secure the building.

Attorney Witten summarized how the matter will proceed from here.  The litigation on the McNealy piece will be done soon.  He will draft a letter from the BOS asking/demanding DHCD count these units.  He suggests keeping the hearing pertaining to this matter open.  He doesn’t feel any formal action is needed this evening.  The Board concurred to continue this hearing.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to continue the public hearing for petition #20-08 & #15-99 – Access Partners Development, LLC – Avenue A to December 10, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

E.	#43-08 – 2880 Cranberry Highway – The Gatehouse Group

Present before the Board:	

K.Ferreira received a letter this evening from SRPEDD relative to a request for SRPEDD to be involved w/ the project review.  He read said letter into the record.  (Attached as reference).  He tried to reach Mr. Hebert.  There has been detailed traffic analysis done by both the applicant & peer reviewer the Town has hired.  Both analyses were done by professional engineers who concentrate in areas of transportation.  He didn’t see any professional engineers at SRPEDD.  The letter in short states the impacts are high & there are concerns re:  the approval of the development.  He noted a few issues.  If the Board was permitting a project that was under a commercial zone, there would be more traffic.  Further, MA Highway controls Rtes. 6 & 28.  The applicant will need to go through MA Highway for highway permits.  

K.Ferreira doesn’t feel a letter from SRPEDD & its nature would be enough for DHCD to not support a 40B project.  Brief discussion ensued.  Attorney Witten stated it is a credible letter/evidence.  The question is how much weight it holds.  The Board needs to determine the weight of this letter.  Brief discussion ensued.

Present before the Board:	George Barrett, Planning Board Chairman

Mr. Barrett just wanted to make sure the Board had this letter from Mr. Hebert of SRPEDD.  He feels Mr. Hebert is calling the situation to light in terms of some mitigation is necessary.  He doesn’t feel he is dictating to cancel the project.

Present before the Board:	John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Selectman Cronan stated the Chair of the BOS held a hearing for Depot St.  Selectman Cronan felt this meeting should be continued until SRPEDD reviewed the roadway system in this area.  SRPEDD is supposed to be looking at if Depot St. should be a one-way, should Tyler Ave. be a right turn, etc.  He asked the peer reviewer be brought back before the Board to have a second look at this roadway.  Brief discussion ensued.  Selectman Cronan again expressed the importance of having the peer reviewer coming back & reviewing the roadway again.  K.Ferreira noted the issue is the whole scope of the roadway goes beyond the scope of this particular project.  Discussion ensued.

T.Weare suggested asking the applicant’s to mitigate one of the issues.  For example, move the entrance so it is passed Tyler Ave.  Brief discussion ensued re:  doing at least something to alleviate the issues.

Present before the Board:	Giles Scannel, Vanesse Associates

Mr. Scannel has worked on many traffic studies such as the one being discussed.  He discussed at length, all elements of traffic that have been studied & analyzed thus far.  He noted the concerns re:  the driveway.  He met again w/ MA Highway & discussed the proposals.  It is their opinion that there isn’t a problem.  The driveway meets their standards.  MA Highway will be issuing the permit, no-one else.  Gatehouse will be filing for a permit w/ MA Highway who will receive all the traffic information.

T. Weare asked if the design could be made even more safer, notably at Tyler Ave. area.

Present before the Board:	Jim Koningisor, The Gatehouse Group

Mr. Koningisor stated the land doesn’t go that far.  He noted wetlands.  It is not possible w/in this design to put it past Tyler Ave.

Present before the Board:	Joe Peznola, Hancock Associates

Mr. Peznola stated _______________________________INAUDIBLE ON TAPE.

Present before the Board:	David Belluche, 1 Ladd Avenue

Mr. Belluche clarified that K. Ferreira had stated the traffic study & peer review were much thicker than what SRPEDD supplied.  The one page from SRPEDD contains one page more discussion than is included in the entire traffic study & peer review.  Traffic safety issues are not included in the traffic study or the peer review.  All that is contained w/in them is data.

Mr. Belluche stated he is not a traffic engineer, but he recognizes the traffic safety issues SRPEDD has noted.  The BOS recognized serious traffic safety issues & requested SRPRDD perform a traffic safety review.  SRPEDD has clearly confirmed the concerns.

Mr. Scannell sent a letter on 10/8/08 & answered all the questions.  He noted obtaining traffic guidelines on-line.  Mr. Belluche would like a copy of this letter.  He would also like a copy of the guidelines noting the 300 ft.  Mr. Koningisor stated they are following MA Highway design guidelines.  Ultimately, this roadway is under the jurisdiction of MA Highway.   K. Ferreira feels the attachments to the 10/8/08 letter include the guidelines being utilized.  Brief discussion ensued.

Again, Mr. Belluche stated that the traffic study & the peer review never mentioned any of the possible traffic safety issues.  They were ignored.  SRPEDD must be allowed to discuss these issues w/ Vanesse Associates & the peer review engineer.  He read the last paragraph of the SRPEDD letter into the record.

K.Ferreira asked if there is a condition that can be put into a permit that would deal w/ SRPEDD coming up w/ mitigation re:  the level of service, subject to MA Highway approval.  Attorney Witten discussed that it would be advisory only.  Brief discussion ensued mitigation.  M. Martin noted existing problems.  Attorney Witten stated if the applicant exacerbates an existing problem creating additional problems, the Board can impose conditions requiring it to be fixed.  M. Martin spoke re:  extending the hearing to develop mitigation efforts the applicant may or may not felt they have an obligation to mitigate & whether or not it is worth the effort to have SRPEDD give testimony.

M. Scarsciotti spoke re:  the first paragraph of the letter.  It states SRPEDD only reviewed the study completed by Vanesse Associates.  They did not review the peer review of the traffic situation.  SRPEDD should look at what the peer reviewers view this project as they looked at it in context w/ Vanesse.  They then could come back w/ a response letter for both reports, not one.  Mr. Belluche again stated the peer review doesn’t include any traffic safety issues.  K. Ferreira concurred w/ M. Scarsciotti.  The Board could request that Vanesse & the peer reviewer sit w/ SRPEDD to obtain suggestions.  This would also help w/ garnering information for the BOS relative to Depot St.

Mr. ___________ stated in his review, every one of the issues has been raised & responded to in writing three times.  He strongly disputes any characterization that safety wasn’t looked at or mentioned at all of the traffic reports.  MA Highway will look at safety issues & make what every conditions are needed for the intersection.  He doesn’t feel this matter warrants continuing the hearing.

K.Ferreira noted the two options the Board has.  One is to take the SRPEDD evidence, give it some weight, & then file it.  The other option is to ask for a meeting between the traffic engineer & SRPEDD to report back to the Board.  

Selectman Cronan spoke re:  the Depot St. matter.  He doesn’t know if the BOS Chairman sent a letter to SRPEDD asking for a full review of the intersection.  He clarified that this development will add traffic to this area, but this intersection has problems already existing.  He feels the SRPEDD review is necessary.  He doesn’t feel mitigation will happen.  K. Ferreira would like a follow-up letter from Mr. Hebert of SRPEDD after he meets w/ the two entities.  Brief discussion ensued.

Mr. Peznola will try to hold a meeting w/ SRPEDD ASAP, but he doesn’t want to hold up the hearing.  They want it to close ASAP.  Brief discussion ensued re:  how to proceed.  

T.Weare stated it appears that there is nothing the applicant can do to mitigate this.  This will fall on the Board ultimately.  Thus, she doesn’t feel any of what is being discussed has an impact on closing the hearing & approving the final draft decision.    Brief discussion ensued.

K. Ferreira spoke re:  the draft decision.  He contacted Mr. Barrett, Chairman of the Planning Board to discuss the issue relative to signing a subdivision plan.  The statute is confusing.  The subdivision law doesn’t ever give the Zoning Board power to sign a plan.  The applicant is going to need an approval not required plan (ANR/Form A plan) signed.  The ZBA can’t direct the Planning Board to do anything.  He had asked Mr. Barrett if he felt there would be any issues w/ the Planning Board signing the subdivision plan, knowing that the ZBA endorses a comprehensive permit.  Mr. Barrett stated the issue is if there will be any shortcomings w/ the plan.  Attorney Witten suggested this go through an ANR process through the Planning Board.  The ZBA could grant waivers for conditions relative to the project requirements & then the Planning Board will have the waivers built into the ANR plan.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Wilson

Attorney Wilson stated if the Board grants the two frontage waivers needed this will leave the Planning Board in a position to not have to worry about said waivers.  He feels it would just require an ANR signature.  He would be in favor of doing what Attorney Witten suggested if the Board grants the frontage waivers.  Brief discussion ensued.

Brief discussion ensued re:  the draft decision(s) & it being stated that the permit cannot be transferable & not assignable w/out the written permission of the Board.   He is unclear if the terminology meets the requirement that Attorney Witten pointed out preceding this issue.  Brief discussion ensued.  It was stated the reason the “not withstanding” language was put forth was there was concern that it could be read to suggest that Gatehouse could never sell.  Gatehouse has no intention of selling the permit/permit land once the project is built.  Gatehouse is a long-term real estate investor.  Discussion ensued re:  the options for language.

Selectman Cronan stated the Selectmen’s approval of this project would be withdrawn unless the wording is put differently.  The developer “sold” the project to the Town that they would be here for the long-run.  It is disturbing that Gatehouse is saying it can be sold at any time.  The Selectmen are not in favor of this.

Mr. Peznola stated Gatehouse’s only intent is not to have a document that would prevent, at some point in the future, an owner from selling this property.  He doesn’t want the Selectmen to feel there is anything else going on.  There is no intent to sell the permit.

K.Ferreira noted that Attorney Witten stated consent cannot be withheld.  There is only a small window to withhold consent.  Attorney Witten explained if the Board closes the hearing tonight, there will be 40 days to render a decision.  Attorney Wilson will work w/ Attorney Witten on language that is acceptable.

Selectmen Cronan briefly updated the Board on a sewer meeting held relative to the project.

Mr. Heaton spoke re:  definition of affordable units.  

Present before the Board:	Brian __________, Representative of Gatehouse

The representative submitted information re:  financing for the affordable units.  He noted the 40B regulations on percentage of units that need to be affordable.  Gatehouse will be applying for financing through DHCD in which 10% of the units will be affordable at 30% & the balance will be affordable at 60%.  He explained issue w/ putting an entire level restriction on the comprehensive permit.  He discussed market rates & underwriting issues relative to financing.  Mr. Heaton clarified what the representative explained.  Discussion ensued re:  financing.

Mr. Heaton stated if the application is going in at 30% & 60% AMI, then the applicant would like the option to go to higher rates if necessary w/out the Board’s approval.  He surmised the applicant will go through the application process & come to the end where there most likely will be negotiations w/ DHCD.  Either DHCD or the lenders will ask the applicants to make the deal better.  This is the option they would like to have; increase the rents (still under the affordable housing umbrella, but at a higher rate).  T. Weare expressed concern re:  the standard set for this area are unrealistic.  The Town is under the Boston MSA.  She is concerned that what is considered affordable under this MSA is actually market rate.  If market rate is offered, it won’t be helping the Town’s affordable housing needs.  It may not work for the applicant either because they may not be able to get those rents in this area.  The representative discussed the market study conducted which has determined that there is a needed for housing at this level in this area.  M. Scarsciotti asked what radius of Wareham the study included.  The representative stated he doesn’t remember.  M. Scarsciotti feels it is well beyond the typical bounds of people that reside in Wareham.  The representative disagreed.

T.Weare expressed concern re:  when Wareham residents are unable to meet the rents, it will attract others from other towns, such as Kingston, Easton, etc.  This just brings more population to the Town vs. servicing the needs of people already here.  The representative discussed internal market studies conducted.  They are comfortable there is sufficient demand in Town.  Brief discussion ensued.  The representative noted that they can’t control what DHCD will ultimately award.  The intent is to end up w/ a development that can be built w/ common objectives.  What is built is based on what is awarded.

Attorney Witten explained if the Board embraces this project, regardless of affordable unit percentages, then there shouldn’t be a problem.  If the Board has an attraction to the project because of the percentages, then he would be concerned that the Board is being asked to waive its right to declare the change from the original proposal to the potential proposal.  Lengthy discussion ensued.  

The representative stated Gatehouse isn’t going to start spending a lot of money developing final plans until they know they have a permit.  They can’t control what DHCD will award.  DHCD may award no more than 25%.  In order to move forward & spend the money needed to be spent, Gatehouse needs to know if they have a permit.  Unless the 25% option is in the agreement, the bank won’t underwrite it at this level.  

K.Ferreira explained the whole idea of 40B is to provide affordable housing.  Now, the Board is being told that something will be given in stead.   He doesn’t want the affordability to diminish.

K.Ferreira asked Attorney Wilson if he & Attorney Witten can come to a middle ground re:  language the Board is comfortable w/ & still allow the applicant the flexibility they need for financing.  Attorney Wilson again stated the amount of financing will result in the amount of affordability.  Brief discussion ensued re:  timelines.

Mr. Heaton another matter not addressed in the decision is the safety of residents re:  water/pond.  There are two concerns.  There will be young children at the site that will gravitate to the pond.  There are older children that won’t follow the rules of the pond.  He feels something should be included in the language relative to this issue.  Brief discussion ensued re:  a fence or other safety measures.  M. Scarsciotti feels it is the property owners’ responsibility for safety measures.  Brief discussion ensued.

The representative stated they would provide provisions in every lease relative to safety of the pond.  They understand the liability issue & they feel there would be greater liability w/ a fence.  They feel it is wrong for the site.  Brief discussion ensued re:  fencing.

K.Ferreira stated that the Board can work on conditions for the leasing agreement & the liability issue.  Relative to the fence, the Board may need to take a vote.  The consensus of the Board was no fence.

K.Ferreira stated the Board wants to see an active pursuit of an amenity of a dock through the Conservation Commission.  If the ConCom denies, it will be part of the record & at least there was the pursuit.  Brief discussion ensued.

Mr. Heaton stated the Board needs to vote on their decision by the next meeting.  Attorney Witten discussed timeframes.  Brief discussion ensued re:  waivers.  Attorney Witten stated the Board could vote to approve the project tonight, subject to him & Attorney Wilson working out the details.   There will be 14 days to record it. 

Attorney Witten clarified what issues will be modified/discussed w/ Attorney Wilson, time extension for recording, & final invoicing payments.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to grant a Special Permit for petition #43-08 – 2880 Cranberry Highway – The Gatehouse Group, based on the conditions & draft decision as to be modified by Attorney Witten & Attorney Wilson subject to the satisfaction of both parties & further, subject to the granting of an extension of time for recording of said decision.  D. Sharkey seconded.

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

VII.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	40B Compliances

M. Scarsciotti noted there needs to be discussion re:  compliances w/ 40B projects in Town.   The Board concurred to move forward w/ having Mr. Heaton review the prior 40B projects to ensure compliance & designate what issues remain.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved the Board retain Mr. Heaton to review the prior 40B project files to ensure compliance & designate what issues remain.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	13 Priscilla Avenue – Chapter 91 – Waterways License Application (DONE)

C.	Correspondence dated 10/6/08 from Andrew H. Harrington, President, Save Onset Bay (DONE)

VIII.	ADJOURNMENT

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

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk

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