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

Date of Meeting:  November 12, 2008

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

K. Ferreira called the meeting to order.

K. Ferreira explained the meeting procedure for this meeting.

II.	ROLL CALL

Members Present:	Ken Ferreira, Chairman
			Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk
			David Sharkey
			Ticia Weare, Associate Member
			Wilma Engerman, Associate Member

Members Absent:	Mike Martin
			Richard Secher

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

A.	#50-08 – Off Marion Rd. – Wareham Plaza Associates, Inc.

The applicant has requested a continuance to December 10, 2008.

An opinion has been received from Town Counsel.  The Board & the applicant will review said opinion.

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman asked if the public could have copies of said opinion.  K. Ferreira stated that copies can be obtained at the Planning/Zoning Dept. office.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to continue the public hearing for petition #50-08 – Wareham Plaza Associates, Inc. to December 10, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

III.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes to be approved:  July 9, 2008, September 10, 2008, & September 24, 2008.

MOTION:	D. Sharkey moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 9, 2008.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

NOTE:	M. Scarsciotti would like a policy relative to meeting tapes.  She feels that tapes can only be released by the two office assistants & the Board should know who is getting them.  The tapes shouldn’t be released until the minutes are approved.  Brief discussion ensued.  

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to establish a policy that meeting tapes shall not be sent out for copying until the Board has approved the meeting minutes of said meeting tapes & tapes shall only be given out by the two office assistants & a notation be placed on file when someone requests copies of said tapes (a sign out sheet).  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 10, 2008 & September 24, 2008 w/ corrections.  T. Weare seconded.

VOTE:  (4-0-1)
D. Sharkey abstained

IV.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

A.	#41-08 – 83 &85 Glen Charlie Road – Jeffrey Fisk (Request to clarify conditions)

Present before the Board:	Jeffrey Fisk

Mr. Fisk spoke re:  his case & conditions placed.  He is requesting clarification on the conditions.  He is asking that the other small cottage remain so his disabled companion can utilize it.  This was the whole idea relative to the project.  The Building Inspector needs clarification that the Board voted to allow the other kitchen in the other small (cottage) to be able to remain so the disabled person can utilize it.  The Planning Board suggested that a clause be written that the kitchen be removed.

K. Ferreira stated that the plan required the applicant to combine all the parcels into one lot.  Mr. Fisk stated the Building Inspector is stating there is no clarification re:  the dwellings.  It is single family, but w/in the single family there are two kitchens.  M. Scarsciotti felt there was discussion that there would be one shared kitchen, a dining area that was shared, & there was to be a driveway in the front & another driveway that would be in the rear & it would essentially look like a single family home.  Mr. Fisk stated it will look like a single family home.  The intent is for the disabled person to utilize his own space & enhance his independence.  He felt this is what was imparted.   

K.Ferreira has no problem w/ two kitchens in a house.  D. Sharkey doesn’t believe this was an issue when the Board discussed this petition previously.

K.Ferreira read the conditions previously made for this petition by the ZBA into the record.  He noted that 81X plans don’t have to go to the Planning Board.  He doesn’t know why the Planning Board is involved.  Mr. Fisk stated they pointed him in the direction of steps to take.

Discussion ensued re:  conditions placed & issue of the kitchen.  K. Ferreira asked if Mr. Fisk would have an issue if the property was sold & the use being promoted would need to go back to its original state.  Mr. Fisk stated he would have no problem doing this.  K. Ferreira stated that the Board could send a memo to the Building Inspector indicating that it is the intent of the Board, that the second kitchen be removed upon sale of the property & upon the sale, it will not be used for the purposes the applicant came in for which is for an adult handicapped charge.  The home would be sold as a single family home w/ a notation that the Special Permit has expired & the second kitchen will need to be removed.

MOTION:	T. Weare moved to direct M. Scarsciotti to send the Board secretary a memo relative to the above discussion.  W. Engerman seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Mr. Fisk clarified that he did not appear before the Planning Board, he just spoke to the Planning Board secretary.

B.	#124-05 – Extension of time – 6 Alden Road – Rebecca Ryder

Present before the Board:	Rebecca Ryder

Ms. Ryder explained her case.  She had applied for a small lot exemption Variance in May 2005.  It was a complicated case.  This expired in May 2007.  She requested a six month extension at that time.  K. Ferreira explained that statutorily under MA General Laws, only one six month extension can be applied for & then the Variance expires.  He explained what an irrevocable action is.  He doesn’t know if any action was taken on the Variance.  Ms. Ryder stated the only thing that has been done is the perk test & fill was brought in.  K. Ferreira stated this may be considered as site preparation.  The decision is up to the Building Inspector.  The Board doesn’t make these types of decisions.	Brief discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira feels Ms. Ryder needs to discuss this matter w/ the Building Inspector.

C.	Drainage easement plan – Mann property – Map 2, Lot 1025A6

K. Ferreira noted that a drainage easement plan has been prepared by Atlantic Design.  The Administrator needs to obtain a legal easement document prepared based on this plan  for Mrs. Mann to sign & have recorded.  When the Board knows the easement has been recorded & the fence is installed, the Board can then release Mulligan to obtain the occupancy permits.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to authorize K. Ferreira to contact Mulligan Co. to confirm the deed document allowing the easement has been signed, recorded, & the fence installed & to make the determination to sign a release of covenant for any occupancy permits.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

M. Scarsciotti asked that the Board secretary send a message to Mulligan Co. so they know.

D.	#20-08/#15-99 – Avenue A – Status (NOT HANDLED)

V.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#055-08 – Elkalassi Family Trust – 1 Elizabeth St. & 18 Deane Street, c/o G.A.F. Engineering, Inc. (Applicant had asked for a continuance from 10/22/08).

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

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

Mr. Grady asked if there is a full Board present & if the Board has reviewed this case.  K. Ferreira stated there are two regular members are absent, but the two Associate members will sit in their places.  There are five voting members to vote.  The Board members haven’t reviewed this submittal yet.  The Board shouldn’t come in w/ a pre-determined decision.

K. Ferreira read the denial letter from the Building Inspector into the record.  He asked why this is not considered a Variance vs. a Special Permit.  Mr. Grady stated he agrees it is a Variance.  K. Ferreira feels this is a dimensional Variance.

Mr. Grady discussed the proposal.  The property contains two lots.  Lot 1 is a corner lot w/ an address of 1 Elizabeth Ave.  The second lot has an address of 18 Deane St. which is also a corner lot.  Lot P9 contains 26,578 sq. ft.   Lot P11 contains 25,499 sq. ft.   To construct a single family home in this district, 30,000 sq. ft. would be required.  Each lot is deficient in area.  If Lots P9 & P11 were combined, a duplex structure could be built as of right.  What the applicant is attempting to do, in keeping w/ the neighborhood where there are no duplex structures, just single family dwellings, is to construct two detached single family dwellings.  The applicant is not looking to increase density in the area.  He discussed homes on French Ave. on area size of lots they area on.  The two lots in question would not be out of character for the neighborhood area wise.  He explained that sewer & water services have been installed for the lots.  Part of Lot B11 & B9 are in the flood zone.  Both structures will be constructed on an area of the lot that is outside the flood zone.  There are no wetlands located on the property.

Mr. Grady submitted letters from abutters in support of the project.

K.Ferreira asked if the lots have already been combined by the Assessors in this configuration.  Mr. Grady stated this is the configuration the Assessors have & per the deed.  Six lots had been combined by deed.  He submitted four documents all indicating what the requests are for this evening & have been signed by nine abutters to the property that they are familiar w/ the proposal & are in favor of two single family homes vs. a duplex.

Mr. Elkalassi stated these are two separate parcels.  He purchased them under one deed, but there are two different tax bills & two different assessments.  He noted he purchased the property from someone whose grandfathered status expired.  Discussion ensued.

M. Scarsciotti asked what frontage the applicant intends to utilize & is it an accepted road.  Mr. Elkalassi stated Elizabeth Street.  Each lot has in excess of 200 ft.  The only Variance being sought is for area, not frontage.

K. Ferreira stated changes in zoning to this area were made at Town Meeting in 6/1971.  Mr. Elkalassi stated the lots were never combined on the deed & recorded w/ the plan nor did it have Planning Board approval.  It has always been how it is being shown.  K. Ferreira stated the Assessors have divided them into two lots.  If the Assessors combined the two lots into one large lot (56,000 sq. ft.), under 81L, because there is 150 ft. of frontage, the applicant could go to the Planning Board & create two lots w/ a note on them saying they area no buildable because a Variance is needed on the area.  As long as the property frontage is met, the lots can be combined into unbuildable lots.  Mr. Grady stated that water & sewer have already been installed separately for each lot w/ betterments paid for two lots.  The applicant paid the betterments after the purchase.  Brief discussion ensued.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

D.Sharkey doesn’t have an issue w/ the petition, but he feels there needs a reason to do it.  The reason would be the neighborhood is composed entirely of single family dwellings & a duplex would detract from the neighborhood.

T. Weare concurred w/ D. Sharkey.  She feels the Board needs justification for approval.
K.Ferreira stated the Board doesn’t have to think of a justification, the applicant does.  T. Weare hasn’t heard any justifications from the applicant.  

Mr. Grady stated water was put in in 2006 & sewer in 2007.  M. Scarsciotti feels that sewer & water were installed on Agnes Rd. & the addresses are mixed up.  Brief discussion ensued.  T. Weare stated that two lots w/ one house on it is not uncommon.  D. Sharkey stated it may not be common in this particular neighborhood.  Mr. Elkalassi explained the reason for the placement of water & sewer on Agnes Rd. which created less construction for the contractors.  It was more feasible to utilize Agnes Rd. for these services.  K. Ferreira feels irregardless of where the connections are the address will have to change to Agnes St. for safety purposes.

Mr. Grady explained the hardship is the property exists as two lots & could not be developed as two lots.  Municipal services are provided to each lot, thus assessed.  The lots wouldn’t be able to be utilized as they currently exist.  Mr. Elkalassi stated there are no duplexes in the area.  K. Ferreira read the names of the abutters that were notified & live in single family homes, except for one who has an in-law apartment.  Ms. Engerman stated this home w/ the in-law is actually two houses combined w/ an enclosed “breezeway”.

K.Ferreira feels the letters from the abutters & what they would like to see should be taken into account.  The Board needs to decide what is best for the neighborhood, whether it is to allow the duplex to be split in half & put on two separate parcels vs. building a duplex. 

MOTION:	D. Sharkey moved to close the public hearing for petition #055-08 – Elkalassi Family Trust – 1 Elizabeth St. & 18 Deane Street.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	T. Weare moved to grant a Variance for petition #055-08 – Elkalassi Family Trust – 1 Elizabeth St. & 18 Deane Street based on the finding that this is a unique circumstance where there is sufficient frontage and area to support a duplex and financial hardship has been imposed by the Town’s imposition of betterments for two lots, the allowance of a Variance to create two single family homes instead of a duplex as allowed by right, is an insubstantial degradation of the Zoning Bylaws and as evidenced by the abutters’ letters, will be less harmful to the public and neighborhood in general.  D. Sharkey seconded for discussion.

ROLL CALL VOTE:	M. Scarsciotti – No
				D.Sharkey – Yes
				T. Weare – Yes
				W. Engerman – No
				K. Ferreira – Yes

VOTE:  (3-2-0)
M. Scarsciotti & W. Engerman opposed

K. Ferreira explained that the action on the Variance cannot be carried because it requires a majority vote to pass.  

B.	#056-08 – John & Deborah Pfnister ***Administrative Appeal*** - 19 Elizabeth St., c/o John J. Gushue, Attorney for Appellants.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Attorney John J. Gushue
				John Pfnister
				Deborah Pfnister

The owner of the property in question was asked if he was notified.  The owner stated his partner received notification.

Attorney Gushue explained he was retained by John & Deborah Pfnister owners of an abutting property to the one in question.  The Pfnister’s wanted him to examine the owner’s proposal to construct a single family dwelling relative to zoning matters & zoning requirements.

Attorney Gushue, upon completing his review, sent a letter to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer on behalf of the Pfnister’s dated August 26, 2008.  He spoke re:  Attachments A-E.  The letter requested the Building Inspector to inform the owners of Lot 59 (Mr. DeFelice & Mr. Cochi) that they would not be entitled to a building permit because Lot 59 does not comply w/ the applicable zoning requirements which he feels is 30,000 sq. ft. & 150 ft. of frontage.  Following his request of the Building Inspector, he did not receive a written reply, but he learned on September 30, 2008 the Building Inspector issued a building permit to Mr. Cochi for construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 59.  This lot is in the Rose Point area.  He submitted attachments of the 1966 plan of Rose Point & an updated plan.  He explained that Lot 59 is at the end of Elizabeth St.  The Pfnister’s own Lots 58 & 60 & Lot 57 across the street.  They are direct abutters to Lot 59.

Attorney Gushue stated the Administrative Appeal is in two parts.  Part A is appealing the decision of the Building Inspector who issued a building permit.  He is also appealing to the Board for relief of the fact that the Building Inspector did not reply in writing w/in 14 days.  This is a legal requirement.

Attorney Gushue questioned if Lot 59 at some point, received the benefit of a perpetual grand-father right against changes in zoning, notably on frontage & area requirements.  He feels the design & build-up on the Rose Point area over the years, has resulted in the lot in question falling short of the applicable zoning requirements over time.  In 1966, the zoning for frontage & area were changed.  In 1966, Dr. Caravina submitted the re-subdivision plan (Exhibit C).  The Planning Board approved said plan & signed on 3/15/66 & recorded at the Registry of Deeds on 4/11/66.  K. Ferreira clarified that on 3/15/66, Lot 59 was a buildable lot.  Thus, this plan was recorded four months prior to the increase in zoning to 10,000 sq. ft. area & 100 ft. frontage.  Attorney Gushue explained the legal effect of this timing was the plan was entitled to a seven year protection under a subdivision for frontage & area.  This protection lasted until 3/15/73.  In 1971, lot area was increased to 30,000 & 150 ft. of frontage.  When this increase was adopted, it did not apply to this lot because the lot was still protected under the seven year of protection from zoning.  In 1967, Dr. Caravina conveyed Lots 58 & 60 ( the Pfnister’s predecessor), thus, he was the sole owner of Lot 59 w/ no other contiguous land.  The protection on Lot 59 expired on 3/15/73 making the lot subject to the then existing zoning requirements of 30,000 sq. ft. & 150 ft. frontage.  He spoke re:  the requirements of the grandfather provisions of statute Chapter 48 s. 6.  He noted various zoning acts.  He noted zoning freeze requirements.  K. Ferreira explained that the Board operate under the post-1978 acts.  He asked Attorney Gushue to explain the difference between the grandfather clause pre-1978 & post 1978.  Attorney Gushue stated there aren’t significant differences legally.  Although the issue on the property in question isn’t area, the area is still short of regulation.  

Attorney Gushue explained why he feels there is a frontage violation on this property.  The stretch of Elizabeth St. from Thomas Ave. has now been constructed as a 12 ft. wide gravel surface access way over to Lot 59.  The seclusion that the Pfnister’s have enjoyed for years has now been destroyed.  Trees were cut w/in the right of way of Elizabeth St. going to the lot in question.  The physical nature of Thomas Ave. has changed.  

K.Ferreira noted that the owner of the lot has the right to get to the lot.  Thus, the owner has rights over all the streets in the subdivision.  He asked if any action has been taken on Lot 59 by the ZBA or any previous proceedings.  Attorney Gushue isn’t aware of any.  K. Ferreira spoke re:  the letter sent to the Building Inspector which received no response.  He asked if the Attorney had any conversations w/ the Building Inspector re:  said lot.  Attorney Gushue noted a telephone conversation held after the 14 day reply notice, but he was not able to discuss the matter point by point.  K. Ferreira spoke re:  other cases cited by Attorney Gushue.  Attorney Gushue noted the other cases involving grandfathering.    Brief discussion ensued re:  the Tsongas vs. Town of Wareham decision.

Audience members were asked to speak in opposition to the petitioner’s request to overturn the Building Inspector’s decision.

Present before the Board:	Frank DeFelice, Mackey Way

Mr. DeFelice explained he bought the property in question four years ago.  There was a paper street in which his lot was on.  He went to the Planning Board to upgrade a section of Elizabeth St. to get to his lot.  The Planning Board vote was favorable, 5-0-0 to put a 16 ft. gravel road to his lot.  He then went to Conservation.  Conservation voted 5-0-0 in favor of him building on the lot w/ the condition of the ConCom that the road be 12 ft.  A letter was then sent to the Building Inspector by Ms. Pfnister stating he has no rights, it wasn’t a buildable lot because there was no frontage on a road approved by the Planning Board.  He then went back to the Planning Board requesting the 12 ft. road be approved.  This was approved as well by the Planning Board.  With this done, an article was placed on the 2007 Town Meeting Warrant to discontinue Thomas Rd. by Ms. Pfnister.  This was the only way (Thomas Rd.) that was viable to get to his lot because Elizabeth St. does not exist from the other way.  The Selectmen allowed this article to move forward, but was withdrawn at the last minute by Ms. Pfnister.  The water is now down to Elizabeth St.  It runs down Thomas Rd.  He pays a betterment for water.  Sewer is stubbed out.  He has the approval from the Sewer Dept. to build as well.  When he was building the road he received a stop work order issued by the Town Administrator.  Selectman Eckstrom was at the site as well.  He was told that Elizabeth St. was a Town road & he had no right upgrading it.  Two weeks later, the stop work order was lifted by the Interim Town Administrator because he realized it was a paper street.  Ms. Pfnister then went to the Planning Board to discontinue Thomas Rd. again.    The Planning Board wouldn’t allow this.  He owns two lots that abut the lot in question (on the other side of Elizabeth St.).  He then merged all three lots together, thus, the lot in question doesn’t exist any more.

K.Ferreira asked how Mr. DeFelice discontinued Elizabeth St.  Mr. DeFelice stated he went through the Planning Board w/ an ANR.  Again, this lot in question doesn’t exist any more.  He now has (w/ the combination of three lots) 52,983 sq. ft. & 300 ft. of frontage on Elizabeth St.  K. Ferreira asked how the Planning Board has the right to get rid of a portion of Elizabeth St.  Mr. DeFelice stated he has allowed an easement now.  K. Ferreira asked if all the owners in the Rose Point subdivision have rights over all the streets.  Mr. DeFelice stated they do.  He didn’t discontinue a roadway.  K. Ferreira feels the discontinuance should have been under subdivision control laws so abutters could be notified.  The physical layout of Elizabeth St. has been reduced by a portion (of the easement). Mr. DeFelice discussed the areas he owns.  K. Ferreira feels the Planning Board would have required Mr. DeFelice to upgrade a portion of the street to obtain permits.  Mr. DeFelice stated he did upgrade.  

Mr. DeFelice then went back to the Building Inspector, showed them the plans, & he allowed it to stay.  T. Weare explained the matter at the present time is whether or not a building permit should have been issued.

Attorney Gushue stated he was unaware of this new ANR plan.  He feels this is typical of what has been happening.  He spoke re:  Mr. DeFelice’s Conservation plan that was approved.  What was asked for was permission to put a gravel driveway in to a certain point.  The Pfnister’s, for years, have had a turn around going in & out of their lot.   Mr. DeFelice received permission to put in the driveway to a certain point, but he built it further than permitted.  He cut trees & removed property from the Pfnister’s.  Mr. DeFelice spoke re:  what he did at the site, such as removal of stumps the Pfnister’s put there.  There are no wetlands where he did the work.  Attorney Gushue stated Mr. DeFelice obtained no permission to do work where he did.  He stated the Building Inspector told him in 2004 that the lot was buildable.

K.Ferreira stated the current zoning requires 150 ft. frontage & 30,000 sq. ft.  He asked when the building permit was issued.  Mr. DeFelice stated a few months ago.  The ANR plan came after the permit was issued.  K.Ferreira clarified the Building Inspector issued a building permit on the three lots & Elizabeth St. as it existed.  The Outback Engineering plan was utilized to obtain the building permit for lot 59.  This hearing being brought forward by an abutter, is not a typical hearing that can be conditions, such as a Special Permit or a Variance.  It is either to uphold or overturn the Building Inspector’s decision to issue a building permit.  T. Weare asked if Mr. DeFelice would have to re-apply since now, the three lots are combined into one & withdraw the original permit.  K. Ferreira stated that the Board’s focus for this appeal is on the original permit.

Mr. DeFelice submitted a letter from Benjamin Lasorto dated 9/24/08.  K. Ferreira read said letter into the record.  In short, the letter states when the subdivision plan was signed in 1966, the zoning requirements were 100 ft. frontage.  Waivers were given for less than 100 ft.  K. Ferreira believes this to be Mr. DeFelice’s argument.  The Planning Board can grant frontage waivers, but a Variance from the ZBA is also needed.   There should be documentation of a waiver & a ZBA Variance.  Discussion ensued.

K. Ferreira again noted the question before the Board is if the Building Inspector erred in issuing a building permit on Lot 59. 

Present before the Board:	Richard Johnson, Contractor

Mr. Johnson spoke re:  seven year freezes.  K. Ferriera noted prior legal cases on seven year freezes.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to close the public hearing for petition #056-08 – John & Deborah Pfnister – 19 Elizabeth Street *** Administrative Appeal***.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

M. Scarsciotti feels a building permit was issued on a plan that included only Lot 59 & did not include the other two lots.  Thus, she feels the permit was issued incorrectly.  It should have come before the Board for an appeal to waive the requirement for frontage & lot size since it is less than 30,000 sq. ft.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to overturn the Building Inspector’s decision to issue a building permit & to uphold the administrative appeal based on the facts as presented relative to petition #056-08 – John & Deborah Pfnister.  W. Engerman seconded.

ROLL CALL VOTE:	M. Scarsciotti – Yes
				D.Sharkey – Yes
				Ticia Weare – Yes
				W. Engerman – Yes
				K. Ferreira – Yes

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

C.	#057-08 – Joan A. Prescott – 26 Briarwood Dr.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Joan Prescott

Ms. Prescott was informed that she should have a kennel license.  K. Ferreira discussed the kennel license law in Plymouth County (specifically for a hobby kennel license).  Ms. Prescott stated the dog officer told her she needed a kennel license because she had five dogs.  The dogs stay in the house.  She isn’t aware of any complaints.  The dogs are Welch Corgis.  

Audience members were asked for comments or questions.

Present before the Board:	Richard Howell, 34 Briarwood Dr.

Mr. Howell stated he is an abutter to the property & has never had a problem w/ the dogs.  Ms. Prescott never lets the dogs out all at once.  She has a chain-link fence.  He doesn’t feel anyone in the neighborhood has ever had a problem w/ the dogs.

K.Ferreira explained on the other kennel licenses that the Board has granted, is a condition has been imposed that in one year’s time, if there are any complaints received, the Board will hold another public hearing.  Brief discussion ensued.

MOTION:	 M. Scarsciotti moved to close the public hearing for petition #057-08 – Joan A. Prescott – 26 Briarwood Drive.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	T. Weare moved & D. Sharkey seconded to grant a Special Permit for a hobby kennel license for petition # 057-08 – Joan A. Prescott – 26 Briarwood Drive w/ the following conditions:

•	Subject to a one year review.
•	All other pertinent regulations apply, such as inspections by the Board of Health & the Animal Control Officer.
•	Standard conditions apply relative to a hobby kennel license.
•	Number of dogs not to exceed five (5) dogs.

VI.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

B.	#47-08 – Off Standish Ave. – Bartlett Pond Village, LLC, c/o Attorney Robert Devin. 

To be handled later in the agenda.

C.	#50-08 – Off Marion Rd. – Wareham Plaza Associates, Inc. (DONE)

VII.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	Legal bills.

K. Ferreira stated there is a need to pay a bill dated through 6/11/08 for all the appeals services provided by Kopelman & Paige re:  Point Independence Yacht Club.  The bill is for $2,400.00.

MOTION:	D. Sharkey moved to approve payment to Kopelman & Paige in the amount of $2,400.00 relative to appeals services for the Point Independence Yacht Club case.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

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

A.	#47-08 – off Standish Avenue – Bartlett Pond Village, LLC, c/o Attorney Robert Devin.

No-one was present to represent this petition.  M. Scarsciotti will contact the attorney tomorrow.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to continue the public hearing for petition #47-08 – off Standish Avenue – Bartlett Pond Village, LLC to December 10, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	Updates.

K.Ferreira noted that an appeal of the Board’s decision has been made re:  the 7-11 store & the fueling stations.

K. Ferreira noted that Terry Smith is looking to modify his Variance.  He will be coming in on 12/10/08.

    C.  Wareham Plaza Associates

K. Ferreira noted the hearing for Wareham Plaza Associates has been continued.  The attorney for the Plaza contacted him & asked if he could only discuss procedure issues.

Present before the Board:	Larry Winokur

Mr. Winokur stated the peer review was not done due to a legal opinion.  He requested the Board ask Hancock Associates to finish this.

Mr. Winokur feels only a Special Permit will be needed.  He discussed Variances issued to other similar developments.  He asked for the Board’s consensus on the Special Permit matter.  K. Ferreira indicated if Mr. Winokur made his argument as a Variance, he feels the Board would be willing to listen. Brief discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira stated the application could be amended & an argument could be presented for a Variance on why 18 units should be awarded vs. 11 units.  He expressed concern w/ Beaver Creek’s ability to handle the number of additional vehicles & vertical curves.   T. Weare expressed concern re:  the vertical curves as well.  K. Ferreira feels taking the vertical curves out & adding a berm on one side would be better.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the roadway & accessing & utilizing it safely.  

Mr. Winokur stated he will speak to his client relative to making arguments for a Variance.  Brief discussion ensued re:  an easement issue.

D.	Point Independence Yacht Club.

K. Ferreira noted that Town Counsel is drafting up a decision.  Discussion ensued re:  commencing the meeting on 12/10/08 earlier to deal w/ the matter of Point Independence.

E.	Complaint at Crescent Place.

M. Scarsciotti read said compliant into the record re:  a non-compliant structure in Crescent Place.  K. Ferreira stated this should go to the Building Inspector.

VIII.	ADJOURNMENT

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

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk

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